Shorter sets on loser's side?

Do you prefer shortened races on the loser's side?

  • Yes. I like shortened races on the loser's side.

    Votes: 20 23.5%

  • No. I like to play the same length sets on both sides.

    Votes: 51 60.0%

  • I don't care either way.

    Votes: 14 16.5%
  • Total voters
    85
Jimmy M.

Jimmy M.

Insomniac
Silver Member
I'm curious what the opinions are on shortened sets on the loser's side of a tournament.

Personally, if I make the decision to play in a tournament, then I want to have a chance to actually play; meaning, I don't want to play shortened races in the loser's side. If I wanted to hurry up and get out of there, I probably just wouldn't play at all because that would mean that I probably just didn't really feel like playing pool that weekend.

Of course, this is just my opinion, so I'm curious what the overall opinion is on this subject.
 
i like the shorter sets on the losers side because there are a lot more matches on the losers side and for them to keep up to the winners side the matches would have to be shorter.

It's nice to be on the winners side but it really sucks having to wait a hour or more for the losers side to catch up. Just my opinion. Of course if i'm on the losers side then I would want it to be longer. But you should know the race on both sides before you start and if you don't like the race to 2 or 3 on the losers side then don't play.
 
Jimmy M. said:
I'm curious what the opinions are on shortened sets on the loser's side of a tournament.

Personally, if I make the decision to play in a tournament, then I want to have a chance to actually play; meaning, I don't want to play shortened races in the loser's side. If I wanted to hurry up and get out of there, I probably just wouldn't play at all because that would mean that I probably just didn't really feel like playing pool that weekend.

Of course, this is just my opinion, so I'm curious what the overall opinion is on this subject.
Click to expand...
I like the idea of the same amount of games on both sides with an extended 1 set finals.

Congrats on the tourney this weekend as well Jimmy. I wish I could have made it but had a prior commitment that I could not break. Hopefully I can make the next one.

BVal
 
The way that I look at it is... the length of the sets, be it on the A or the B side, is dictated by the number of available tables, the number of players expected, and the number of days/hours available for the tournament to be played. Slightly shorter sets on the B side is pretty common.

To avoid the shorter sets, just don't lose. ;)
 
I HATE shorter races on the loser's side...but my complaint is because most of the tournies I play in, it's a race to 2 on the winners and a race to 1 on the losers....just too much that can happen with one game....one 8 Ball break, and you're done...doesn't allow you to actually PLAY.

And, especially with 8 Ball, it doesn't allow for you 'size' up your opponent with one game to play.

Besides, by making the winners' side sit and 'get cold', it tends to even the field a bit.

Lisa
 
I like it when they shorten the finals. What a fair way to decide the tournament! And getting rid of true double elimination format in the finals- truely brilliant. One longer set in the finals is a little better, but still sucks for the person who won the winners side.
As for your original question(sorry), I don't see a huge problem with shorter races on the losers side, as long as it isn't a whole lot shorter. Sometimes, wheather because of time constraints or what not, they have to shorten the races. I think the same race on both sides is the fairest, but I wouldn't complain too much if it was something like 9/7.
 
It's nice to have the same length races on the loser's side, but overall it's not that big of a deal. For some, if it makes that big of a difference, then simple solution - don't lose. Can use it as good extra incentive to win. The most common reason for not having same length races is simple logistics (time and maintaining tournament flow). This is especially true for larger tournaments.

If a slightly shortened race on the loser's side means that the late losers from the winner's side won't have a long wait before their next match (and same for hotseat winner), then by all means it's worth it. Keep the tournament flowing smoothly.
 
Hi Jimmy,

I liked the way you guys had it with the winners going to nine and the losers bracket going to eight this weekend. It just makes sense to me that the table time should be heavier for the winners bracket.

Congrats on your finish! I sweated your match with Bobby Ast yesterday. You were playing picture perfect against him. I wish I could have stayed and watched you play Scott! I saw him play Dennis and he sure looked tough. Looks like you held your own. Good show!

You and Dennis did a great job with your new Tour, and I look forward to attending the next tourney you hold in Phoenix. Might even have to drag down to Tucson for the next one...

Regards,

Steve Feld
 
Jimmy M. said:
I'm curious what the opinions are on shortened sets on the loser's side of a tournament.

Personally, if I make the decision to play in a tournament, then I want to have a chance to actually play; meaning, I don't want to play shortened races in the loser's side. If I wanted to hurry up and get out of there, I probably just wouldn't play at all because that would mean that I probably just didn't really feel like playing pool that weekend.

Of course, this is just my opinion, so I'm curious what the overall opinion is on this subject.
Click to expand...

I much prefer to have the same length races on both sides of the bracket, regardless of what type of tournament.

However, I realize that we sometimes have to play at locations that don't have quite enough tables to do this and have the tournament finish in a timely fashion. So I understand why the decision is made.

But all things being equal, I would always want the races to be the same. It seems that by shortening the races on the B side, the dynamic of the tournament is changed and you feel like you have to "hurry up" and win your match before you run out of games. Of course, maybe that's just the feeling I get when I play though. JMO.

Congratulations on your finish Jimmy.

Ray
 
BigCat said:
I much prefer to have the same length races on both sides of the bracket, regardless of what type of tournament.

However, I realize that we sometimes have to play at locations that don't have quite enough tables to do this and have the tournament finish in a timely fashion. So I understand why the decision is made.

But all things being equal, I would always want the races to be the same. It seems that by shortening the races on the B side, the dynamic of the tournament is changed and you feel like you have to "hurry up" and win your match before you run out of games. Of course, maybe that's just the feeling I get when I play though. JMO.

Congratulations on your finish Jimmy.

Ray
Click to expand...

Thanks, Ray.

Yeah, the shorter sets on the loser's side make you feel like you're playing in sudden-death overtime or something, not like you're actually playing in a double-elimination tournament. At least, that's how it makes me feel.
 
Would like equal races on both sides. Dont like to have to adjust to short races. I get in a rythm based on the length of the set and it can be thrown off by having to play a quick race
 
Look at the brackets

The losers side winner has to play substantially more sets than the winners side winner so it does make sense that the losers side has shorter races to keep the two sides somewhat closer together timewise. I don't really like it but I understand it. However, I don't think that the losers sets should ever be less than race to five in games like eight and nine ball.

Hu
 
OK....I will be honest. I like the shorter sets on the loser side because it gives me a better chance to advance. I play somewhere in the B range and I have beaten many high level players because we were only playing races to 7.

In smaller local tourneys I would much rather play longer loser bracket matches because it benefits me as I am usually one of the better players.
 
If the races on the losers side are the same as on the winner's side, the losers side will never catch up. Having the players on the winners side sitting around through 2 rounds to find out who they will be playing can make for an awfully long night. That is the main reason for the shorter races. Players, room owners and tournament directors all like to keep things moving.
Steve
 
cigardave said:
The way that I look at it is... the length of the sets, be it on the A or the B side, is dictated by the number of available tables, the number of players expected, and the number of days/hours available for the tournament to be played. Slightly shorter sets on the B side is pretty common.

To avoid the shorter sets, just don't lose. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, we usually race to 4 on the winners side and 3 on the losers when there's a big turnout, and 4 and 4 when there's not. It's a necessity.
 
acedotcom said:
Yeah, we usually race to 4 on the winners side and 3 on the losers when there's a big turnout, and 4 and 4 when there's not. It's a necessity.
Click to expand...
Weekly local 8 ball tourney I play in is similar. Winner's side race to 4, loser's side is to 3. It's double elim, and alternate break, so, no biggee....want longer races???...like someone else said, "Don't lose".
 
pooltchr said:
If the races on the losers side are the same as on the winner's side, the losers side will never catch up. Having the players on the winners side sitting around through 2 rounds to find out who they will be playing can make for an awfully long night. That is the main reason for the shorter races. Players, room owners and tournament directors all like to keep things moving.
Steve
Click to expand...

I am aware of the reasons for shortening the races on the loser's side, and why some room owners and some tournament directors prefer the shorter races. I am just asking people which they prefer, as players, if they had their choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top