Not that old I guess, and very immature at that. My adjusted guess is 12 years old! I'm done with your stupid shit, won't be responding back to you after this post!
US Open 9-ball updates thread..
- Thread starter gxman
- Start date
If you’re going to have a fake tournament for make believe money
make it biiiiiiig
make it biiiiiiig
Guys , it's never going to happen, I think it was a seeded event , if Trump was seeded at his 725 ranking he would have been dusted out before he got a chance to play lower level player's , I don't know for sure but I highly doubt he came here for free , however he did beat lower level pro speed player's
But he certainly is not anywhere near top tier as I said my op
I still will stand by my beliefs that Trump stands a better chance with less work to complete at a high level in 9 ball sooner than Shane can do the same in Snooker , it's all just gibberish no need to get worked up about it
1
But he certainly is not anywhere near top tier as I said my op
I still will stand by my beliefs that Trump stands a better chance with less work to complete at a high level in 9 ball sooner than Shane can do the same in Snooker , it's all just gibberish no need to get worked up about it
1
To put some things in perspective, we have no apples to apples comparisons. Snooker players have received direct entry into major pool tournaments and have been given high seeding as well. Meanwhile, pool players have had to go through qualifying and would have to face either a top 80 player or a top 64 player in the opening round (depending on the time frame we are referring back to). That’s equivalent to a FR 780 player at least. Ranking events have much tougher fields than your average pro pool event because every participant is a qualfied tour player, not counting the few wildcards.
Meanwhile, the snooker match lengths are much longer than most pool events. Best of 9s are probably the equivalent of a race to 15 in 9 ball. The races to 8 they had in the world pool masters event Tony Drago won would be like a race to 3 in snooker.
So a fair, same to same comparison, would be if Joshua Filler got a wild card into a pro snooker event that played best of 3s, with top 30 seeding and got opening matches against players that may or may not have ever run a century in competition. If top pool players got similar treatment and an ecquivalent draw (bottom ranked or unranked opponents) we would see some decent runs.
Meanwhile, the snooker match lengths are much longer than most pool events. Best of 9s are probably the equivalent of a race to 15 in 9 ball. The races to 8 they had in the world pool masters event Tony Drago won would be like a race to 3 in snooker.
So a fair, same to same comparison, would be if Joshua Filler got a wild card into a pro snooker event that played best of 3s, with top 30 seeding and got opening matches against players that may or may not have ever run a century in competition. If top pool players got similar treatment and an ecquivalent draw (bottom ranked or unranked opponents) we would see some decent runs.
I'm dubious, there is an asymmetry to the game that means a lower level snooker player has a bigger edge over a pool player, than the reverse.
Of course I'd agree the longer the races, the bigger the edge, but even best of 3 snooker a low level snooker pro is still going to come out on top more than a low level pool pro vs a top snooker pro in race to 8 of 9-Ball (not exactly conclusive evidence as such, but we've seen the latter, but never seen the former, even in short race snooker, i.e. Q School etc.).
As for the other part of the debate, about whether a truly top tier snooker player has won a pool event:
I think we can discount Melling and Gray as they weren't top tier players
I think we have to respectfully discount the women as the woman's game isn't professional (in any meaningful sense anyway)
That for me only leaves Tony Drago, who interestingly didn't make much money from snooker, but did have a career high ranking of 10, which I think is reasonable to consider as top tier.
As a rough guide, his financials (prize money only) as per cue tracker (https://cuetracker.net/players/tony-drago/career-total-statistics) are as follows:
Career earnings: GBP 1,127,868
Years played: 34 (1984-2018)
Average per year: GBP 33,172.59
So for me it comes down to this. If Tony Drago was a top tier snooker player, then yes a top tier player has won a Major Pool event, otherwise no, it's never been done.
Last edited:
I guess if you have to make it a coin flip (race to 2) for a pool player to have a chance playing snooker…I guess that says it all about the better cueist.
Now, if the ONLY argument was if a TOP snooker player has won a pool tournament…I guess one hasn’t…why would they try to?
The money gets better the higher you get.
Now, if the ONLY argument was if a TOP snooker player has won a pool tournament…I guess one hasn’t…why would they try to?
The money gets better the higher you get.
I call bullshit, and lots of it.
I thought you wanted a 200+ field all with Fargo's over 775?
I honestly think you mean well with your tournament ideas, but there is a lot of beating around a non-existent bush here.
What exactly is "top tier"..? There's currently 36 pool players >= 800 fargo. Are all of them "top tier"...?
Is "top tier" a moving bar adjusted to suit a personal narrative...?
One USA golden boys, Mr Bergman is all the way down at 48 with a 795. So does that mean we can assume the top 48 snooker players are also "top tier"...?
Is "top tier" a moving bar adjusted to suit a personal narrative...?
One USA golden boys, Mr Bergman is all the way down at 48 with a 795. So does that mean we can assume the top 48 snooker players are also "top tier"...?
Do me a favor, if I'm only going to run a 16 player round robin event at a specific time, and only 16 players will be chosen to play, how would YOU pick those 16 players? The round robin will last 8 days!
Well I would obviously want the top fargo rated players... but that's not what I'm asking...
You mentioned a 200+ player field all with fargos over 775 (which is going to be hard to do considering there isnt even 100 players right now that high)...
...but now you are saying a 16 man round robin... which is not over 200 players... is this a sperate event or are you changing your format?
When can we expect to see either of these? I'll gladly pay for whatever streams/subscription/spectator fee if close to me.
Its a separate
So, kind of like an Allstars event, only includes the current, evolving top 16 olayers.
Its a separate event, not taking away from the 128 player, or 256 player Pro's only, single elimination events, with races to 21, 3 hr match time limits.
So, kind of like an Allstars event, only includes the current, evolving top 16 olayers.
Sounds cool though and the top players in longer races like that is a format I'd love to watch. In all seriousness... I hope it comes to fruition.
players., let's say player A wins 18 to 16 over player B because the 3 hr time limit expired. That's a total of 34 wins in that match, so $10k ÷ 34= $284.11 per win. Player B losing the match, still earns $4705.88 in his loss, while player A wins $5294.12 for the match win. The event winner is the money leader, not the match winning leader.
Each player has 15 opponents to compete against, 15 matches in which to earn their share of event prize money. No player leaves broke, or barely wins enough to cover travel expenses.
Last edited:
You quoted two of us with this comment so I'm not entirely sure if you want my opinion or not. However...
In my perfect world I would feed that 16 player event with a 3 or 4 satellite events. Those satellite events are truly "opens". Wherein anyone can qualify for the 'major' event.
Thats going to be hard to do since I'm hosting these events in pool rooms, not casino's.
That type of system allows for a lower level player to jump forward requardless of their Fargo rate, which to me is wrong. Earn the right to play by competing in events everyone else is hosting, raise your Fargo rate higher, cross the line into the lower level Pros. Keep playing, keep pushing your Fargo rate higher, and move up the ladder. The higher you climb, the bigger paying events will open up to that person.
Sandbagging a person's Fargo rate down may work to get a player into easier events to have a better chance if winning money, but it'll hurt that same player by holding them back from having a high enough Fargo rate to be eligible to play in a higher fargo rated event.
Last edited:
1. Is there a shot clock?
2. So the earnings per round are kept instead of a poker tournament where chip counts are mainly for scorekeeping?
Yes to both.