Tourney Question For Bob Jewett

Saturated Fats

Saturated Fats

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Like many others, I dislike the double elimination tournament format. If I'm put out early, that's not much fun, but if I put some wins together, the snail's pace between matches can be crappy too. I understand that single elimination would probably have poor participation because players would hate to be put out after a single loss.

So maybe a better format would be some form of round robin, but how exactly would it work say for less than 16 players or maybe a number nearer to 30?
 
Saturated Fats said:
Like many others, I dislike the double elimination tournament format. If I'm put out early, that's not much fun, but if I put some wins together, the snail's pace between matches can be crappy too. I understand that single elimination would probably have poor participation because players would hate to be put out after a single loss.

So maybe a better format would be some form of round robin, but how exactly would it work say for less than 16 players or maybe a number nearer to 30?
Click to expand...

Round robins brings a new set of problems....collusion.
...pretty sure that’s why the world nine championship went to small double knockout
groups and then single elimination in the final stage.

You also get people that don’t want to finish because they can’t mathematically make it....
...but their concessions can affect the records of the players still in.
 
Saturated Fats said:
Like many others, I dislike the double elimination tournament format. If I'm put out early, that's not much fun, but if I put some wins together, the snail's pace between matches can be crappy too. I understand that single elimination would probably have poor participation because players would hate to be put out after a single loss.



So maybe a better format would be some form of round robin, but how exactly would it work say for less than 16 players or maybe a number nearer to 30?
Click to expand...



Most championships back before the 50s were single or double round robins with 8-12 players


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Saturated Fats said:
Like many others, I dislike the double elimination tournament format. If I'm put out early, that's not much fun, but if I put some wins together, the snail's pace between matches can be crappy too. I understand that single elimination would probably have poor participation because players would hate to be put out after a single loss.

So maybe a better format would be some form of round robin, but how exactly would it work say for less than 16 players or maybe a number nearer to 30?
Click to expand...

Poster above stated why some don't like roundrobbin type tournies.

Myself, what I prefer depends on the following:

Length of race
Which game being played
Which rack being used
Rack your own or not
Alternate breaking or not.....

In short, if all are on up and up,I prefer round robbin. Otherwise wise I like double elimination unless it is long races since short races are a breeding ground for upsets in matches.

Rake
 
As others have noted, the round robin format has the problem of collusion.

In my opinion, though, Pat Fleming found a way of minimizing the danger of collusion in his "Make it Happen" events. In these round robin events, participants were guaranteed a certain amount of money per win regardless of where they finished in the group standings. Hence, a player already mathematically eliminated in the group still had something to play for.
 
sjm said:
As others have noted, the round robin format has the problem of collusion.

In my opinion, though, Pat Fleming found a way of minimizing the danger of collusion in his "Make it Happen" events. In these round robin events, participants were guaranteed a certain amount of money per win regardless of where they finished in the group standings. Hence, a player already mathematically eliminated in the group still had something to play for.
Click to expand...

This helps. I think it is a good idea. But the financial difference between dead last and next-to-dead-last is necessarily small. And the potential benefit of colluding for one of these is larger, sometime a lot larger. So it doesn't eliminate the problem.

We've played around with formats for which the round-robin eliminates nobody but determines seeding for the next stage...

More to come. We're thinking about this issue...
 
I myself have always preferred double elimination.

The stuff I usually see being talked about by the people who dislike them are 'they go too long' etc. This is usually a factor of whoever is running the tournament allowing too many players in for the number of tables available to play on, too long of a race for the start time/number of players etc.

Out of curiosity for the folks who feel differently, what are some of your reasons?
 
Chuck Fields said:
I myself have always preferred double elimination.

The stuff I usually see being talked about by the people who dislike them are 'they go too long' etc. This is usually a factor of whoever is running the tournament allowing too many players in for the number of tables available to play on, too long of a race for the start time/number of players etc.

Out of curiosity for the folks who feel differently, what are some of your reasons?
Click to expand...

My issue with it is, I dislike the word "double". I was in trouble a lot as a kid ( and as a young adult... and, ok, yeah... mid to late adult as well ) and so, every time I see the "ouble" in "double', I get a very unpleasant, queasy feeling. It's also the reason I never bought any Stevie Ray albums.

And I LOVE Stevie Ray. :yeah:
 
Last edited:
Michael Andros said:
My issue with it is, I dislike the word "double". I was in trouble a lot as a kid ( and as a young adult... and, ok, yeah... mid to late adult as well ) and so, every time I see the "ouble" in "double', I get a very unpleasant, queasy feeling. It is also the reason I never bought any Stevie Ray albums.

And I LOVE Stevie Ray. :yeah:
Click to expand...

I hear ya, some folks just dont fit. They can jump in a rosebush and come out smelling like sh**. :thumbup:
 
I don't like that most tournaments end with a single race. Make it true double OR play double elim down to the money round. Once in the money round go to extended races with single elimination. Makes it much easier to plan the end of the tournament
 
mikepage said:
This helps. I think it is a good idea. But the financial difference between dead last and next-to-dead-last is necessarily small. And the potential benefit of colluding for one of these is larger, sometime a lot larger. So it doesn't eliminate the problem.

We've played around with formats for which the round-robin eliminates nobody but determines seeding for the next stage...

More to come. We're thinking about this issue...
Click to expand...

That's right. All this does is make collusion less attractive. It doesn't eliminate it. The more each win guarantees, the less attractive collusion becomes.

Here's an example:

Field of 24. Entry fee of $300.

Stage 1: Round Robin Race to 5
Four round robin groups of six, only the winner of each advances, all group losers get $200 per match won. There are fifteen matches in every group, and, as a group winner will nearly always have somebody with either four or five wins, group losers will share between $2,000 and $2,200, so the payout to all those failing to advance from the group stage would be between $8,000 and $8,800, an average of $8,400.

Stage 2: Round Robin Race to 7
The last four play a second round robin with 4,000 for first, 2,500 for second, 1,500 for third and 1,000 for fourth. That's six more matches, so the entire event would consist of 66 matches.

The $200 cost of collusion, in relative terms, is pretty high here, given that winning one's group only ensures $1,000.

The total payout for the event would be, on average, $17,400. As there are 24 entry fees of $300 totaling $7,200, this event is, roughly, a $10,000 added tournament.
 
Last edited:
I've been running a round robin tournament with teams of three. Each team can have one A or better player. I use VNEA ball count scoring. Most importantly, I use blind scoring. I pay the top three teams and top three individuals based solely on ball count. Scores are revealed after the final match is played. We generally play with 12 teams on 6 tables and can finish a tournament in two days (6 rounds followed by 5 rounds).

Based on participation/popularity, this format is a winner. We refined it after the first go, and the rest is history.

PM me for more info or for the docs I created, i.e., score sheets, etc.
 
Saturated Fats said:
Like many others, I dislike the double elimination tournament format. If I'm put out early, that's not much fun, but if I put some wins together, the snail's pace between matches can be crappy too. I understand that single elimination would probably have poor participation because players would hate to be put out after a single loss.

So maybe a better format would be some form of round robin, but how exactly would it work say for less than 16 players or maybe a number nearer to 30?
Click to expand...
If you have round robin with groups of four and two advance there is less chance for collusion or players who just walk away. There is still a problem of deciding ties.

Another format is to run many small single-elimination "qualifiers" and the winners of those meet in the single-elimination main tournament. The losers in the qualifiers can re-enter another qualifier for another entry fee. Some tournaments using this format around here ran the qualifiers long enough that a player could enter five times.

Here's an example plan for a two day tournament:

The qualifiers run all day Saturday. There are 8 players per qualifier. The doors open at 10AM and play starts as soon as you have 16 players signed up. You draw the 16 into two groups of 8. Those groups will play straight through -- there is almost no waiting once a group starts. Continue to form groups as new players show up. After an hour or so, the losers will start signing up again along with the new arrivals.

In the groups of 8, the winner goes on the main board and returns on Sunday with guaranteed money. He can go home or match up or sweat matches. The runner-up gets a free re-entry (or you could give him his entry fee back). The winners go on the main board in seeding order so that the first player qualified is the most likely to get a bye. That encourages players to show up early.

If you lose in a qualifier you can re-enter when you feel like it. If a friend just signed up, you could delay your entry. Or maybe you want to have lunch across town or get your cue fixed or sweat the match between two champions that is about to start. Re-enter if and when you please. Similarly, you can enter when you want on Saturday. If the champions won't show up until 3PM, enter early. If you have to work until 4, enter at 5.

Entries on Saturday close when you can't get at least 4 players to make up a group or it's time for the staff to go home or the room to close. Maybe you want to set a limit of 8 (or 16, 24, or 32) qualifiers.

On Sunday you start practice at 1PM and play starts at 2PM sharp. The losers in the first round get back a multiple of the entry fee. Here is a possible prize breakdown for 16 qualifiers (128 entries) with no added money and a $20 entry:

$80 -- 9-16
$120 -- 5-8
$200 -- 3-4
$300 -- 2
$420 -- 1

There are only 4 rounds on Sunday.

Some other details:

You keep the entry small to encourage a lot of people to re-enter. Also, it lets the really dead money have a chance to play. It should be about half of what you would charge for a double elimination if you want the same size pot since players will typically enter twice.

You can also do groups of 4 if you want a one-day tournament. Start qualifiers at 10AM, main tournament at 7PM.

You can vary the race -- to 5 in the qualifiers and to 7 in the main.

From the room's perspective one advantage is that it keeps a lot of people around on Saturday as players re-enter. Also, later on Saturday entries will naturally taper off so you will need just a few tables for those desperate to qualify, and the room can rent the other tables.

There are ways to do the draws in the middle of the qualifiers so that players will never be sure of who will be in their group.

You could run a few qualifiers the day before or even the previous week for locals.

You will typically get 128 entries from 50 or 60 actual players present.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top