race to 25 2 out of 3 sets
- Thread starter real bartram
- Start date
In a race to 100, with an early win looming on the horizon by getting 20 games ahead of your opponet...puts more pressure on the player who's trailing in the games...because he knows if he don't step up and start running some racks to get caught up....he may NOT make it to day 2, let alone day 3. If the players are close in the total games against each other, the the race is going to go down to the wire...with who makes it to 100 wins first. Just like in heavy weight boxing...no one is tuned in to see who's going to win at the end of 12 rounds...they want to see who's going to get knocked out first. Mike Tyson wasn't the most watched heavyweight champion in the world because he won the fight on points...neither was George Forman...everyone watched because they KNEW someone was getting their ass knocked OUT. Sugar Ray Leonard could knock out an opponent before I could even finish popping my popcorn and sit down to watch the fight...so I learned to eat it AFTER the fight...LOL
Suspence...is what pool in MATCH play is missing...the suprise...sudden win that no one expected or counted on...the "WOW"...did you SEE that WIN...."he was ahead by 5 racks...and ran out 15 to win the match by knockout"....NEVER seen THAT before!!!!..."he went in for the kill...and got it on day ONE"!!!!!!
Glen
Suspence...is what pool in MATCH play is missing...the suprise...sudden win that no one expected or counted on...the "WOW"...did you SEE that WIN...."he was ahead by 5 racks...and ran out 15 to win the match by knockout"....NEVER seen THAT before!!!!..."he went in for the kill...and got it on day ONE"!!!!!!
Glen
I prefer the race to 100 matches myself, but this format is obviously much more viable financially. And a race to 25 isn't really that short. Watching an evening of that is a long evening.
Actually, TAR needs to come up with a format to do this for one pocket.
Actually, TAR needs to come up with a format to do this for one pocket.
"experts" would READ what I posted first...and understand it would be over at 20-0....but I guess you MISSED that part
...must be your reading comprehension that needs some practice
I don't think anyone is arguing what's better for viewership.
I think the point of the thread is... does this change ensure that the best player should always win?
Sounds like a few people think it doesn't.
My feeling is... it's possible for two APA 5's to be dead even in skill level and after 100 matches they might be 52-48 or something. So if we tried to figure out a race that absolutely 100% guarantees the best player wins... it might take weeks. It might never happen for some matchups. So we might as well just come up with a cutoff that is short enough to keep viewers happy, but not so short that the whole thing is a coin flip.
Three sets seems to get the job done.
I think the point of the thread is... does this change ensure that the best player should always win?
Sounds like a few people think it doesn't.
My feeling is... it's possible for two APA 5's to be dead even in skill level and after 100 matches they might be 52-48 or something. So if we tried to figure out a race that absolutely 100% guarantees the best player wins... it might take weeks. It might never happen for some matchups. So we might as well just come up with a cutoff that is short enough to keep viewers happy, but not so short that the whole thing is a coin flip.
Three sets seems to get the job done.
Interesting topic!
when i first read chris' thesis that the underdog wins more in a 2 out of 3 match rather than a race to 100, i thought. yes, of course! but thinking it over a bit.... still yes. BUT, 10-ball races to 25 r long, especially on the diamond with small pockets. usually they last at least 5 hours. I find competing against someone in any sport or game, 5 hours is a decently long time to decide the winner of the day. In the recent TAR matches, a player even had to win 2 nights to be declared winner of the match. meaning the player has to be over 10+ hours the better player!
Isn't that enough? the winner of the match, for sure, was the better player on that weekend. if he repeadetly beats his opponent in the same format, he is the better player all the way.
what i wud love to see at TAR wud be a round robin mode with 6 of the best players around the world. 2 Americans, 2 Europeans and 2 Asians for example. taking place over 1 year. 10-ball, winnerbreak and if needed races to 100 or the recent format wud be fine too. (i here like the idea of realking with 20 ahead wins match). there shud be a prize for every match.... at the end of the year u will have a true champion and surely no underdog
imagine shane, archer, appleton, souquet, busti, wu or whoever in one round robin all playing each other in long races and going for the trophy.
when i first read chris' thesis that the underdog wins more in a 2 out of 3 match rather than a race to 100, i thought. yes, of course! but thinking it over a bit.... still yes. BUT, 10-ball races to 25 r long, especially on the diamond with small pockets. usually they last at least 5 hours. I find competing against someone in any sport or game, 5 hours is a decently long time to decide the winner of the day. In the recent TAR matches, a player even had to win 2 nights to be declared winner of the match. meaning the player has to be over 10+ hours the better player!
Isn't that enough? the winner of the match, for sure, was the better player on that weekend. if he repeadetly beats his opponent in the same format, he is the better player all the way.
what i wud love to see at TAR wud be a round robin mode with 6 of the best players around the world. 2 Americans, 2 Europeans and 2 Asians for example. taking place over 1 year. 10-ball, winnerbreak and if needed races to 100 or the recent format wud be fine too. (i here like the idea of realking with 20 ahead wins match). there shud be a prize for every match.... at the end of the year u will have a true champion and surely no underdog
imagine shane, archer, appleton, souquet, busti, wu or whoever in one round robin all playing each other in long races and going for the trophy.
you sir got it.
thats all i was saying .
nothing bad about the new format
just that there will be more underdogs who will win.
and nothing wrong with that.
Bartram
I disagree with your original premise that 2 players a ball apart, that the lessor player could win 2 out 3 sets to 25. I would say, and I have played 50 years and gambled pretty good in the past, that the lessor player would not get over 20 games in a race to 25 with a player that plays a ball bettor playing even.
I disagree with your original premise that 2 players a ball apart, that the lessor player could win 2 out 3 sets to 25. I would say, and I have played 50 years and gambled pretty good in the past, that the lessor player would not get over 20 games in a race to 25 with a player that plays a ball bettor playing even.
At Bart's level and higher there is not much difference with that ball which is why the lesser player could win in the 2 of 3 format. Two lower level players it would be a larger difference and that might not be true.
we will just have to disagree.
In a race to 100, with a 20 game lead knockout rule, Shane would have knocked out Cory Duel, Earl Strickland, Alex P(1st time they played) Donny Mills, Mika...and everyone else...and never had to go all the way to 100 wins to win the match
Are the experts you're referring to the ones who are making a major change in their format?
Just checking.
Glen produced the best idea in this thread.
In a race to 100, with a 20 game lead knockout rule, Shane would have knocked out Cory Duel, Earl Strickland, Alex P(1st time they played) Donny Mills, Mika...and everyone else...and never had to go all the way to 100 wins to win the match
I blew that match but I was never stuck 20 games.
So who shouldn't have won...Johnny or Mike?
prolly both.
are you for serious? :thumbup:
I am as far from an expert on promotions as you can get. What I do know is what I have heard from customers in aggregate over the years. The vast majority of people I have talked to tolerated the race to 100 format because it was basically the only game in town to see top guys play long sets for a decent amount of money.
Personally towards the end I really began to hate the race to 100. Depending on the particular match it can be almost impossible to watch all the way through. When a guy is way behind after two days its an exercise bordering on masochism. The guy behind just has to come in to take his beating and the guy in front just has to keep the wheels from falling off.
There were some good matches and I am glad we did most of them but like anything that attempts to grow and improve you make changes over time based on experience and customer feedback. Many players really like the race to 100. Thats why we did so many of them. The problem for us is that if it doesnt sell its an exercise in futility no matter how much players or backers like it.
I had one player last week not involved in the match come up to me and ask when he was going to play and immediately go into a long explanation of why it had to be an ahead set with all kinds of provisions built in to remove any luck and so on. I stopped him mid-sentence and said "I understand what you are saying. You can go play that way any time you want in a pool room somewhere but if you expect people to actually pay to watch you play you have to give them what they want not what you want."
The "underdog" has a pretty good record in TAR matches which in my mind doesnt prove a whole lot except maybe the perception of who is a favorite and who is a dog is not all that accurate in the first place.
If enough people want us to make changes we will. We are not married to any format. We did spend a lot of time and talk to a lot of people to come up with what we have now. Considering we have done a grand total of two of them we will probably stick with it at least a little while longer. There will be bugs and we will work them out. End of the day TAR will do what the majority of customers say they want.