Races to 4 for the pro's???

realkingcobra said:
That's the problem, there is NO PROFESSIONAL POOL IN AMERICA, what you do have however, is a bunch of amateurs that INSIST they have a right to play against the PROS, and how dare ANYONE suggest otherwise!
Click to expand...

I don’t think any player is “insisting” anything.

You look at your schedule, your wallet, and what any given tournament offers and you decide to play, or not. Depending on the event, like a US Open, there will be a lot of pros. Maybe in another like a regional event or seniors, there will be a few. In any case you pays your money and you takes your chances. But no one is insisting on playing with pros.

Lou Figueroa
 
Maniac said:
The top pros in golf never have to pay a dime out of their pockets to play in a tournament. That's why you see so many patches/logos sewn onto their shirts and hats.

Sponsorship.....the real difference between pool and other professional sports.
Click to expand...
Because they are on TV. Without exposure sponsors will not pay.
 
lfigueroa said:
I don’t think any player is “insisting” anything.

You look at your schedule, your wallet, and what any given tournament offers and you decide to play, or not. Depending on the event, like a US Open, there will be a lot of pros. Maybe in another like a regional event or seniors, there will be a few. In any case you pays your money and you takes your chances. But no one is insisting on playing with pros.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
And without the Pros, do you think the US Open 9B event still gets promoted on PPV??
 
lfigueroa said:
I don’t think any player is “insisting” anything.

You look at your schedule, your wallet, and what any given tournament offers and you decide to play, or not. Depending on the event, like a US Open, there will be a lot of pros. Maybe in another like a regional event or seniors, there will be a few. In any case you pays your money and you takes your chances. But no one is insisting on playing with pros.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
I guarantee you, if there was a major PRO event taking place at the same time the US Open was scheduled, which could take in the top 128 Pros in the world, with ALL walking away with money....the US Open 9B event would crash, why would that happen?
 
lfigueroa said:
And this is going to happen how?

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
I'll say this, who ever brings in the sponsors, pulls together the Pros. Who ever pulls together the Pros controls the viewing audience. Therefore, who ever controls the head of the snake, controls the body of the snake as well.

You must organize pool from the TOP down, NOT from the BOTTOM up!!!
 
mikepage said:
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
Click to expand...
That makes a big difference imo. Unless you use cte aiming..... Joking! Or am I?
 
realkingcobra said:
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.
Click to expand...
Instead of an arbitrary Fargo rate why not have qualifiers and thus only those who have earned their way in get to play.

Would suck to not be allowed to play because the algorithm made someone a 774 today.
 
For those who didn't like the Diamond Open format, check out the Predator 10-ball Championship. These two tournaments are held back to back, but have different formats and rules. Two stages with a random re-draw at top 32 or 16. 1st stage is double elimination, race to 8. Strict WSR rules. 10-ball comes back up on the break, and treated as a regular ball. Pattern racking is not allowed.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I like this post.
On a personal level, the shootout format makes me yawn. I like race to four, best 2 out of 3 sets.
 
mikepage said:
... 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.
...
Click to expand...
We are unlikely to get meaningful statistics from this series, but my feeling is that the shootout is more like a single game. It is about the same number of shots or slightly more and it tests few skills. I doubt that best of three shootouts would be the same (wheat/chaff-wise) as best of three races to four.
 
make it so others can win rather than the top five or so taking down all the money. this way you build the pool of players and create excitement. that brings in more viewers and more money. it doesnt happen over night so you have to suffer through some tournaments that a non big name actually wins it.
 
maha said:
make it so others can win rather than the top five or so taking down all the money. this way you build the pool of players and create excitement. that brings in more viewers and more money. it doesnt happen over night so you have to suffer through some tournaments that a non big name actually wins it.
Click to expand...
That depends on your funding model. If you plan to get nearly all of the prize fund from entry fees, then maybe a coin flip match is interesting. If most of your prize fund is effectively from advertising and the corresponding viewership, then I think it is better to get rid of the chaff in the early rounds so there are lots of high-quality matches to watch for most of the event.

I think it is better to move away from player-donated prize funds.

Matchroom has said their plan is to eventually have a $0 entry fee for the US Open.
 
A mix of both is good. I think the "majors" (which for sure includes the World Championship and the US Open) should be race to 9 minimum (DE) with longer SE races and should be brutal. Minor tournaments with shorter races that give lesser players an opportunity to walk in the sun can only be good for the game too and broaden its appeal on TV - the biggest events as a marathon and the smaller events little and often as a TV reminder to the casual audience. This has worked in snooker where the days of a race to 80 are long gone.
 
sponsors dry up quickly when ratings go down. player fees stay the same, as the players play for other reasons than the sponsors pay for.

i might be wrong but i think watching unknown or lesser known players trying to defeat the greats makes for good drama. just watching the top handful compete over and over might be fine for the diehard players, but for the average person who tends to be the ones with money, want drama.

having large entry fees with a format that most entrants can win or at least collect in brings in lots of new blood. which in turn brings in sponsors so it can have a multiplying effect.

compare it to poker tournaments which are more boring to watch and look at the prize pools and interest.
 
Charlie Hustle said:
Didnt read thru the entire thread, will someone please explain the shootout please
Click to expand...
if it's tied after 2 sets, they play a spot shot (cue ball in the kitchen) shootout- alternating with first to 4 made shots winning. I think after that they have to move the cueball back behind the first diamond and it becomes sudden death at that point
 
westcoast said:
if it's tied after 2 sets, they play a spot shot (cue ball in the kitchen) shootout- alternating with first to 4 made shots winning. I think after that they have to move the cueball back behind the first diamond and it becomes sudden death at that point
Click to expand...
In the current event, it's most makes out of four shots, not a race to 4. The cue ball alternates from side to side for each round of shots. If it's tied after 4 shots each, then they go to sudden death with the cue ball a diamond farther back. The object ball (10-ball) is where it would be in a rack of 10-Ball -- about 3.9" behind the foot spot.
 
a real "Best of 3 sets" to 4 is ok--- but this system sucks in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top