Ohio Open, US PRO SERIES

[rexus31]

What would be wrong with the US amateur type format? Where the players are playing both 8-ball and 9-ball?

How's that going to work for a 10B event?

 

[easy-e]

What would be wrong with the US amateur type format? Where the players are playing both 8-ball and 9-ball?

Uh oh... Now you gone and did it!

 

[buckshotshoey]

How's that going to work for a 10B event?

Doesn't have to be 10 ball. I was just thinking out of the box for a different kind of pro tournament format. Yes, It could be for instance 10 ball and 8 Ball. I think I would find that refreshingly different and could be very interesting on a pro format. Winner of the lag gets to choose which game to play first. Five games of 8-Ball, 8 games of 10 ball, first to win seven games wins the match.

 

[Chili Palmer]

You can post all the data you want. To me, and apparently to quite a few others, this format sucks. Two races-to-four and some hokey shoot-out has no place in professional pool.........

Agreed 100% and I think the list of players supports that.

In short races ANYTHING can happen and then your entire tournament life is riding on a few shots.

Nope.

It's a stupid format.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I still believe shorter races favor weaker players. Anything can happen in a short race. I'd much rather play a less skilled player a Race to 9 vs a Race to 4. The gap may not be as wide at the pro level but I still think there is a gap.

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.

 

[measureman]

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 could beat anyone 1 race to 4.
I play good enough to do that.
But as the amount of races to 4 increases I become the dog.
The longer the races the more of a dog I become.
Woof.

 

[Poolplaya9]

In short races ANYTHING can happen and then your entire tournament life is riding on a few shots.

Yes, in a single race to four almost anything can happen, but in a best of three races to four a whole lot less of "anything can happen" can happen, about the same amount of "anything can happen" that can happen in a single race to eight.

As far as the match result riding on a few shots when it is tied up near the end in this format, that is true in any format of any length when it is tied up near the end, every shot can cost you the match. Your argument is akin to a race to eight, when it is hill/hill at 7 all, and the guy shooting dogs it which causes him to lose, and then tries to argue that if it had been a race to 13 then dogging it in that fifteenth game wouldn't have cost him the match. Well of course not, but you weren't playing a race to 13, you were playing a race to 8. Guess you shouldn't have dogged it near the end.

The problem is you can always use that argument, and it never gets any more logical. In a race to 100 tied up near the end, you could argue that your missed shot in the 199th rack wouldn't have cost you the match if it had instead been a race to 500, or maybe even if it had been a race to 101. But it wasn't, it was a race to 100. And if it had been a race to 500, when you missed in the 999th rack and it cost you the set you can argue that miss wouldn't have cost you the set at that point if it had instead been a race to 1000, and you would be right, but you weren't playing a race to 1000, and on and on. It just sounds worse here, but really isn't any different than always in any other match that has ever happened when it is close at the end, a miss at the end in a tight match, any match, will likely cost you the match.

 

[Cameron Smith]

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 think this glosses over the fact that you only need to win one of the races to 4 in order to force a shootout. It is not really a best 2 out of 3 sets because the third set isn't a set. It's a shoot-out. The better player is far more vulnerable playing spot shots than they are in a third race to 4. If the third set was a proper third set, there would probably slightly fewer detractors.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I think this glosses over the fact that you only need to win one of the races to 4 in order to force a shootout.

Correct, same as any best of three sets.

It is not really a best 2 out of 3 sets because the third set isn't a set. It's a shoot-out.

It is a set, it is just a set that consists of shootout shots. Not liking the shootout shots sounds like a fair enough personal preference, but that doesn't change that it is still in fact a third set.

The better player is far more vulnerable playing spot shots than they are in a third race to 4.

I haven't seen the concrete evidence to support that.

Even if that is true though, and I suspect it could be, the format as a whole does about the same job of determining the better player as a race to 8, and what all three sets together do is all that matters really, so I don't see the issue unless you just want something that does an even better job than races to 8 would. That would also be a fair preference but I haven't seen that complaint yet in reference to this format. I'm not hearing that they don't like it because it is only does as good a job as races to 8, what I'm seeing in that regard is that they don't like it because they erroneously believe it is equivalent to a much shorter race than a race to 8.

If the third set was a proper third set, there would probably slightly fewer detractors.

Probably, but that is a completely separate issue from those saying this doesn't do a pretty good job of determining the better players, or that it is somehow like a single race to four, and those seem to be probably the biggest portion of the complaints and the only ones I was addressing in any case.

I personally wouldn't mind if they went to a regular race to four for that third set too, but then that defeats some of what they are presumably trying to accomplish by using the shoot out shots instead. It would make the average match lengths longer so wouldn't fit into the same scheduling constraints, and perhaps they are tying to figure out how to come to the same results in a shorter tournament time. It would take away the "excitement" of the shootout format that they are experimenting with, and only time will tell if that catches on more as being exciting. I think part of the current push back is just that people aren't used to the idea yet so who knows how it will play out once the newness of the change from tradition wears off (I am withholding my guess on that for now). It would remove something new in pool that might (or might not) have a chance of attracting new fans where the old format obviously didn't attract them for decades and certainly they would love to attract new fans. It would remove some diversity in formats that many current fans seem to like, even if this isn't their very favorite format, they still like that it exists because it is something different and not the same old routine format/s that have been in use for forever. Etc.

Point being, they are trying something new presumably for a number of reasons, and whether we think those new things will work or not it is hard to blame them for trying new things, and I'm not sure enough time has passed to get a proper feel for just how successful and popular it will ultimately end up being.

 

[skip100]

Is there any data about how well Fargo predicts the shootout winner?

 

[garczar]

It looks to me like their intent is to raise the excitement level for non-pool fans. Good luck with that if that's what they're aiming for. Gonna take more than gimmicks to increase pool viewership.

Correct, same as any best of three sets.

It is a set, it is just a set that consists of shootout shots. Not liking the shootout shots sounds like a fair enough personal preference, but that doesn't change that it is still in fact a third set.

I haven't seen the concrete evidence to support that.

Even if that is true though, and I suspect it could be, the format as a whole does about the same job of determining the better player as a race to 8, and what all three sets together do is all that matters really, so I don't see the issue unless you want something that does a better job than races to 8. That would also be a fair preference but I haven't seen that complaint yet in reference to this format. I'm not hearing that they don't like it because it is only does as good a job as races to 8, what I'm seeing in that regard is that they don't like it because they erroneously believe it is equivalent to a much shorter race than a race to 8.

Probably, but that is a completely separate issue from those saying this doesn't do a good enough job in determining the better players, and that it is somehow like a single race to four, and those seem to be probably the biggest portion of the complaints and the only ones I was addressing in any case.

I personally wouldn't mind if they went to a regular race to four for that third set too, but then that defeats some of what they are presumably trying to accomplish by using the shoot out shots instead. It would make the average match lengths longer so wouldn't fit into the same scheduling constraints, and perhaps they are tying to figure out how to come to the same results in a shorter tournament time. It would take away the "excitement" of the shootout format that they are experimenting with, and only time will tell if that catches on more as being exciting. I think part of the current push back is just that people aren't used to the idea yet so who knows how it will play out once the newness of the change from tradition wears off (I am withholding my guess on that for now). It would remove something new in pool that might (or might not) have a chance of attracting new fans where the old format obviously didn't attract them for decades and certainly they would love to attract new fans. It would remove some diversity in formats that many current fans seem to like, even if this isn't their very favorite format, they still like that it exists because it is something different and not the same old routine format/s that have been in use for forever. Etc.

Point being, they are trying something new presumably for a number of reasons, and whether we think those new things will work or not it is hard to blame them for trying new things, and I'm not sure enough time has passed to get a proper feel for how successful and popular it will ultimately end

 

[Poolplaya9]

It looks to me like their intent is to raise the excitement level for non-pool fans. Good luck with that if that's what they're aiming for. Gonna take more than gimmicks to increase pool viewership.

You may be dead right on how well it will work out, and like everybody else I have my own guesses, but can we blame them for trying something, anything, new? Obviously the same ole thing in pool has never worked for many decades of trying and you know the expression about the definition of insanity being doing the same things over and over and somehow expecting different results.

And you never can quite tell what will work just by trying to guess how people will ultimately respond. And sometimes small changes can have unexpected huge impacts. Poker made the tiny little change of putting a camera on the hole cards and went from being a fringe game for forever just like pool, to blowing up massively. I would have bet that a egg-centric restaurant whose dishes all centered around the ingredient eggs would be a flop for sure, but here they are now many years down the road as a chain of restaurants growing and apparently doing well enough. Never can quite tell for sure sometimes until you actually try seemingly random new things, because sometimes the results are going to be unexpected and surprise everybody.

 

[garczar]

You may be dead right on how well it will work out, and like everybody else I have my own guesses, but can we blame them for trying something, anything, new? Obviously the same ole thing in pool has never worked for many decades of trying and you know the expression about the definition of insanity being doing the same things over and over and somehow expecting different results.

And you never can quite tell what will work just by trying to guess how people will ultimately respond. And sometimes small changes can have unexpected huge impacts. Poker made the tiny little change of putting a camera on the hole cards and went from being a fringe game for forever just like pool, to blowing up massively. I would have bet that a egg-centric restaurant whose dishes all centered around the ingredient eggs would be a flop for sure, but here they are now many years down the road as a chain of restaurants growing and apparently doing well enough. Never can quite tell for sure sometimes until you actually try seemingly random new things, because sometimes the results are going to be unexpected and surprise everybody.

Comparing pool to poker is dead-on-arrival. What you mentioned is just how it was televised not how the game was actually played. They didn't change rules or basic formats. Unlike this hokey shoot-out nonsense. If watering down the game(how i see it) is trying something new then i guess i'll pass on watching any of it.

 

[Cameron Smith]

Correct, same as any best of three sets.

It is a set, it is just a set that consists of shootout shots. Not liking the shootout shots sounds like a fair enough personal preference, but that doesn't change that it is still in fact a third set.

I haven't seen the concrete evidence to support that.

Even if that is true though, and I suspect it could be, the format as a whole does about the same job of determining the better player as a race to 8, and what all three sets together do is all that matters really, so I don't see the issue unless you just want something that does an even better job than races to 8 would. That would also be a fair preference but I haven't seen that complaint yet in reference to this format. I'm not hearing that they don't like it because it is only does as good a job as races to 8, what I'm seeing in that regard is that they don't like it because they erroneously believe it is equivalent to a much shorter race than a race to 8.

Probably, but that is a completely separate issue from those saying this doesn't do a pretty good job of determining the better players, or that it is somehow like a single race to four, and those seem to be probably the biggest portion of the complaints and the only ones I was addressing in any case.

I personally wouldn't mind if they went to a regular race to four for that third set too, but then that defeats some of what they are presumably trying to accomplish by using the shoot out shots instead. It would make the average match lengths longer so wouldn't fit into the same scheduling constraints, and perhaps they are tying to figure out how to come to the same results in a shorter tournament time. It would take away the "excitement" of the shootout format that they are experimenting with, and only time will tell if that catches on more as being exciting. I think part of the current push back is just that people aren't used to the idea yet so who knows how it will play out once the newness of the change from tradition wears off (I am withholding my guess on that for now). It would remove something new in pool that might (or might not) have a chance of attracting new fans where the old format obviously didn't attract them for decades and certainly they would love to attract new fans. It would remove some diversity in formats that many current fans seem to like, even if this isn't their very favorite format, they still like that it exists because it is something different and not the same old routine format/s that have been in use for forever. Etc.

Point being, they are trying something new presumably for a number of reasons, and whether we think those new things will work or not it is hard to blame them for trying new things, and I'm not sure enough time has passed to get a proper feel for just how successful and popular it will ultimately end up being.

I think that sort of stretches the definition of a set. I mean, sure it’s a “set” of spot shots but anyone expect that a third set would be identical in format to the previous two.

But if had a chance to win a billion dollars by beating Shane in a race to 4 or a spot shot shoot out, which would you choose? I’m not saying that the weaker players are brought to parity. But I think top players become more vulnerable to someone who is 20-30 points below them. I agree there is no actual data to support that, but I don’t have access to a database to actually check these assumptions either. All I know is that I saw Tyler Styer taken to a shoot out by a 570 player and during the US Open I saw pros make winning match after 9-2 or 9-0 against good amateurs. Anecdotal for sure, but that’s all I have without spending time collecting the information on my own.

I understand the objective here and personally I think pool is in such a state where it’s hard to do any real harm to the game anymore. But I think we’ve already tried gimmicky formats and it hasn’t got the result we want. So either we accept that pool is unwatchable (which it isn’t IMO) or we try something that’s actually different. For example how can the livestream be revolutionized? What about switching between multiple matches during the early rounds? Or interspersing talking heads analysis with the matches? Or challenge shots and lessons during intervals?

Ive always admired the chess broadcasts because they do an awesome job of presenting one of the slowest games in the world and making it pretty interesting (to me at least).

 

[Poolplaya9]

Comparing pool to poker is dead-on-arrival. What you mentioned is just how it was televised not how the game was actually played. They didn't change rules or basic formats. Unlike this hokey shoot-out nonsense.

What they changed was the viewing experience, the same that is being changed with the shootout. Again, I totally agree that it might not work, but I have to keep in mind what would really be crazy is to not change something because we have a whole bunch of history showing that to keep doing the same ole isn't likely to miraculously start working after all these decades, and I also have to keep in mind that sometimes, here and there, what wouldn't necessarily sound to most like it would work actually ends up being really successful and the only way to have found that out was through trying it.

 

[garczar]

What they changed was the viewing experience, the same that is being changed with the shootout. Again, I totally agree that it might not work, but I have to keep in mind what would really be crazy is to not change something because we have a whole bunch of history showing that to keep doing the same ole isn't likely to miraculously start working after all these decades, and I also have to keep in mind that sometimes, here and there, what wouldn't necessarily sound to most like it would work actually ends up being really successful and the only way to have found that out would be to try it.

You're wrong, they did change how the game is played. Changing 'the viewing experience' would have meant different camera location/angles, color commentators,etc. That's not what they've done, at all. I don't like it and never will. Its a short-term attempt at a 'fix' for a decades long problem.

 

[buckshotshoey]

What they changed was the viewing experience, the same that is being changed with the shootout. Again, I totally agree that it might not work, but I have to keep in mind what would really be crazy is to not change something because we have a whole bunch of history showing that to keep doing the same ole isn't likely to miraculously start working after all these decades, and I also have to keep in mind that sometimes, here and there, what wouldn't necessarily sound to most like it would work actually ends up being really successful and the only way to have found that out was through trying it.

A good example would be the Mosconi Cup. It started out as sort of an exhibition match with no real expectations that it would catch on. It going on what? 27 years this year?

 

[Poolplaya9]

I think that sort of stretches the definition of a set. I mean, sure it’s a “set” of spot shots but anyone expect that a third set would be identical in format to the previous two.

It is a set none the less. The third set could be a set of 8 ball, about as different as can be, but it is still a third set.

But if had a chance to win a billion dollars by beating Shane in a race to 4 or a spot shot shoot out, which would you choose?

It doesn't matter because they aren't playing each other only a single race to a minimum of four more difficult variations of the spot shot (and more as needed, I think one of them went up to 35 each). You are falling into the same trap of only looking at a single segment and ignoring the two sets that happened prior. The entirely of the process, the three sets together just as they are, which is how it is actually played, not just a single spot shot set, is doing as well at determining the better player as races to 8.

To me your argument is kind of akin to when in races to 9, when the score is 7-7, you start saying well they are only playing races to two in this tournament, that doesn't mean anything, completely ignoring the 14 games that happened prior to that as if they never existed.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post, we have to keep trying new things, and nothing is probably going to prove to be all that successful at the end of the day because pool just isn't a sport/game that most people want to see. Pool players for the most part don't even like watching pool, how can we realistically expect anybody else to? Never hurts to try though, sometimes you end up surprised about what a change will do that you never would have predicted it would do.

 

[garczar]

A good example would be the Mosconi Cup. It started out as sort of an exhibition match with no real expectations that it would catch on. It going on what? 27 years this year?

You can't be serious?? Trying to compare the MC to this new series? I think a closer comparison would be that lames-ass 7ball that ESPN dreamed up yrs. back. Nothing but an attempt at artificial drama. I'd bet this ProSeries deal doesn't last two yrs without a format change.

 

[Poolplaya9]

You're wrong, they did change how the game is played. Changing 'the viewing experience' would have meant different camera location/angles, color commentators,etc. That's not what they've done, at all. I don't like it and never will. Its a short-term attempt at a 'fix' for a decades long problem.

I didn't say they didn't change how the game was played, but the reasoning, the purpose, what they are really trying to change, and did change, is the viewing experience. It is the viewing experience that is going to bring in or turn off fans, which is why they both changed the viewing experience in an effort to try to increase the appeal, they just did it in different ways.

It seems like you are trying to argue something else, which is that you do not feel they should try to change the appeal of pool by changing pool itself. Fair enough, and while it may be possible that pool could be made much more popular just with better camera angles etc, and while i think all that kind of more extraneous stuff can certainly help, I tend to think it will take a more fundamental change to the game itself to move the needle much in popularity, if it is possible at all. And that brings me back to the same point, we have a lot of history showing the same ole formats aren't doing it, and I find it hard to fault someone for trying various new things and seeing if something sticks to the wall.