Was I wrong? (About a tournament)

[jensen_lover]

I played in a tournament earlier today given by a fraternity at my school. It was a double elimination tournament. Race to two on the winner's side and race to one on the loser's side.

There are three people left. My name is Dominick, Roy, and Dakota. Roy and I play for the winner of the winner's bracket. Roy won. I play Dakota one game and win. Dakota is now out and I am the only person left in the loser's bracket.

Now for the first place game. We play the first game, he wins and he shakes my hand and says, "Good game." I said we have at least another game to play. All of the frat pledges agreed with him that he won the tournament from winning that one game.

They said since I was in the loser's bracket, if I lost one game I lost the tournament. I would have only had to win two games to beat him (and not play the other game since we were both in the loser's bracket now). Is that correct?

I was pretty sure we played a race to two. If I won we would play the race to one game and the winner would win the tournament.

This is really bugging me because I was argueing with ten frat boys for at least 30 min about the winner's and loser's brackets.

One of the frat kids said I was correct and the championship was supposed to be a race to two and, if I won, another race to one.

Was I wrong? Please shed some light if you can.

 

[ForumGhost516]

Sounds right to me unless the finals are decided by a longer race which is what happens in the US Open etc.

 

[TheMadScientist]

They screwed you. You still had a chance to win.

 

[9indaside]

Unless it's 1 longer race, he's the winner. You're in the 1 loss bracket so he only needs 1 win.

 

[Courtney_Peters]

In most tournaments I've seen and played, with the exception of pro events, in a double elimination tournament, you would have to beat him a race to 2 and then a race to 1. Same goes for a tournament thats a race to 9 and race to 7 on the one-loss side. If you play the person who won the hot seat you would have to beat them 2 separate sets, if u beat them the race to 9, then you have to beat them a race to 7. The rules should have been agreed upon and announced before tournament play began, thats why they generally have a players meeting.

 

[breaknrunjr]

In my opinion, you lost a popularity contest, not a pool tournament. In a "true" double elimination tournament, coming from the losers side to the finals, you would have had to win the first set (winner side race to 2), and then win a 2nd set (loser side race to 1) to win the tournament. There have been instances where the final match in a Double-Elim tournament gets changed a bit for one reason or another. I've seen the finals be played as one longer race (in your case it would have been one race to 3 or 4). I've also seen instances where the final match has an opptional stretch. That would be done in a manner similar to how your tournament turned out (If you won the race to 1, the match would be stretched to 2, but if he won the race to 1, he would win right there). However, I must stress that when any deviation from the "true" double elimination format occurs in the finals, it must be specified before the final match begins at the LATEST. Many legitimate tours have those kinds of format changes posted before the tournament even begins.

That being said, if there was a change to the format of the finals and information about it was posted or readily available and you simply didn't notice, you can't blame them for doing what they did. However, if there was no information posted and the person running the tournament just sprang it on when it was too late, then you definitely have cause to be frustrated about it and consider not playing next time around. To be honest, I'd stay away from those short races anyway. Even among the worst players, races to 2 and 1 are more like a lottery than a real competition.

Don't get mad though; get even. If you like your odds of beating him and feel he lucked you out, see if he wants to play a longer set for the prize he beat you out of. Seeing as he beat you in the tournament, he might let that cheaply earned victory go to his head to make him play you that set. Just a suggestion if you still feel raw about what happened. Good luck!

 

[Maniac]

My opinion has always been that when you work your way all the way through the losers bracket and face an undefeated player, then you have re-entered the winners side. Obviously your opponent hasn't lost yet, so how could the finals be interpreted as the losers side?

I think you got the shaft (no pun intended)!!!

Maniac

 

[Black-Balled]

Welcome to pool.

 

[Manoman2444]

I played in a tournament earlier today given by a fraternity at my school. It was a double elimination tournament. Race to two on the winner's side and race to one on the loser's side.

There are three people left. My name is Dominick, Roy, and Dakota. Roy and I play for the winner of the winner's bracket. Roy won. I play Dakota one game and win. Dakota is now out and I am the only person left in the loser's bracket.

Now for the first place game. We play the first game, he wins and he shakes my hand and says, "Good game." I said we have at least another game to play. All of the frat pledges agreed with him that he won the tournament from winning that one game.

They said since I was in the loser's bracket, if I lost one game I lost the tournament. I would have only had to win two games to beat him (and not play the other game since we were both in the loser's bracket now). Is that correct?

I was pretty sure we played a race to two. If I won we would play the race to one game and the winner would win the tournament.

This is really bugging me because I was argueing with ten frat boys for at least 30 min about the winner's and loser's brackets.

One of the frat kids said I was correct and the championship was supposed to be a race to two and, if I won, another race to one.

Was I wrong? Please shed some light if you can.

He only had to win one (he hadn't lost). You lost to Roy, so you had to win two.

 

[jensen_lover]

Sounds right to me unless the finals are decided by a longer race which is what happens in the US Open etc.

Thanks.

They screwed you. You still had a chance to win.

Thanks.

In most tournaments I've seen and played, with the exception of pro events, in a double elimination tournament, you would have to beat him a race to 2 and then a race to 1. Same goes for a tournament thats a race to 9 and race to 7 on the one-loss side. If you play the person who won the hot seat you would have to beat them 2 separate sets, if u beat them the race to 9, then you have to beat them a race to 7. The rules should have been agreed upon and announced before tournament play began, thats why they generally have a players meeting.

The thing about that, none of the peole running the tournament play pool more than casually. I literally had to find BCA rules for them so they could print them out. The whole time they kept saying the winner of the loser's bracket had to beat the winner of winner's bracket twice. Where the winner of winner had to beat winner of loser only once. They did not specify what they meant by once. One or two matches or one or two games. I was under the impression it was matches, since that is what we played the rest of the tournament.

In my opinion, you lost a popularity contest, not a pool tournament. In a "true" double elimination tournament, coming from the losers side to the finals, you would have had to win the first set (winner side race to 2), and then win a 2nd set (loser side race to 1) to win the tournament. There have been instances where the final match in a Double-Elim tournament gets changed a bit for one reason or another. I've seen the finals be played as one longer race (in your case it would have been one race to 3 or 4). I've also seen instances where the final match has an opptional stretch. That would be done in a manner similar to how your tournament turned out (If you won the race to 1, the match would be stretched to 2, but if he won the race to 1, he would win right there). However, I must stress that when any deviation from the "true" double elimination format occurs in the finals, it must be specified before the final match begins at the LATEST. Many legitimate tours have those kinds of format changes posted before the tournament even begins.

That being said, if there was a change to the format of the finals and information about it was posted or readily available and you simply didn't notice, you can't blame them for doing what they did. However, if there was no information posted and the person running the tournament just sprang it on when it was too late, then you definitely have cause to be frustrated about it and consider not playing next time around. To be honest, I'd stay away from those short races anyway. Even among the worst players, races to 2 and 1 are more like a lottery than a real competition.

Don't get mad though; get even. If you like your odds of beating him and feel he lucked you out, see if he wants to play a longer set for the prize he beat you out of. Seeing as he beat you in the tournament, he might let that cheaply earned victory go to his head to make him play you that set. Just a suggestion if you still feel raw about what happened. Good luck!

Thank you for the comment. Like I said above, I had to get them the rules to play 8-ball. Even after they had the rules one of the frat boys was trying to tell me it was behind the line after a foul. I do not think it was a popularity contest, as I am friends with one of the frat's founding fathers. I think the kids in the frat were just trying to get out of there, and not care about their intergrity. The guy I played in the finals said every tournament he has played in was run this way.

 

[jensen_lover]

He only had to win one (he hadn't lost). You lost to Roy, so you had to win two.

Same nonspecificity here. Two games or matches?

 

[jensen_lover]

My opinion has always been that when you work your way all the way through the losers bracket and face an undefeated player, then you have re-entered the winners side. Obviously your opponent hasn't lost yet, so how could the finals be interpreted as the losers side?

I think you got the shaft (no pun intended)!!!

Maniac

I was trying to tell them that. It can not be the loser's side of my match (since I was in the loser's bracket) and the winner's side of his match (since he was still unbeaten) played at the same time.

 

[Maniac]

He only had to win one (he hadn't lost). You lost to Roy, so you had to win two.

I respectfully cannot agree with this thinking. A finals match (as in a tournament, not league) is a race to the same amount of games. It is not a winners side/losers side scenario. It is the finals of the tournament. Both are racing for the same goal. The only exception to this would be a handicapped tournament where there are multiple players of varying skill levels. Then the races are spotted depending on whom plays whom.

Maniac

 

[mosconiac]

In my opinion, you lost a popularity contest, not a pool tournament. In a "true" double elimination tournament, coming from the losers side to the finals, you would have had to win the first set (winner side race to 2), and then win a 2nd set (loser side race to 1) to win the tournament.

^^^this^^^

 

[crawfish]

If I had a dollar for every time something like this has happened to me.....

Well, welcome to being the "outsider."

 

[Masayoshi]

I've played in tournaments where the finalists play only one race (due to time constraints) and the winner's side recieves a handicap for not losing yet. Say a race to 5 for the loser's side finalist and a race to 4 for the winner's side finalist. Although, usually, they will tell you this before the match starts. Maybe this was what happened here and they just assumed you knew their rules?

 

[Ponytail]

Learn from this...

Before you play the finals, find out what the race is ahead of time, and plead your case then, instead of after the fact.

When I run tournaments, and when it comes down to the finals, I state what the race is before the match is played. It has always been to the race of the winners side. If the guy from the one loss side wins, I then state again what the race is, and that would be the race for the one loss side.

But.. the point being. Find out ahead of time, and not after the fact.

Don't worry about it that much. As life goes, this is one of those things that isn't an expensive lesson, but a lesson none the less.

 

[jensen_lover]

I've played in tournaments where the finalists play only one race (due to time constraints) and the winner's side recieves a handicap for not losing yet. Say a race to 5 for the loser's side finalist and a race to 4 for the winner's side finalist. Although, usually, they will tell you this before the match starts. Maybe this was what happened here and they just assumed you knew their rules?

They did not have any rules. They wanted to play the whole tournament one game double elim. Another frat boy said it should be a race to two on winner's and one on loser's. The one person there that had run a tournament before agreed with me. The others kept saying, "You are in the loser's side, which was one game." They were talking to me like I am six.

 

[JustinHayes]

I think you got the shaft... he needed one "MATCH" not one "game".


That said, I always like to say "It's just easier to stay on the right side of the bracket"

Justin (usually 2-and-out) Hayes

 

[alstl]

You got the short end of the stick, but probably should have clarified things before the finals.

Aside from that, how sweet would it be to enter a tournament and realize you are playing a bunch of frat boys? A better strategy than trying to win the tournament might have been to dump, go two and out and then gamble with the frat boys and relieve them of some of their daddy's money.