Ring Game Format?

Tom In Cincy

Tom In Cincy

AKA SactownTom
Silver Member
Please remember... this is just an idea. I am open to all comments and suggestions.

This is the format I am thinking about.. please I need feedback.. this is different that the common Ring Game formats. I borrowed some of the formats stuff from the world series of poker.

Also.. what about allowing woofing? I kinda like the idea of the players trying to shark each other... under these different circumstances...

Game. "Call shot 10 ball." "All ball Fouls" "Referreed";
No Jump cues, No Safties, All balls spot, Cue ball in the kitchen on a scratch.

4 tables, 4 or 5 players ($100/player)

Each player will be given Tokens (chips if you will) for their $100.

Player order will be determined after every 4 games.

They will play for 2 hours (or less if someone gets real hot and wins a lot of games in a row)

The first hour, it's $10/game, from then on it's $20/game. When it's down to two players, low man is 'all in'.

Each winner of each of 4 tables takes all his chips/tokens to the "Finals" table to play with the the other winners.

Each game is progressive. $25, $50, $100 ets. until there are only two players and then "All in" for the final two players.

Winner take all.



What would you change and please.. why would you change it?....


thanks in advance for your comments and suggestions..
 
How about each table winner in the preliminary round gets their basic entry fee back? They've earned it, and it doesn't cut in to the grand winner's prize too much. With that many players involved -- several tables of 4-5 players each -- I think a single winner take all is a little harsh. If you were talking about a regular event anyway, 'cuz regular events need regular players, and regular players need a slightly lower bar to occasionally reach...
 
1pocket said:
How about each table winner in the preliminary round gets their basic entry fee back? They've earned it, and it doesn't cut in to the grand winner's prize too much. With that many players involved -- several tables of 4-5 players each -- I think a single winner take all is a little harsh. If you were talking about a regular event anyway, 'cuz regular events need regular players, and regular players need a slightly lower bar to occasionally reach...
Click to expand...


Thanks... great idea.. I like it..
 
How about One Pocket?

You laugh, but I wonder if this could work:

One Pocket Ring Game Rules

1. The usual two corner pockets at the foot of the table are all that 'count'
2. Each incoming player gets the opposite corner from the one that the last player had -- for that inning.
3. If there are an odd number of players, your pocket would switch back and forth every time your turn came up to shoot!
4. The player that just finished their inning still has 'their' pocket until the next player gives up the table (thus getting credit for any balls that are accidentally or purposefully made in 'their' pocket when the player that follows them shoots).
5. Making 5 balls would win with three players (or spot the very first ball made by the first player to make one and go to 6) -- 4 balls would win with 4 players naturally -- 3 balls would win with 5 players (or spot the first ball made and go to 4).

Here's an idea that would allow players to benefit from a great safety/trap:
6. Each player gets one 'token', (special coin or chip), which they can spend only once each game, which entitles them to an extra inning to shoot again after the player that follows them shoots (just like a normal One Pocket game) -- to give them a chance to 'capitalize' on their safety . Naturally they would have to declare their intentions before they shoot the inning in which they play the safety/trap -- by placing the coin or token on the rail before they shoot. Once your token is played, you're simply stuck in the normal ring game mode, but if you see good killer safety when it's your turn to shoot, plunk down your token and lay down a trap...

Nah, what am I talking about -- why mess with a great game :) :) :)
 
1pocket said:
You laugh, but I wonder if this could work:

Nah, what am I talking about -- why mess with a great game :) :) :)
Click to expand...

Good idea... I think... I can barely remember my hole in a casual game... :(

I like your tag line.. keep the ideas coming..
 
I like the overall idea of this and I truly hope it becomes successful. But when a possibility of $1600 exists for a single player, there are a couple of things you might consider:

Do you have any provision for the ‘two brothers’ scenario? Where some players agree to team up on another to force him out. I don’t have a good answer for this other than maybe breaking thumbs.

And, do the rules change once the game comes down to two players, meaning safety play or BIH? I think I’d modify the rules for the last two players, allowing standard BIH rules.

I agree with 1pocket though, that winner take all is harsh. Maybe consider a first, second or even a third place.

Hope it goes well.
Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top