Luck will help improve our sport?

[IamCalvin06]

So I was watching the WSOP and I hate watching poker tournaments. I think it's bc of my pool background. In pool, it seems we are always trying to eliminate as many luck factors as possible. Basically we are trying to lock it up so to speak.

What makes poker draw more amateurs is the fact that they believe they can play the game, coupled with the fact that if they make a wrong play they can get lucky. Poker players at the highest levels understand that they can lose any given hand but the probability is in their favor. They welcome bad play bc that's where the money is.

So why can't we have more tournaments with shorter races available? What C player wouldn't want to play a race to 3 vs a pro?

All I hear from pool players is how they can eliminate luck. Longer races, bigger tables, tighter pockets, blah blah blah. What's 100% of nothing? Exactly

There's alot of ppl who say hustling killed pool. I think big headed players killed pool bc any real hustler knows that you have to give the feeling that a player has the chance to win.

So what if you lose today? Are you worried that ur skill isn't enough to outrun the long haul. If he beats you a little today he's gonna play you again and again.

I don't see pro poker players complaining about exponentially growing fields of tournament players.

But I do see pool tournaments dwindling in field sizes and increasing entry fees.

Market the game better too! Watching every hand of poker is about as boring as watching a whole game of one pocket. But... If you were to only highlight the amazing shots and runouts, plus fill in the time gaps with player bios and backgrounds you'd have something captivating.

The only way to attract ppl to watch sh!t now is to make an abnormal amount of money at something that seems like anyone can do. Pokers biggest shot in the arm was when an amateur player won the WSOP and became a millionaire. Then everybody and their mom wanted to do it. Then the sport got more money, the cash games got residual money, and it was more accepted by the public.

Just think if we did that with pool!

 

[hang-the-9]

If you want to have more amateur events, shorter races are fine.

I would not want to play a race to 3 against a top player, I have a good chance of never even getting up off my chair. Heck, I have run 3 racks a few times, and 2 more a few more times and I'm almost never in the top 50% of the top players that show up for regional tournaments.

People have no issues watching long baseball games and that has even less action than a pool game.

 

[bdorman]

What you've said is true, except that pool isn't poker. There's a lot more luck involved in the roll of the cards than the roll of the balls. I'm afraid we'd be trying to make pool into something that it's not, and end up with even less than there is now.

 

[nataddrho]

Counterpoint... gymnastics.

The world tunes in to watch the elite compete at levels seemingly impossible. What would happen if they made the events easier?

 

[IamCalvin06]

If you want to have more amateur events, shorter races are fine.

I would not want to play a race to 3 against a top player, I have a good chance of never even getting up off my chair. Heck, I have run 3 racks a few times, and 2 more a few more times and I'm almost never in the top 50% of the top players that show up for regional tournaments.

People have no issues watching long baseball games and that has even less action than a pool game.

So would u fair better in a longer race vs a pro player or a short race? You can run three racks so...

Yes but pro ball players have contracts. They get paid regardless, I'm saying we need more money in the game.

 

[IamCalvin06]

Counterpoint... gymnastics.

The world tunes in to watch the elite compete at levels seemingly impossible. What would happen if they made the events easier?

Again... We need more money in the game. Gymnastics is an Olympic event that has national pride at stake therefore ppl watch bc they have a vested interest for their country. The government helps support the competitors in some cases.

I'm all for a high level of competition. But for the sake of reviving the amount of money in the game we need more ppl playing, which bring more sponsors bc they see a money making opportunity.

I know I'm beating a dead horse with this thread but it'll only make the meat more tender.

 

[bdorman]

But for the sake of reviving the amount of money in the game we need more ppl playing, which bring more sponsors bc they see a money making opportunity.

There are a lot of people playing the game, e.g. leagues. But they have ZERO interest in watching pool. Hundreds have tried to get casual players to watch a free stream and every one of them has failed. When pro and amateur events are played concurrently at the same venue, the amateurs have no interest in watching the pros. I don't know why; they just don't.

Outside sponsors/advertisers (non-pool related) won't be interested even if you triple the number of players and audience at the largest tournaments. Those numbers are still miniscule in their world; just not worth their time and effort.

 

[Matt]

I'm saying we need more money in the game.

Why do we need more money in the game?

 

[hang-the-9]

So would u fair better in a longer race vs a pro player or a short race? You can run three racks so...

Yes but pro ball players have contracts. They get paid regardless, I'm saying we need more money in the game.

Myself, and any other lower level player would rather play very short sets vs a pro. But that's exactly what I mean, if you are not aiming to have pro tournaments then short races are fine. Although for anything major I'd want at least a race to 5 even then. A weekly local tournament, race to 3 or even 2 is fine.

 

[hang-the-9]

Again... We need more money in the game. Gymnastics is an Olympic event that has national pride at stake therefore ppl watch bc they have a vested interest for their country. The government helps support the competitors in some cases.

I'm all for a high level of competition. But for the sake of reviving the amount of money in the game we need more ppl playing, which bring more sponsors bc they see a money making opportunity.

I know I'm beating a dead horse with this thread but it'll only make the meat more tender.

There are lots of people playing, they are just not interested in getting good or paying to watch good players play.

 

[macguy]

There are lots of people playing, they are just not interested in getting good or paying to watch good players play.

You are basically defining the sport. It is a sport that millions of people love to play. It is not a spectator sport, no even to players. I have put on dozens of pool room tournaments if not more. With out exception people are calling wanting to know when it will be over and tables will be open for play. They don't even want to come watch for free.

This isn't new by the way. Years ago I saw an interview with Lassiter. They asked him why he didn't do exhibitions. He said no one has the time to watch someone run a 100 balls. They want trick shots, not the game.

 

[hang-the-9]

You are basically defining the sport. It is a sport that millions of people love to play. It is not a spectator sport, no even to players. I have put on dozens of pool room tournaments if not more. With out exception people are calling wanting to know when it will be over and tables will be open for play. They don't even want to come watch for free.

This isn't new by the way. Years ago I saw an interview with Lassiter. They asked him why he didn't do exhibitions. He said no one has the time to watch someone run a 100 balls. They want trick shots, not the game.

I noticed this also with tournaments, I see people playing when a tournament is about to start, the owner asks them if they want to join (it's $7 and you can play till about 11pm even if you lose), 95% of the time they say no. I think people are just afraid they'll look foolish in a tournament, yet are find playing the same way they do in front of us anyway.

They'd rather spend 2-3 times more on table time just pushing balls around the table with a buddy than actually try to use their skills fully.

 

[CreeDo]

Race to 3 you definitely have a better shot vs. a pro than a long race, even though the pro
might run out the whole set. The question isn't "what amateur wouldn't want to play a race to 3 vs. a pro".
The question is "What pro would want to play a race to 3 with an amateur?".

I think the attempts to eliminate luck are to humor the pros who feel they lose too much to luck.
Amateurs aren't the ones pushing for tight pockets, 10 footers, etc.

If you make it too lucky, the pros won't bother.
For example at SBE this year I saw no top pros in the pro-am event even though
many of them were attending and it was a cheap entry fee. Because it's short races on a barbox.
It just isn't worth their time if some no-name who gets one good roll can beat them.

The exception might be if changing the luck factor suddenly makes tournament pool
really popular, like 1,000 people sign up for a $50 tournament because they like the new lucky format,
and the prize money gets to be pretty huge. Then both amateurs and pros might take a shot.
But I think no matter what rules you choose, you can't turn a 100 player tournament into a 1,000 player tournament.

 

[bdorman]

like 1,000 people sign up for a $50 tournament because they like the new lucky format, and the prize money gets to be pretty huge.

I hope you've got at least 6 tables or the tournament might take a while.

How many rounds does it take to get 1,000 players down to the last two? 28 in double elimination?

But seriously, even if it's a race to 3 for only $50, how many more people are going to participate? Certainly no one is going to spend travel-hotel-food expenses to play races to 3 -- so you're dealing with a local-only audience.

The local players aren't going to get to play against pros because no pro would take the time (expenses) to participate in a 28-round luck-fest. The pros are pro gamblers who can calculate the odds -- and the odds are not in their favor.

 

[maha]

maybe all the hard heads missed the last big thing in pool for viewers. john and lou.

people were all excited and watched and talked for months over this. why.. because it was between two players that who knows who would win and luck would play a factor. and there was decent money involved that the participants were wagering along with personalities at stake as well

if john was playing earl for a 300 dollar entry fee and winner gets 2000 no one would watch or care. we all would kn ow the result before it started.

that is why luck has to be more of a factor to make the sport grow and not shrink. surprise winners make people take interest.

 

[bdorman]

maybe all the hard heads missed the last big thing in pool for viewers. john and lou.

people were all excited and watched and talked for months over this. why.. because it was between two players that who knows who would win and luck would play a factor. and there was decent money involved that the participants were wagering along with personalities at stake as well

if john was playing earl for a 300 dollar entry fee and winner gets 2000 no one would watch or care. we all would kn ow the result before it started.

that is why luck has to be more of a factor to make the sport grow and not shrink. surprise winners make people take interest.

That's a fun way to look at it, but would the general-pool-playing public be interested in a match between two B players? Who were playing for their own money (no big fantasy of wagering $10,000 to win $10,000; the public wants wager-$100-to-make-a-million). Was Lou really a surprise winner?

I think a good analogy would be the NBA's public half-court contest. Buy a low-dollar lottery ticket for the chance (or 3) to sink a basketball from half-court. Winner gets a gazillion dollars.

We could set up a 5-rail bank pocketing the ball in the corner. $5 a try to win $10,000. People might actually watch that. It's quick. It's a schnook just like them and it involves a lot of luck.