Event 2 of the new US Pro Billiard Series is in a couple weeks in Las Vegas. Here are some comments on the match format.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2C-RjyluHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2C-RjyluHI
Races to 4 for the pro's???
- Thread starter mikepage
- Start date
Races to 4 make it more exciting. 
Races to 4 can JAM in everything into a couple of days. Because everyone has other things to do.
Pretty soon it will evolve into a more simpler form.........THE RACE TO ONE!
Then, to make it fairer for everyone, the players will just flip a quarter for the match.
Races to 4 can JAM in everything into a couple of days. Because everyone has other things to do.
Pretty soon it will evolve into a more simpler form.........THE RACE TO ONE!
Then, to make it fairer for everyone, the players will just flip a quarter for the match.
Last edited:
It's a joke! Races to Five work for the MC because there are so many matches. When you are playing in a DE format, the shortest Ten Ball match should be a Race to Seven imo.
Thank you Mike. This is great info and a great presentation.
I can't play all of these events as I am not a full time player. I can only compete in an event every couple of months as each tournament costs me money directly in expenses and indirectly in lost income. As a middle of the road player in an event like this I have to decide where I want to fire my shots. This is how I weigh the pros and cons:
PROS:
1. It is double elimination to start out with. One bad set won't send me home.
2. There are top players which makes this meaningful and challenging, but not ONLY top players. I likely won't lose two sets in a row to two 800+ FR players. With a good draw I might only need to turn in a few good matches to make a deep run, and with a bad draw I might still have a chance to qualify on the loser's side as I wouldn't be playing elite players match after match.
3. It is reassuring to know the format has the same depth as a race to 9 so I wouldn't be flying out to 'flip coins'
4. If this is the way pool is going I need to adapt and gain experience in this format
CONS:
1. The tie breaking 'shoot-out', while not a total novelty and potentially interesting for the fans, may not be how I want my tournament fate decided. If I play Fedor and split sets 4-3, 4-3, I would much rather have a deciding set or even a deciding sudden death rack. Odds are I'd be in this position a few times and I have to decide if I'd be ok losing out of contention to what I feel is kind of a gaffy format twist.
2. The event is seeded. I'm not here to debate if this is good or bad for pool in general, but it is bad for me. I am not in the top 16 which means it is much more likely that I will play top players right away. No bracket with one top player that I can slide by and cash, no top players knocking each other out where I might face middle of the road competition to advance deep in the event. It makes it really unlikely that I will have a good draw and very likely that I will get a bad draw.
I am undecided at this point. I really dislike the seeding for me for this reason: I don't play in my home state because everything is handicapped or fargo capped. Each to their own, I am not going to tell others what they can and can't do. I just get to decide what my personal boundaries are. I have found I don't enjoy handicapped events so I don't participate.
Here's the rub. I am willing to fly to another state and pay hotel and entry fee to compete against players better than me just for the chance to play even up. But when the event is seeded I feel like I have to give a handicap to the best players in the world. It's bad enough to give a handicap to a local champion on a bar table in a short set. Why should I spend the equivalent of a few thousand dollars (difference between expenses and income I could earn) to go give a handicap to the best players in the world? Not only does this very directly impact the average cost of this event by making covering my expenses in prize money much, much, much harder, but there is something I find very distasteful about being put at an additional disadvantage to Fedor before the draw.
Of course I can't be too picky or I'd never play. I am playing the US Open next month which I believe is seeded as well, but it also has a 256 player field which diminishes the impact of that seeded substantially. Furthermore there is no 'shootout', so whoever sends me home will do it by outplaying me directly. My point is I'm willing to compromise here and there and adapt a bit to the real world so I can fit in and have opportunities to compete. Seeding a small field and incorporating a shootout might be too much for me though. I may play one of these events (the OH one in October might work for me) as an experiment to see how I feel about it. I might pass as well. I'll have to do some soul searching.
No one will miss me if I don't sign up, pool will go on just fine without me. I'm just sharing my thoughts on this format for those who might be interested in seeing how these formats affect the participation of some players.
I can't play all of these events as I am not a full time player. I can only compete in an event every couple of months as each tournament costs me money directly in expenses and indirectly in lost income. As a middle of the road player in an event like this I have to decide where I want to fire my shots. This is how I weigh the pros and cons:
PROS:
1. It is double elimination to start out with. One bad set won't send me home.
2. There are top players which makes this meaningful and challenging, but not ONLY top players. I likely won't lose two sets in a row to two 800+ FR players. With a good draw I might only need to turn in a few good matches to make a deep run, and with a bad draw I might still have a chance to qualify on the loser's side as I wouldn't be playing elite players match after match.
3. It is reassuring to know the format has the same depth as a race to 9 so I wouldn't be flying out to 'flip coins'
4. If this is the way pool is going I need to adapt and gain experience in this format
CONS:
1. The tie breaking 'shoot-out', while not a total novelty and potentially interesting for the fans, may not be how I want my tournament fate decided. If I play Fedor and split sets 4-3, 4-3, I would much rather have a deciding set or even a deciding sudden death rack. Odds are I'd be in this position a few times and I have to decide if I'd be ok losing out of contention to what I feel is kind of a gaffy format twist.
2. The event is seeded. I'm not here to debate if this is good or bad for pool in general, but it is bad for me. I am not in the top 16 which means it is much more likely that I will play top players right away. No bracket with one top player that I can slide by and cash, no top players knocking each other out where I might face middle of the road competition to advance deep in the event. It makes it really unlikely that I will have a good draw and very likely that I will get a bad draw.
I am undecided at this point. I really dislike the seeding for me for this reason: I don't play in my home state because everything is handicapped or fargo capped. Each to their own, I am not going to tell others what they can and can't do. I just get to decide what my personal boundaries are. I have found I don't enjoy handicapped events so I don't participate.
Here's the rub. I am willing to fly to another state and pay hotel and entry fee to compete against players better than me just for the chance to play even up. But when the event is seeded I feel like I have to give a handicap to the best players in the world. It's bad enough to give a handicap to a local champion on a bar table in a short set. Why should I spend the equivalent of a few thousand dollars (difference between expenses and income I could earn) to go give a handicap to the best players in the world? Not only does this very directly impact the average cost of this event by making covering my expenses in prize money much, much, much harder, but there is something I find very distasteful about being put at an additional disadvantage to Fedor before the draw.
Of course I can't be too picky or I'd never play. I am playing the US Open next month which I believe is seeded as well, but it also has a 256 player field which diminishes the impact of that seeded substantially. Furthermore there is no 'shootout', so whoever sends me home will do it by outplaying me directly. My point is I'm willing to compromise here and there and adapt a bit to the real world so I can fit in and have opportunities to compete. Seeding a small field and incorporating a shootout might be too much for me though. I may play one of these events (the OH one in October might work for me) as an experiment to see how I feel about it. I might pass as well. I'll have to do some soul searching.
No one will miss me if I don't sign up, pool will go on just fine without me. I'm just sharing my thoughts on this format for those who might be interested in seeing how these formats affect the participation of some players.
Jay, did you watch Mike's video in post #1? The format is not a race to 4. It is two races to 4 and then a shootout if the races are split. Mike shows that this format discriminates between the better and lesser player to about the same degree that single races to 9 would. But the belief is that the 4's format holds greater "fan engagement" than would single, longer races.
I personally do not like the shootout decider; I don't see it as exciting and I don't like that it is different from what got the players to the point of a tie. However, apparently some people like it. And I wonder what the level of discrimination would be if the decider was another game or a third set (perhaps even shorter) rather than a shootout. But every time I would see someone mock or criticize the race to 4 for these events I would think that maybe they just did not really understand it.
Edit -- nor do I agree with Demetrius' dislike of the seeding, but that is somewhat a different matter.
The shootout has got to be more fair than a deciding rack, which is much more subject to the randomness of the break and the rack.
But yeah I keep hearing people say “race to 4 is too short” when it’s two sets to 4, which is equivalent to a race to 7 or 8 (If you win both sets, you’ve gotten to 8, and if you win the tie breaker you’ve won somewhere from 4 to 7 racks plus the tie break shootout).
Mike, you say this is equivalent to a race to 9. Why not race to 7/8? Are you just kind of rounding up, or is there a substantive reason why you say race to 9 rather than 8?
edit: I watched the video again and it sounds like he’s saying in the first event they found a similar pattern of upsets vs. expected wins as in a race to 9 format. But that could be an anomaly and it seems like saying it’s equivalent to a race to 7 would be more fair. I would be interested in seeing how many games the winner usually won in this format. My guess is on average the winner won ~7 or 7.5 games if you count the shootout as one game. It’s also possible that the winner could win fewer games than the loser, e.g., lose the first set 4-0, win the second 4-3, win the shootout, and win effectively 5-7. I don’t think they publish the game counts but it would be interesting to see the rack breakdowns. I dont think it’s fair to call it a coin flip, but I doubt it‘s equivalent to a race to 9 either.
But yeah I keep hearing people say “race to 4 is too short” when it’s two sets to 4, which is equivalent to a race to 7 or 8 (If you win both sets, you’ve gotten to 8, and if you win the tie breaker you’ve won somewhere from 4 to 7 racks plus the tie break shootout).
Mike, you say this is equivalent to a race to 9. Why not race to 7/8? Are you just kind of rounding up, or is there a substantive reason why you say race to 9 rather than 8?
edit: I watched the video again and it sounds like he’s saying in the first event they found a similar pattern of upsets vs. expected wins as in a race to 9 format. But that could be an anomaly and it seems like saying it’s equivalent to a race to 7 would be more fair. I would be interested in seeing how many games the winner usually won in this format. My guess is on average the winner won ~7 or 7.5 games if you count the shootout as one game. It’s also possible that the winner could win fewer games than the loser, e.g., lose the first set 4-0, win the second 4-3, win the shootout, and win effectively 5-7. I don’t think they publish the game counts but it would be interesting to see the rack breakdowns. I dont think it’s fair to call it a coin flip, but I doubt it‘s equivalent to a race to 9 either.
Last edited:
Thanks for this c;larification. I was aware of the format and my opinion remains that a Race to Four is very short for top players. A Race to Five in each set would be marginally better. The shootout format is a joke! Spot shots? C'mon! If they made it two out of three sets, Race to Five in each, now you would have something that looks like a real match. As always, it's their event and they can make it any format they want. The players (and backers) will vote with their wallets. If the fields continue to dwindle they will know something is not working.
If they put up enough money, players will play on the floor!
Races to 4 favor the promoter. I think even the Challenge of Champions only worked because it was a specialized once a year thing. A series based on coin flips?
Smart money is on flipping coins. Serious. 2 men, one coin, do you have what it takes?....
They are not playing single races to 4, yet it seems this is the way some of you are trying to frame it and think about it. They are playing the best of THREE sets [read that again--t h e b e s t of T H R E E s e t s], with the first two sets being races to 4, and the final set being a spot shot shoot off that consists of a minimum of 4 spot shots each and more if needed.
Turns out the data--the facts--say this does just as good a job at picking the better player as a single race to 9 does.
Now you can argue that you don't like this format for some other reason (excitement, it isn't what you are used to, whatever), but you can't go and argue or insinuate that this is like single races to four (it isn't), or that it is remotely close to flipping coins (it isn't), or that it does a worse job of picking the better player than races to 9 does (it doesn't). You are entitled to having personal preferences, but you are not entitled to being able to make stuff up that flies in the face of the evidence.
yes I can read. Your sarcasm detector needs replacing. On the pessimist side, people will lose interest once the novelty wears off. Coin flipping could actually become a thing though.
Thank you
You're not wrong often, but you are wrong here (that no one will miss you if you're not there). I was in Arizona, and I really thought you would be giddy back-flip excited about this development for pool. I thought about you several times during the event. But OK, I appreciate the time you take to explain.
On the seeding issue, there are very few opportunities to get the World's or the country's best players together that I don't want to squander them. Some big tournaments have people invited into a particular stage and opportunities for others to qualify a day or two earlier. I see seeding as sort of the efficient version of this. At the last Diamond Las Vegas Open, (equivalent of event 2 of US Pro Billiard series coming up), Skylar Woodward went 3 & out even though a third of the 125-player field was under 700. He lost 5-7 to Jayson Shaw and 6-7 to Carlo Biado with a 7-1 win to a lesser player in between. That just doesn't feel right to me.
And look at the year before. SVB, Aranas, Naoyuki Oi, Gomez, Appleton, Biado, and Hohmann all lost first round. While it may be true you are a little more likely to draw them out of the gate with seeding, That is at least somewhat balanced by being less likely to meet them early on the B side.
Yes, you are right , and yes it could be an anomaly. My guess, though, is that 9 is more right than 7 and even more right than 8.
There will be results of 200 or so more matches in a couple weeks, and we can see how those turn out.
There is another independent way to look at it. The shootouts are not sudden death. They themselves are a race to 4 with a chance to tie in the final attempt. With a tie, it goes to sudden death. So they are somewhat substantial. Putting aside the potential objection that they are a specific skill that may or may not be tracked well by Fargo Ratings, it is interesting to wonder how "coin flippy" they are.
That is, suppose Filler gets to a shootout with Tin Man. Filler would feel like the favorite whether they are playing a shootout or a third set. But I wonder what he'd prefer given a choice between a shootout and a set of length N. If N=1, I'm confident Filler would prefer the shootout. If N=2, I'm pretty confident he would prefer the shootout. At 3,4,5, I'm not sure. Here is why this is relevant.
Let's say the shootout is equivalent in this sense to playing a third race to 4 as a tiebreaker. Under these circumstances, we can compute what straight race this match is equivalent to.
Pick any rating difference and compute the chance of winning a race to 4. For example, at 71 points it is 0.251
Then list all the ways the weaker player can win the match and add up their probabilities.
There are 3 ways
WW --- 0.251 X 0.251
WLW --- 0.251 X 0.749 X 0.251
LWW --- 0.749 X 0.251 X 0.215
You get 0.157 (15.7%)
Now go to the APP and see for what race length the "upset percentage" is closest to this for a 71-point gap
race to 7 18.4%
race to 8 16.7%
race to 9 15.3%
race to 10 14.0%
You find it is a race to 9. So if the shootout acts like a third race to 4, then 9 is the answer.
If it acts like a race to 3, then 8 is the answer
If it acts like a race to 2, then 7 is the answer.
I posed the Filler dilemma question to a few people who had been watching the shootouts, and 4 was the most common answer--that a shootout might not be far off from a race to 4. Then the number of actual match upsets fit with that as well.
Again, we'll know more after the next (128 player) tournament.
Yes.
Not directly relevant but a small clarification. The shot is not a spot shot. The object ball goes in the position the 10-ball is in when racked
Lol. Maybe you don't show up at all ! You just give your ' Stalker ' rating to theRaces to 4 make it more exciting.
Races to 4 can JAM in everything into a couple of days. Because everyone has other things to do.
Pretty soon it will evolve into a more simpler form.........THE RACE TO ONE!
Then, to make it fairer for everyone, the players will just flip a quarter for the match.
TD !
Thank you Mike! I appreciate being thought of!
The only reason I haven't been more giddy with excitement is that I haven't been following this much. I honestly didn't know about this tournament series until this post.
As for Arizona, one major problem I've been having with pool tournaments is a lack of notice. My pool bootcamps schedule 3 months out typically. I often don't find out about tournaments until 4-6 weeks ahead of time. At that point my calendar is already filled in and I have to shrug and miss out. I can't tell you how many times someone has texted me a picture of a flyer to a tournament I would've loved to have played if I had been given more notice.
Josh gave me a solution that I've been trying out: I reserve a weekend every month on my calendar as a 'just in case' slot. If a tournament happens to fall on that weekend then I have that opening available. If not I'll try to get into some action or something. So far this has worked out well. The US Open fell in that open slot so I am going to play next month. And this OH tournament falls in my open October slot, so I feel like I ought to thank the stars it lined up and fire my shot.
In fact I probably will play this event. I am talking with Josh now. I have one more thing to check but I think we're going to fire. I may not like every part of it but it is non-handicapped (except for the seeding) big table pool in the US and it lands on my calendar. That is good enough for me.
As for the seeding, you mentioned Sky getting broomed out because of a tough draw. You said that wouldn't feel right. Well, it doesn't feel any better when it happens to me. And it will happen to me much more often with the seeding than to Sky without. Whatever. I am a purist and just like knowing everyone has the same opportunity out of the gate. I can cope. But my last US Open was seeded and I got broomed to the B side by playing Kaci right away. Sometimes it feels like it makes it a single elimination tournament for me. But I can quit whining and just try to outrun the nuts. That's what I'm there for...
Thanks Mike!
Just another way of handicapping the Pro's so the amateurs have a chance to win some cash, and get their thrills playing the Pro's.
Reminds me of Butterbean in boxing, KING OF THE 4 ROUNDERS!
Reminds me of Butterbean in boxing, KING OF THE 4 ROUNDERS!
Pro events should have a 775 minimum FR requirement to even be considered to play in, should have longer races, and single elimination format, and no more than 32 players per event. Should be fully funded, enrey fee exempt, and players should at least have their travel expenses covered with a first round loss.