you will see players win that you think should not win.
if 2 players play a ball apart either 1 can win.
if 2 players play a ball apart either 1 can win.
race to 25 2 out of 3 sets
- Thread starter real bartram
- Start date
I agree with the one long set.. but it just shows who came with it on that day.. like the song says 2 out of 3 aint bad.
As anyone who has gambles playing by the game in long hour after hour play, the game trends back and forth if it is close. It is nothing to lose numbers of games at any given time and have to recover even if you are the better player. Often the match can go on for a day only to have it decided in the last hour with one player getting beat flat after playing almost even for two dozen hours. Multi set is the only real test maybe over a few days to determine the best true player. In a long single match, the match can get one sided for any number of reasons with the other payer unable to recover before the set number games run out. The fear of the multiple sets is, the same player winning every time. Isn't that what is supposed to happen, the best player win? That is what a champion is, not losing because of formats.
We have boxing champs that defend their titles and if they are the best fighter are expected to win. Tennis, ping pong, track, swimming, most all head to head competitions the best player is expected to win. In pool we have double elimination short set formats that are for the most part a crap shoot with a different winner every tournament. That is fine but we should at least have one tournament formatted to produce a real champion who you can point to and say, "There is the best player" beyond just speculation. Such a tournament could play out over months in different parts of the country with prize funds for each tournament culminating is a legitimate world champion.
Pool must have more so called world champions then any other sports. Wouldn't it be nice to have a real one.
Did you lose a few on the match?
Top tier players should definitely be playing an ahead or race to 100. Even then it might take a bit to decide who the best player is.
Pool players have always knowed if you have the worst of it try and play a shorter set,if you have the best of it play a longer set,well except the suckers of course,more then not the favorite will win the longer races,good thread btw!
Ryans dream
Banned
I would rather see a longer set. Even a race to 75 would be fine and TAR could still stream 3 days. I think if you count total game won on TAR 26 the score is 66 to 66 but Archer got the cash.
to find out who is really the best player
you have to play like a race to 300 or 30 or 40 ahead.
the reason players are playing this 2 out of 3 sets
is they are not betting anything.
In the COM wasnt Earl ahead at 75 and 100?. Then Efren takes it at 120. Maybe races should be to 140!! You can make it as ridiculous as you want.
Then again the same better players keep winning tournaments that are races to 9 or 11 so how come? They are lucky?
Point is Pick any race longer than 8 and it's fair. You will get lucky just as often as you get unlucky.
Then again the same better players keep winning tournaments that are races to 9 or 11 so how come? They are lucky?
Point is Pick any race longer than 8 and it's fair. You will get lucky just as often as you get unlucky.
All the local action I have ever seen is races to 7, 9, 11, depending on the bet. Maybe once a race to 15. And of course once in a great while an ahead set, that usually ends up being prorated.
Before TAR, I don't think anyone was playing SUPER long races in their local rooms, or on a pro level (although I have no first hand knowledge of this). So what do you say of the years and years of "shorter" races lets say 15 and under? Have they been not-valid all this time in finding the better of two players?
you must not play for money often.
ahead sets have been played since i started playing.
im saying that players will win in the new tar format
that people dont think should.
Yes you are right. When they not betting anything it all fun and games. I can assure you with this format there will be savors made if there haven't been already.
Especially if it becomes one sided. Even at the Super Bowl if it gets too one sided people will begin to leave to beat the traffic. Also, who wants to see two players suffer through such a long match only have it decided by possibly 1 or 2 games. They played 198 games and in my opinion neither is a loser.
One exciting format could be so many games ahead in multiple sets. For example 5, ahead 2 out of 3 sets. The ebb and flow of an ahead set can be very exciting, it is never over till it is over.
I remember seeing Mike Sigel play 7 ahead against Strickland with Strickland winning the first 6 games. "Man" was Strickland cocky. Well, he didn't make a ball on rack 7 seven and in a few hours Sigel was back to even. At that point Earl begged to quit because he said he had to play a match early the next day and it was getting late. Sigel just laughed and let him out of the $3000.00 bet. It was sort of a grudge match that started with some arguing and I guess Sigel felt he had made his point as Strickland slunk out of the room. In those days Sigel would have gone through Strickland playing any game. Sigel was really something to see when he was at his best.