True Double Elimination vs Extended Game Single Elimination Match

[barrymuch90]

Those in True DA camp have the better arguments and are thrashing the Extended Game Single Elim camp :grin:

I would also add that:
1) creating 2 stages switching to single elim stage just for final is bizarre when the 2nd stage is just for 2 players and there is no advantage given the undefeated hot seat player
By and large, the 2nd stage involves give some advantage to the winning players eg. in W9B , 2nd stage single elim involves a redraw and the top performers in 1st stage double elim are seeded higher so they play the lower seeded team in 2nd stage. In FIFA World Cup, 2nd stage single elim matches, teams that top their groups in 1st stage play lower teams from other group

2) it is irrelevant the calibre of players the undefeated hot seat plays to get to final. The hot seat winner may play all dead money players but is still accorded undefeated winner status. In same vein, it is irrelevant the strength of players that one loss winner plays to get to final. It is in luck of draw whether they play weak or strong players

3) sure players know beforehand that it will be single elim final but so what? Consent just means they will play but does not make it fair. :grin:

4) if there it is 1 single elim match final, the undefeated hot seat winner should be given an advantage or reward or benefit . For eg. there can be a prizemoney for undefeated player (hot seat) like 147 prize in snooker. Maybe $10K taken from the $50K top prize. So if it is single match final, hot seat plays get $10K and winner of final gets $40K +title. If it is true double elim (up to 2 matches), then winner of final gets $50K + title
:grin:

I never considered this but imo it's a great idea and a true solution to the debate. Double elim until the finals then one match for the title but a designated prize for the hot seat winner. I like he example of the open it could have been 10k$ to the hotseat winner n then 40k$ and the title to the player that wins the final

 

[Bob Jewett]

Many years ago the finals of the US Open (which was 14.1 at that time) was on ABC's Wide World of Sports every year. Keith Jackson was the usual host. And it seemed like every year the B-side winner would beat the A-side winner in the first finals which meant the production crew would have to throw away that film -- we're talking the 1960s -- and shoot a second finals. That was said to be part of the reason that they stopped covering pool.

I think tournaments should switch to single elimination as early as possible but still give the dead money entrants at least two matches. There are several formats that do that including some that have not been mentioned so far.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I never considered this but imo it's a great idea and a true solution to the debate. Double elim until the finals then one match for the title but a designated prize for the hot seat winner. I like he example of the open it could have been 10k$ to the hotseat winner n then 40k$ and the title to the player that wins the final

Wouldn't this be fairer: each player gets $xxx for each match he wins and then you also pay by placement. That way someone like Immonen or Caras who lose a first-round match but work their way to the finals by winning twice as many matches will be properly rewarded.

 

[HawaiianEye]

Wouldn't this be fairer: each player gets $xxx for each match he wins and then you also pay by placement. That way someone like Immonen or Caras who lose a first-round match but work their way to the finals by winning twice as many matches will be properly rewarded.

Losers shouldn't come out with more money than the winner, IMHO.

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

Modified double elimination is the best way to play, imo. Doing full double elimination adds way too much additional time and matches.

I would have to see some statistics showing there is a true major benefit to using it. Otherwise if you lose in the first 2 rounds then you go to losers side, after that and you are out if you lose.

If a player comes from the loser's side to win the 1st match in the finals both players have 1 loss. Why should the tournament be over? The true benefit is that one of the players only gets knocked out after 2 losses.

True double for my money if I am going to pay to watch it.

Obviously the players know the format beforehand and don't seem to have a problem with it, I just will not pay to watch it. I spent $300 on the AccuStats One Pocket MIH earlier this year and it was good value for the money, modified elimination tourneys are not.

RBL

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Just make it single elimination and that ends your problem.
If you are going to make it double elimination, keep it true double elimination.

If you are going to switch to single elimination in the final match and not give the hot seat their opportunity at having one loss, then you should have something in place to protect the hot seat.
Some game spot in the final race that the hot seat gets for having won the hot seat.
Like a 4 game spot to the hot seat winner in a race to 13 or something.
Then NO ONE can ever complain. EVER.

I know i know. The crowd wouldn't buy it, it would be boring, it would confusing, people would hate it
I don't particularly care.
I've never given a crap about what the crowd thinks, i've only given a crap about right and wrong, and what does or doesn't shaft a player over, even if both players "agree" with it.

Something has to change.
Sure we all saw some great pool, but why wipe the slate clean when the hot seat doesn't have a loss and basically say F&$@ YOU, your hot seat win means nothing.

It's stupid.