Ohio Open, US PRO SERIES

easy-e

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
The shorter races favor the lessor players. It's a risk reward aggregate for the top players. The investment to attend these events outweighs the potential for reward given the "crap shoot" format.
I feel that "crap shoot" might be a bit exaggerated. Look at the names winning these things. Our American pros have a better chance against these guys with this format than any other format. They should be LOVING this.
 

skogstokig

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The shorter races favor the lessor players. It's a risk reward aggregate for the top players. The investment to attend these events outweighs the potential for reward given the "crap shoot" format.

the best players tend to win anyway. who have won the previous installments of this tourney? i know kaci, yapp won one each
 

easy-e

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Clearly they aren't if they aren't attending.
I see that they aren't, but the format excuse doesn't hold water if the format "favors the weaker players" and they ARE the "weaker players". I wish them all great success in whatever they choose to do.
 

FeelDaShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I see that they aren't, but the format excuse doesn't hold water if the format "favors the weaker players" and they ARE the "weaker players". I wish them all great success in whatever they choose to do.
The strong players are the ones missing the tourney since their typical advantage has been reduced due to short race format.

the best players tend to win anyway. who have won the previous installments of this tourney? i know kaci, yapp won one each
A great player will always win the tournament. And there will always be 30 other guys just as capable of winning that didn't happen to get the rolls they needed in the short race format.
 

kling&allen

Registered
Mike Page did an analysis showing the results of this format are no different than standard races (e.g., the upset percentage is the same, lower ranked players fare the same). But to me the format seems less interesting as there are lots of routine 4-0 sets.
 

CaleAYS

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don’t mind the format so much as it’s a change of pace and it sets the event apart from others but the shootout is what I really don’t like. Two races to 4 has some excitement value for the casual fans with short attention spans these events seemed to be aimed towards but the shootout is a goofy gimmick to decide a match imo. If there was a one rack decider it would more tolerable than a lame shootout.
 

easy-e

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
The strong players are the ones missing the tourney since their typical advantage has been reduced due to short race format.

The strong players are the ones missing the tourney since their typical advantage has been reduced due to short race format.


A great player will always win the tournament. And there will always be 30 other guys just as capable of winning that didn't happen to get the rolls they needed in the short race format.
Strong players ARE winning the tournaments. How does it make sense for other "strong" players to miss the tournament due to shorter races? Makes zero sense. Our (USA) "strong" players have a better chance now. Makes no difference to me. Players can justify their excuses as much as they would like, makes no difference. Just a few people refusing to play a game for a living.
 

9ball5032

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't like the new format. Whoever thought up this silly scheme?
Shootout?
60 years of rotation tournament history and all of a sudden we get races to 4, and then a shootout?
I'm not buying it.
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't like the new format. Whoever thought up this silly scheme?
Shootout?
60 years of rotation tournament history and all of a sudden we get races to 4, and then a shootout?
I'm not buying it.
It's just something different. Why does everything have to be the same all the time? You don't like it, fine. You don't have to play it and you don't have to watch it. But that doesn't mean I wont.
 

Cameron Smith

is kind of hungry...
Silver Member
Mike Page did an analysis showing the results of this format are no different than standard races (e.g., the upset percentage is the same, lower ranked players fare the same). But to me the format seems less interesting as there are lots of routine 4-0 sets.
He did a video for the first event, that’s not enough data to make any determinations. I’d be interested to see something that includes all the events and excludes the early rounds. Since the event is seeded, we have 800 players against 600 players. The 800 level guys will beat A players in a race two with their off hand.

I don’t think the top guys are worried about the amateurs so much as going out to a 750 level player.

I think it would be a fun format if they did a true best of 3 sets, race to 5, win by 2 with a shoot out tie break at 4-4.
 

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The shorter races favor the lessor players. It's a risk reward aggregate for the top players. The investment to attend these events outweighs the potential for reward given the "crap shoot" format.

Shorter race than what? It's not a race, so you must have some way in your mind of equating the format to a "race."

Is it at least interesting to you that of the five events in 10 weeks using that format with about a quarter million prize $$, the WINNER of all but one has the highest Fargo Rating of the field? That's four of five events with top place: highest-rated player.

Arizona Open, (winner Gorst, 821)
Las Vegas Open,
Michigan Open, (winner Yapp, 821)
Austria Open, (winner Kaci, 820)
Austria Open Women (winner Fisher, 759)

Does that sound like a series to avoid because the format is too much of a coin flip?

The highest-rated player in the fifth one, Las Vegas Open, was Shane Van Boening, and he got 3rd for $5,000 in that event, more than he made the following week in the US Open or any of the other handful of tournaments he played since Vegas.

Below was our post before the Michigan event: "Who is going to reign in Yapp?"
Evidently the answer was nobody.

I would like to live in a world in which top players in the host country show up and belly up to the table in their own events whether they like some aspect of the format or not, for two reasons:

(1) it is the respectful thing to do with so many of the world's best traveling far and long to be here.
(2) top players should acknowledge and encourage significant actors in our community digging deep, working hard, and working together to bring something the likes of which we haven't seen in decades.


1634159752123.png
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
Shorter race than what? It's not a race, so you must have some way in your mind of equating the format to a "race."

Is it at least interesting to you that of the five events in 10 weeks using that format with about a quarter million prize $$, the WINNER of all but one has the highest Fargo Rating of the field? That's four of five events with top place: highest-rated player.

Arizona Open, (winner Gorst, 821)
Las Vegas Open,
Michigan Open, (winner Yapp, 821)
Austria Open, (winner Kaci, 820)
Austria Open Women (winner Fisher, 759)

Does that sound like a series to avoid because the format is too much of a coin flip?

The highest-rated player in the fifth one, Las Vegas Open, was Shane Van Boening, and he got 3rd for $5,000 in that event, more than he made the following week in the US Open or any of the other handful of tournaments he played since Vegas.

Below was our post before the Michigan event: "Who is going to reign in Yapp?"
Evidently the answer was nobody.

I would like to live in a world in which top players in the host country show up and belly up to the table in their own events whether they like some aspect of the format or not, for two reasons:

(1) it is the respectful thing to do with so many of the world's best traveling far and long to be here.
(2) top players should acknowledge and encourage significant actors in our community digging deep, working hard, and working together to bring something the likes of which we haven't seen in decades.


View attachment 613010
Well with the exception being, how many of those matches came down to the single shot at the end. I would contend that it's a high likelihood that Shane could've won that one tourney also had it been three races to 4 instead of that ridiculous spot shot decider.

Jaden
 

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well with the exception being, how many of those matches came down to the single shot at the end. I would contend that it's a high likelihood that Shane could've won that one tourney also had it been three races to 4 instead of that ridiculous spot shot decider.

Jaden
Maybe this is part of the difficulty. People have a tendency to look at the last thing that happened as being of unusually high importance. Overall, that missed shot in the shootout isn't really more important than the missed shots in games 2 and 8 or the could-have-been tighter safety in game 3. It just occurred at the end. But that leaves some people walking away saying this "determined the match," and it doesn't feel right it is a single planned shot.

The flip side is by putting this at the end, both players get an active try at the same thing. That makes it interactive in a way that me breaking and running with you not allowed out of your chair doesn't (or me breaking dry and you running out with me in my chair).
 

westcoast

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I feel that "crap shoot" might be a bit exaggerated. Look at the names winning these things. Our American pros have a better chance against these guys with this format than any other format. They should be LOVING this.
with the exception of SVB- longer races favor him
 
Top