"Split and split?" (New Term? Opinions on Splitting?)

[DieselPete]

Two topics in one.

TOPIC ONE:

Did I coin a new term for the finalists agreeing to share the title and money and not play the final match?

"Split and split?" being the offer to 1) split the money, and 2) get the heck outta here (let's split), typically because it is late at night.

The act of agreeing to split is an old one, but until I said it, I have never heard anyone say "Split and split?" or "You wanna split and split?" or "It was close to 2:00 am, and they had work in the morning, so they split and split."

TOPIC TWO:

What do you think of players agreeing to split?

For a long time I wasn't a fan, but I have softened and arrived at this opinion...

For multi-day, or weekend tournaments with real money on the line, the players should play it out.

For weeknight tournaments that go late into the night, with prize money that is not much more than a nice dinner out or enough to pay to fill your gas tank, and most of the players that are eliminated have left and there is no audience that cares about the outcome, the players are entitled to split and split.

 

[rexus31]

You have too much time on your hands.

 

[DieselPete]

You have too much time on your hands.

You understand that you have wandered onto a discussion board regarding billiards, right? Where people use a little free time to post thoughts and questions about billiards?

 

[Island Drive]

Personally I think all two day events should begin late Friday night, end early Sat evening, not hurting the pool room owners regulars, who pay the rent. It also will give those Sat night regulars/players tables, and something to watch.

 

[iusedtoberich]

It's just one "split". You don't need the second "split". If the prize fund is split, that also means the title is split. In the bracket it shows both players with 1st place. DigitalPool even has a dropdown to select "split" for the final match. In the old paper bracket way, the TD would have wrote "split" or 1st 1st for both players.

 

[DieselPete]

It's just one "split". You don't need the second "split". If the prize fund is split, that also means the title is split.

I know all that. The second split (meaning to get the heck outta here) is not necessary. I just thought it was amusing.

 

[Island Drive]

Just call it an S&S....

 

[Biloxi Boy]

Chop it up

 

[iusedtoberich]

I know all that. The second split (meaning to get the heck outta here) is not necessary. I just thought it was amusing.

Ahhh! I totally missed that was the meaning of the second split! Yeah, I like that.

 

[nataddrho]

 

[Crasher]

It’s a chop… there’s always somebody trying to re-invent the wheel.

 

[CajunPopeye]

not hurting the pool room owners regulars, who pay the rent. It also will give those Sat night regulars/players tables, and something to watch.

One place I shoot at, these are the same folks. Small city, 10k population.

 

[sjm]

What do you think of players agreeing to split?

Can't stand it for two reasons.

1. It shortchanges the provider of the added money
Somebody has put up money to stage an event and has a right to expect that event to produce a measurable amount of entertainment for anybody who chooses to watch. Splitting in the final shortchanges both the sponsor and the fans. Of course, the examples of top players ignoring the interests of sponsors and fans are countless and have and will always continue to devalue the pool product.

2. Players who forego playing for titles don't develop as well as they might
Reaching one's potential as a player requires getting comfortable with maximum pressure situations, and opting not to play a final gets in the way of such development.

One time, in about 2002, I reached the final of an event in New Jersey and my opponent was, somewhat improbably, the person who was going to drive me home. I was asked to split and refused, offering that "even if it means losing my ride home" I want to play this out. I won, still got my ride home, and there were no hard feelings. I knew that it was by playing in finals that my game would best develop.

Especially at a time when the competitive pedigree of American pool players is in decline relative to their foreign counterparts, I hate seeing finals foregone. Yes, I get it if it's very late and tomorrow's a workday, but event producers must ensure that it doesn't come to that and, if they do not, it's on them.

 

[DieselPete]

Can't stand it for two reasons.

1. It shortchanges the provider of the added money
Somebody has put up money to stage an event and has a right to expect that event to produce a measurable amount of entertainment for anybody who chooses to watch. Splitting in the final shortchanges both the sponsor and the fans. Of course, the examples of top players ignoring the interests of sponsors and fans are countless and have and will always continue to devalue the pool product.

2. Players who forego playing for titles don't develop as well as they might
Reaching one's potential as a player requires getting comfortable with maximum pressure situations, and opting not to play a final gets in the way of such development.

One time, in about 2002, I reached the final of an event in New Jersey and my opponent was, somewhat improbably, the person who was going to drive me home. I was asked to split and refused, offering that "even if it means losing my ride home" I want to play this out. I won, still got my ride home, and there were no hard feelings. I knew that it was by playing in finals that my game would best develop.

Especially at a time when the competitive pedigree of American pool players is in decline relative to their foreign counterparts, I hate seeing finals foregone. Yes, I get it if it's very late and tomorrow's a workday, but event producers must ensure that it doesn't come to that and, if they do not, it's on them.

I'm glad you responded.

Funny thing is that when I solicited opinions on this, your's was one of several that I wanted to hear.

I didn't lead with this because I didn't want this thread to sound like a backdoor brag, but I won/split a small tournament recently and it was my first time ever splitting. The circumstance was that it was a weeknight, small field, no money added, getting late, and the money difference between first and second was nothing that would raise anyone's heart rate.

With that said...

I am on the same page as you to your first point. I described the tournaments that I think have to play it out as the multi-day, weekend tournaments with more significant prize money. You are adding the situation in which there is money added, which I agree makes finishing even more necessary. I also think those are the tournaments in which there are spectators and other interested parties that are shortchanged if there is no final. I do and have always believed those need to be played to a conclusion.

As to your second point, even though I did a split, I think I am tending to agree with you and will take this into consideration if the situation arises again. Even though the money didn't matter, "outcomes" do matter. At some point we (I) probably should consider the binary stake of answering the question, "Did you WIN a pool tournament or did you NOT win a pool tournament?" That is what we could have played for, and while the money would not raise my heart rate, maybe answering that binary question would, and that could be good for my (or anyone's) development.

Appreciate your thoughts.

 

[straightline]

I know all that. The second split (meaning to get the heck outta here) is not necessary. I just thought it was amusing.

You gotta show up to get the check. Time was - 70s/80s? when people talked freely about it. I forget the term but they would tackle the flowchart in teams. Nobody said dump but the winners circle was a function of the "split". At least that's the impression given.