Ohio Open, US PRO SERIES

measureman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.
That would require a change in the dress code to speedos and tank tops.
 

rexus31

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 would think equal pressure would be on the stronger player after allowing a lessor player to force a shootout. The anxiety of potentially losing to someone they should beat could get to the stronger player. ANYTHING can happen in a shootout.

Let me ask you this. As a professional player, what format would you rather play? Two races to 4 with a spot shot shoot out tiebreaker or Race to 9?
 

Tin Man

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I would think equal pressure would be on the stronger player after allowing a lessor player to force a shootout. The anxiety of potentially losing to someone they should beat could get to the stronger player. ANYTHING can happen in a shootout.

Let me ask you this. As a professional player, what format would you rather play? Two races to 4 with a spot shot shoot out tiebreaker or Race to 9?

You're right that there is a ton of pressure on the better player in a shoot out. There is pressure on the better player on a hill-hill match as well. That doesn't mean that the better player doesn't still win at a higher rate. They handle the pressure better and deep down feel they deserve it.

In the end there is speculation and there is data. I'd be interested to see what Mike Page comes up with for analysis after this series is done. I think we're going to see what Mike Page predicted: That this is the same as a race to 9. It it very counter intuitive. It comes down to whether people are willing to take a breath and look at the data, or get stuck in level one thinking and just shut down because they can't see anything beyond the initial race to four.

I think this controversy is good for the format. Many people hate the Mosconi Cup format. Many people hate Earl's behavior. Both seem to be doing just fine. While people that don't like this format think that means it is doomed, I think maybe it is bringing a lot of attention to their events. If this was just another 10 ball event no one would be talking about it. Negative press is still press. For people who really want this format to die I would suggest not fueling the fire.

As for my personal preference, I'm not sure I've played enough to have a strong opinion. It definitely keeps the pressure on at all times. I've seen a number of matches where a player wins the first set 4-0, and is up 3-1 the second set and running out to what looks like an 8-1 runaway. Instead they fumble and it goes 3-2, and suddenly it is almost like it's hill-hill. It keeps the heat on all the time. It is interesting, I'll give it that. I guess my personal preference would be to see a hill-hill rack played as opposed to a shoot out, but as a player I don't make the rules so I just get to buckle up and enjoy the ride.
 

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You're right that there is a ton of pressure on the better player in a shoot out. There is pressure on the better player on a hill-hill match as well. That doesn't mean that the better player doesn't still win at a higher rate. They handle the pressure better and deep down feel they deserve it.

In the end there is speculation and there is data. I'd be interested to see what Mike Page comes up with for analysis after this series is done. I think we're going to see what Mike Page predicted: That this is the same as a race to 9. It it very counter intuitive. It comes down to whether people are willing to take a breath and look at the data, or get stuck in level one thinking and just shut down because they can't see anything beyond the initial race to four.

I think this controversy is good for the format. Many people hate the Mosconi Cup format. Many people hate Earl's behavior. Both seem to be doing just fine. While people that don't like this format think that means it is doomed, I think maybe it is bringing a lot of attention to their events. If this was just another 10 ball event no one would be talking about it. Negative press is still press. For people who really want this format to die I would suggest not fueling the fire.

As for my personal preference, I'm not sure I've played enough to have a strong opinion. It definitely keeps the pressure on at all times. I've seen a number of matches where a player wins the first set 4-0, and is up 3-1 the second set and running out to what looks like an 8-1 runaway. Instead they fumble and it goes 3-2, and suddenly it is almost like it's hill-hill. It keeps the heat on all the time. It is interesting, I'll give it that. I guess my personal preference would be to see a hill-hill rack played as opposed to a shoot out, but as a player I don't make the rules so I just get to buckle up and enjoy the ride.
One point you failed to mention: player participation, which I think is a much bigger problem than negative press or fan opinion. Some top level players are not participating because of the format. IMO, that's a problem. To be honest, as a fan I would prefer a 32 player field of top tier players in a long race, winner break format. Open entry to the top 32 in the world (use Fargo, I suppose) and if there are shortstop or amateurs that want to compete they have to earn their way into the field by winning a qualifier. CSI and Predator could pull this off given what they are already doing. I think it would be more popular with the players and I think the fans would like it too. If the vision is to garner fans beyond pool by way of a short race, shootout format, I think it is misguided. For one, if someone isn't watching pool they probably never will and two, you are isolating a portion of your core fan base. I still point to the Camel Pro Billiard Series of the example it can succeed and could be a long term tour with the right leadership.
 

buckshotshoey

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!
Be careful what you ask for... You may end up getting it.
 

BobTfromIL

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've had no problem watching the event, even my wife who is not a player has watched some of the matches. I'm just happy to have a decent stream with great commentary available.
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
You're right that there is a ton of pressure on the better player in a shoot out. There is pressure on the better player on a hill-hill match as well. That doesn't mean that the better player doesn't still win at a higher rate. They handle the pressure better and deep down feel they deserve it.

In the end there is speculation and there is data. I'd be interested to see what Mike Page comes up with for analysis after this series is done. I think we're going to see what Mike Page predicted: That this is the same as a race to 9. It it very counter intuitive. It comes down to whether people are willing to take a breath and look at the data, or get stuck in level one thinking and just shut down because they can't see anything beyond the initial race to four.

I think this controversy is good for the format. Many people hate the Mosconi Cup format. Many people hate Earl's behavior. Both seem to be doing just fine. While people that don't like this format think that means it is doomed, I think maybe it is bringing a lot of attention to their events. If this was just another 10 ball event no one would be talking about it. Negative press is still press. For people who really want this format to die I would suggest not fueling the fire.

As for my personal preference, I'm not sure I've played enough to have a strong opinion. It definitely keeps the pressure on at all times. I've seen a number of matches where a player wins the first set 4-0, and is up 3-1 the second set and running out to what looks like an 8-1 runaway. Instead they fumble and it goes 3-2, and suddenly it is almost like it's hill-hill. It keeps the heat on all the time. It is interesting, I'll give it that. I guess my personal preference would be to see a hill-hill rack played as opposed to a shoot out, but as a player I don't make the rules so I just get to buckle up and enjoy the ride.
Hey Tinman, what did you think about the format I came up with. Two races to 5. Winner breaks, lag for first set breaker. Second set starts with opposite breaker. In the event of tie, a third race to 5 is played, relag for first breaker, alternating break must win by two games.

I think that has elements of everything people have complained about formats not having. It has the ability to run out a set without taking the ability of a challenger returning fire. It has an element of fairness by making sure that both players get to come to the table, etc...

Jaden
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hey Tinman, what did you think about the format I came up with. Two races to 5. Winner breaks, lag for first set breaker. Second set starts with opposite breaker. In the event of tie, a third race to 5 is played, relag for first breaker, alternating break must win by two games.

I think that has elements of everything people have complained about formats not having. It has the ability to run out a set without taking the ability of a challenger returning fire. It has an element of fairness by making sure that both players get to come to the table, etc...

Jaden
Why not just a race-to-11, win by two? Why do promoters feel the need for all these goofy formats?
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
Why not just a race-to-11, win by two? Why do promoters feel the need for all these goofy formats?
Yeah that's a great format and probably best in the long run. I, personally, think the longer the race, the better.

You have to consider it from a desire to get spectators though. There has to be an element of everything to bring in non-pool players to watch. We need to get the players personalities out there. From people like Alex and his exuberant attitude to people like Earl and his crazy antics, that can bring in viewership, just got to find a way to harness it.

Jaden
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
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!
I know you know how to count, so you know as well as everybody else they are playing three races to four, although obviously the third set to four consists of shootout shots rather than traditional games (and if tied will actually continue past four for as long as it takes to break the tie). What you are really trying to say, which you should have just said, is that your personal preference is that you don't want the third set to four to consist of anything but the same traditional game used in the first two sets, and like everybody else you are obviously entitled to a preference.
This format, with short races, is designed to create as many shootouts as possible.
With the shootout format for the third set it appears pretty clear they are looking for maximum pressure, drama, and excitement. And it does all those things. The only question left is whether enough people like it enough to want it to be kept as one of the formats in use today, and time will tell.
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.
This is the way lots of people feel about the break in pool during those times when it carries 90% of the weight for who is going to win. Might as well just have break contests and skip all the pool part because the pool doesn't matter, whoever was breaking best was guaranteed to win anyway even if they weren't the better player. I kind of agree with both where I don't want to see any one skill become too dominant in controlling who wins, but if I had to pick between the two, I would rather see the better shot makers under pressure win than the better breakers. Put another way, I think there is more to complain about when the break is so heavily deciding matches than there is for some shot making deciding matches.
 
Last edited:

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I know you know how to count, so you know as well as everybody else they are playing three races to four, although obviously the third set to four consists of shootout shots rather than traditional games (and if tied will actually continue past four for as long as it takes to break the tie). What you are really trying to say, which you should have just said, is that your personal preference is that you don't want the third set to four to consist of anything but the same traditional game used in the first two sets, and like everybody else you are obviously entitled to a preference.
A shootout is not a set. It's a single shot contest.
With the shootout format for the third set it appears pretty clear they are looking for maximum pressure, drama, and excitement. And it does all those things. The only question left is whether enough people like it enough to want it to be kept as one of the formats in use today, and time will tell.

This is the way lots of people have feel about the break in pool during those times when it carries 90% of the weight for who is going to win. Might as well just have break contests and skip all the pool part because the pool doesn't matter, whoever was breaking best was guaranteed to win anyway even if they weren't the better player. I kind of agree with both where I don't want to see any one skill become too dominant in controlling who wins, but if I had to pick between the two, I would rather see the better shot makers under pressure win that the better breakers.
The player with the best break has had the advantage for a hundred years. This is nothing new.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
A shootout is not a set. It's a single shot contest.
Can you count? There is four of them, or more. More than one becomes a set, it just isn't a set of what you would preferred it to be a set of.
The player with the best break has had the advantage for a hundred years. This is nothing new.
What's you point, because it sure had nothing to do with my point? My point was that I think people have more reason to cry about breaks deciding winners than shot making deciding winners, although I agree with not wanting either to carry undue weight.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Can you count? There is four of them, or more. More than one becomes a set, it just isn't a set of what you would preferred it to be a set of.

What's you point, because it sure had nothing to do with my point? My point was that I think people have more reason to cry about breaks deciding winners than shot making deciding winners, although I agree with not wanting either to carry undue weight.
WTF???? A sudden-death shootout is not a set. Its a contrived, gimmicky attempt at adding excitement.
 

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Can you count? There is four of them, or more. More than one becomes a set, it just isn't a set of what you would preferred it to be a set of.
I can count just fine. Let me dumb it down for you because you are clearly not grasping the concept. A set contains multiple games consisting of a break shot, multiple offensive shots and maybe some safeties. A single shot does not equate a game of a set. It's a single shot contest with a few turns. Make sense?
What's you point, because it sure had nothing to do with my point? My point was that I think people have more reason to cry about breaks deciding winners than shot making deciding winners, although I agree with not wanting either to carry undue weight.
I believe your point was, and I quote, "Might as well just have break contests and skip all the pool part because the pool doesn't matter, whoever was breaking best was guaranteed to win anyway even if they weren't the better player." My point is nothing will ever change this. Let me expand: The stronger breaker will ALWAYS be the favorite; regardless of format. That being said, there is a certain randomness to the break. Balls can cluster, the cue ball can get kicked into a pocket, etc. A good break is an advantage but it isn't a foregone conclusion to victory.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Just curious but are you involved somehow with this tour? You post a lot of REALLY long responses that lead some(me anyway) to the conclusion you have a vested interest in how this ProSeries works/doesn't work.
No involvement, and haven't posted anything that would give anybody the idea that I care about this tour any more than any other tournament, or even that I like it for that matter, so you probably shouldn't assume. My only purpose was to address the false notion that this format doesn't do a good job of picking the better players. I just don't like idiocy.

When people are still clueless after the shorter explanations you are left with no choice but to really dumb it down and spell it out real good.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
No involvement, and haven't posted anything that would give anybody the idea that I care about this tour any more than any other tournament, or even that I like it for that matter, so you probably shouldn't assume. My only purpose was to address the false notion that this format doesn't do a good job of picking the better players. I just don't like idiocy.

When people are still clueless after the shorter explanations you are left with no choice but to really dumb it down and spell it out real good.
I'm just going by all the LONNGG posts trying to defend the format. You like it, we get it. I don't. Never will. Not a big FR fan either. You seem to think whatever Page says is written in stone. Not a horrible system but it has its flaws and can be scammed. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them 'clueless'.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
I can count just fine. Let me dumb it down for you because you are clearly not grasping the concept. A set contains multiple games consisting of a break shot, multiple offensive shots and maybe some safeties.
A set as we have been using it is just more than one of something that is intended to go together. More than one spot shot, when there are intended to be four or more together as is the case here, is a set. More than one game of 9 ball, when they are intended to go together, is a set of 9 ball. Both are sets, just sets of different things, just like I said. But you know this, you are just trying to play dumb, and doing a good job I might add. See #2 under the noun definition of set if you really weren't playing and actually did believe that stupidity you are trying to argue.
I believe your point was, and I quote, "Might as well just have break contests and skip all the pool part because the pool doesn't matter, whoever was breaking best was guaranteed to win anyway even if they weren't the better player." My point is nothing will ever change this.
My point was what I said, lots of people feel the same way about the break, that it has too much influence on who wins, just like some people here are saying shot making has too much influence on who wins. And that I think both have a point, but the people complaining about the break having an undue proportion of influence may have the better one.
 
Last edited:

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
I'm just going by all the LONNGG posts trying to defend the format. You like it, we get it. I don't. Never will. Not a big FR fan either. You seem to think whatever Page says is written in stone. Not a horrible system but it has its flaws and can be scammed. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them 'clueless'.
If you think it does a really poor job of picking the winners in comparison to a race to 8, you are clueless.

If you think I have said that I like this format, you are clueless.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you think it does a poor job of picking the winners in comparison to a race to 8, you are clueless.

If you think I have said that I like this format, you are clueless.
All you've done is defend it but you don't like it?? Whatever. No one's clueless here but you pal.
 
Top