Olhausen Arizona All Around Tour

[BRKNRUN]

I guess I don't understand why people wouldn't think discussing issues at a "player's meeting" is a good idea, considering that is the primary purpose of a "player's meeting". It would seem to me to be the most logical platform to discuss issues. As far as putting forth items to "vote", I don't expect it to be so formal and drawn out. I am playing in the event myself, and I would certainly rather be playing than talking.

If I were just playing in the events, and had nothing to do with organizing them, I would like to be able to show up at the first event and say, "yeah, I like the rule with money balls not counting in the bottom two pockets", if that is how I felt, and actually have my voice heard. While we would like to have input from the players, if no one cares to be a part of any decision making process, it will not stop the tour from moving forward. We just felt that, for some things, especially since this will be the first event, we would get some input from the players before making certain decisions.

Anyone who wants to play, but doesn't want to endure a player's meeting, is certainly welcome to do so. I've played in I-don't-know-how-many tournaments where player's meetings were held, and I rarely attended them myself. If a player wishes not to participate in a player's meeting, I certainly respect their decision. I would only ask that they, in turn, respect the decisions that are made without them.

I hope my prior post did not come accross as negative... (Not intended that way at all...was only providing suggestions and feedback)

I think a player vote on rules is a good idea, but getting them all there "before" the tournament starts and getting them to actually stop hitting balls is going to be a bit of a trick...

Out of respect and to show support, I will attend a players meeting, I just think it might be easier (on you) to list out the rules on paper and hand it out for them to fill out (vote) and turn back in.

The more important (long term issue) is....if you are looking for long term mass support, you will need a consistent turn out from "Dead Money" entrants. There needs to be a "realistic" opportunity for otherwise "Dead Money" to break even on the weekend...

A quick look at the latest points list shows that the top 19 are all 10s (or better)

All the incentives (except for the C bonus) are geared toward top 4-8 on the point list. What realistic chance does a (non) 10 have of getting in any of the bonus money (or seeded free entry)? They would be doing well just to sneak into a 12th place payout in a random event.

Sure you get the "experience" but for "Dead Money" to keep wanting the "experience"...I think there needs to be a carrot (somewhere)

Again....the words above may sound "negative" but they actually are not...The mass population of "Dead Money" won't bother to say anything because they don't want to be "unpopular" or considered "negative"...they will just stop showing up...(as has been seen by the turnout of some of the later events)....I have heard many times over the comment...why should I play.....I have no chance...

I am not sure what your (mission statement) of the new tour is.......

If it is the concept of "open" ...either play good or get the hell off the court.....that is fine and is very challenging...(I don't mind playing open events that I have little chance to cash in).....But (I think) in the long run that is only going to net events that have 25-35 players....(IMO).... I could & hope I am dead wrong.

I think that if you are looking for a tour that is going to net a consistent 50+ players...Unfortunatley the "Dead Money" needs to be taken into consideration.....(I don't mind being considered dead money...I just dont like looking around and seeing that I am pretty much the only one)

I think you (and the room owners) are probably looking for the 50+ turnouts...The suggestions on my prior post was only feedback and suggestions that "may" help that overall cause......(I know I would like to see 50+ players)

In a perfect world the 10's will still get the good payouts and other top competition (as they have been enjoying). The rest of the field will have some "other" realistic chance of breaking even on the weekend, and a continued reason to keep signing up.......(That is probably much easier said than done)

I must say I am very impressed that the two of you with your schedules are taking the time to step up and take on such a venture...I hope it is successfull.....I think you both know that no matter what the rules, entries, payouts, etc...I will be supportive and sign up...


DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed are of this individual (Dead Money) and may not reflect other (Dead Money). These opinions and are in no way intended to be negative toward the tour...

Take it for what its worth I guess......

BTW: I vote for the rack for each other (with both player agreement option to rack your own)

 

[BVal]

I am rated a 7 and I played in I think 5 or 6 of the events last year. I really enjoyed my experience. I never won a match! I know I have no shot of winning the tourney or even cashing. I am going to play in the events this year as well - knowing I again have no chance of winning or cashing. It would be cool to have something for the lesser players to look forward to at the end of the road. Either way I will still play - because when I get knocked out I get to watch some very good pool.

Brady

 

[BigCat]

I believe I know where Ken is coming from. For a long time there, I felt like I was also "Dead Money" coming into some of the previous AZ tournaments as well as other tournaments that I travelled to. And it can be quite disheartening knowing this.

But ultimately, I entered those tournaments with no expectations other than to become a better player and play the best that I absolutely could... win or lose, both then and now. And as a result, I feel I have improved my play because of it... paying my dues in a strange way (also coupled with finally having the opportunity to play more than once a month).

But the other reality is that 10's and above have very little in the way of events to choose from in Arizona. And a tour like this (and the previous Olhausen AZ All Around) offer a chance to play in tournaments that we would otherwise never be able to participate in due to lack of opportunities (short of travelling once or twice a month - which is nearly impossible with a job and a family). Of course, I am speaking of larger weekend tournaments with larger monies added.

There is definitley a delicate balance with something like this and not everyone is going to be happy. But in the end, I believe it is worth it to be able to provide something like this to Arizona players.

This is just my humble opinion.

Ray

 

[Jimmy M.]

BTW: I vote for the rack for each other (with both player agreement option to rack your own)

I'm sure I'll see you before the first event, so we can talk about all of this stuff in person, if you like.

I know that not everyone will like it, although I think most will, but the rack-your-own rule isn't up for vote. If two players agree that they want to rack for each other, then we're not going to try to stop that but, outside of that, it will be rack-your-own.

I understand the frustration of sitting in your chair while a guy is breaking in the wing ball every time but, if the balls are racked tight, and the 1-ball is struck solid, breaking off the side rail, it's dead. There is no "trickery" to making the wing ball. As the person racking the balls, the only defense you have against that is to give a bad rack, and I consider that cheating.

I have heard the argument that, as the person breaking, you have the option to check the person's rack before breaking it. This is true, but now the responsibility of getting a good rack is placed on the breaker. If it is the breakers responsibility to ensure that they get a good rack then, by that very rationale, it makes much more sense to just have them rack the balls themselves.

What we will ask the players to "vote" on, if you will, is whether or not they want the money ball to count in the bottom two pockets. Another popular argument against rack-your-own is that the person racking can now rig the rack so that the money ball has a better chance of going. Well, it's only possible to rig it in such a way that it would go in one of the two bottom pockets, so this rule would eliminate that argument.

We're not going to go as far as to start caring what order the balls are placed in. Perhaps, at the professional level, this would be warranted, but for our tour, we feel it would just be confusing and probably lead to bickering and disagreements. I can certainly see someone breaking the balls and then their opponent jumping up to say, "Wait! You racked the 2-ball in the wrong spot!" We'd like to minimize the rules that are more prone to lead to arguments, if possible.

Anyway, I think you have my number and, if you don't, you can get it off of the link on Ron's site. If you, or anyone else, wants to talk more about any of this, feel free to give me or Dennis a call.

 

[gajga]

I'll be out of town for the first event. Presumably I can still participate in future events and just pay my membership at a later time (?).

I'm some of that "Dead Money" (I'm not going down without a fight though )

 

[Jimmy M.]

I'll be out of town for the first event. Presumably I can still participate in future events and just pay my membership at a later time (?).

I'm some of that "Dead Money" (I'm not going down without a fight though )

Absolutely. You don't have to participate in any particular event to participate in another. The exception is the season finale, in which you would have to have played in two previous events to be eligible to play.