Tournament format idea??

[macguy]

Tournament format idea.

Another thread was discussing tournaments formats and breaking.

I have been thinking about this and here is an idea I was thinking about.
It is pretty simple to understand but you never know how something works unless you see it in practice.

Here is what I was thinking, this would be I would think for smaller tournaments with below A players.

First break you toss or lag for. Then after the first game the trailing player always gets the break.

Should the score be tied the player who just won the game breaks.

If a player gets several games behind since he gets the break as the trailing player, he now has has a chance to string racks and get back in the game.

This can be optional,
but I like win by 2 so there is no hill hill. This would require the player who is on the hill to win the final game off the opponents break.

I am thick skinned is this a workable format or nuts? If I was still running tournaments I would try it, I think it would be fun.

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

Tournament format idea.

Another thread was discussing tournaments formats and breaking.

I have been thinking about this and here is an idea I was thinking about.
It is pretty simple to understand but you never know how something works unless you see it in practice.

Here is what I was thinking, this would be I would think for smaller tournaments with below A players.

First break you toss or lag for. Then after the first game the trailing player always gets the break.

Should the score be tied the player who just won the game breaks.

If a player gets several games behind since he gets the break as the trailing player, he now has has a chance to string racks and get back in the game.

This can be optional,
but I like win by 2 so there is no hill hill. This would require the player who is on the hill to win the final game off the opponents break.

I am thick skinned is this a workable format or nuts? If I was still running tournaments I would try it, I think it would be fun.

I think it is similar to my idea you had so many problems with, but worse because it only allows for multiple racks for a trailing player.

 

[Str8PoolPlayer]

I'm willing to try anything that will draw a greater number of players
to All local tournaments. Honest, Realistic Handicapping is the best
way to level the Field (in my experience), but it never hurts to try
something new when participation is low. A few of our local double
elimination 8 & 9-Ball Tourneys are now 8-ball on winner's side and
9-ball on loser's side. Everyone seems to like this format.

 

[carolina_8ball]

The biggest problem with this is the first player to the hill gets punished.

Example: In a race to 11, player 1 gets to the hill and is up--lets say-- 10-6, player B gets to break player one's match game. Then player B goes on a run and tie it up at 10. By your format player B breaks the hill-hill game because they won the previous game. Player A never has the chance to lose the set without ever shooting with a chance to win the match, thus getting punished for playing better in the beginning.

That's the biggest problem with pool and tournaments. The better a person plays the more the rules get changed to punish them (look at what happened to Corey Duel, and now Shane). As long as this continues, American pool players have no reason to want to practice and get better because they know they will punished for doing so. The lower a person plays the more the get rewarded. So, why would a person want to get better?

 

[336Robin]

Tournament format idea.

Another thread was discussing tournaments formats and breaking.

I have been thinking about this and here is an idea I was thinking about.
It is pretty simple to understand but you never know how something works unless you see it in practice.

Here is what I was thinking, this would be I would think for smaller tournaments with below A players.

First break you toss or lag for. Then after the first game the trailing player always gets the break.

Should the score be tied the player who just won the game breaks.

If a player gets several games behind since he gets the break as the trailing player, he now has has a chance to string racks and get back in the game.

This can be optional,
but I like win by 2 so there is no hill hill. This would require the player who is on the hill to win the final game off the opponents break.

I am thick skinned is this a workable format or nuts? If I was still running tournaments I would try it, I think it would be fun.

Where I play pool we have a skill ladder where people challenge each other and we use this format. If you are behind, you break which gives you a chance to run a rack and you have to rack your own which means you really have no complaint about the rack. We also have a spot system and people of differing skill levels have a chance. I am just not a real enthusiastic 9 ball player. I am sort of in One Pocket mode right now. So I dropped the ladder for awhile. I think its a good format and this gives the weaker player extra chances that he needs.

 

[macguy]

The biggest problem with this is the first player to the hill gets punished.

Example: In a race to 11, player 1 gets to the hill and is up--lets say-- 10-6, player B gets to break player one's match game. Then player B goes on a run and tie it up at 10. By your format player B breaks the hill-hill game because they won the previous game. Player A never has the chance to lose the set without ever shooting with a chance to win the match, thus getting punished for playing better in the beginning.

That's the biggest problem with pool and tournaments. The better a person plays the more the rules get changed to punish them (look at what happened to Corey Duel, and now Shane). As long as this continues, American pool players have no reason to want to practice and get better because they know they will punished for doing so. The lower a person plays the more the get rewarded. So, why would a person want to get better?

that is the reason you must win by 2. Hill hill should not exist anyway. Win by 2 is a better way to play even by pros.

 

[TATE]

Tournament format idea.

Another thread was discussing tournaments formats and breaking.

I have been thinking about this and here is an idea I was thinking about.
It is pretty simple to understand but you never know how something works unless you see it in practice.

Here is what I was thinking, this would be I would think for smaller tournaments with below A players.

First break you toss or lag for. Then after the first game the trailing player always gets the break.

Should the score be tied the player who just won the game breaks.

If a player gets several games behind since he gets the break as the trailing player, he now has has a chance to string racks and get back in the game.

This can be optional,
but I like win by 2 so there is no hill hill. This would require the player who is on the hill to win the final game off the opponents break.

I am thick skinned is this a workable format or nuts? If I was still running tournaments I would try it, I think it would be fun.

It's all well and good, but the break is not an advantage at all for under A players in my opinion (aasuming 9 ball is the game). Even for A players, it's a small advantage. If you look at the "win on your own break percentages" they've posted up over the years, there's barely a difference.