which would you rather do?

which would you rather do

  • $65 entry w/$5000 added equalling less total payout

    Votes: 37 71.2%

  • $125 entry w/$5000 added bigger total payout

    Votes: 15 28.8%
  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
2l82bgr8

2l82bgr8

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you had two options but could only go to one tournament, which one would you choose?
 
The one with luck being less of a possiblity, the less luck the further I'll drive.
 
Last edited:
2l82bgr8 said:
If you had two options but could only go to one tournament, which one would you choose?
Click to expand...
Basically if money isn't an issue, I'd would choose the one that I would enjoy the MOST.
Sometimes having fun is more important!!
 
your responses are very important in helping us to decide what type of events we will set-up in the future. Thank you very much
 
more info needed

CrownCityCorey said:
Whichever one was:

On 9' tables

and is:
8-ball at least a race to 8
9-ball at least a race to 9
10-ball at least a race to 8

...on both sides!
Click to expand...

I can't vote because not enough information is available in the question.

I agree with the above (CCC) completely, though, with #1 definitely being the 9 foot tables. I'm just not going take a day off of work for an 8 foot (or smaller) tourney. Even if the cost of the hotel/ travel is almost nothing for the tiny table tournament.

And longer races- a race to 3 or 4 isn't really worth any travel out of town, either.

Depth of payout helps some, too, since I'm pretty weak and need to have a hope for something. Winner take all or top 3 or 4 paid doesn't make me excited over a big fat purse because I just won't get there... At least 25% of the players should get something back.
 
Last edited:
Not speaking for the pollster here, but I'm thinking he's saying:

"all things being equal, which would you rather attend"

And my response would depend mostly on my predicted "positioning" within the field. If I felt I had a good chance to cash or win, I'd fork the extra $. It's all about predicting the ROI.

I think only the players that feel they are in @ the top 25%, with an extra $60 to spend, would risk the higher entry fee.
 
That's what I mean: the question didn't give much information. It COULD be a general, open "all things being equal," or it COULD be his thinking about the set up for the next Shootout at the sands (see link to last thread).

I was going off of choice two. As far as alllll of the other threads on the topic go, yes, I support pool, yeah I love the tourneys in Reno, and definitely I'm very sad whenever I hear the rumors that there will be no Reno Open or no USPPA in Dec (this is not a confirmation of any rumor). But when it came down to it, the events in the Shootout that I was interested in would have required taking several (3-4) vacation days from work and would have been played on barboxes.

Cheap entry and travel-- It's a very quick drive to Reno from Sac and the room (and food) prices are unbelievably low. But I couldn't justify hard- earned days off on bartables.

For 9 foot tables, though, yeah I probably would have done it- and opted out of Eureka, a much harder drive but which doesn't require taking a day off.

I'm telling you: I suck. Sideways with braces. I have a mild chance of either playing well or getting lucky, but ultimately the experience itself is going to drive the decision. I can get whooped at Reno, at Eureka. Heck, I can get whooped at home. But. Which is going to be (first) more fun and educational, and (second) which will cost less?

Barboxes aren't fun OR educational- that throws that whole thing out the window over cost.
 
I was thinking all things equal, shootout at the Sands is dead, it won't ever happen the Sands is loosing intresr in pool. Hopefully we can keep the number of players up, and even grow at the USBT so it doesn't dissappear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top