Single vs Double Elimination

[ineedaspot]

What is the rationale for double elimination at the pro level? Is it just tradition? Do any other serious pro sports use double elim?

At the amateur/semi-pro level, maybe it's good to encourage participation by ensuring that everyone gets two chances: you're not out if you play one bad match. But at the pro level, I don't see it. It does mitigate some luck because anyone can win a match of 9-ball. But if you go single elimination, you only have to schedule half as many matches, which means they the races can be twice as long (in theory).

Say, the US open, instead of race to 11 DE, you could do race to 19 SE, each match would really be a war in that case. Also, you could probably fit a SE tourney in a smaller venue (or more seating) due to less total matches and less simultaneous matches to schedule.

I guess there's still the luck of the draw issue, maybe there would have to be some kind of seeding for single elimination to work, so you don't get Efren playing Bustamante in the first round.

Still, I feel there's more excitement in the single elimination format. In DE, winner's side matches aren't as consequential because you don't get knocked out. No so for the loser's side of course, but if the "hot" players are on the winners side, the loser's side matches aren't the highlight. And you get issues related to the hot-seat player getting cold, etc.


On edit... I'm sure this has been discussed before, it came to mind due to recent discussions about SVB in the hot seat vs Alex P.

 

[CreeDo]

At pro levels, just as having a race is more sensible than having a single match... having two eliminations is more sensible than just one. As you said, in theory you can just double the race, but I think nobody considers that because it's too long for spectators. It might even be too long for players, 19 would seem tiresome.

As you said there's also the seeding but in a big money tournament, some equivalent of a Bustamante or Souquet or Hohmann will get knocked out. Somewhere there will be two worldbeaters stuck with each other.

 

[Bob Jewett]

What is the rationale for double elimination at the pro level? Is it just tradition? Do any other serious pro sports use double elim?

...

Tradition. A really, really bad tradition. As a player, there's little worse than getting bad rolls in your first match and looking at five matches to get into the money. And the waiting. DE was invented by sadists to use on sheep.

As you pointed out, the matches could be a lot longer with SE.

The only excuse for DE is that it gives every player at least two matches for their entry, but there are other formats (small round-robins then SE) that do a much better job of this.

Whoever invented double elimination should be shot.

 

[Danny Harriman]

If a tournament starts out Double elimination, it needs to stay double elimination all the way through untill the final match.

 

[BVal]

If a tournament starts out Double elimination, it needs to stay double elimination all the way through untill the final match.

I agree....

 

[CreeDo]

danny: yeah, that's the really important point here... you don't change the rules in the middle of anything, it's like changing the race in the middle of a set.

bob: I like round robin too. You don't have to sweat one loss so heavily and everyone gets to try everyone else, so it's fair. But ... isn't that format much longer? I guess it's more games for your buck but the overall length of the tournament would be huge.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... bob: I like round robin too. You don't have to sweat one loss so heavily and everyone gets to try everyone else, so it's fair. But ... isn't that format much longer?...

Generally, yes, but I was referring to a mixed system that is like the WC with groups at the start and then SE. With 64 players and lots of tables, you can do 16 groups of 4 and then SE with 32 in 8 rounds. DE takes 11 or 12 rounds. Or you can start with larger groups. Or, you can have SE with buybacks. There are lots of options, but too many people seem stuck on DE.

 

[JoeW]

I agree that RR with win/loss and point totals to break ties followed by SE seems to be the way to determine the best player. And that is what it should be about.

Hi Danny, Kay is a new follower of yours when she found out who you were after our trip to Maryland, she came home and watched you playing in FL on Youtube.

My wife is not easily impressed and you impressed her. Guess that makes you another pool ambassador

 

[jay helfert]

Tradition. A really, really bad tradition. As a player, there's little worse than getting bad rolls in your first match and looking at five matches to get into the money. And the waiting. DE was invented by sadists to use on sheep.

As you pointed out, the matches could be a lot longer with SE.

The only excuse for DE is that it gives every player at least two matches for their entry, but there are other formats (small round-robins then SE) that do a much better job of this.

Whoever invented double elimination should be shot.

Calm down Bob. Can't we all just play some Straight Pool?

Some facts about Double Elimination. For every match on the winner's side, you must win two matches on the loser's side to progress as far on the board. In most DE tournaments, a player needs to win two matches on the winner's side to get into the money. One win on the winners side, then a loss, and two wins on the losers side should do it.

For all you prospective tournament directors out there, here is how you figure out how many matches you must play in the entire tournament. In a Single Elimination event, subtract one from the total number of players and you have the total matches that must be played. So, for a 64 player chart there will be 63 matches from beginning to end.

In a DE tourney, double the number of players and subtract two for the total number of matches. For a 64 player chart, there will be 126 matches in total. For true DE, add one for 127 matches if the finals goes two sets.

Now that you know all this, I AGREE with that hot head Bob Jewett. I never liked DE, but saw the necessity for it when players came from a long distance to play. It gave them a second shot at the money if they lost in the first round or two. The only pro tour where DE is common is Beach Volleyball.

If there were ever a real pro tour with many events, then SE would and should be the norm. I personally would like to see the players play two out of three sets in a match. Something like Race To Seven in Ten Ball or Race To Nine in 9-Ball, two out of three sets, SE.

We tried it successfully in the Peter Vitalie Invitational in Los Angeles in 1987, and it worked quite well. We played two out of three sets, Race To Seven on VERY tough tables. The best players all got there. Buddy, Earl, Sigel and Efren were the final four. We started with 64 players and the first match was a money match. Win it and you got your entry fee back ($500). Second match was worth a grand.

Oh and one last thing. Whoever decided that the Eight Ball on the break was NOT a win should be shot, castrated and stoned with ivory billiard balls.

 

[pwd72s]

The college world series, now going on in Omaha, is a double elimination set-up. Believe me, in college baseball, this is as serious as it gets. Not pro, but very serious college playing. The Oregon State University Beavers are hoping to become the 5th team in the series history to win the national championship twice in a row. Little local prejudice here...GO BEAVERS!

 

[Arn]

I think if it starts out double it should be double the whole way through. Beat them twice on the hill and all. Races should stay the same length whole way through. Start out a race to 11 finish a race to 11. How many matches would change earlier in a tourney if the race was shorter???

 

[juegabillar]

Tradition. A really, really bad tradition. As a player, there's little worse than getting bad rolls in your first match and looking at five matches to get into the money. And the waiting. DE was invented by sadists to use on sheep.

As you pointed out, the matches could be a lot longer with SE.

The only excuse for DE is that it gives every player at least two matches for their entry, but there are other formats (small round-robins then SE) that do a much better job of this.

Whoever invented double elimination should be shot.

I favor the DE format. In 2005, Jason Cruz (2-time ACUI winner) lost his first match in our Panamerican Qualifier. He then won his 8 matches at the one loss side, and won twice against the player at the winners side. That day Jason played 11 matches. Grueling but satisfying for Jason since he earn a spot to compete in the Panamerican Championships held in Aruba.

At the Panamerican Games, Enrique Rojas from Chile, lost his first match, and then proceeded to win 10 matches to reach the hot seat. He eventually fell to Alan Rolon from Puerto Rico (Panam Champion 2004 and 2005) but won a spot to the World Championships. That year Enrique placed 65th in the WPC and won $1,000 for his effots.

These players would not have had any opportunity if these tournaments were single elimination format.

 

[FLICKit]

Double Elimination tournaments have their merits. Other formats have their merits as well.

The obvious first rationale for DE tournaments over SE, is that it minimizes the chances that the draw of the board, essentially decides the outcome. Worst case scenario, you could be put against the top/best player in the first round, then the 2nd best player in the next round, and then the 3rd best player in the 3rd round. Thus, if you're anywhere from the 4th through 12th best player or worse, then odds are extremely high that you'll get knocked out early. This is especially problematic or logically warped when it's not a winner take all payout. If the tournament pays multiple places, then there's no justice in the draw of the board giving you a tougher road to the money, than your skill level should dictate (i.e. 4th best player getting pitted against 1st through 3rd best players before the money round). So obviously double elimination format is an effective means for reducing the chances that the draw of the board, will have a significant effect on the money/prize awards.

In addition, SE tournament format would mean that many of the best matches would often occur long before the finals. For example, the best two players could get matched up in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ... (thus any round), even though the finals will be much further away. This significantly reduces the excitement and the audience participation. As an anology look at the negative impacts of non-compelling late matches in respects to the NBA. Many deemed that the 2006/2007 NBA champion would be crowned from the winner of the Spurs vs Suns matchup. Plus, add in any number of factors that can cause an overall stronger player to lose in the early rounds (i.e. not feeling well, like a migrane, or diarhea, Or just distracted...).

These are very strong rationales for DE tournaments over SE tournaments.

Don't get me wrong an occasional SE tournament with longer races, especially with winner takes all stakes, can have it's merits at times. But wouldn't recommend SE tournaments all the time.

Likewise, the early round robin format suggested by Bob Jewett has merits as well, and some of the aforementioned weaknesses too.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... These players would not have had any opportunity if these tournaments were single elimination format.

And that's why for major world events the standard is round robin of some sort for the preliminaries and SE for the main event. Perhaps you did not have enough tables to arrange it, but I think it is much, much better to have four or six or even eight players in pools to allow them even two losses (perhaps due to unfamiliar conditions) and still have a chance to advance.