Ohio Open, US PRO SERIES

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Great! Why can't they earn it in a traditional race like we've been doing for 50+ years vs. a watered down format whose full intent is to level the playing field to make it "fair". I suppose it's typical for today's society to want to make everything "fair".
Call it the "Butthurt Open, Where 'Woke' Ain't no Joke". ;)
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Here's what it comes down to. We can play this format and be perfectly happy. We can also play formats that are more traditional. We can do both. It gives a little variety. What is wrong with that? Live and Let Live. We don't all have to do it the way one person wants it done.

I would be perfectly happy to play in this type of format. I would be perfectly happy playing in a race to 7 or 9 or 11. I'm perfectly happy playing in mini tournaments where the brackets are erased at 3 in the winter side, and erase tattoo in the loser site. I'm happy when I'm playing pool... That's all there is to it
 
Last edited:

pmac666

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Let's look at it from an odds standpoint using Fargo Rate's Match Odds Tool in a Race to 11.

Oliver Szolnoki (785) vs Devin Poteet (732); Poteet has a 19.8% chance of winning
Konrad Juszczyszyn (785) vs Daniel Schneider (723); Schneider has a 16% chance of winning
Aloysius Yapp (821) vs Mika Immonen (786); Immonen has a 28.7% chance of winning
Mieszko Fortunski (791) vs Jeremy Seamen (758); Seamen has a 29.8% chance of winning
Denis Grabe (793) vs Justin Martin (729); Martin has a 15.3% chance of wining
Wiktor Zielinski (801) vs Ruslan Chinakhov (796); Chinakhov has a 46.8% chance of winning

This proves the format favors the lessor players. Aside from Zielinski/Chinakhov who are evenly rated, the probability for an upset in a long race is at best 30% given these matchups.
Maybe its just Fargo that sux?
 

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And that sums it up folks. It goes against tradition. Step out of the 1900's into the new century. You are getting left behind.

I know that you won't understand this, but everything was perfectly Fair. Everybody that played agreed to the rules, and everybody played under the same rules. It was completely Fair.

You kind of sound like the kid that takes his ball home every time something doesn't go his way.
It's not really about tradition, it's about real pro pool. This format is a regional format at best and it has no room in pro pool. I'd be good with a 3 set Race to 5 but deciding a match with spot shots is absurd. It rewards mediocrity instead of pushing people to get better. You got to put in a lot of time and have quite a bit of seasoning to beat Shane or any other Top 10 player in a Race to 11 but in the 4, 4, shootout format anything can happen regardless of skill level. The data I posted proves it. IMO, no pride in beating one of the world's best on a gaff shot. Weak sauce.
 

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Maybe its just Fargo that sux?
It's possible but what else do we have to go by?

Another detriment to this format: falsely inflated Fargo Ratings. Each of the players above will have their Fargo Ratings elevated possibly because they can shoot spot shots.
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It's not really about tradition, it's about real pro pool. This format is a regional format at best and it has no room in pro pool. I'd be good with a 3 set Race to 5 but deciding a match with spot shots is absurd. It rewards mediocrity instead of pushing people to get better. You got to put in a lot of time and have quite a bit of seasoning to beat Shane or any other Top 10 player in a Race to 11 but in the 4, 4, shootout format anything can happen regardless of skill level. The data I posted proves it. IMO, no pride in beating one of the world's best on a gaff shot. Weak sauce.
Look, I get where you're coming from. You want the traditional way to battle it out on a pool table. There's nothing wrong with that. You start the first sentence by say it's not about tradition. Then the whole rest of the paragraph is that pros need to play traditional pool.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that. We can play traditional pool. But it does not have to be that way all of the time. We can have a little variety and still hold with the traditional way of doing things. Well, it can be done in my world... Maybe not in your world.
 

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Look, I get where you're coming from. You want the traditional way to battle it out on a pool table. There's nothing wrong with that. You start the first sentence by say it's not about tradition. Then the whole rest of the paragraph is that pros need to play traditional pool.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that. We can play traditional pool. But it does not have to be that way all of the time. We can have a little variety and still hold with the traditional way of doing things. Well, it can be done in my world... Maybe not in your world.
I am not in opposition to alternate formats, just opposed to THIS format.

If the leadership of this series do not see a problem with 90% of the Top 10 players forgoing the events because the format is a joke, it will not succeed. This sucks because this has been the first attempt at an organized pro tour in some time but they are missing the mark on the format from a player's perspective and a majority of the fan's perspective.
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
And that sums it up folks. It goes against tradition. Step out of the 1900's into the new century. You are getting left behind.

I know that you won't understand this, but everything was perfectly Fair. Everybody that played agreed to the rules, and everybody played under the same rules. It was completely Fair.

You kind of sound like the kid that takes his ball home every time something doesn't go his way.
LOL and everybody in communist China "agreed" to give all power to the Chinese government...lol

When that's all there is, I don't know that I'd call it agreeing to it.

Jaden
 

ctyhntr

RIP Kelly
Silver Member
Six of the top players are out. Let's have a look.

Oliver Szolnoki (785) lost to Devin Poteet (732)
Konrad Juszczyszyn (785) lost to Daniel Schneider (723)
Aloysius Yapp (821) lost to Mika Immonen (786)
Mieszko Fortunski (791) lost to Jeremy Seamen (758)
Denis Grabe (793) lost to Justin Martin (729)
Wiktor Zielinski (801) lost to Ruslan Chinakhov (796)

In each of these matches the higher rated player lost. IMO, the only match that was a toss up was the Zielinski/Chinakhov match as they are rated about even. Anything can happen in a short race, shootout format.

Fortunski's cue broke and played the rest of the match with his break cue.
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
No sport on its own is interesting to watch. The problem with pool isn't that it's not interesting to watch by non serious pool players, it's that it's not marketed correctly to the casual player.
This is clearly correct. Playing the game in a way that is completely unfamiliar to the casual player seems to be the mission of many a pool producer/promoter. That why we've seen things like this format, ten ball last, money ball doesn't count on the break, the break box, bonus ball and, worse than all of them, call shot / call safe rules. The casual fan will want to see the game they know played the way they play it at the highest possible level, and pool tends not to give it to them. Matchroom is, of course, an exception, standardizing the game and making it as recognizable as possible to the casual fan.

Also, pool is one of the few sports that doesn't garner fame outside of the sport and a lot of that has to do with the lack of money in the sport. If being a pro pool player meant becoming rich and famous, you would see a lot more casual player AND non-player interest.

Jaden
While there is a kernel of truth in what you say, I've always had a hard time with it whenever somebody suggests that pool doesn't succeed because of the lack of money in it. A few decades ago, golf had no money in it and tennis had no money in it, but these sports managed their image and developed their professional product and productions over time and now pro golfers and tennis players at the highest level have big incomes. High prize money will be a consequence, not a cause of a boom in interest in professional pool.

As Kevin Trudeau proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, throwing big money at pool is not enough to generate significant demand for the pro pool product, and until the day when revenues can justify such prize funds, the result of any such attempt will be a business model that unravels quickly and a business that disappears just as speedily.
 
Last edited:

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
LOL and everybody in communist China "agreed" to give all power to the Chinese government...lol

When that's all there is, I don't know that I'd call it agreeing to it.

Jaden
What I meant was is they agreed to the rules, they had the option to play or not play. It has nothing to do with the Communist in China.
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
What I meant was is they agreed to the rules oh, they had the option to play or not play. It has nothing to do with the Communist in China.
And what I meant is that when that's the only option in order to play, you play...just like when you don't have a choice in communist China... ;)

Jaden
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
This is clearly correct. Playing the game in a way that is completely unfamiliar to the casual player seems to be the mission of many a pool producer/promoter. That why we've seen things like this format, ten ball last, money ball doesn't count on the break, the break box, bonus ball and, worse than all of them, call shot / call safe rules. The casual fan will wants to see the game they know played the way they play it at the highest possible level, and pool tends not to give it to them. Matchroom is, of course, an exception, standardizing the game and making it as recognizable as possible to the casual fan.


While there is a kernel of truth in what you say, I've always had a hard time with it whenever somebody suggests that pool doesn't succeed because of the lack of money in it. A few decades ago, golf had no money in it and tennis had no money in it, but these sports managed their image and developed their professional product and productions over time and now pro golfers and tennis players at the highest level have big incomes. High prize money will be a consequence, not a cause of a boom in interest in professional pool.

As Kevin Trudeau proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, throwing big money at pool is not enough to generate significant demand for the pro pool product, and until the day when revenues can justify such prize funds, the result of any such attempt will be a business model that unravels quickly and a business that disappears just as speedily.
OH that's not entirely what I meant or said. Throwing money at it isn't the answer. You have to market it to generate an audience, namely market it correctly to the casual player. Once you get a decent audience, the money will come and it's the money that will draw in the complete NON-PLAYER... Remember, I didn't say just the money, I said that the non-player will be drawn to pool when becoming a pro player gets you both rich AND famous...

Jaden
 
  • Love
Reactions: sjm

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And what I meant is that when that's the only option in order to play, you play...just like when you don't have a choice in communist China... ;)

Jaden
Yes, if that's the only option. But obviously that's not true. I have never said or will I never say that the two sets of four format should be the only way we play pool. What I'm saying and what I will always say is a little variety never hurt anybody.
 

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What I meant was is they agreed to the rules, they had the option to play or not play. It has nothing to do with the Communist in China.
I understand you point however, mid to low level pro's do not have much opportunity to earn money playing. This is their chance whether they like the format or not. Just because they agree to the rules, doesn't mean they have to like them. Top level players have more opportunity so they can pick and choose where/when they compete.
 
Last edited:

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
OH that's not entirely what I meant or said. Throwing money at it isn't the answer. You have to market it to generate an audience, namely market it correctly to the casual player. Once you get a decent audience, the money will come and it's the money that will draw in the complete NON-PLAYER... Remember, I didn't say just the money, I said that the non-player will be drawn to pool when becoming a pro player gets you both rich AND famous...

Jaden
And I believe the best way to do that is start people off playing pool very young. Around the junior high level. You have to do it before they have no time for it or no interest for it or both
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
Yes, if that's the only option. But obviously that's not true. I have never said or will I never say that the two sets of four format should be the only way we play pool. What I'm saying and what I will always say is a little variety never hurt anybody.
When you're a pro player and you HAVE to play in as many events as possible to put food on the table, you play in the tourneys that pay out the most. This is the tour that is paying out the most at this moment, so they play...liking, or agreeing with the format doesn't come into it when there aren't viable alternatives.

JAden
 

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes, if that's the only option. But obviously that's not true. I have never said or will I never say that the two sets of four format should be the only way we play pool. What I'm saying and what I will always say is a little variety never hurt anybody.
Agreed, just not this variety...lol.
 
Top