New TAR format - Thoughts after 3 events

[Celtic]

The thing I would like to see change is a skins payout each night.

Friday winner gets $1200 loser gets $300
Saturday winner gets $1200 loser gets $300
Sunday winner gets $1700 loser gets $300

This way as a customer purchasing the entire weekend you are assured of not only seeing a Sunday match but you also see the last match worth the most money. It also makes the whole "lose one match but you can still win it all" thing go away and every night a player needs to come out shooing because every night is a payday.

ATM the way matches are purchased for $35 for the weekend is a gamble when compared to paying $15/night. If the match goes 3 days you saved yourself $10 for buying the weekend from the start, but if the match ends on Saturday you overpaid by $5 compared to what you would have paid had you paid for Friday and Saturday seperately. That is kind of a kick to the nuts for someone who is paying up front and commiting to the whole weekend. It has not been much of an issue yet due to most matches going to Sunday but a few 2-0's in a row would start to get annoying.

 

[real bartram]

Some interesting ideas here. The way I look at it is in lots of other sports pro athletes get paid win or lose and people expect that. In the UFC sometimes one guy makes much more than the other win or lose due to his contract. In boxing the guarantees are up front with bonuses often paid for going over certain numbers on a PPV. Baseball, football, basketball, soccer all get paid win or lose. About the only sports I can think of that dont are tennis and golf.

From my point of view it doesnt really matter how the money is paid out. $5K is $5K no matter how its disbursed. The people who do care are the players. I have asked several players about playing for $5000 winner take all and not one has said they prefer that over the current format. I also believe playing all or nothing insures someone will chop at some point. Thats because they do not view it the same way as a backer putting them in but as a free roll they get cut out of. Say what you will but I believe that to be the case. A smart person tries to avoid the traps he can see.

I think there is a misunderstanding about many of our past matches, rarely did players send in a bunch of their own money. I though most people were well aware it usually a backer or corporation that put the money in. The players were usually playing for 30-40% so the most they could win was $4000 and the most they could lose was $0. It is a different type of match to be sure but the numbers in the end are pretty much the same.

I think the way forward for pro pool is the one on one matches. Tournaments don't work and never have. The type of matches we have started means the fans get more input in to what gets made and the guys who draw the most fan interest gets more opportunities. This creates a sense in the players that instead of just showing up for a tournament and taking a crack at added money they have to create some kind of following for themselves in order to get a shot at the money.

Here's the thing that makes it all work....you do. The people who buy the matches. It self sustains. We are not reliant on a benefactor who can pull the plug at any minute or decide to buy a new car this year instead of sponsor an event. Its great to see threads talking about how to change or improve the new model and I am certainly paying attention to them. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

the most they could lose was 0 .
not for me i bet every time i played on tar besides
the 1 time i played dennis o.
looks like i was the only player who bet ?

 

[real bartram]

Why not just make it $5,000 to the winner, loser gets nothing. They still get their expenses paid for, so it's still technically a free roll, but they get nothing if they don't win.

That way, it puts more pressure on them knowing they have to win to get paid. It would make it much more like a gambling match. When they're getting staked in a $10k match, the winner would get $4-5k and the loser would get nothing.

Even if you lose, you had an equal shot at the cash and you aren't out anything other than your time...same format as a backer match up.

in any other sport the loser gets paid.
so i think pool should be the same.
i bet the ufc guys dont fight if they
lose they dont make anything.
i like the new tar.

 

[Johnnyt]

I think the fans that buy ppv should have some input into the formats they'd like to see. As far as how the purse money is delt out, that should be up to TAR and the players. I would like to see the players have to put in some amount of their own coins. But if it stays the way it is it's fine with me. For me they have to be top players and over at a reasonable time to buy it. I believe i've only missed buying one so far. Johnnyt

 

[Playin4Dinner]

Keep em comin...

Some great ideas getting thrown around in here... Although rotation games are by far my fav, I do agree with most on here about mixing it up... It's nice to see Justin in here checking things out... Also put together a great response to the op....

Justin, if you check back in on here please read below...

Please check out the accustats PPV theatre archives....

Would it be possible to create a TAR version of this to archive matches of past, present and future??? You could have a yearly membership and charge a small fee per viewing... Or package it in a way that you could take care of us and it still be profitable to TAR....

I've seen some of your responses on how troublesome dvd production can be... I feel this can be the perfect solution... I'm sure you've already thought of this... Please let us know why it can't work or become the future of TAR...

Think of all the great matches you could dig up that some of us missed and most of us have already forgotten....

I see the history of TAR as a gold mine if it could somehow be distributed correctly.....



Tx again for all you and your crew have brought to us true junkies....

 

[brandoncook26]

in any other sport the loser gets paid.
so i think pool should be the same.
i bet the ufc guys dont fight if they
lose they dont make anything.
i like the new tar.

I like the new format as well. I was responding with an idea for the original post based on his comments. I know if I was playing I would much rather be guaranteed something for my time. I'm sure most of the players feel that way also.

I would like to see some one pocket or banks or 8 ball, something just to mix it up a little. However, if you get Orcollo to play this summer I hope it stays 10 ball for obvious reasons.

 

[elvicash]

I think that comes from knowing that neither player stands to lose anything, just like the finals of the tourny. Both players win, just one a little more than the other.

think it was because in that match, someone, somewhere, Alex or stakehorse had some real money on the line to LOSE.

Thanks,
Ian

What players do you know of who have staked themselves on the TAR action matches other than the smooth criminal as stated above. I actually do not know who was putting up the money for any matches but I am pretty sure from reading AZ threads that quite a few or most of the actual action matches were staked. I think in some of those matches where the players were being staked, the players had made then savers amongst themselves which is pretty unfair to the whoever staked those matches. I think that happens in alot of big pool action, not just on TAR, the players try to lock up something for themselves. Justin has said make a saver on TAR and get caught, you are off TAR forever. TAR is going to work to run a tight ship which is the best thing they can do in the long run.

I personally like the new format and sure I would like to see a real grudge match such as Harriman Schmidt and the player come on and say we want the anti-saver "winner take all" so the winner gets the entire 5k not a 4k/1k thing. That would put the pressure/excitement in the match. I do not expect that to happen. But this new get paid to play format is awesome and is much more similar to what you see in the UFC, boxing, golf or tennis. The players do not gamble in those events they get paid based on performance. I like what TAR is doing.

<<<---- Elvi thinks savers keeps the pool game small

 

[JoeyA]

Why not just make it $5,000 to the winner, loser gets nothing. They still get their expenses paid for, so it's still technically a free roll, but they get nothing if they don't win.

That way, it puts more pressure on them knowing they have to win to get paid. It would make it much more like a gambling match. When they're getting staked in a $10k match, the winner would get $4-5k and the loser would get nothing.

Even if you lose, you had an equal shot at the cash and you aren't out anything other than your time...same format as a backer match up.

By doing this, you open the window to players making "savers" imo. I don't think this is the way to go.

In essence you have two perspectives, the gambler sweater's perspective and the tournament sweater's perspective.

If the player's truly wanted to gamble with one another on their own dollar, they would be calling each other out. As someone else mentioned in another thread, that may be the missing link between the Filipino players and the rest of the world. Gambling on a regular basis, even for small stakes, keeps the players' games sharp.

It is TAR's business and I'm sure they appreciate input, but I just hope they do what is right for their business and not what a few of us would like to see. You don't get too many chances to make it right in the business world. For me, TAR seems to be evolving and a few tweaks here and there might be fine but going back to the gambling thing is not a sure thing either. When TAR matches were gambling matches, wasn't most of the money put up by stake horses instead of the player's "betting their own money"?

I think opening the window back up for a need for "savers" is a step backward but that's just my opinion.