World 10-ball

[sjm]

It’s bizarre at best to say the pockets were too big when AtLarge reports the B&R rate was only 23% on successful breaks and 13% on all breaks.

Have to agree that if this 13% is going to be the B&R percentage going forward, you're absolutely right. We've never seen the stats even close to this low before. We'll keep our eyes open and see how it develops.

 

[sjm]

[Stu -- looks like you used $225,000 or $226,000 as the purse for the World 10-Ball. Unless it changed from what was planned, the purse was $250,000, so your percentages are off a little.]

Yes, also true for other events cited. I used the last published payouts based on the AZB money list to make the comparison, which in the case of the World 10-ball was the 2022 event. Perhaps the prize structure cited will, similarly, prove inaccurate for the UK Open, US Open, and European Open. I just did have any of this info when I reviewed these events.

No doubt, if your review has extended to the just-completed event, I'm sure you're right. Thanks for the info.

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

Great post! As you note, the needle has moved all over the place. The size of the first place check may never be enough to garner any attention, and I don't think pool's image will be affected one way or the other by the size of that check. My opinion is that if pool is to be sustainable over time, you can't have super top-heavy payouts.

I think we're on the same page in wanting to see the sport grow to the point that prize money growth can enable high winner checks but, in the interim, if pool is going to finance big winner checks by paying nearly nothing to the middle of the field, I'm against it, because it will lead to reduced participation in an era where pool's business model is still very dependent on dead money.

I think we have the same hopes for the pro game.

You’re in the wrong room if you want to be talking ‘top heavy’. Comparatively pool is one of the worst paying professions from a tournament earnings aspect. Look at golf. $20,000,000 purse and the winner takes home 12.5% at most of the pot. That’s your idea of what pool should be doing. But a pool tournaments total pot is only 10% of what golf has, so by your standards the winner should only be receiving $25,000 instead of $60,000. Something’s off with your idea. And I think it’s your conceptualization of how vast the differences are is the problem. A 20% of total pot payout in golf for the top 2 sounds pitifully slim, until you understand it’s a couple million. Take that same idea to pool, and who is going to show up for anything then?

 

[mikepage]

What do these events have to do with anything?

I was concerned some might infer from your comment the non-finalist players were splitting chump change, and I felt this comparison added perspective on how much money we were talking about.

Nobody's buying into the suggestion that the World 10-ball is paying similarly to the other majors in rotation pool.
The World 10-ball is a boon for those who reach the final day, as they walk away with 62% of the prize fund. The remainder of the field shares the other 32%. At the World 9-ball, it's just the opposite. The top four walk away with 38% of the purse and the remainder shares 62% of the purse, which is quite similar to what we see at the US Open, UK Open and European Open.

I see that, and have seen the comment from you before. I just don't see it as a superior approach, don't see it as a big deal, and don't see it as impacting participation or anything like that.

 

[Woodshaft]

For those who may have forgotten, this isn't Kaci's first rodeo.
He won this same event two years ago in 2021, defeating Oi of Japan 10 to 6.
Kaci's a 10-ball stud.

 

[mikepage]

Anybody else notice that had SVB won his quarter-final match, it would have been the world's top 4 Fargo Ratings as the final 4?

 

[sjm]

I was concerned some might infer from your comment the non-finalist players were splitting chump change, and I felt this comparison added perspective on how much money we were talking about.

I see that, and have seen the comment from you before. I just don't see it as a superior approach, don't see it as a big deal, and don't see it as impacting participation or anything like that.

I think we're together here, Mike. History says participation will drop, but if you're right and participation does not suffer because of the top-heavy payouts, all will be well.

In the end, we want the same thing, which is healthy payouts with wide participation. We'll see how it all develops.

 

[Woodshaft]

As far as the prize money debate goes, it's actually mostly irrelevant.
Hardly any of the pro players make a living off tournament "prize money".
They make it off of sponsorships, backer-cuts, "green room action", giving lessons, public appearances, etc.
Tournaments exist to publicize the players so their sponsors can sell products.
Tournaments are for MARKETING.

 

[Woodshaft]

Anybody else notice that had SVB won his quarter-final match, it would have been the world's top 4 Fargo Ratings as the final 4?

I did.
Almost Mike, almost.

 

[sjm]

You’re in the wrong room if you want to be talking ‘top heavy’. Comparatively pool is one of the worst paying professions from a tournament earnings aspect. Look at golf. $20,000,000 purse and the winner takes home 12.5% at most of the pot. That’s your idea of what pool should be doing. But a pool tournaments total pot is only 10% of what golf has, so by your standards the winner should only be receiving $25,000 instead of $60,000. Something’s off with your idea. And I think it’s your conceptualization of how vast the differences are is the problem. A 20% of total pot payout in golf for the top 2 sounds pitifully slim, until you understand it’s a couple million. Take that same idea to pool, and who is going to show up for anything then?

Actually, you are mistaken. Current PGA guidelines call for 18% to the winner and 10.8% to second place. For the 2023 World 10-ball with (per At Large) a $250,000 purse, that translates to $45,000 for first and 27,000 for second, and yes, that's about where I think things should be in pool, too, and no, I don't think that if the top two prizes were these, it would affect participation at all.

 

[Brookeland Bill]

As far as the prize money debate goes, it's actually mostly irrelevant.
Hardly any of the pro players make a living off tournament "prize money".
They make it off of sponsorships, backer-cuts, "green room action", giving lessons, public appearances, etc.
Tournaments exist to publicize the players so their sponsors can sell products.
Tournaments are for MARKETING.

I don’t think 60k for first place is chump change to these guys. As far as marketing goes I never bought a golf club or cue stick because endorsements by professionals.

 

[Woodshaft]

I don’t think 60k for first place is chump change to these guys.

Never said it was.
But relative to ALL other sports, it really is.
$60k for 1st place in a World Championship is chump change, especially considering the millions of dollars Predator and the entire industry make in overall revenue.

 

[Woodshaft]

It’s bizarre at best to say the pockets were too big when AtLarge reports the B&R rate was only 23% on successful breaks and 13% on all breaks.

The breaks were bad for two reasons:
One, the triangle rack (and poor racking).
Two, slow cloth.
The pocket size was pretty much irrelevant concerning breaks.

 

[sjm]

The breaks were bad for two reasons:
One, the triangle rack (and poor racking).
Two, slow cloth.
The pocket size was pretty much irrelevant concerning breaks.

In addition, ten ball last reduces the B&R %, making the runout more difficult. Same is true of "ten doesn't count on the break."

 

[PoolBum]

Anybody else notice that had SVB won his quarter-final match, it would have been the world's top 4 Fargo Ratings as the final 4?

See post #166.

 

[Woodshaft]

In addition, ten ball last reduces the B&R %, making the runout more difficult. Same is true of "ten doesn't count on the break."

I know. Remember I corrected you when you tried to tell me that breaking and running 9 and 10-ball racks are equally easy. They are not.

 

[sjm]

I know. Remember I corrected you when you tried to tell me that breaking and running 9 and 10-ball racks are equally easy. They are not.

Yes, I was mistaken.

 

[ChrisinNC]

I saw the same. Pretty sure the 10 has to go last under WPA rules, unless it was changed recently.

My error, when I saw that combo on the 10 last night, I assumed the game was over, but after watching again, it was not.

I wondered why they picked up the action in the middle of the next game, but now I realize it was the same game. Obviously I had a senior moment.

 

[BasementDweller]

Never said it was.
But relative to ALL other sports, it really is.
$60k for 1st place in a World Championship is chump change, especially considering the millions of dollars Predator and the entire industry make in overall revenue.

Everyone needs to keep things in perspective. 60k is a very good payday for 99% of the people walking the planet. Yes it doesn't compare favorably to the major sports, but it's better than others. We are also living in a renaissance, where players are just now beginning to parlay their visibility into additional sources of income. Things are looking up for the game AND the players.

 

[BlueRaider]

Everyone needs to keep things in perspective. 60k is a very good payday for 99% of the people walking the planet. Yes it doesn't compare favorably to the major sports, but it's better than others. We are also living in a renaissance, where players are just now beginning to parlay their visibility into additional sources of income. Things are looking up for the game AND the players.

Another perspective is that first prize for the World 9 Ball was $100k in 2007, but the global recession caused the pool world to hit the reset button on that event, and when it came back, the money was roughly 1/3rd of what it had been the last time it was played.

First prize was $50k for the US Open 9 Ball in 2007, the same amount FSR got in 2022! It was also $50k in 2000, but that was an anomaly, as it immediately dropped to $30k the next three years and didn't reach 50k again until SVB won it in 07.

Keeping up with inflation, the U.S. Open should be closer to $75k for 1st and the World 9 Ball should be nearly $150k!

Now, I doubt that we'd see a $150k first prize even if the World 9 Ball never moved to Qatar and pool had kept chugging along, but $100k for the biggest event in pool seems reasonable, IMO.

Especially since it has already been done 16 years ago. Pool needs to promote the image that it is moving forward, not backwards in prize money. The bigger purses certainly help, and they are more player-friendly, but I think $100k is a sweet spot for the W9B, U.S. Open, and ideally, both. It's a nice, round number that's not going to cause people to scoff. I've heard many people chuckle at what pros make (excluding sponsorships and money on the side).

A 22-year-old fresh STEM graduate would be in the top 10 on the pool money leaderboard with an entry-level job at a big tech company.