True Double Elimination

Being the originator of the post some must not have
Read the post!! Two races to 6 takes no longer
Than a race to13 if the final is 13 to 12
With two races to 6 to accommodate a
True double elimination the maximum
Amount of games at6 to 5 twice is 22 games with races
To 13 it is 25. Go figure how it could be a
Time issue
 
fat Albert said:
Being the originator of the post some must not have
Read the post!! Two races to 6 takes no longer
Than a race to13 if the final is 13 to 12
With two races to 6 to accommodate a
True double elimination the maximum
Amount of games at6 to 5 twice is 22 games with races
To 13 it is 25. Go figure how it could be a
Time issue
Click to expand...

Am I missing something or do you like the idea of having the potential for the finals being decided by a single race to 6? That's what would happen in your scenario provided the undefeated player wins the first set.

What are you a producer for ESPN or something? :grin-square:
 
fat Albert said:
Being the originator of the post some must not have
Read the post!! Two races to 6 takes no longer
Than a race to13 if the final is 13 to 12
With two races to 6 to accommodate a
True double elimination the maximum
Amount of games at6 to 5 twice is 22 games with races
To 13 it is 25. Go figure how it could be a
Time issue
Click to expand...

Assuming both players are about equal, it gives the hotseat participant a 3:1 advantage. Honestly, that's not a very exciting final especially when you factor in that the finalist from the losers' side beat long odds by winning 1-6 more matches than the hotseat participant. Neither solution is terribly fair so you might as well go with the one that's more exciting.
 
I had gEarlier stated two races to 6 or 7 they had been racing to nine the
Whole tournament anyway not that much different race to
7 or race to 9
 
I can't imagine there truly not being enough time for two races to nine if it was needed.

I also can't imagine any of the fans not wanting to see another set between those two last night.

I noticed that one of the posters who seems to have some say in this situation asked us to think in terms of what is fun andwhat works. Well, declaring a winner in a double elimination tournament when two guys only have one loss is ertaiy not fun IMO.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Assuming both players are about equal, it gives the hotseat participant a 3:1 advantage. Honestly, that's not a very exciting final especially when you factor in that the finalist from the losers' side beat long odds by winning 1-6 more matches than the hotseat participant. Neither solution is terribly fair so you might as well go with the one that's more exciting.
Click to expand...

Who cares what odds the guy from the losing side beat to get there..HE LOST lol he shouldn't get an easy run because he's getting a 2nd chance. It should be MUCH harder to win coming from the losers bracket.
 
Jude, I like your thinking.

Here is a solution: Don't call it double elimination. Don't advertise it as double elimination. Call it something else.

Here is a question: Who has got the best record if the final 2 players have 1 loss? I am okay with calling that guy the champion. A tournament needs to have a defined finals match.
 
The race in the finals should be the same as the whole event has been. If it was all races to 9, finals should be 2 sets to 9 if need be. If it was races to 9/7, then they should race to 9/7. One single race just is not fair. You are at the end of a tourney, 128 players enter, now 2 guys have 1 loss apiece and you declare one of them the winner, way unfair. This was done mainly for TV, and not streams. Besides it is pool, the guys in the end of these events don't have jobs, this is their job. And it is no longer on TV.

I have never and would never consider doing this in a tourney I run, if the event is double elimination, then there will be only 1 guy with 1 loss or no losses at the end of the event.

What's fair for 127 players, must be fair for 128 players.

We run 12-15 events a year and they are all TRUE double elimination, unless they are a single elimination tournament from the outset.
 
Last edited:
How about going to single elimination when it gets down to the final 4?

You could either do races to 11 or TOC style races to 5 with a sudden death rack if the sets are split.

Problem solved.
 
JumpinJoe said:
Besides it is pool, the guys in the end of these events don't have jobs, this is their job. And it is no longer on TV.

I have never and would never consider doing this in a tourney I run, if the event is double elimination, then there will be only 1 guy with 1 loss or no losses at the end of the event.
Click to expand...

Okay. I understand. Pool players need to develop careers in order to deserve something innovative and different. Otherwise, we should always do what we have always done.
 
Last edited:
Paul Schofield said:
Jude, I like your thinking.

Here is a solution: Don't call it double elimination. Don't advertise it as double elimination. Call it something else.

Here is a question: Who has got the best record if the final 2 players have 1 loss? I am okay with calling that guy the champion. A tournament needs to have a defined finals match.
Click to expand...

I remember when all events were true double eliminations. There were a lot of problems, such as matches finishing at 4 in the morning and players being so exhausted and drained that they would rather split the money than play through at that point. There were other issues as well. Many spectators would leave after the first match. It was also a nightmare for TV coverage.

So, it was changed, and most of the players understood and agreed to the change. If they players didn't go along with it, it would not have happened.

When they first made the change, they called it a double elimination tournament with a one-match final. Everyone knew what that meant. Over time, they dropped the last part of the description because it was too long for printed material, like posters. Plus, by that time all the major events were played that way.
 
Just one random weird idea, but what the loser's side player has to spot a game (or two) to the winner's side?

Rather than having to win an entire set, which is a tall row to hoe, he has to overcome a game or two on the wire, and it doesn't lengthen the set dramatically.
 
My take: double elimination is a lousy format especially towards the end of the tournament. If you must use DE at the start, then go to single elimination when you are down to 8 players or so. You could announce it as "Double/Single format with single elimination for the final 8." The final 8 could play longer matches.
 
Paul Schofield said:
Jude, I like your thinking.

Here is a solution: Don't call it double elimination. Don't advertise it as double elimination. Call it something else.

Here is a question: Who has got the best record if the final 2 players have 1 loss? I am okay with calling that guy the champion. A tournament needs to have a defined finals match.
Click to expand...

I am guessing your comment means that the person coming from the loser's side won the first match in a true double elimination format and now both of their records reflect one loss, but one player has actually played more matches? Isn't the person on the winner's side always undefeated until the finals?
 
cuenut said:
I am guessing your comment means that the person coming from the loser's side won the first match in a true double elimination format and now both of their records reflect one loss, but one player has actually played more matches?
Click to expand...

That is correct. Who ever wins the first match has the best record. End the tournament there and declare a champion. Don't play a second match when one player already has a better record. That works. A one match final is preferable. (a 6 and 1 W/L record is better than a 5 and 1 W/L record)

Don't drag it out. There reaches a point when the tournament is over and everyone wants to just go home.
 
Last edited:
Paul Schofield said:
Jude, I like your thinking.

Here is a solution: Don't call it double elimination. Don't advertise it as double elimination. Call it something else.

Here is a question: Who has got the best record if the final 2 players have 1 loss? I am okay with calling that guy the champion. A tournament needs to have a defined finals match.
Click to expand...

Regarding Turning Stone, their website clearly states the finals are a single race to 13. I've participated in that event twice so I can say from experience that there is a mandatory players' meeting prior to the start of all matches and it's clearly stated during that meeting that the finals are a single race. There are no surprises and this is the 20th time this event has taken place.

It *should be* advertised as double-elimination with an asterisk (which is exactly how TS is done). I think that's perfectly fair to every participant.
 
Bob Jewett said:
My take: double elimination is a lousy format especially towards the end of the tournament. If you must use DE at the start, then go to single elimination when you are down to 8 players or so. You could announce it as "Double/Single format with single elimination for the final 8." The final 8 could play longer matches.
Click to expand...

Rarely do I think the APA comes up with revolutionary stuff but their "modified single elimination" format is a great solution, in my opinion. The charts are identical to a double-elimination chart for the first two rounds and after that, the tournament moves to single-elimination with the 1-loss side returning to the winners' side of the chart. Basically, if you lose one of your first two matches and go on to win the tournament, you might play 2 more matches than if you hadn't lost a match at all. It can cut down on the number of matches by as much as 30%.
 
Single Elimination / Multiple Sets...???

I have always been a fan of the single elimination / multiple set format...

Races to 9, best 2 out of 3 sets... Races to 7, best 3 out of 5 sets... Multiple sets usually favors the better players. Players must get in shape for the longer sessions.

Prize money goes farther as it is not spread out in increasing increments...
1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th tie, 5th - 8th tie, 9th -16th tie, and 17th - 32nd tie.

Any input on this format...??? Likes? Dislikes? Fairness? Thanks in advance for any and all insight, opinions and / or answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top