Single Elimination vs Double Elimination in pro pool

insidesp.in

insidesp.in

Member
I put a little something together after hearing a few of the arguments FOR and AGAINST single elimination. Some of the arguments for it, "The first 2 days of the tournament is pointless, all the pros crush the amateurs" and "The pros are spending more money to stay longer for tournaments. Some of the arguments against single elimination, well obviously you have 1 bad match and you're out. And the field is effectively cut in half eliminated a good % of prize money.

As an example, Florida open was 256 players double elim, SVB won 40k for first. AZ Open was 128 players, Grabe won 25k for first. 225k payout vs 125k payout. Obviously the money is the major concern. Each player is probably spending an extra $500 in travel expenses to stay 2 extra days.

Currently, I am against single elim, and here are a few others that might be against it as well:

There are tons of players that lost in the first/second round of matchroom events that went on to cash and in some cases won the event. I think they might have something to say about it.

In my opinion, I would have the first 2 rounds be all amateurs that play their way into a seeded bracket that starts 2 days later. This way you still get the amateurs, and the pros can save some money on hotels and food. Sure you might lose some amateurs because some are there to play a pro, but you might gain some that now know they arent showing up to get blown out by a pro.

Curious if I am missing some major glaring reason why single elimination is a good idea?
 
insidesp.in said:
I put a little something together after hearing a few of the arguments FOR and AGAINST single elimination. Some of the arguments for it, "The first 2 days of the tournament is pointless, all the pros crush the amateurs" and "The pros are spending more money to stay longer for tournaments. Some of the arguments against single elimination, well obviously you have 1 bad match and you're out. And the field is effectively cut in half eliminated a good % of prize money.

As an example, Florida open was 256 players double elim, SVB won 40k for first. AZ Open was 128 players, Grabe won 25k for first. 225k payout vs 125k payout. Obviously the money is the major concern. Each player is probably spending an extra $500 in travel expenses to stay 2 extra days.

Currently, I am against single elim, and here are a few others that might be against it as well:

There are tons of players that lost in the first/second round of matchroom events that went on to cash and in some cases won the event. I think they might have something to say about it.

In my opinion, I would have the first 2 rounds be all amateurs that play their way into a seeded bracket that starts 2 days later. This way you still get the amateurs, and the pros can save some money on hotels and food. Sure you might lose some amateurs because some are there to play a pro, but you might gain some that now know they arent showing up to get blown out by a pro.

Curious if I am missing some major glaring reason why single elimination is a good idea?
Click to expand...
I see pros and cons to both, but I will NEVER advocate for the events to cater to anyone. To me, an "open" tournament should mean everyone pays the same entry and has the same opportunity. I don't even like players being seeded, although I understand why they do it.
 
insidesp.in said:
I put a little something together after hearing a few of the arguments FOR and AGAINST single elimination. Some of the arguments for it, "The first 2 days of the tournament is pointless, all the pros crush the amateurs" and "The pros are spending more money to stay longer for tournaments. Some of the arguments against single elimination, well obviously you have 1 bad match and you're out. And the field is effectively cut in half eliminated a good % of prize money.

As an example, Florida open was 256 players double elim, SVB won 40k for first. AZ Open was 128 players, Grabe won 25k for first. 225k payout vs 125k payout. Obviously the money is the major concern. Each player is probably spending an extra $500 in travel expenses to stay 2 extra days.

Currently, I am against single elim, and here are a few others that might be against it as well:

There are tons of players that lost in the first/second round of matchroom events that went on to cash and in some cases won the event. I think they might have something to say about it.

In my opinion, I would have the first 2 rounds be all amateurs that play their way into a seeded bracket that starts 2 days later. This way you still get the amateurs, and the pros can save some money on hotels and food. Sure you might lose some amateurs because some are there to play a pro, but you might gain some that now know they arent showing up to get blown out by a pro.

Curious if I am missing some major glaring reason why single elimination is a good idea?
Click to expand...
A reasonable argument here, but the one bad match and you're out part of your argument is nearly as applicable to the new format at WNT majors, which is 128 qualifiers. Failures by the 50 best players in the field to reach the round of 128 are so far and few between that there's little difference from single elimination with 128 entrants.

I think the bigger issue is four days vs six. In a six-day event, you cannot ask the amateurs to play two extra rounds unless their entry fee is quite a bit lower than that of the pros, and I cannot imagine that happening.

Player economics are a little easier for a four-day event, but lesser payouts can reduce field quality. Another issue is player attendance. While this did not happen in Arizona because of favorable geography and timing, it did happen in 2025 when the Hanoi Open in October was followed a week later by the WNT Philippines Open. Nearly all the Europeans that played Hanoi skipped the Philippines event, which ultimately had a field that was 80% Asian. Hence, while we got an elite field for the single elimination Arizona Open, I'm not convinced that the most elite pros will consistently show up for single elimination events.

Of equal importance is event producer economics. Can Matchroom make the business model work as easily when pledging fewer room night s to potential venue sponsors? Honestly, I have no idea, but this issue matters a lot.

In short, this is no easy topic, but my sense of things is that the top players are less likely to support single elimination events than double elimination events.
 
All I know is the year the super billiards expo pro event went single elimination it was the smallest field I ever saw. Hard to get anyone to travel for an event with the costs knowing that if they lose one match early they are out.
 
sjm said:
... In short, this is no easy topic, but my sense of things is that the top players are less likely to support single elimination events than double elimination events.
Click to expand...
If a four-day single elimination event pays the same as a six-day double/single, I think the pros will prefer it. On average they will make the same in prizes and spend less on travel. Right now the SE events pay less.

SE is also less costly to produce and likely generates as much useful content.

I think we can say goodbye to true double elimination. Thank the Lord.
 
Bob Jewett said:
If a four-day single elimination event pays the same as a six-day double/single, I think the pros will prefer it. On average they will make the same in prizes and spend less on travel. Right now the SE events pay less.

SE is also less costly to produce and likely generates as much useful content.

I think we can say goodbye to true double elimination. Thank the Lord.
Click to expand...
how do you make a 4 day SE event pay the same when you cut out half the prize fund by limiting the field?
 
Matchroom isn’t going to all single elimination. They are just adding variety. As sjm pointed out, almost all the top 50-60 players make it to the round of 64 in a single elimination tournament with 128 players. I think there were only two or three upsets in the Arizona and Philippines opens.

The reason so many Euros skipped the Philippines was because the Qatar Open was starting a few days later. More might have shown up otherwise, but probably not the usual number.

My guess is WNT will add another 128-player event next year in Europe, perhaps before the European Open.
 
as a viewer I get the argument for the smaller field and less meaningless matches. I'd imagine if I was pro, I'd prefer double elimination. With winner breaks you can lose a match without having much of a chance. Can't see why people would take the risk flying half way round the world to play in a winner breaks single elimination tournament. If they want the single elimination tournaments for more variety maybe the should also make them alternate break tournaments and keep the double elimination as winner breaks.

Don't buy the argument the shorter tournament is less expenses for the pro when they are deliberately having a run of tournaments closer together. Are many of the European/Asian players really flying back home between Florida, Yuma, Phoenix and the U.S Open?
 
jbart65 said:
Matchroom isn’t going to all single elimination. They are just adding variety. As sjm pointed out, almost all the top 50-60 players make it to the round of 64 in a single elimination tournament with 128 players. I think there were only two or three upsets in the Arizona and Philippines opens.

The reason so many Euros skipped the Philippines was because the Qatar Open was starting a few days later. More might have shown up otherwise, but probably not the usual number.

My guess is WNT will add another 128-player event next year in Europe, perhaps before the European Open.
Click to expand...

There were 9 upsets in the first 2 rounds of the Arizona
 
Last edited:
insidesp.in said:
There were 9 upsets in the first 2 rounds of the Arizona
Click to expand...
My statement about two or three upsets in Arizona referred to the first round, when 128 players were reduced to 64. So your count of 9 upsets in the first two rounds does not apply in regard to my original statement.

It's also a mistake to go by Fargo ratings alone. Eye test and recent results/form are telling, too.

For example, Marc Bijsterbosch has been very erratic the past few years and not nearly as good as his Fargo suggests. If I recall correctly, his Fargo has fallen lately. Shuff, on the other hand, has improve steadily the past few years and of course was playing on native soil. He had home-court advantage, so to speak, and little wear and tear from travel to the U.S.
'
In my view, the only real upsets in Arizona in the first round were:

1)Wiktor Zielinski (831) losing to a fast-improving Walter Laikre (754)
2)Max Lechner (817) losing to Johnny Archer (750)
3)Eklent Kaci (830) losing to Sun Yi Hsuan (778)

Other matches that you might consider an upset, but I don't:

Omar Al Shaheen (789) losing to Andri Januarta (774)
Marc Bijisterbosch (785) losing to Brandon Shuff (756)
Dimitris Loukatos (777) losing to Lin Ta Li (705)

Also, Vitaly Patsura was a no-show vs Michael Bundy.
 
In the second round of the Arizona Open, the only upsets to me were:

Nicholas Tan beating FSR
Nathan Childress beating Moritz Neuhausen
Pijus Labutis losing to Hunter Lombardo
 
In the 2025 Philippines Open, the only really big upsets in the round of 128 were:

Paul John Ladao (806, low robustness) beating Denis Grabe (810)
Yves Cabrito (809, low robustness) beating Johann Chua (840)
Eric Navarette (Fargo 800-plus? low robustness) beating Duong Quoc Hoang (832)

Other notable results:

Bryant Saguiped (776) beating Billy Thorpe (779)
Mark Jerick Leyva (808, low robustness) beating Lee Van Corteza (819)

In all these cases, Pinoys with 800 Fargos playing on home soil beat bigger-name players. No surprise given the talent pool in the Philippines.

A few caveats: Billy Thorpe was sick as a dog before his loss.

Chua and Hoang, for their part, had played in the Peri and Hanoi opens and the Reyes Cup before the Philippines Open. They were dog tired.

Aloysius Yapp, who played in all the same events before the Philippines Open, skipped the event and wrote on Facebook that he was exhausted.
 
jbart65 said:
In the 2025 Philippines Open, the only really big upsets in the round of 128 were:

Paul John Ladao (806, low robustness) beating Denis Grabe (810)
Yves Cabrito (809, low robustness) beating Johann Chua (840)
Eric Navarette (Fargo 800-plus? low robustness) beating Duong Quoc Hoang (832)

Other notable results:

Bryant Saguiped (776) beating Billy Thorpe (779)
Mark Jerick Leyva (808, low robustness) beating Lee Van Corteza (819)

In all these cases, Pinoys with 800 Fargos playing on home soil beat bigger-name players. No surprise given the talent pool in the Philippines.

A few caveats: Billy Thorpe was sick as a dog before his loss.

Chua and Hoang, for their part, had played in the Peri and Hanoi opens and the Reyes Cup before the Philippines Open. They were dog tired.

Aloysius Yapp, who played in all the same events before the Philippines Open, skipped the event and wrote on Facebook that he was exhausted.
Click to expand...

Your definition of upset is different than mine. It sounds like you are basing your definition on emotion or personal opinion.

I base it off the numbers.

You can filter the bracket down to just Round 1 and just upsets. Those are the ones that I consider upsets.
 
Last edited:
insidesp.in said:
Andri Januarta beat Omar Al Shaheen
Walter Laikre beat Viktor Zalinski
Casper Matikainen beat Oliver Szolnoki
Click to expand...
Andri Januarta and Wiktor Zielinski lost in the first round, to be clear. I already counted those as two of what I consider the "three" real upsets in round 1 in Arizona. We are in agreement on that.

Not sure if you were suggesting they were second-round matches.

I also don't consider Casper Matikainen (Fargo 798) beating Szolnoki (824) a clear upset despite the Fargo difference. Matikainen won the Predator European 9-ball Championship last year and looked great. The two players also played a tight thriller last year that Szolnoki won.

insidesp.in said:
But im not going to argue back and forth with you over what you personally consider an upset. Im going by the numbers.
Click to expand...
Of course you were going by the numbers. A respectable if robotic approach, but not imo the best way to judge these things. Ultimately some subjectivity is necessary, and judgments will differ, as ours clearly do.

You are right. No sense in arguing about it. By the numbers you are wholly correct, but the numbers never tell the whole story in any walk of life.
 
Last edited:
insidesp.in said:
Your definition of upset is different than mine. It sounds like you are basing your definition on emotion or personal opinion.
Click to expand...
No emotion involved at all. Just a lot of pool watching and evaluating players based on what I see. It's a fluid sport, as all sports are.

As such, yes, some personal judgment is involved. Frankly, I wouldn't trust any evaluation that didn't take into account watching the players a lot. They rise and fall, get better or worse, improve or degrade over time.
insidesp.in said:
I base it off the numbers.
Click to expand...
Again, a respectable if flawed approach. Playing pool or any sport is not mechanical. Some judgment is required - an approach that also has flaws.

Best in my view to combine two, and in that case, people will always disagree. No rating system is ever perfect.

Margin of error also comes into play. At what point does Fargo indicate clear separation of players? Three points? Five? 10? 15? What about robustness, too, or experience (or lack thereof).
 
Already an upset in the US Open!

1787688308452.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top