No bet!!!
Races to 4 for the pro's???
- Thread starter mikepage
- Start date
Now that it's all done, is it obvious that this type of format gives a better chance for the players that are not the top players of the tournament to win? Is that a good thing? Bad thing? Maybe for the Series, it's a good thing. For more prestigious tournaments, I think this isn't the right thing to do.
I wouldn't mind seeing something like tennis... Race to 6, 2 out of 3 sets. Each set tied at 5-5 gets the shootout.
I wouldn't mind seeing something like tennis... Race to 6, 2 out of 3 sets. Each set tied at 5-5 gets the shootout.
I'm not a world beater... or even a neighborhood beater for that matter... but the format is lesser then the Amateur Open at the Expo. AmOpen is 2 races to 5 with a 3rd race to 5 if you split. I really don't think Pro's should be shooting in a lesser format, regardless of how you spin it.
something_pool
Registered
IMO it's a bad thing. A lot of people in this thread are saying it's a good thing because it increases drama. My view is that if a sport's championship events don't actually discriminate between the great and good players, then what is the point of even having a championship? The top players should be winning the top events.
The "playoffs" should be part of prelim qualification rounds. Yeah that's right, testing, vetting if you will. Banks, line drills, speed drills, Dr Dave can lay it out. 
The scoring thereof will determine the actual seeding at which time they can commence real pool competition.
The scoring thereof will determine the actual seeding at which time they can commence real pool competition.
There have been several very successful 9-Ball tournaments that played two out of three sets, all races to seven. The Peter Vitalie tournament held in Los Angeles and the Resorts International held in Atlantic City are two of them that did well with this format. I was there and I can tell you it was a good test of who the best players were.
Last edited:
Can you elaborate on the point you find obvious? Is it a-priori obvious or obvious given the results we saw?
It is important when comparing to alternate formats to keep the total match time roughly constant. If someone prefers races to 5 or best of 3 races to 4, then those are apples to oranges because they require more time. That means either fewer players, a longer tournament, or more tables. Again, if we're comparing preferred FORMATS, then we should keep the match length roughly constant.
If you prefer longer matches, that is a separate issue. I'm not saying it is not a legitimate issue. It's just a different issue.
I'm not Freddie, nor do I speak for him but I can elaborate on this based on just my own experience.
I feel it is obvious that shorter races give the lesser player a bigger chance to win. When doing the 2 short race format, an especially with a single rack shoot-out, a player with less rack wins can still win the set.
Every single one of us that have been competitive in pool have been beaten by a lesser player in the situation where if you played longer you know you would win, whether its a short cheap set gambling, going to a bar and throwing quarters in a table just to lose to some random who got lucky, or playing short race weekly tournaments where a guy snapped a 9 and played a early 9 the following rack.
This is all compounded then when you add alternating breaks and in a tournament where the lesser players are still capable of amazing things and shooting better then I ever will in my lifetime. These lesser players still run out. Still play great position. Still play great safes... but the "greater" players are able to do that more consistently, more accurately, more often.
In my opinion (and keep in mind, that I am just a "nobody" in the world of pool that will not do anything in my lifetime to better the game or have my name remembered in it) it is "prior-obvious", considering all the amateur scenarios I mentioned above. The chances winning a super short race like a race to 4 with alternating breaks are greatly increased, then to have it just come to a single rack playoff... every one of us have been snapped off in a single rack by a lesser player...
I'm just a hack who is just likes the game and is no longer in love with it. Take my opinions with a grain of salt and read my disclaimer below.
Edit to add: Sorry, I didn't realize it was winner break, which makes the format a bit more absurd. Explained a few posts down.
Last edited:
For many years the 9-Ball matches at DCC were all races to seven. After years of player complaints it was finally increased to nine.
PracticeChampion
Well-known member
I liked it, I feel it added excitement and that's good. I know the top pros want a longer race, well cause it benefits them against the underdog and I get it but if they want a place to play and earn top dollar doing it then it needs to be exciting to draw in the people watching and more watching equals more sponsors which equals more money for all
Keep those long races on the cash game if they want. Those races to 120 or whatever I understand to point, it gives the people paying to watch and betting their money's worth so to speak but to me it's boring and takes to damn long and how many people actually have 3 days to stand around a pool room to watch it all.
Keep those long races on the cash game if they want. Those races to 120 or whatever I understand to point, it gives the people paying to watch and betting their money's worth so to speak but to me it's boring and takes to damn long and how many people actually have 3 days to stand around a pool room to watch it all.
All good points, and hard to argue. I'll add that the Diamond Las Vegas Open was not alternate break. I think that the format is great for non-championship events. Just like you said, it makes it easier for upsets to happen. SVB may still have the edge, but other really good players have a chance, and that's not always a bad thing. That was the Las Vegas Open, I wouldn't like that format for the World Championships.
Hell, I like 1 race to 7 over 2 races to 4 with a shootout even. If I had to match up with someone lesser skilled then myself (which I doubt there is on this planet) I would prefer the race to 7.
Ah, my fault. I thought it was alternating break... I really didn't watch much of it because of the short race format.
So what the hell was the point of having the short races if you didn't alternate the break?
Not sure. The 10 also counted on the break. I saw a guy run a set from the break, ending with a 10 ball break.
That's ridiculous...
Not talking the ability to do that... that's awesome and good for him...
I'm more talking about giving the player the likelihood of that happening. Longer set, people don't generally run the set out. Yes I know there are exceptions like Kaci's 8 pack at Freezers a couple years ago but that is an even more remarkable achievement then.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy when I break and run one rack on the ultra rare occasion that it happens, but I'm not playing on the world stage either. We see 4 packs regularly from there guys.
Really have no idea why they went with this format. Only logical reason I can think of is to differentiate it with the Pred Worlds that happened directly after it.