The future of pool / perfect tournament structure?

[TheOne]

OK the British Open thread has rasied a few topics and got me thinking so I thought I would throw some ideas out there.

Double elimination has been raised as an issue and I have to agree that it has some major flaws. Last year I played in the Reno event and even though it was a great event I couldn't beleive how long it took. There was only 200 runners but it took about 5 days to get down to last 32! I didn't have high hopes to win the tournament so I had booked a flight to fly back to the UK a few days before the end. On the Friday night I was playing my match for a place in the last 32 knowing that if I won I would have to forfeit as I had to fly in the morning. I lost the match and got $150 prize money. I loved the event and it was my fault I booked my flight early, I just didn't know how inefficient these tournaments are. When you think about it the holy grail would be for tournament payouts be proportional to the length of stay. With maybe a fixed acceptable cost.

For example lets say that the fixed acceptable cost for a tournament is $200.
What I mean by this is that if you lose before making the cash this is the maximum amount your costs will be (room and entry). So for example:

Day 1: Out of Money, Fixed Costs = $200 (eg. room $100 + entry $100)
Day 2: Win at least $150 which covers extra room nights/expenses
Day 3: Win at least $300 which covers extra expenses
Etc..

All just simple numbers of course but the point I'm making is that it seems that pool has been looking to make its money from the PLAYERS which is all wrong. Lets make it affordable for the players so you will get more of the best players at more tournaments then maybe you will get a better end product that can then be sold (eg to spectators, TV, DVD etc...)

OK I am simplyfying it but 7 day tounraments, players meeting the day before, 4 days play to get in the money, making players pay Hilton Rates etc seems all wrong

 

[TheOne]

I would also like to see the following structure:

SMALL WEEKEND TOURNAMENTS

• Up to 32-128 runners
• Lose Day 1 no cash / fixed cost
• Make Day two you win cash at least enough to cover extra expenses

3-4 DAY TOURNAMENTS

• 128 or more Runners
• Larger prize money events
• Slightly larger fixed costs
• First two days small groups round robin format similar to WPC and EPBF
• Last two days single elimination and prize money more than enough to cover extra costs of stay

Also for both change players meeting to shortly before tournament begins and have plenty of added events like midnight mini's, etc.. One event that I would like to see would be a straight pool high run event. For this you simply have one table that is used for straight pool. You pay a small fee for a ticket and when your number is called out you step up to the table and have a turn to make a high run. You can buy has many tickets as you want and the highest run over the weekend takes the cash.

Now I am really dreaming but since we now have a few arguably "professional
pool tours" around the world (San Miguel, UPA, EPBF) and also a few country specific ones like in the UK, Japan, Taiwan etc wouldn't it be good to have some sort of standardised world ranking system. I think this may exist in some format but I'm not sure of its structure and effectivness. For example:

Country Tours (UK, Japan etc) = 1/2 regional tour points
Regional Tours (San Miguel, UPA, EPBF etc) = Same weight ranking points
Global Grand Slam events (WPC, US Open, BCA Open!?) = Double regional points

All events must be truly OPEN or have adequate qualifiers to earn ranking points.

 

[BlowFish]

Single elimination

Single elimination format is the way to go. Alternate Breaks.

Upto to last 16 Players
Race to 5, best of 3 Sets.

Upto Semis
Race to 5, best of 5 Sets.

Finals
Race to 7, best of 5 Sets.


For shorter matches:

Upto to last 16
Race to 3, best of 3 Sets.

Upto Semis
Race to 3, best of 5 Sets.

Finals
Race to 5, best of 5 Sets.

 

[Bobby]

I would also like to see the following structure:

SMALL WEEKEND TOURNAMENTS

• Up to 32-128 runners
• Lose Day 1 no cash / fixed cost
• Make Day two you win cash at least enough to cover extra expenses

3-4 DAY TOURNAMENTS

• 128 or more Runners
• Larger prize money events
• Slightly larger fixed costs
• First two days small groups round robin format similar to WPC and EPBF
• Last two days single elimination and prize money more than enough to cover extra costs of stay

Also for both change players meeting to shortly before tournament begins and have plenty of added events like midnight mini's, etc.. One event that I would like to see would be a straight pool high run event. For this you simply have one table that is used for straight pool. You pay a small fee for a ticket and when your number is called out you step up to the table and have a turn to make a high run. You can buy has many tickets as you want and the highest run over the weekend takes the cash.

Now I am really dreaming but since we now have a few arguably "professional
pool tours" around the world (San Miguel, UPA, EPBF) and also a few country specific ones like in the UK, Japan, Taiwan etc wouldn't it be good to have some sort of standardised world ranking system. I think this may exist in some format but I'm not sure of its structure and effectivness. For example:

Country Tours (UK, Japan etc) = 1/2 regional tour points
Regional Tours (San Miguel, UPA, EPBF etc) = Same weight ranking points
Global Grand Slam events (WPC, US Open, BCA Open!?) = Double regional points

All events must be truly OPEN or have adequate qualifiers to earn ranking points.

I love the idea of a prize for high run. If I ever
win the lottery for an obscene amount of money I
would hold a straight pool invitational for the 32
best players in the world. Single elimination, but
the games would be to something like 300 points with
a huge first prize and a big prize for high run of
the tournament. That ought to be incentive for these
guys to come up with some big runs.

I'd do something similiar for 9-ball. There's nothing
quite like watching Earl string 6 or 7 racks
together

 

[bruin70]

i like the 14.1 high run contest, but to make it worthwhile and get the best most effective contestants, you need big money. this will draw better players and interest into it.

have an entry fee because i don't want to watch some shmuckoe who ran 150 wasting my time. $15,000 with a $200-300 fee.

 

[BlowFish]

My guess.

I'd do something similiar for 9-ball. There's nothing
quite like watching Earl string 6 or 7 racks
together

I guess that would be at least Race to 11 and winners break?

 

[Bobby]

I guess that would be at least Race to 11 and winners break?

I was thinking something like a race to 15.

 

[macguy]

OK the British Open thread has rasied a few topics and got me thinking so I thought I would throw some ideas out there.

Double elimination has been raised as an issue and I have to agree that it has some major flaws. Last year I played in the Reno event and even though it was a great event I couldn't beleive how long it took. There was only 200 runners but it took about 5 days to get down to last 32! I didn't have high hopes to win the tournament so I had booked a flight to fly back to the UK a few days before the end. On the Friday night I was playing my match for a place in the last 32 knowing that if I won I would have to forfeit as I had to fly in the morning. I lost the match and got $150 prize money. I loved the event and it was my fault I booked my flight early, I just didn't know how inefficient these tournaments are. When you think about it the holy grail would be for tournament payouts be proportional to the length of stay. With maybe a fixed acceptable cost.

For example lets say that the fixed acceptable cost for a tournament is $200.
What I mean by this is that if you lose before making the cash this is the maximum amount your costs will be (room and entry). So for example:

Day 1: Out of Money, Fixed Costs = $200 (eg. room $100 + entry $100)
Day 2: Win at least $150 which covers extra room nights/expenses
Day 3: Win at least $300 which covers extra expenses
Etc..

All just simple numbers of course but the point I'm making is that it seems that pool has been looking to make its money from the PLAYERS which is all wrong. Lets make it affordable for the players so you will get more of the best players at more tournaments then maybe you will get a better end product that can then be sold (eg to spectators, TV, DVD etc...)

OK I am simplyfying it but 7 day tounraments, players meeting the day before, 4 days play to get in the money, making players pay Hilton Rates etc seems all wrong

Years ago they played tournaments that lasted a lot more then 5 days. I played in a Joe Burns tournament in Ohio in 1973 that was three weeks long. Johnston city I think was a few weeks.

 

[CaptainJR]

If it is single elimination, I don't participate. That is the only reason I don't go to Valley Forge. I understand what your saying TheOne, but there has to be another answer than single elimination. I'm simply not going to an event with the possibility of only playing one match. Regardless of how many sets are in that match.

You need to remember that without us two and out players, you don't have a tournament.

 

[vapoolplayer]

the way things stand right now.........there is a LITTLE added money in the pro tournaments, but there is ALOT of money that is coming from the entry fees.

with that said, consider that MOST of the bigger pro tournaments are OPEN events that anyone can play in.

so you have ALOT of players that know they don't stand a prayer to win this event, but they want to play so they can play pro's, gain experience, whatever.

now, take away the double elimination, and you'll find MOST of those players that were playing in it for the sake of playing will no longer play, because they don't want to spend 125, 300, or 500 bucks for an entry fee to play ONE match.

even in amatuer, or pro-am events, players know that they can pay 70 and still get to play AT LEAST two matches, make it single elimination and they won't think they are getting enough bang for their buck.

cut the tournaments down to single elimation, IMO you'll see the prize fund almost drop by half.

single elimination requires two things pool DOES NOT have right now........

enough pro players
enough money

VAP

 

[vapoolplayer]

i like the 14.1 high run contest, but to make it worthwhile and get the best most effective contestants, you need big money. this will draw better players and interest into it.

have an entry fee because i don't want to watch some shmuckoe who ran 150 wasting my time. $15,000 with a $200-300 fee.

where you gonna find the players or the money?

VAP

 

[TheOne]

I see what your saying about single elimination and I like the double elimination as a player. I also think that if they are honest most of the Pro's like it to, but to a certain extent I agree with gremlin and a few others about this. But if all the other sports and some of the best pool events can do it single elim then why can't it work.

Would you really rather spend 4-5 nights in a hotel in "The biggest little city in the word" to play two matches or would you rather play either a longer race or maybe even the short sets idea and get the hell out of there if you lose and go to more events with the savings you make? I'm not sure where I stand on this I'm just playing devils advocate and opening it up for debate. Personally I like the idea of 4 day events with the first two days being round robin, maybe shorter races and then the last two days single elim from the last 32/64. This way the guys that want the experience can go along for a couple of days and get a garuanteed number of short races, and the spectators can maybe go along for the last two days (pref weekend Hilton and sweat the best players playing true single elim like all other sports.

Its funny in another thread the UK 8 ball two shot rule was raised. I spent many years playing this rule in the UK and it seemed so normal too me. It was only when I left the UK and stopped playing this game that I realised how silly it is, you miss and you get another shot! double elim to a certain extent is no different. Oh just thought of one, isn't the second serve in Tennis just as silly lol!

 

[vapoolplayer]

Personally I like the idea of 4 day events with the first two days being round robin, maybe shorter races and then the last two days single elim from the last 32/64. This way the guys that want the experience can go along for a couple of days and get a garuanteed number of short races, and the spectators can maybe go along for the last two days (pref weekend Hilton and sweat the best players playing true single elim like all other sports.

now that i would agree on..........i'm all for that idea.

like JAM has said in other threads, you have to get the league players and recreational players involved, thats where the cash comes from. just a single elimination won't appeal to the bangers.

the round robin format woud DEFINITELY get their attention. now for the entry fee, they might be able to play 3 or 4 pro players in their round robin group. this in fact might draw MORE league players and MORE CASH.

VAP

 

[Jersey]

Standardization of Rules and Formats first...

I think we do need to maintain double elimination, however maybe what we need is more levels of tournys that pay money...your typical field of 128 has maybe 12-16 players who really stand a chance at the $$$...Maybe if we had a 'second' tier in which these other 100+ players could compete more evenly and make $$$ it would be a good thing...now I know some of the regional tours and speciality events fill some of this void, but if there was a 'Tour' like the pro's in the big venues that paid, then the majors would be less congested, and more participants would recoup their expenses...and you know this has been said in many other posts...'there is plenty of money in billiards', it's just not going to the players!...billiards will never attain the level of other sports until there is real money for players...just think of the money the 'industry' makes -vs- how much is paid out anually through the various 'organizations' to our top pro's, (how much $Billiard$ equiptment do you own?). I'll bet $$$ that the heads and board members of billiards various 'governing bodies' made more money last year than any pro, (male/female) player...

 

[vapoolplayer]

I think we do need to maintain double elimination, however maybe what we need is more levels of tournys that pay money...your typical field of 128 has maybe 12-16 players who really stand a chance at the $$$...Maybe if we had a 'second' tier in which these other 100+ players could compete more evenly and make $$$ it would be a good thing...now I know some of the regional tours and speciality events fill some of this void, but if there was a 'Tour' like the pro's in the big venues that paid, then the majors would be less congested, and more participants would recoup their expenses...and you know this has been said in many other posts...'there is plenty of money in billiards', it's just not going to the players!...billiards will never attain the level of other sports until there is real money for players...just think of the money the 'industry' makes -vs- how much is paid out anually through the various 'organizations' to our top pro's, (how much $Billiard$ equiptment do you own?). I'll bet $$$ that the heads and board members of billiards various 'governing bodies' made more money last year than any pro, (male/female) player...

again...........good "idea"...........

but where are you going to get the MONEY FROM?

VAP

 

[TheOne]

now that i would agree on..........i'm all for that idea.

like JAM has said in other threads, you have to get the league players and recreational players involved, thats where the cash comes from. just a single elimination won't appeal to the bangers.

the round robin format woud DEFINITELY get their attention. now for the entry fee, they might be able to play 3 or 4 pro players in their round robin group. this in fact might draw MORE league players and MORE CASH.

VAP

Actually the tournament I just played in Bangkok had 8 groups of 5 players and the group stage (race to 5's) where all played on one day. Each group got there own table and match times. Then the second day they play down from the last 16 single elim. It worked really well and there where lots of entries that had no hope to win and the entry was $20 which is fairly steep for Thai's.

For example the Reno event has around 200 entries. I think the Reno event has 16 tables (or maybe 15). If there where 32 groups of 6 players each table could handle two groups and they played round robing race to 5 matches everyone would be garuanteed 4 matches with a field of upto 192 runners.
You could eaither have the group winner or top 2 going onto a single elim last 32 or 64 on the weekend. Maybe you could even have 32 seeded players and put a "pro" in each group so everyone gets to play one

This might take just as long as the current event though but you would get more gamesa and maybe a better climax? Just some ideas

 

[Jersey]

again...........good "idea"...........

but where are you going to get the MONEY FROM?

VAP

This is the 64k ???, no pun intended...but if the Sanctioning bodies and the industry want to see billiards move into the 21st century they have to step up with the bucks...look at NASCAR...who would have thought 40 years ago that they'd be where they are today...and still breaking markets...it takes vision, investments and strong alliances...

 

[vapoolplayer]

This is the 64k ???, no pun intended...but if the Sanctioning bodies and the industry want to see billiards move into the 21st century they have to step up with the bucks...look at NASCAR...who would have thought 40 years ago that they'd be where they are today...and still breaking markets...it takes vision, investments and strong alliances...

except for the APA..........i personally don't think there's all this money in the billiards industry that people keep talking about.

you have the APA, Cuetec, muecci.......etc........the larger companies, they make the most money in the billiards industry, but do you think they actually make all that much? i don't think they do.

even if they do, why would they put their money into tournaments? they are doing fine right now, why "throw away" money.

i'm all for more money and better tournaments, but for a company to put money up, they have to have a reason.

Hilton tried it, found out it wouldn't work.

if you were pitching the idea to a company, billiards related or not, what would you tell them to make giving thier money up worthwhile?

VAP

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Last year I played in the Reno event ... I just didn't know how inefficient these tournaments are. ...

I've played in Reno, too. The point of the tournament is to create a lot of room-nights for the hotel and to have a lot of pool players in the casino. From the point of view of the hotel, the tournament is efficient. I'm not saying that's bad, it's just business. The Sands gives great room rates and puts lots of added money in every six months and has for a long time. For relatively local players, the tournament is wonderful.

Here's another format: Single elimination with buy-back. Players play single-elimination in groups of 8 (or 16 in very large fields). If you get knocked out of your group, you can buy back in (equal or reduced price) to a newly formed group. You can buy back as many times as you like until the qualification stage is full or runs out of entrants. The winners from the groups play single elimination in the final stage.

The Derby City Classic also uses buy-back, but you can buy back at any time in the tournament, which means among other things that you have the chance of a two-match finals if the loser of the first finals had not yet bought back in.

 

[Bob Jewett]

(round robin feeding into single elimination)
This might take just as long as the current event though but you would get more games and maybe a better climax? Just some ideas

The Reno event is table-limited -- lots of players on relatively few tables. That means that anything that increases the average number of games played will increase the time required during the phase when you don't have enough tables for all the players remaining (32 players left on 16 tables for Reno.) The average number of matches played in double elimination is four, and in single elimination two. With 5-player round robins followed by single elimination with two from each group, the average number of matches played is about five.