Ohio Open, US PRO SERIES

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
JJ just confirmed what I've been saying: the format is designed to give lessor players the chance to win. I personally feel it gives them an advantage; open for debate, I know. I still question why do "dogs" have to have a chance? I'd rather see a winner break, long race event with the top 32 players in the world (with a singular ranking system; Fargo, perhaps) competing for the money on a regular basis. It seems there are companies involved with this series that can afford to pony up some decent added money so there's no real need for dead money in the field. If you think you have the nuts and can make a profit by playing, pony up the entry and play. This tour has the feeling of a local handicapped tournament where the rules have to be changed so lower level players will keep coming back to pony up their $20 entry. IMO, it's watered down pro pool.
If you read their 'mission statement'(for lack of a better word) its pretty clear that getting lower rated players to play pro events is part of the plan. Makes dead-$$ entrants feel less 'dead-on-arrival' knowing(hoping??) that they have somewhat of a shot of winning a match. So far this isn't happening. Wow, what a surprise.
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you read their 'mission statement'(for lack of a better word) its pretty clear that getting lower rated players to play pro events is part of the plan. Makes dead-$$ entrants feel less 'dead-on-arrival' knowing(hoping??) that they have somewhat of a shot of winning a match. So far this isn't happening. Wow, what a surprise.
Agreed. But I really dont think the lower level players think they have a chance at winning anything. They are just testing themselves to see how far they can go.

I do think they should be vetted in some way to get there. Not just come up with the dough to enter. Prove In some way that you deserve to be there.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Have a one day qualifier(say 700's and under) and take the top-4 finishers. I really hope it(the tour) works for pool's sake but the whole thing just has a generic regional pro/am entry fee based feel to it. The shootout tiebreaker just reinforces that feeling.
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Have a one day qualifier(say 700's and under) and take the top-4 finishers. I really hope it(the tour) works for pool's sake but the whole thing just has a generic regional pro/am entry fee based feel to it. The shootout tiebreaker just reinforces that feeling.
I could live with that. At least 4, or more if the roster isnt filled with 700+ players. For instance 58 700+ players sign up for a 64 man tournament. You could allow the top 6 lower players fill it up. It would at least make sure they deserve to be there.
 
Last edited:

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
If you read their 'mission statement'(for lack of a better word) its pretty clear that getting lower rated players to play pro events is part of the plan. Makes dead-$$ entrants feel less 'dead-on-arrival' knowing(hoping??) that they have somewhat of a shot of winning a match. So far this isn't happening. Wow, what a surprise.
LOL. No surprise at all. Yes, a 700 Fargo, which most of us on the forum would call a shortstop or regional pro, might somehow manage to force a tiebreaker with an 800 Fargo, but even if they do, they will be a big underdog in the tiebreaker, as the 800 probably shoots quite a bit straighter. The truth, however, is that the 800 will usually win both races to four in such a matchup.

That said, I think when a 790 has to match up against an 810, their chances are better than in a race to nine because their chance in a tiebreaker, which will occur very often, will be almost 50%, as both players shoot awfully straight in such a matchup.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
In one of the streamed matches today, there was nearly a 200 point difference in FargoRates. That difference gives the lower-rated player about a 3½% chance of winning a race to 4. The match went to a shootout, which the higher-rated player won.
 

bb9ball

Registered
In one of the streamed matches today, there was nearly a 200 point difference in FargoRates. That difference gives the lower-rated player about a 3½% chance of winning a race to 4. The match went to a shootout, which the higher-rated player won.

Here is a match from yesterday. Fargo's are 761 vs. 563. It went to a shootout.

 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
McBride's robustness must be really low 'cause he plays better than any 560 i've seen lately. Nerves got him in the shootout.
He is 15 years old and being actively coached by Tyler Styer. He has like 800ish games in the system but I'm guessing it is a case where he is improving at a pretty fast rate recently and so his Fargo would already lag behind his true speed in such case, and with that kind of robustness it would make Fargo lag behind the recent improvements even more. From what little I saw it didn't look like he could be all that much higher rated though, possibly up to a bit over 600.
 
Last edited:

Tin Man

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I'm at the OH tournament. When you are here you get to see all the matches, not just those on the stream. I know people can follow the brackets, but on site you get to see the sets play out.

Here's what I'll tell you: The better players have a strong advantage.

It is really, really hard to beat a strong champion two sets to four games. Frankly it is super hard to even win one race to four. There is hill-hill type pressure on every rack and these top players handle the pressure so well and shoot so straight it is hard to get there.

Then, even if you do win a set and get it to shoot out, it is not a 'coin flip'. Try shooting four shots against some Polish champ that you know will make 9/10 of them, knowing if you miss a single one you're out, and even if you make them all it will go to sudden death. You're staring down the full length of a 9' table at the edge of a ball polished up like a billiard ball, your arm is shaking, your breath is short, and you know your opponent thinks the shot is a hanger. The pressure on the weaker player in these situations is incredible. I wonder what % of the shoot outs are won by the higher rated player. I'd guess the vast majority. 75-80% would be my guess, probably the same as a third set.

Look, I'm not saying this format is perfect. None are. It's fair to object. But to think this is an 'equalizer' is just diminishing to the skills of the top players and to the achievements of those underdogs who manage to rise to the occasion. If you think it's so easy come on out and play Ruslan a few races to 4 in front of the crowd with slippery polished balls and one try for your tournament. I'll back Ruslan.
 

VarmintKong

Cannonball comin’!
I got a kick out of that match. That is the kind of thing that will get a casual observer to watch; total match length right around an hour with a nice hook to it. Styer was definitely experimenting with the table in the 2nd set after a 4-0 start.
 

VarmintKong

Cannonball comin’!
I really enjoyed watching Tony Robles shoot against Grabe. A great demeanor at the table and you have to love the eyebrows.

Now if we could just see Tinman on the stream table. I know he’d rise to the occasion.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
That said, I think when a 790 has to match up against an 810, their chances are better than in a race to nine because their chance in a tiebreaker, which will occur very often, will be almost 50%, as both players shoot awfully straight in such a matchup.
The 790 is going to be the slight underdog in the races to four, and is going to be a slight underdog in a shootout, and even more of an underdog to win both a race to four and a shootout when they were already slight underdog in both. But that upset is going to happen sometimes, at roughly the same rate they would get the upset in a race to 8 per the current data.

Now once it gets to the shootout, though the 790 is still the slight underdog, their odds are substantially better from there than they were before the match started, but that is about like saying once the score is 6-6 in a race to 8 the 790's chances from there are much better than they were before the start of the match.
 
Last edited:

skogstokig

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
i and many others dislike the format for this series, but it was set before-hand, and i have heard hinted that it will go through changes. no point flogging that dead horse

meanwhile they provide HD streams with great players shooting the game we love. it's nice to see tony robles back in action, he beat grabe yesterday and didn't miss much.
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
i and many others dislike the format for this series, but it was set before-hand, and i have heard hinted that it will go through changes. no point flogging that dead horse

meanwhile they provide HD streams with great players shooting the game we love. it's nice to see tony robles back in action, he beat grabe yesterday and didn't miss much.
You are right about that. Things change. Things improve over time. I fully expect this format to evolve over time. At risk, I'll say the Mosconi Cup is not what we started with in 94. It has evolved. And its successful. And we all hope for the same thing....that the game is successful and grows in the future.
 

briankenobi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm at the OH tournament. When you are here you get to see all the matches, not just those on the stream. I know people can follow the brackets, but on site you get to see the sets play out.

Here's what I'll tell you: The better players have a strong advantage.

It is really, really hard to beat a strong champion two sets to four games. Frankly it is super hard to even win one race to four. There is hill-hill type pressure on every rack and these top players handle the pressure so well and shoot so straight it is hard to get there.

Then, even if you do win a set and get it to shoot out, it is not a 'coin flip'. Try shooting four shots against some Polish champ that you know will make 9/10 of them, knowing if you miss a single one you're out, and even if you make them all it will go to sudden death. You're staring down the full length of a 9' table at the edge of a ball polished up like a billiard ball, your arm is shaking, your breath is short, and you know your opponent thinks the shot is a hanger. The pressure on the weaker player in these situations is incredible. I wonder what % of the shoot outs are won by the higher rated player. I'd guess the vast majority. 75-80% would be my guess, probably the same as a third set.

Look, I'm not saying this format is perfect. None are. It's fair to object. But to think this is an 'equalizer' is just diminishing to the skills of the top players and to the achievements of those underdogs who manage to rise to the occasion. If you think it's so easy come on out and play Ruslan a few races to 4 in front of the crowd with slippery polished balls and one try for your tournament. I'll back Ruslan.
I will be there Saturday afternoon. Would like to meet the one and only Tin Man. :)
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
You are making the mistake lots of other fans and players alike are making, you are thinking of it, at least at a subconscious level, as a single race to four. But they aren't playing a single race. The are playing the best out of three races to four (with the third race being a different format obviously). Three races to four, and a single race to four, are not remotely similar yet so many people are getting stuck on the race to four number as if it is a single race.

Do you think if you played SVB 1,000 races to four you would have a chance? What about 100 races to four? What about 10 races to four? The number of races also has a massive effect on who is favored, not just the race length, yet people somehow forget to take this into consideration when each race length is relatively short. You can't think of single races to four, and multiple races to four, as being the same thing because they just aren't. Turns out that a pretty decent amount of evidence (analyzing how often upsets happened in the matches, how often the top players were still winning the events, etc) shows that this format consisting of the best of 3 separate races to four is about equal to a single race to eight.

Again, a single race to four is not the same thing as the best of multiple races to four, and you are just stuck on that four number without fully taking into consideration the multiple race aspect. Not sure if this will help it click better or just cloud the waters for you more, but a race to eight (or any other number) is really just a first to win a a whole bunch of races to one. Those races to one still do a good job because there were a number of them, same as the case with this format. It's just that the shorter the single races are the more of them you need to do a good job sorting out the best player, and the longer the single races are the less amount of those races you need to do a good job of sorting out the best player, which is why the first to 8 single races to one, ends up about equaling the first to 2 races to four.

You can dislike the format for some other reason (maybe you are traditional or a creature of habit and just don't like change or new things, maybe you don't find the format exciting based on your personal preferences or what you are used to, maybe you don't want to see shot making have more weight than normal in deciding a match outcome, etc, all fair enough as everyone is entitled to their own preferences), but you can't dislike it because it isn't doing a pretty good job of filtering out the better players because that is a nonsense argument and the evidence at hand shows that it does in fact do that just as well as races to eight does.
I will have to refute your opening statement. They are absolutely NOT playing "the best of three races to four!" They ARE playing only two races to four! If one player wins both races he wins the match. If they split, one race each, then they play the "shootout." This format, with short races, is designed to create as many shootouts as possible.

I have a better idea. Why not just skip the races to four and go directly to the shootout. Better yet, make the match two out of three shootouts! Now that would be exciting, watching guys shoot spot shots for thousands of dollars! Maybe throw in a long corner to corner shot somewhere, or how about cutting the object ball when it is frozen to the middle of the end rail. There you go, a shot making contest! No more wasted time running balls, playing position or making safeties. Get rid of all that stupid stuff and all those extra balls. All you need now is the cue ball and one object ball. Of course the market for a set of balls wouldn't be nearly as good anymore.

I think we've got something here. There might even be a way to develop this where no pool table is needed, and you could just play on the floor, making it more accessible to everyone, no matter how small your home is. Just put a diagram on the floor and have at it. Now we're talking!
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I will have to refute your opening statement. They are absolutely NOT playing "the best of three races to four!" They ARE playing only two races to four! If one player wins both races he wins the match. If they split, one race each, then they play the "shootout." This format, with short races, is designed to create as many shootouts as possible.

I have a better idea. Why not just skip the races to four and go directly to the shootout. Better yet, make the match two out of three shootouts! Now that would be exciting, watching guys shoot spot shots for thousands of dollars! Maybe throw in a long corner to corner shot somewhere, or how about cutting the object ball when it is frozen to the middle of the end rail. There you go, a shot making contest! No more wasted time running balls, playing position or making safeties. Get rid of all that stupid stuff and all those extra balls. All you need now is the cue ball and one object ball. Of course the market for a set of balls wouldn't be nearly as good anymore.

I think we've got something here. There might even be a way to develop this where no pool table is needed, and you could just play on the floor, making it more accessible to everyone, no matter how small your home is. Just put a diagram on the floor and have at it. Now we're talking!
AWESOME reply. Agree 100%
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
And if we get back to the idea Mike Page mentioned, that the match outcome depends on the format very little - then the dogs DO NOT have THAT chance in reality. The chance people seem to believe in, be it in a positive or negative fashion.


Sorry, but shoot-out is not a set. It's a specialty to decide the outcome in case of a draw. Take hockey: the game consists of three periods (and an overtime), shoot-outs are not an extra period. Take soccer: the game consists of two halves (and overtime), and in case of a draw teams get to take penalty kicks (depending on the tournament and stage). Again, that series of penalty kicks is not an extra "half", or a period, or a set.
Well, that was a bit of a misnomer.... They don't have to ACTUALLY have a chance, there has to be the perception that there is a chance. Win one race to 4 and bingo, now it's just down to a shot that really anyone can dog and anyone can make. Plus, the pressure is on (more so on the favored player) and the excitement can build.

We watched the top players dog the shot many times in these last few tournaments.

Jaden
 
Top