Is the IPT prime for sharp end dumping?

[TheOne]

This is something that has bugged me for a while. However first let me say I'm a big fan of round robin formats and I'm not trying to bash the IPT here. However am I missing something or is there a real danger that this could happen given the current format?

I am not suggesting for a minute that any players in this hypothetical situation would throw a match, any names are used just for this example.

Lets take the World Open, the payouts for this event are as follows:

1st Place - $500,000
2nd Place - $150,000
3rd Place - $92,000
4th Place - $80,000

The final group structure is as follows:

The final Round Robin group six players result in the top two finishers advancing to the final match to fight for the title and the $500,000 grand prize.

What happens if for example Efren Reyes is playing Alex Pagulyan and Efren in the last game of the final group stage and Alex needs to win to get to the final. Efren is already out of contention BUT is way ahead on the year money list so his place on the tour and KOTH are guaranteed. If Alex gets to the final he is guaranteed an extra $58,000 for 2nd or a whopping $408,000 for 1st more than finishing 3rd!

My question is, do you think the temptation to split the difference given the massive prize money differential will be too hard to resist? Also am I missing something that may prohibit this from happening?

 

[jsp]

One way to prevent this from happening is to try to organize the matches of the final round robin in such a way that the top players of that round play each other last.

That's easier said than done, considering everyone starts with a clean record going into the final round robin. However, they do carry over their GLIs, so maybe the first matches will pit the higher GLIs with the lower GLIs.

After each match in the round, the matchups should be continously adjusted such that a player with a winning record (in the round) should always match up with a player with a losing record. If this is continually done throughout the round, you have a better shot of having the top two players play the final match against each other, so there would be no reason any of them would let up.

For example, the KOTH had Reyes and Manalo pitted against each other in the final match. Considering that Busta lost his match, the winner of that match would play in the finals, so there was no talk of any dumping. I don't know if the matchups of the final round were done in this fashion, but it surely turned out for the best.

Come to think of it, this scheduling method would seem to work in all rounds of the round robin, not just only the final round.

 

[jsp]

Sorry, to further elaborate on the idea...

The algorithm of this method is really quite simple. After each match during the round, the six (or five) players should be ranked from top to bottom according to their match record within the round, with the tie breakers being GLI and 8balls made.

To determine the matchups for the next matches within that round, you take the top player on the list, and match him (or her) with the bottom player on the list. If the two have played each other already, you move to the next player from the bottom of the list, and so on. After that matchup is squared away, you take the second player on top of the list and match him with the next available bottom player of the list, and so on.

After those matches are finished, you'd rank them again, and continue the same matchup process. If you follow this algorithm, I think you're almost guaranteed that no one would dump by the end of the round.

For the final matches of the round, you'll most likely have the top two matching up, the bottom two matching up, and the middle two matching up. Whether it be the final round where the top player advances, or the middle rounds where the top three players advance, you'll have the smallest probability that anyone would be dumping their matches.

Now, just replace the GLI with with straight winning percentage, and you have yourself an almost perfect round robin system.

 

[jjinfla]

This is something that has bugged me for a while. However first let me say I'm a big fan of round robin formats and I'm not trying to bash the IPT here. However am I missing something or is there a real danger that this could happen given the current format?

My question is, do you think the temptation to split the difference given the massive prize money differential will be too hard to resist? Also am I missing something that may prohibit this from happening?

Of all the stupid questions in the world this one takes the cake.

You realize of course that you are talking about pool players.

So, without a doubt, there will be saves, splits and dumps.

Hell, they did it for $100, they will stumbling all over themselves for a part of 500K.

But if you, or anyone, believes that it won't happen then I suppose you all believe that Politicians really get in office to help the people and are not after all the money they can steal, I mean earn.

Jake

 

[TheOne]

Of all the stupid questions in the world this one takes the cake.

You realize of course that you are talking about pool players.

So, without a doubt, there will be saves, splits and dumps.

Hell, they did it for $100, they will stumbling all over themselves for a part of 500K.

But if you, or anyone, believes that it won't happen then I suppose you all believe that Politicians really get in office to help the people and are not after all the money they can steal, I mean earn.

Jake

Do I sense a big of angst Jake? You seemed to have missed the point (youre consistent though! ).

If it is going to be a problem is it the systems fault, can it be improved?

I think it will only be an issue at the sharp end of the tourny because of the huge difference between 1st place and 2nd & 3rd, plus its more likely that players that make it this far won't be in any threat of losing their tour card or even KOTH ranking. Therefore the index system won't really have an effect. I think the main contributing factor is the big difference between 1st and 2nd and this my get tweaked. Of course making the last 32 or 64 double or single elimination like the WPC or Euro Tour would also eliminate this but I do like the round robin format. I have run a few round robin tournaments before and it always seems to be an issue.

PS
JSP havent had time to consider your suggestion yet but will do.

PPS
Jake why don't you stick to the "KT is a genious and I want his babies" threads, just a s suggestion don't want your blood pressure to explode!

 

[spadevil]

Just to nick all this in the head before it goes on a rollercoaster......

Go look at the IPT official rules on their website........rule 19f in particular.

 

[Cameron Smith]

Just to nick all this in the head before it goes on a rollercoaster......

I've never heard that saying before, I like it.

Your right about the rules. I think as long as the IPT is strict about dumping than there shouldn't be too many problems. But maybe someone will need to be caught and banned before you can ensure there would be no dumping.

I am sure somebody will try it. These things happen in every sport. All we can ask is that IPT officials are diligent in punishing those who commit any offence.

 

[spadevil]

I'm sure this subject was mentioned at the players meeting at the KOTH and it will not be tolerated.

 

[Bob Jewett]

...Come to think of it, this scheduling method would seem to work in all rounds of the round robin, not just only the final round.

This is the usual way to prevent collusion between players in a round robin format. It's not always guaranteed to work, since the two players tied for first going into the final round might already have played each other in the first round.

Another thing for the TD to arrange is for buddies to play each other in an early round so they can't have the "right" one win later.

From that point of view, it's much better to have the final eight (or 16 or 32) play single elimination.

 

[Williebetmore]

My question is, do you think the temptation to split the difference given the massive prize money differential will be too hard to resist? Also am I missing something that may prohibit this from happening?

TheThirdofaFew,
Is there a way to prevent it??? Absolutely. Just administer lie detector tests to the competitors (just before or after the mandatory blood and urine doping tests). Of course you will have to administer the tests every month or so to cover those ingenious players who will only carve it up AFTER the tournament is over to get around the lie detector tests. Then you have to hire an army of private detectives to follow around the known pathological liars who can beat the lie detector as easily as they do the local shortstop.

 

[Timberly]

You realize of course that you are talking about pool players.

So, without a doubt, there will be saves, splits and dumps.

Hell, they did it for $100, they will stumbling all over themselves for a part of 500K.

I've got a little mission for you Jake... Go search your posts and find me one, just ONE time where you've ever said anything good about pool players.

 

[jsp]

This is the usual way to prevent collusion between players in a round robin format.

I thought so. I'm not very familiar with round robin tournaments, so I'm sure the method I described has been implemented before.

It's not always guaranteed to work, since the two players tied for first going into the final round might already have played each other in the first round.

You're correct...this would be the worst-case scenario. All things being equal, there is a 20% chance (1-in-5 assuming 6 players in each round) that the top two players going into the final match already played each other in the first match. However, given this precise scenario, there is still only a 20% chance that a player would consider dumping his/her match.

Let's say the final round robin consists of 6 players. If the top two players (Player A and Player B) already played each other in the first match (20% probability), then there are five different permutations of the top 3 win-loss records heading into the final match of the round...

................Case #1...Case #2...Case #3...Case #4...Case #5
Player A.......4-0...........4-0..........3-1..........3-1...........2-2
Player B.......3-1...........3-1..........3-1..........3-1...........2-2
Player C.......2-2...........3-1..........3-1..........2-2...........2-2

Since A already played B, then A must play C, and B must play whomever is fourth. From these 5 cases, Case #1 is the only scenario where Player C would even consider dumping his match to Player A, thus guaranteeing A to make the finals. For Cases #2,3,4, Player C still has a shot of advancing to the final round given he wins his match with A.

So there is really only a 4% (20% times 20%) chance that dumping may occur, given this method. Those odds aren't too bad. (I guess you can argue that dumping can still occur in Cases #2 and #4 if you take GLI into consideration, but then you can't assume that Player A and C are friends either, so they roughly cancel out. )

From that point of view, it's much better to have the final eight (or 16 or 32) play single elimination.

To totally eliminate the dumping factor, maybe. But for everything else, round robin is still the way to go. Not only does a round robin more truly determines the better player, but it is also definitely more entertaining, considering everyone matches up with everyone else.

And besides, if you can reduce the dumping factor to roughly 4% using the aforementioned method, then you should definitely stick with round robin.

 

[rackmsuckr]

Just so you know, no matter what it looks like, I won't be dumping! ROFLMAO

 

[Bob Jewett]

Just so you know, no matter what it looks like, I won't be dumping! ROFLMAO

Well, we'll see how your matches go.

There are always some matches you can be sure weren't dumps, like when Gerda beat Earl to put him out of the tournament at Orlando and when Manalo lost to Bustamante and Reyes and when Mika beat Bustamante. Any of those matches would have probably paid more combined if the loser had won.

Even if things look fishy, maybe the loser just made the mistake of having some of the not-quite-right tuna salad from the lunch counter. Detecting dumps is not so easy, although I've heard of partners dividing the money where the TD could see them.

 

[cuetechasaurus]

Every top pool player knows that at their level, it is very possible for one player to control the entire match. They know that something like coming up dry on the break can cost them 5 or 6 games or the entire match, as it has shown so often in the qualifiers. With 1st place being $500,000 and 2nd being $150,000, that is 325,000 apiece GUARANTEED to both players. I think any sane person would jump on the chance to have that much money guaranteed instead of risking getting the low end of a 500k-150k payout.

 

[jsp]

Shoot...I just realized something. I was assuming all along that only one person advances to the final round of the round robin format. This, however, only happens for the KOTH event, which is only one event out of the entire year. For all the other tournaments, the top TWO advance to the final round.

This changes things a lot, and I don't think the method I desribed previously would work out as well, especially if the top player going into the final match is already guaranteed a spot in the finals (Cases #1 and #2).

So if two players advance to the final round, I calculate a 33% chance of the possibility of dumping. That's a much bigger percentage than 4%.

The method would work very well if the top 1 player or the top 3 players advance, but not well at all if the top 2 playeres advance. There must be a much better method for the 2 player case...such as the top player playing the bottom player, and the second player playing the third player. Hmmm...I have to rethink this.

 

[jjinfla]

I've got a little mission for you Jake... Go search your posts and find me one, just ONE time where you've ever said anything good about pool players.

There you go Timberly using that old debating tactic - if you can't fight the topic then attack the opponent. LOL

Everyone knows that I like just about all of the pool players I have met. Especially Earl. But everytime I say something nice about him I get attacked for not having the slightest inkling of the problems Earl has.

But any book you read about pool and pool players dwells on how they all do whatever they can to win. It is just the nature of the beast. I sure didn't invent the word dumping.

Jake

 

[jjinfla]

This is the usual way to prevent collusion between players in a round robin format. It's not always guaranteed to work, since the two players tied for first going into the final round might already have played each other in the first round.

Another thing for the TD to arrange is for buddies to play each other in an early round so they can't have the "right" one win later.

From that point of view, it's much better to have the final eight (or 16 or 32) play single elimination.

Here is a scenario for you from the KOTH.

The three Phillipinos, Reyes, Bustamante and Manalo are in the final round robin and will face Immonen, Varner and Archer. The winner gets to face Sigel.

The night before the match the Phillipinos get together and decide who among them has the best chance of beating Sigel. That is the important match. They agree that Reyes is the one. But Bustamante is 2nd best. And Sigel would have his best chance playing Manalo. They also agree that all money won by the three of them will be split three ways.

As it turned out Manalo only lost two matches during the event. And those were to Bustamante and Reyes. In the final round robin. And there was a controversial call when he uncharacteristically misplayed a safety against Bustamante.

Could it have been planned this way? Sure. Do I believe they contrived to work it this way? Probably not. But who knows? That sure was a lot of money to split three ways. It probably would make for an interesting movie.

LOL


Jake

 

[ScottW]

Shoot...I just realized something. I was assuming all along that only one person advances to the final round of the round robin format. This, however, only happens for the KOTH event, which is only one event out of the entire year. For all the other tournaments, the top TWO advance to the final round.

I've got an idea -

For each group of six players, you build six closed-off, soundproof booths. Tuck the four players who aren't playing in four of these, so they have no idea what happens while the other two players play. Once their match is done, tuck the two players into the two free booths - and then pull out the next two players. Restrict communication to eyebrow-wiggling and telepathy.



Seriously though... it's a conundrum. Human nature and greed are tough nuts to crack. I'd love to see if you (jsp) come up with a revised plan.

Edit: While thinking about this just now, I came to the conclusion that folks dump when it's NOT advantageous to them NOT to dump. Meaning, if some sort of anti-dumping incentive was built in - say, some sort of reward for matches won in the 6-man round-robin group - i.e. a reason NOT to dump ANY individual match - that might help. But what sort of reward can you do that doesn't goof with the rest of the format?

 

[jjinfla]

if some sort of anti-dumping incentive was built in - say, some sort of reward for matches won in the 6-man round-robin group - i.e. a reason NOT to dump ANY individual match - that might help. But what sort of reward can you do that doesn't goof with the rest of the format?

In the early rounds that is where the GLI comes in. You lose too many games and you do not advance to the next round. Charlies Williams, Gabe Owen and Corey Deuel each won two matches in their round but only Corey advanced because his GLI was lower.

You lose too many games, not matches, and it can put you out of the tournament.

Jake