Ohio Open, US PRO SERIES

[buckshotshoey]

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.

You know that's not what I meant.

I only meant it was a new idea that was tried, and was successful. It was in response to what poolplaya9 said in his post....

"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]

You know that's not what I meant.

I only meant it was a new idea that was tried, and was successful. It was in response to what poolplaya9 said in his post....
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.

In trying to promote the MC Matchroom didn't stoop to using some gimmicky format. They got top players from the US and Europe to do battle. The drama of those matches and personalities is why the MC prospered. Also a big difference in what is basically a made-4-tv exhibition and professionals playing to make a living on a daily/weekly basis. Glad you guys like it. I don't.

 

[buckshotshoey]

In trying to promote the MC Matchroom didn't stoop to using some gimmicky format. They got top players from the US and Europe to do battle. The drama of those matches and personalities is why the MC prospered. Also a big difference in what is basically a made-4-tv exhibition and professionals playing to make a living.

What does any of this have to do with what I posted? All I said was they tried a new idea of how the game was played.

The Mosconi Cup also changed how the game was played as you put it.

Short races to 5
Alternate break
9 on the spot
3 ball across headstring
Shot timer

Not that all of these are original to the MC, but its all put together in one format. Many of which drew/still draws criticism for being "gimmicky". I think they got it right.

 

[skip100]

Let's consider player A with a 60% chance of winning a game over player B. This represents about a 50-point difference in Fargo rating.

Player B has a 20% chance of winning a race to 9. Not that great.

Player B has a 29% chance of winning a race to 4. This means B has an 8% chance of winning two consecutive races to 4 and winning outright, or a 41% chance of winning 1 out of 2 sets and sending the match to a shootout.

If the shootout has the same probability as a typical game, then player B ends up with an 8% + 41% * 40% = 24% chance of winning the match. If a shootout is a coinflip, then the probability for player B increases to 29%.

Pretty substantial difference!

 

[garczar]

What does any of this have to do with what I? posted

The Mosconi Cup also changed how the game was played as you put it.

Short races to 5
Alternate break
9 on the spot
3 ball across headstring
Shot timer

Not that all of these are original to the MC, but its all put together in one format. Many of which drew/still draws criticism for being "gimmicky".

Except for the shot clock i think all the rest are gimmicks. Enough players whine about something and TD's/rules makers bow to their demands. All chickenshit imo.

 

[buckshotshoey]

Except for the shot clock i think all the rest are gimmicks. Enough players whine about something and TD's/rules makers bow to their demands. All chickenshit imo.

Gimmicks that were successful. If they weren't, it wouldn't be on its 27th year.

 

[rexus31]

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.

It worked for three years (Camel Pro Billiards Series; 1997-1999) until the players screwed it up. They had a MAJOR sponsor (Camel Cigarettes) and a MAJOR TV deal with ESPN. They didn't have to change the format and it worked.

 

[rexus31]

You know that's not what I meant.

I only meant it was a new idea that was tried, and was successful. It was in response to what poolplaya9 said in his post....

"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."

Not really a "new" idea. They stole it from golf (The Ryder Cup).

 

[garczar]

The MC success has little to do with anything you listed. Some were necessary due to tv time restraints i get it but it was the personalities and level of play that made it what it is. Again, the MC and this new series have nothing in common other than the fact they are playing pool. I've watched a total of three matches and nothing about it appeals to me. From the looks of the spectator turnouts so far, well lets just say i've seen better turnouts at a local bass tournament weigh-in.

 

[buckshotshoey]

The MC success has little to do with anything you listed. Some were necessary due to tv time restraints i get it but it was the personalities and level of play that made it what it is. Again, the MC and this new series have nothing in common other than the fact they are playing pool.

I'll return to my original statement....

All I meant was it was a new idea that was tried.... and was successful. You are the one that came up with everything else... not me.

 

[Jaden]

I was watching the Ohio open and JJ just made a really good point. You have to have a format where the dogs HAVE a CHANCE...where the cream still can rise to the top, but so that it's not a lock every time.

The thought of this has changed my mind a bit on this format. It'll be nice to see where it goes.

Jaden

 

[buckshotshoey]

Not really a "new" idea. They stole it from golf (The Ryder Cup)

The only comparison is its USA vs Europe. Nothing else is comparable.

But it was "new" to pool.

 

[garczar]

I'll return to my original statement....

All I meant was it was a new idea that was tried.... and was successful. You are the one that came up with everything else... not me.

And who compared it to the Mosconi???? I'll be surprised if the PS makes it 27 MONTHS without a format change. Enjoy those scintillating spot shots.

 

[Vahmurka]

I was watching the Ohio open and JJ just made a really good point. You have to have a format where the dogs HAVE a CHANCE...

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.

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.

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.

 

[garczar]

I was watching the Ohio open and JJ just made a really good point. You have to have a format where the dogs HAVE a CHANCE...where the cream still can rise to the top, but so that it's not a lock every time.

The thought of this has changed my mind a bit on this format. It'll be nice to see where it goes.

Jaden

Why do the dogs need to 'have a chance'? This is professional pool right???? Sounds like some lame woke 'everybody gets a prize' shit.

 

[rexus31]

I was watching the Ohio open and JJ just made a really good point. You have to have a format where the dogs HAVE a CHANCE...where the cream still can rise to the top, but so that it's not a lock every time.

The thought of this has changed my mind a bit on this format. It'll be nice to see where it goes.

Jaden

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.

 

[buckshotshoey]

And who compared it to the Mosconi???? I'll be surprised if the PS makes it 27 MONTHS without a format change. Enjoy those scintillating spot shots.

You did.

All I said was.....
IT WAS A NEW IDEA THAT WAS TRIED, NO ONE HAD ANY EXPECTATIONS IT WOULD LAST. AND IT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL. That's all I said. You added or assumed everything else.

 

[Cameron Smith]

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.

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.

I think where we are stuck is that you seem to be accepting that the shoot out is equivalent to a race to 4 match. Correct me if I’m wrong. But I personally can’t accept that concept which is why I mention that you only need to win a single race to 4 in order to force a shoot out. Personally, if I won a set against SVB and had the choice between third set of 4 games or a shootout to move on, I’d choose the shoot out. Im fairly confident with spot shots and it’s variations so I have much better chance than trying to win 4 more games than Shane does. Still not a great chance, but better for sure.

I’m not missing that there are multiple sets, I just don’t accept the idea that a shoot out = a race to 4. It’s 2 sets and a shoot out, and you get two attempts to beat a pro in a race to 4. I don’t mind the existence of the shoot out, it’s just misapplied. My preferred format to take advantage of the shootout concept would be races to 4, win by 2, shoot out at 4-4, best 2 out of 3 sets.

I agree that pool players don’t seem to like watching pool and that is a problem. But garczar summed things up better than I did, that we need to experiment with the viewing experience. The last time I remember someone experimenting with this was the IPT when they did those quasi-reality show stuff.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I was watching the Ohio open and JJ just made a really good point. You have to have a format where the dogs HAVE a CHANCE...where the cream still can rise to the top, but so that it's not a lock every time.

The thought of this has changed my mind a bit on this format. It'll be nice to see where it goes.

Jaden

We don't have anything at this point to indicate that he is right, the best we have is that we have about the same results and the same amount of upsets as what a races to 8 tournament produces.

Now there is some possibility that both could be true at the same time, but where the percentage of upsets and the eventual winner under both wouldn't be different but where perhaps the new format will allow a few more lower level players to have upsets than straight races to 8 even though the percentage of upsets doesn't change. Kind of how you can have two players who both have a Fargo of say 600 (and keep in mind that your Fargo rating is your average game, you play both under and above that at times), where one of the players typically plays anywhere between 575 and 625 depending on the day, and the other more typically plays in between the 590 and 610 depending on the day, but where both their average games are 600. And so perhaps it could be possible that even though both formats have the same amount of upsets, one allows for a slightly wider disparity of lower levels to be part of those upsets. Doubt it is much different, but theoretically possible I suppose. Through the data Mike probably has a good idea if this is possibly the case or not, or will shortly anyway.

You pose a good question though, which is if this is desirable. I don't know the answer because I can see very good arguments that pool should be made much tougher where only the best 2 or 3 have any chance at all of winning, where long shots who are substantially lower in skill than the best still have a pretty legitimate chance of winning, or where it is now, somewhere kind of between those two extremes (but probably currently being closer to where only the best have a chance between the those two choices). There are pros and cons each way. You can also find examples from other sports/games that represent all three of those ways of doing it. Probably about where it is now is about the right compromise, but maybe an occasional dream story snapping one off wouldn't be a bad thing either.

JJ just confirmed what Ive been saying: the format is designed to give lessor players the chance to win.

To be fair he wasn't able to and didn't confirm anything, he just expressed a similar opinion to the one you have. The evidence at hand currently would seem to indicate that it is most likely he is wrong.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I think where we are stuck is that you seem to be accepting that the shoot out is equivalent to a race to 4 match. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I didn't say that, nor do I think that, and have said so. What I think, because it is what the evidence shows so far, it the totality of the format is proving to pick the best players, and have the same amount of upsets, as race to 8 tournaments. As I stated before, it doesn't really matter what just the last set of the match does, because they aren't playing only that last third set in isolation. They are playing three sets, so it only matters what three sets they play does, and it comes up with the same results as a race to 8. You are fixated on a single set, but they aren't playing a single set, yet you refuse to look at the match as a whole and want to fixate on just one of three sets for some reason instead of the whole match.

You are literally arguing that a plate of food isn't going to make you full, while only looking at one of the sides. "That plate of food isn't going to make me full, look at how small that portion of green beans is". "But look at that steak and mashed potatoes too". "That won't make a difference to how full the plate get me, look at the size of those green beans". "But with the steak and mashed potatoes, it is actually a big plate of food, and furthermore the evidence also shows that it is going to make you full because it makes everybody else full when they eat it". "Can't be, do you see the size of the green beans?" Just like the whole plate is what determines how full you are going to be, and you can't just look at one of the sides to form a judgment, so it is with this format where you have to consider the whole match, and not just cherry pick that one set of three. The whole match leads to about the same results as races to 8 does, just like the whole plate is going to make you full even if the side of green beans may have been a little on the smaller side if by itself.

But I personally can’t accept that concept which is why I mention that you only need to win a single race to 4 in order to force a shoot out.

What you may not be giving enough consideration to is that you aren't very likely to win even a single race to 4 to begin with to even make it go to the 3rd set if the disparity in your skill levels is very big. I don't see many 600 Fargos beating SVB or Yapp etc in even a single race to 4 in a tournament like this. Yes it will happen on occasion, but not very often. You are going to have to not be completely out of your league to even win a set to begin with, but the vast majority of the time when one player is way better than the other the way better player will win the first two sets outright, and a way worse player certainly isn't very likely to ever win two out of the three sets, even with the last set being stop shots.

And keep in mind that players who aren't too substantially worse than their opponent sometimes outplay their better opponent, or get the rolls, and pull off the upset, regardless of the format (in this case it happens about as often as in races to 8).