True Double Elimination

fat Albert

fat Albert

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I know many tournaments do the final race to 12 or 13 vs double elimination. However it seems as if everyone in the tournament had the opportunity to lose one or play bad and come back on loser 's side it is only fair that the player that won straight through without a loss would have the same opportunity. I know that the hot seat plays less matches ect. but it seems even if it were two shorter races to 6 or 7 (if it were a time issue) would give the hot seat a chance to have a bad one and start over on the second set and be a true double elimination. two matches to 6or 7 would be fairer and give consideration for the feat and play to make it through to the finals undefeated than an extended race to 12 or 13 . Just a thought
 
Agree 100%. No reason why the hot seat undefeated winner should not get the benefit of true double elimination.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
True double elimination

This sounds good but just does not work very well.

With your solution, the final could actually be 3 matches.
Now it becomes very difficult for things like streaming or scheduling.

Notice that we do use true double in the amateur events.

But semi or pro type events, we have found that a longer race works well. The person who came through the losers side has earned the right to play in the finals and still for the event to get done at a more reasonable time.

Just my thoughts.

Mark Griffin
 
How could it be three matches if Hot Seat wins either race he wins the tournament. The loser has to win both races to 6 or 7 whatever number you choose to race too, beating the hotseat twice to win the tournament
 
As a fan who pays to travel to events and then pays admission to watch, I detest true double elimination finals, but I could just about tolerate them if there were two short races and a shot clock.
 
Three wins for the hot seat???

I dont get the math? This was a great event and if the event needs to be shorter for some reason thats fine, but I would rather see each match shorter by one game so that the last match could be a true double elimination.
 
Everyone talks about the last round where there could be one more round and how that is a problem. That does not even hold a candle to the unfairness of the 1st round: Win, and the path to finals is 5 matches. Lose, and the path becomes 10 matches! (64 man) This is okay? I don't think that it is okay.

Lose in the finals and be required to play 1 more match. Compare that to lose in the first round and have to play 6 more matches.
 
Last edited:
Double elimination

Well, I guess my math was WRONG!!

I meant to say 2 matches in the finals - but my other mind was counting the possible time these players had already met (thinking of the TS situation with JA and SVB).

So - I was wrong ( once again)!

Also - Paul Schofield has some good points. Am not ready to go to his charts, but they make a lot of sense.

Mark Griffin
 
Pauls point?

Hey Paul, so whats the solution? How dom you balance the win loss side of the chart?
 
My thoughts

On the surface it seems fair if everyone had to loose the same amount of sets in order to be eliminated. The easiest way to do that is to have one set and the looser is out. I believe the longer race will normally allow the better player to win and the better player should win. Our small tournaments in my little hick town are usually a race to 4 and if you loose 2 sets your out. So the guy in the "hot seat" eventually waits for the winner of the losers bracket, if the "hot seat" shooter wins the first set he is champ for the day. The looser bracket winner has to beat the "hot seat" shooter twice to be champ for the day. I don't like the short races and much prefer a race to 11 or more. In like our little 8 ball league each player plays each player on the other team once. Any one can beat you in one game of 8 ball. The cream almost always rises to the top in a longer race.
 
King T said:
Hey Paul, so whats the solution? How do you balance the win loss side of the chart?
Click to expand...
There are lots of ways. It's best to get into single elimination as quickly as possible. For example, have two or three rounds based on double elimination and then go to into single elimination. This has been used in major tournaments.

Another format is to play round robin in small groups and have the top two three advance out of the round robin into single elimination. This can guarantee three or four games for everyone. This format has been used in a lot of world championships.
 
Paul Schofield said:
Everyone talks about the last round where there could be one more round and how that is a problem. That does not even hold a candle to the unfairness of the 1st round: Win, and the path to finals is 5 matches. Lose, and the path becomes 10 matches! (64 man) This is okay? I don't think that it is okay.

Lose in the finals and be required to play 1 more match. Compare that to lose in the first round and have to play 6 more matches.
Click to expand...

Sure longer paths to the Finals CAN happen, but how often is this the case? I'd guess that - most of the time - a player making it to later rounds of the winners bracket ends up making it back to challenge the hot seat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
sjm said:
As a fan who pays to travel to events and then pays admission to watch, I detest true double elimination finals, but I could just about tolerate them if there were two short races and a shot clock.
Click to expand...

I agree with SJM on this one. I think if the tournament is meant to be watched, it should be a single contest (either a series of short sets or one long set). It should be simple and easy to watch. What's more, if the hot-seat player loses, he mathematically has a worse record than the winner of the losers' side.

Another thing to consider are the time constraints. Mike Zuglan has teams of people he's hired to set-up and dismantle. He's promised Turning Stone he's only going to take X amount of time. We don't know what the parameters are, if extending this another set is even possible. In my opinion, Turning Stone is a model event, probably the best event in the country. No other event has the same level of talent, is free to all spectators, has great seating options and offers a free stream to everyone. NONE.
 
Mark Griffin said:
Well, I guess my math was WRONG!!

I meant to say 2 matches in the finals - but my other mind was counting the possible time these players had already met (thinking of the TS situation with JA and SVB).

So - I was wrong ( once again)!

Also - Paul Schofield has some good points. Am not ready to go to his charts, but they make a lot of sense.

Mark Griffin
Click to expand...

Mark

Take TS for example. SVB beat JA in one match and JA beat Shane in one, yet because SVB's win was 4 games longer he's the champ?

Maybe not so fair.

I always thought the longer final match instead of true double elimination was an accommodation made "for TV" and I'm wondering if there is really enough TV coverage to support that decision?

Thanks

Kevin
 
Personally as a fan I prefer the single long race format in the finals. Every time I've seen a tournament with true double elimination it seems like the finals can produce a rather anticlimatic result.
 
I guess if I ever put on a tourney I will be able to do whatever I want. Although my personaly feeling is True Double elim. As someone said the player coming from the 1 loss side has earned the right to play in the finals but the hot seat player has also earned the same right to lose a set and have a second chance at it.
Not sure if any promoter would go for this due to things like scheduling as Mark G pointed out or just plain "Thats not how its done" but maybe the person in the hot seat has the option in the final to play the race to 13 or 2 sets. Thats way they have nothing to complain about if they lose.
 
King T said:
Hey Paul, so whats the solution? How dom you balance the win loss side of the chart?
Click to expand...

My opinion: just ignore it if you disagree.

I think double-elimination is a problematic format, no matter what you do to it. There are inequities and troubles with it from beginning to end. I have made modifications to suit my purposes. It has worked very well and I started a thread on the concept: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=266298&highlight=schofield . I am happy to share it with anyone. I do not think that it is the end-all.

The one match finals is a no-brainer. Players need to remember that there are other participants besides the competitors. Everything is give and take. There is the operator, spectators, media, and vendors. A format has to work for them too.

Forget fairness. Think in terms of fun and what works.
 
I think the final has to be a single match.

However, there is one thing that I can think of that would remove the bitterness of having your first loss come in the finals of the tourney:

Have a slightly skewed payout schedule based on whether or not you win the tourney undefeated or with one loss.

For instance in the just completed Turning Stone tourney, Johnny Archer made it to the hot seat, only to lose his first match in the finals. What you could do is have the payouts as follows:

Win the tourney undefeated: 11,000
2nd place: 6,000

Win the tourney with 1 loss: 10,500
2nd place: 6,500

Those are just arbitrary numbers, but what that does is give the guy that made it to the hot seat a small bonus provided their first loss is in the finals.

May be too complicated....just thinking out loud here.
 
So everyone in the tournents deserves a 2nd chance to win the tournament except the last guy left who didn't lose? That's just silly... If its double elimination that's what it should be to the end whether it's fun to watch or not. A tournament takes 3 days and you can't make time for one more race? I don't buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top