US Open 9-ball updates thread..

[Icon of Sin]

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.

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?

 

[realkingcobra]

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.

 

[realkingcobra]

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?

In order to straighten pool out and organize it, there must be a ladder system used to identify and categorize players into different levels based on proven skills, earned through competition. Players can't just co.e in as unknowns and shoot straight up to the top, they must earn their way up. Being at the top requires separation from all other players, as the elite players and must be identified as such, not clouded with having to play against amateurs in order to rise up as in the cream of the crop always rises to the top. Short races favor the lesser skilled players, NOT the best.

Pool NEEDS divisions, amateurs, advanced, semi-pro, Pro, and elite Pro.

And there MUST be an earning process in order to climb that ladder, and REWARD for those that DO!

 

[realkingcobra]

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?

In order to straighten pool out and organize it, there must be a ladder system used to identify and categorize players into different levels based on proven skills, earned through competition. Players can't just co.e in as unknowns and shoot straight up to the top, they must earn their way up. Being at the top requires separation from all other players, as the elite players and must be identified as such, not clouded with having to play against amateurs in order to rise up as in the cream of the crop always rises to the top. Short races favor the lesser skilled players, NOT the best.

Pool NEEDS divisions, amateurs, advanced, semi-pro, Pro, and elite Pro.

And there MUST be an earning process in order to climb that ladder, and REWARD for those that DO!

Yes to both.

Without letting the cat out of the bag, forget pool on TV, it needs to be on its OWN live streaming platform, subscription based, and not only include live events, but a library full of all those recorded live events as well, so no one misses out on what they want to watch, live or recorded, video on demand. Not everyone has the time to sit and watch a week long event, filled with 120 matches, 360 hours of recorded content, but when that content is still available to watch 24/7 365, that's a game changer!!

 

[Cameron Smith]

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.

Sure the lower ranked players have an advantage, similar to how lower ranked pool players had an advantage over Judd once they were off tv. But Alex Pagulayans qschool performance is most certainly comparable to the players snooker players often beat in pool tournaments. Certainly true for Francisco Sanchez Ruiz’s run at the Gibraltar open as well.

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.

The point is that the pool tournaments they often play in are the coin flips. Races to 5 and races 8 are the same relative length as a race to 2 and 3 in snooker respectively,

 

[Fatboy]

Tell you what, go find you the BEST SNOOKER PLAYER on the planet, and we'll see how he matches up with SVB in a race to 21 playing 10B! Bring ALL your money, borrow as much as you can to back up your claim, and we'll just see how far you can stick your foot up your a$$ and embarrass yourself! I bet you can't even come up with a snooker player willing to play SVB even up!!!

Ronnie- I think we can agree he plays snooker at a reasonably high level.

Johnny Archer- I think we can agree he plays pool pretty good.

So we have 2 players here one is reasonably high level and the other is pretty good. That’s not over stating their abilities in their respective games/sports. Can we all agree on that? Or is this too subject to a 8 page argument. If it is I’ll stop here. Seriously.

Coincidentally they happen to know each other pretty well. Funny how that works. 2 guys who are reasonably good at their respective cue sports actually know one another? Amazing!!!

Oddly enough i happen to know one of them. Funny how that works. People can know each other and live in peace. We communicate and this topic has came up.

Since the guy I know plays who “pretty good” happens to know the “high level” player. I happened to ask him if they ever played pool or snooker. Funny thing they have. Thr “high level” guy travels all over the world and it’s not always in the public’s eye and he happens to like pool as well.

I know all this is a huge stretch for some to actually believe, since all they believe is what they read online. But shit off line does still happen.

Anyways the pool player guy said the snooker player guy plays “pretty solid” and with a bit of time would play real strong.

Judd played a week or 2 to get ready for this tourney. Boyes helped him. It was what it is, a guy who plays his game good as damn near anyone ever playing a game he never plays with 2 weeks practice.

2 different games, 2 different skill sets.

nuff said!

I left here for 8 years, wonder why???? It’s a embarrassment seeing grown men carry on like this. Don’t know shit from Shinola, and argue for days. Get a life!

Fatboy<——I don’t speculate, I go get the facts and know the top people. I’m at the table, while the wait the table.

 

[stevelomako]

Ronnie- I think we can agree he plays snooker at a reasonably high level.

Johnny Archer- I think we can agree he plays pool pretty good.

So we have 2 players here one is reasonably high level and the other is pretty good. That’s not over stating their abilities in their respective games/sports. Can we all agree on that? Or is this too subject to a 8 page argument. If it is I’ll stop here. Seriously.

Coincidentally they happen to know each other pretty well. Funny how that works. 2 guys who are reasonably good at their respective cue sports actually know one another? Amazing!!!

Oddly enough i happen to know one of them. Funny how that works. People can know each other and live in peace. We communicate and this topic has came up.

Since the guy I know plays who “pretty good” happens to know the “high level” player. I happened to ask him if they ever played pool or snooker. Funny thing they have. Thr “high level” guy travels all over the world and it’s not always in the public’s eye and he happens to like pool as well.

I know all this is a huge stretch for some to actually believe, since all they believe is what they read online. But shit off line does still happen.

Anyways the pool player guy said the snooker player guy plays “pretty solid” and with a bit of time would play real strong.

Judd played a week or 2 to get ready for this tourney. Boyes helped him. It was what it is, a guy who plays his game good as damn near anyone ever playing a game he never plays with 2 weeks practice.

2 different games, 2 different skill sets.

nuff said!

I left here for 8 years, wonder why???? It’s a embarrassment seeing grown men carry on like this. Don’t know shit from Shinola, and argue for days. Get a life!

Fatboy<——I don’t speculate, I go get the facts and know the top people. I’m at the table, while the wait the table.

Ronnie came over here (USA) for a little documentary where he went around the country and they filmed it.

Forget how long ago but it was only a few years or so.

 

[Fatboy]

Ronnie came over here (USA) for a little documentary where he went around the country and they filmed it.

Forget how long ago but it was only a few years or so.

I remember that. It seems like it was 6-7 years ago. Could have been longer. That was pretty cool. He’s been here a few times. He’s printing money and lives a great life. Amazing how he makes a 12’ box look like a barbox

 

[Bob Jewett]

Ronnie came over here (USA) for a little documentary where he went around the country and they filmed it.

Forget how long ago but it was only a few years or so.

It was recorded in July of 2016. I think it was broadcast that same year on the History Channel equivalent in the UK. Here's Episode 1 (of 4):

It will probably disappear as soon as the owner notices it.

 

[Poolplaya9]

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.

Getting paid by the number of games won, especially in a round robin format, makes some sense and sounds like a reasonably good format in some ways. It would help cut down on players collaborating/cheating (which is the downfall of round robin formats, cheating is significantly more prevalent than in other formats and you just can't eliminate all of it), and it also gives some incentive to fight hard for every game, even when a player gets significantly behind and knows they aren't likely to be able to come back and win. It also keeps maximum pressure on all the time.

One thing I don't like is that it pays the players for games won, but doesn't really reward them for winning the set. Yes they get more since as the winner they obviously won more games, but they are still only getting paid by games won. There's some benefit to see players actually paid for winning the set as well though. Perhaps a good compromise of sorts would be to do it the way you talked about in the quote above, but give the money from one of the games won by the loser to the winner as their bonus/reward for winning the match. So in your example above, player B would only get paid for 15 games, and player A gets paid for 19 games, so player A essentially gets a $284.11 bonus for winning, and player B essentially takes a $284.11 penalty for losing.

Instead of a one game bonus/penalty, it could also be made a two or three or whatever bonus/penalty game swing instead of just one if you want to put an even higher premium on winning the set which seems like a good idea to me since a player might lose some incentive to try their hardest to win the set if they are going to get paid almost the same as the winner to lose (and they are also more likely to intentionally cheat to help a buddy if it isn't going to cost them very much to lose when they intentionally lose by a close score).

 

[realkingcobra]

Getting paid by the number of games won, especially in a round robin format, makes some sense and sounds like a reasonably good format in some ways. It would help cut down on players collaborating/cheating (which is the downfall of round robin formats, cheating is significantly more prevalent than in other formats and you just can't eliminate all of it), and it also gives some incentive to fight hard for every game, even when a player gets significantly behind and knows they aren't likely to be able to come back and win. It also keeps maximum pressure on all the time.

One thing I don't like is that it pays the players for games won, but doesn't really reward them for winning the set. Yes they get more since as the winner they obviously won more games, but they are still only getting paid by games won. There's some benefit to see players actually paid for winning the set as well though. Perhaps a good compromise of sorts would be to do it the way you talked about in the quote above, but give the money from one of the games won by the loser to the winner as their bonus/reward for winning the match. So in your example above, player B would only get paid for 15 games, and player A gets paid for 19 games, so player A essentially gets a $284.11 bonus for winning, and player B essentially takes a $284.11 penalty for losing.

Instead of a one game bonus/penalty, it could also be made a two or three or whatever bonus/penalty game swing instead of just one if you want to put an even higher premium on winning the set which seems like a good idea to me since a player might lose some incentive to try their hardest to win the set if they are going to get paid almost the same as the winner to lose (and they are also more likely to intentionally cheat to help a buddy if it isn't going to cost them very much to lose when they intentionally lose by a close score).

Match win totals can end up in a 2 or 3 way tie in the end, and be easier to help your buddy win losing a match. Money leader board will definitely produce an overall winner, even if they don't win the most matches. Keep in mind a match can also end up on a tie between both players. The purpose of this format is to give the viewers 15 matches per player to watch, potentially watching 120 matches, instead of 1 or 2 matches and the player is out. AND this format can be ran quarterly, each event requiring 16 new players, showcasing the top 64 elite players in the world, and set the stage for the 4 quarterly winners to play off for the overall championship cup.

 

[The_JV]

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.

Yes exactly... Satellite events for "open" majors not only allow the possibility of an inexperience prodigy to compete with the best (think cinderella story), but also allow skilled players to advance their fargo more rapidly, IF they succeed against the established.

I understand that you vision focuses on the very elite competing against each other and doesn't seem to have room for the 2nd tier pros. To each their own I suppose. While I'll never be the guy to spear head any movement toward organizing professional pool. I do think there are very well established sports that have it already figured out and not using their efforts as a template is misguided.

 

[realkingcobra]

Yes exactly... Satellite events for "open" majors not only allow the possibility of an inexperience prodigy to compete with the best (think cinderella story), but also allow skilled players to advance their fargo more rapidly.

I understand that you vision focuses on the very elite competing against each other and doesn't seem to have room for the 2nd tier pros. To each their own I suppose. While I'll never be the guy to spear head any movement toward organizing professional pool. I do think there are very well established sports that have it already figured out and not using their efforts as a template is misguided.

Trust me, I'm not excluding 2nd tier pros, I'm merely creating divisions that must be earned, not bought!

 

[The_JV]

Trust me, I'm not excluding 2nd tier pros, I'm merely creating divisions that must be earned, not bought!

Oh, I'm not suggesting that any player buy their way into a major pro event. I'm suggesting that you open a path for the opprotunity compete. That path would not be easy, and those coming through on the other side will have earned the right to test themselves against the best.

 

[realkingcobra]

Oh, I'm not suggesting that any player buy their way into a major pro event. I'm suggesting that you open a path for the opprotunity compete. That path would not be easy, and those coming through on the other side will have earned the right to test themselves against the best.

There has never been a real incentive to be the best there is, because the past rewards don't equal the effort required. That has to change, there MUST be a reason to climb the ladder to the top! And that reason has to trickle all the way down the ladder to the upcoming future champions as a goal that really does mean something financially!!!

 

[3handed8ball]

While your annology does make sense. The smaller tables are usually refered to as "Bar tables". Often tables of poor quality just set up in bars as something to do while drinking.

For the longest time that was the case. I hustled bars and the equipment you would run into was unbelievable. Rarely did they even have a light directly over the tables.

The tables just occupied some dead space in the bar often not even with enough room to play. At some point the bar leagues were developed and the pool tables came out of the dark corners and achieved a place of prominence in the bars.

Players began to care about the game again, buying their own cues and actually practicing. The tables themselves got better. They were no longer just a piece on vending equipment like the jukebox or cigarette machines.

We don't need to go through the entire evolution but here we are today. Without those "Bar tables", I doubt pool would still exist to any degree at all.

I can only speak for from the 60s through today from what I personally experienced. I remember bowling alleys with 30 table pool rooms filled with players. I also remember those same bowling alleys turning those rooms into meeting rooms and banquet rooms practically giving the tables away.

How did that happen? How did pool go from what it was to almost extinction. I honestly don't know. It seemed to happen right before our eyes. I bought one of the oldest pool rooms around for little more then the value of the equipment. I basically saved it and it is still open today. I'm a little proud of that.

There seems to be some underlying theme that the smaller tables breed lesser players. I don't think that is true at all. What it does do is introduces new players to the game. I bet many on here the first time they played pool was on a small home table or bar table.

Pool is fun and it doesn't take much to get the bug. It does however take exposure. An awareness of the game and the opportunity to play it.

An old mans ramblings.

 

[3handed8ball]

I like your response to “bar tables.”
And I agree that exposure to the game is paramount to maintain popularity. Those “bar tables” have indeed accomplished much of that.

 

[buckshotshoey]

Add this to your format...A fun thing to do, and will inspire mid level players to improve.....

Put on a Pro Am where pros play scotch doubles with Amateurs. Say amateurs in the 550 to 650 range. Blind draw. Double elimination. It could be inspiring to many mid level players to advance. Yes... future pro players need to be considered.

And you can reach into the grass roots of pool players that way. Rubbing elbows with greatness tends to transfer. And once a pro player starts making a decent living, it could be their way of giving something back.

 

[SlateMan]

Trust me, I'm not excluding 2nd tier pros, I'm merely creating divisions that must be earned, not bought!

I think you are creating a higher barrier to enter an already decreasing market of professionals. Creating a higher cost (time in local tournaments) does nothing to increase demand. This can be modeled in mathematical terms but it is easy to see with just thinking about it.

The fully open satellite model (at least for the US Open) would generate much more local interest and much more paid into the prize pool. Look at the World Series of Poker, they have 8,000 plus people paying $10,000 a piece to get to play for millions. What is more inspiring, a Chris Moneymaker or Carlos Biado? Moneymaker went from an amateur playing with friends to a millionaire and somewhat a pro overnight.

Poker achieves this high number of players because many of them can play local satellite tourneys and win their way into the big show or they can just pay their way in. Imagine the impact on the World Series of Poker if you were prohibited from just signing up?

I would set up a US Open Model that tied into state and local tourneys. (I'm making numbers up after this, they can be adjusted...) Make the US Open a $5,000 entry fee. The pros and the sponsors and the rich wannabees can pay this amount. Feed players into the tourney from wins in state opens. Each state has a "US Open-State" tourney. This can be $1,000 entry. The top 10 from each state get paid some money and an entry into the US Open with travel and expenses. Each city or district in the state will have a smaller tournament that feeds the state tourney. You buy into the district tourney for say $250. Your playing for some cash and an entry into the state tourney. Local pool halls can license a US Open-Local tourney to win your way into the district tourney. These can happen throughout the year. Local buy in could be as little as $25 a person with a minimum number of participants required or the pool hall can kick in an automatic district buy in (Win the local cash and $250 district buy in paid for by owner added funds). Heck, at $25 if you had 20 entrants, you could have a $250 payout AND a district buy-in.

The US Open licensing would generate name brand recognition to these events. Any pool hall that wants to host small, local satellites, would have to register with the US Open group. They could have a website that shows if a tourney is sponsored or not. Players would be encouraged to ONLY enter US Open licensed tourneys.

Adjust the dollar figures above for what the market will actually accept. You could have a US Open tourney with the absolute best players in the country. Some could buy in for as little as a $25 satellite. The payouts could start to look like life changing money to the players rather than the barely break even amounts after expenses and taxes we have now.

 

[realkingcobra]

Add this to your format...A fun thing to do, and will inspire mid level players to improve.....

Put on a Pro Am where pros play scotch doubles with Amateurs. Say amateurs in the 550 to 650 range. Blind draw. Double elimination. It could be inspiring to many mid level players to advance. Yes... future pro players need to be considered.

And you can reach into the grass roots of pool players that way. Rubbing elbows with greatness tends to transfer. And once a pro player starts making a decent living, it could be their way of giving something back.

And there is where the decent living needs that line drawn, between the upper level amateurs and the Pros. If a player wants to make a living playing pool, then cross that line into the Pros first, I have no interest in supporting a living playing pool for the amateurs! There's a huge difference between supporting Pro events with advertising dollars, vs adding sponsorship money to lower level amateur included events, based on the requests of the event hosts submitting a request for sponsorship dollars to help increase the payouts in lower level events, in which the Pro's may, or may not be able to compete in, depending on the Fargo rate restrictions!!