They see every word I wrote on here! I assure you! If not! They are extremely negligent! They have PR department and staff that get paid to monitor these things...
Kd
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
US Open draw and rules
- Thread starter BRussell
- Start date
Kd
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
look, if it's that crazy why don't you chip in a bet at williamhill or betsson. because i assume their odds are equally crazy, even though big time bookies are the most rational driven actors in the market economy. you can be rich sir
your comments about that the seeding should be either 100% fargo based or no seeding at all is what's really crazy.
You know that for a fact? If so how? I have my doubts on this.
As I see it, with the depth of field, all it can take is one bad match, or one lucky match to keep you in it. This format only allows, MAX 2 bad errors per set....or your in the losers bracket. These guys will be playing on the same equipment, many will get the speed/conditions down perfect if they can last that long. Races to 11 create quite a different event, than races to 7 or 8. You have to be in Great/Shape to win this event if you get knocked into the B side. Mika was proof of that. When I look at my four horses, yeah it coulda been better, but even on the B side, my players will for sure win that bracket, so I got that going for me. B side winners then play final 16 races to 13 or 11? single elim. Then 13 in the final.
I agree the seeding isn't perfect but they did ok when considering participation is a factor. You just got unlucky with the players you bet on getting low seedings and tough brackets I think. None of the brackets are as easy as you say, though. SVB has Chua and Albin. Whoever wins is gonna have to beat a string of top players anyway, might as well get in form early...
Last edited:
I personally have zero issues with the seeding.
Furthermore, at least we have transparency now on how the seeding was done. Good luck trying to figure out how Barry ever did it.
Furthermore, at least we have transparency now on how the seeding was done. Good luck trying to figure out how Barry ever did it.
One thing I didn't understand before is that the board is a full 256-player double-elimination board with players criss-crossing if they lose a match. I thought it was eight separate double elimination brackets to get down to 16 for the single-elimination finals. That means that if you lose a match, you will be far from the players you started next to.
I absolutely hate this new trend of tournaments changing from double elimination to single elimination in the middle of the tournament. It's completely unfair to the players on the winner's side. I don't even understand how they justify it.
The earlier round matches are generally easier than the later round matches. However, with this format, a player who loses in the earlier rounds is given a second chance whereas a player who loses in the later round is knocked out. Totally backwards.
If you're going to do it, your way is the fairest. Play 8 separate brackets and have the top two players from each bracket move on. Reseed all players for the final 16. This is how they do it for high school wresting in my area. Top 4 from sectionals go on to districts. Top 4 from districts go on to states. Still not the best method though.
Complete and utter derail, but Hogan himself will tell you Flair is the best. Watch the ESPN 30 For 30 on Ric Flair, and see Hogan talking about it. Whooooo!
I think this years US Open is a great step forward, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out, and how it goes next year....
Last edited:
Didn’t you all see the new Andre the Giant documentary last year!? Hogan said Andre was the best
Macho man for me and the Ultimate Warrior!Didn’t you all see the new Andre the Giant documentary last year!? Hogan said Andre was the best
I loved those two dudes!
Kd
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
This is not a new trend. Nearly all WPA events have been done this way for many, many years. Eurotour events have also been played this way for a long, long time.
In America, the World Pool Series in New York was always played this way, but most American events don't use this format. Personally, I'd like to see this format used in every large field event other than Derby City, where the unique redraw methodology makes it impossible.
The fifteen "win or go home" matches that will fill the last three days of the US Open will be absolutely electrifying. The introduction of this format to America's most prestigious event is long overdue. The fans of the game are the big winners.
The world's most elite players, who compete all over the globe, have plenty of experience with this format. Nothing really new here.
Having two players fight to death on top of the pool table would be fun to watch too, that doesn't make it a good idea. This format is simply unfair. As an example, the below situation can easily happen:
Let's say you are an average pro, nothing special but capable of winning if you play your absolute best. You come out of the gate strong and upset SVB, you're playing great and win a few more matches before losing a close hill hill battle to finish 16th place. Meanwhile, SVB comes back through the losers side to win the tournament.
Does that sound fair to you? SVB loses to someone he should easily beat and wins the event. While you play your best possible game, upset several players, lose a close match, and then have to stop and go home with only one loss. Disgusting...
Also, it gives players incentives to lose on purpose. Sometimes losing will lead to a better draw on the losers side than trying to fight through the winners side.
Last edited:
Dechaine also played in the Derby City Classic.
I'll agree that this is possible, but, in forty three years of attending pro tournaments, I don't remember anyone choosing to lose for this reason, and I have countless friends among the pro players.
As you correctly note, the limitation of this method is that a one loss player may be eliminated while another one-loss player wins, but the event is best viewed as a qualifier up to the last sixteen.
At the Olympics, the guy who qualifies third in his semifinal heat for the 100-meter run might edge out the guy who won that same heat later on for the gold. Even though each of them beat the other, all that matters is who won in the final stage. A case can be made that the guy who won his heat and came second in the next stage outperformed the guy who came third in his heat and then won gold, but it doesn't matter. Qualifying is qualifying, and once you have qualified, you on exactly even footing with everyone else who qualified, regardless of how you got there.
The same principle is in play here.
I see your point here that the first rounds are simply a qualifier for the final 16. That's okay to do it that way but you have to stop and reseed all of the players before continuing with the final 16 bracket. Otherwise, it won't work out correctly.
When they seed the tournament, the #1 and #2 ranked players are put on opposite sides of the bracket to allow them both to eventually meet in the finals and finish #1 and #2. However, in this format, when the #1 & #2 players meet, they will be in the semi finals (aka winners side final). The other semifinal would be the finals of the loser's side. This forces the #2 seeded player into 3rd place only by losing to the #1 player, who he's supposed to lose to.
For example, at the expo this year, James Aranas and Raymart Faraon were the last two standing on the winners side. This would put them as #1 and #2 in the tournament. James Aranas won which knocked out Faraon and give him 3rd place. Now Oscar Domingez won the losers bracket to play James Aranas in the finals for 1st/2nd.
So if James Aranas is the #1 best player and Raymart Faraon is the #2 best player, Oscar Dominguez was able to skip ahead of Faraon to finish #2 without ever having to prove that he's better. In fact, he actually lost to Faraon earlier in the tournament. See what I mean? It's not fair. They need to at least reseed the final 16 and start over the best two players meet in the finals, not semi finals.
I think we see this more or less the same way. The format being used is not without a few issues, but I see it as a step forward and believe that the late rounds will be more exciting to watch than anything ever seen on American soil before. Matchroom, as I see, has always seen to it that the fans' interests are served first, and I believe they have done so once again.
Still, with your excellent points in mind, I'll reserve judgement until the event has been played. May the best man win! Should be fun.
Yes, and I think we should view many more tournaments as "two-stage" events like this.
For example you might have
256 -->32
128-->8
64-->16
64-->4
AND --the point I really want to make--
128-->2
64-->2
32-->2
16-->2
8-->2
In each case the first stage is double elimination and the second stage is single elimination that can have the same or a different match format. For instance, the second stage can be longer races or have a "win by 2" component, etc.
Notice that by framing it like this, we have just gotten rid of the godawful feature of a sometimes-second-set in the finals for a double elimination tournament. And we've done it in a logically consistent way. The purpose of the first stage is to qualify for/advance to the second stage.
We no longer have to say a tournament is "modified" double elimination or double elimination with a sheepish asterick. We can acknowledge that that really has all along been a stupid format...
Note that if you set up a tournament in Cuescore, which is being used for tournament series in many different countries, tournament formats are coded like above--There is not even an option for what is sometimes called "true" double elimination.
Yes, and I think we should view many more tournaments as "two-stage" events like this.
For example you might have
256 -->32
128-->8
64-->16
64-->4
AND --the point I really want to make--
128-->2
64-->2
32-->2
16-->2
8-->2
In each case the first stage is double elimination and the second stage is single elimination that can have the same or a different match format. For instance, the second stage can be longer races or have a "win by 2" component, etc.
Notice that by framing it like this, we have just gotten rid of the godawful feature of a sometimes-second-set in the finals for a double elimination tournament. And we've done it in a logically consistent way. The purpose of the first stage is to qualify for/advance to the second stage.
We no longer have to say a tournament is "modified" double elimination or double elimination with a sheepish asterick. We can acknowledge that that really has all along been a stupid format...
Note that if you set up a tournament in Cuescore, which is being used for tournament series in many different countries, tournament formats are coded like above--There is not even an option for what is sometimes called "true" double elimination.