Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The simple simple truth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The simple simple truth

    Originally posted by NH Steve View Post
    Same order as the very beginning?? Then it sounds more like a big round robin -- just one game per match and everyone works through everyone. The main difference being, the incoming players break, and the table assignments are prescribed by who wins and the order on the master list??

    Now I am definitely confused lol


    No you misunderstood me. But actually just thought of a better way to keep track of it. We keep track of iterations (trips to a table) and you could never get put on the waiting list above somebody with fewer iterations.

    Comment


    • The simple simple truth

      Originally posted by youngstownkid View Post
      No you misunderstood me. But actually just thought of a better way to keep track of it. We keep track of iterations (trips to a table) and you could never get put on the waiting list above somebody with fewer iterations.


      So with this new iteration addendum there are no pitfalls that I can see at all. Then at the end of the day 2, we just need to identify a stopping point based on the iterations so that it’s fair. So sometime between 10 PM and 12 AM or something like that we stop at the change in iterations. So everybody would have the same equal number of chances to get called up, but not the same number of games played, as you can get an extra game or two each iteration if you win.
      Last edited by youngstownkid; 11-14-2018, 04:01 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by youngstownkid View Post
        No you misunderstood me. But actually just thought of a better way to keep track of it. We keep track of iterations (trips to a table) and you could never get put on the waiting list above somebody with fewer iterations.
        I could be wrong, but doesn't that mean everyone would then be waiting for the slowest players??
        "One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
        -- Strawberry Brooks

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NH Steve View Post
          I could be wrong, but doesn't that mean everyone would then be waiting for the slowest players??
          You are 100% right.
          EVERYONE WAITS ON THE SSLLOOOW.
          Only a shot clock works.
          To all who say its not in the spirit of the game. You are correct but neither is trnmnt play. Fats said that all the time "playing for a tincup". No just match up and play for da moolah

          Comment


          • Max 2 hrs

            With WBT format 2 hrs. Max allowed for each match.

            If the second game is still in play, turn in your score sheets.

            Entire bucket chart will have matches Every 2 hrs starting on time.

            You can push the pencil and set up your match times for the entire weekend before play starts. Sunday is different/races. No buys, ever. If a match gets done early, that table will then be open for warm up play. We would not need to JAM another match on that table because...the flo-chart has control of match TIMES. Matches CAN"T run long.
            Bill Meacham
            WBT
            www.worldbilliardtour.com
            no link....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NH Steve View Post
              I'm kind of feeling like this chip tourney idea is starting to take me right back to the RR idea, but single games in the RR. That avoids all those little potential pitfalls, and only leaves us back with the initial issue -- slow players lol
              Conversation sounds like we are nearing a vote. Not that I am authorized in any way, but for what it is worth I want to make it clear what format I am recommending for the poll, one that gives us plenty of play, is easily managed, has best potential to fit into our time constraints, and does not bastardize our game in any way.

              There's been mucho discussion about why we are attending, and having oodles of time for matching up, and trying to control slow players, and whatever. The only good answer for slow players is a shot clock, and with the recently revealed app for a timer clock, that seems to be a simple solution.

              I recommend for the poll (vote) this:

              Round Robin for Friday and Saturday, involving 32 players divided into 4 groups of 8 players, each player playing 7 matches of 3 games each (total of 21 games), at 45 mins/game =15.75 hours (could be 6 hrs on Friday and 9.75 hrs on Sat.), at the conclusion of which an elimination finals (either dbl for 4 players or single for 8 players) is played on Sunday.

              Each group, through a democratic or dictatorial process with no time constraints, is responsible to complete their RR games in order to put a qualifier(s) into the finals. Should a group fail to complete their RR games, they may elect their entrant(s) into the finals, probably by unanimous vote only.

              Slow play and slow players to be controlled by conjoling and shot clock by each group at their discretion. Ties to broken by head to head play.

              KISS at work here.
              The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by darmoose View Post
                Conversation sounds like we are nearing a vote. Not that I am authorized in any way, but for what it is worth I want to make it clear what format I am recommending for the poll, one that gives us plenty of play, is easily managed, has best potential to fit into our time constraints, and does not bastardize our game in any way.

                There's been mucho discussion about why we are attending, and having oodles of time for matching up, and trying to control slow players, and whatever. The only good answer for slow players is a shot clock, and with the recently revealed app for a timer clock, that seems to be a simple solution.

                I recommend for the poll (vote) this:

                Round Robin for Friday and Saturday, involving 32 players divided into 4 groups of 8 players, each player playing 7 matches of 3 games each (total of 21 games), at 45 mins/game =15.75 hours (could be 6 hrs on Friday and 9.75 hrs on Sat.), at the conclusion of which an elimination finals (either dbl for 4 players or single for 8 players) is played on Sunday.

                Each group, through a democratic or dictatorial process with no time constraints, is responsible to complete their RR games in order to put a qualifier(s) into the finals. Should a group fail to complete their RR games, they may elect their entrant(s) into the finals, probably by unanimous vote only.

                Slow play and slow players to be controlled by conjoling and shot clock by each group at their discretion. Ties to broken by head to head play.

                KISS at work here.
                ALL bold lettering! One way to try and force feed a thought! I guess there's a silver lining in almost anything, I didn't have to put on glasses to read this post!

                Comment


                • Darmoose, an excuse me, Steve, as it is directed to a comment you made, and I do not want to distract from your on going discussions on Chip, but I'd like to address this.

                  For me, now is not the time to vote, it is way to early, now is the time to develop suggestions, ideas, formats, and then when it is time to vote then lay out all the formats, fairly.

                  Now is the time for the DCC & sponsoring players, HOf, & Banquette, and then thereafter and in the few months prior to the MOT, should these discussions on MOT continue, with all formats laid out fairly. Right now Steve is working through a new Chip format, in which it will take time to get our heads rap around it. From now on, I believe Steve is going to be very busy with other concerns!

                  I believe, there is a core of players that always go to MOT, and their considerations on format has to be very much respected. And right now their heads are else where. That core is not actively involved in these discussions right now. We have approx. 5 maybe 6 members that have made up the majority of the 300 posts, at least the last 100 posts, of which I think only Steve and I attended the last MOT. So where is the interest for MOT players in voting now, there is none, IMO!

                  As far as the Senior's Event, I think it would be wise for those discussions to occur after the MOT tournament, especially if MOT decides to go with a RR format or something else other than a 3/3. Then a full evaluation can occur. Whitey
                  Last edited by Dennis "Whitey" Young; 11-15-2018, 01:08 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dennis "Whitey" Young View Post
                    Darmoose, an excuse me, Steve, as it is directed to a comment you made, and I do not want to distract from your on going discussions on Chip, but I'd like to address this.

                    For me, now is not the time to vote, it is way to early, now is the time to develop suggestions, ideas, formats, and then when it is time to vote then lay out all the formats, fairly.

                    Now is the time for the DCC & sponsoring players, HOf, & Banquette, and then thereafter and in the few months prior to the MOT, should these discussions on MOT continue, with all formats laid out fairly. Right now Steve is working through a new Chip format, in which it will take time to get our heads rap around it. From now on, I believe Steve is going to be very busy with other concerns!

                    I believe, there is a core of players that always go to MOT, and their considerations on format has to be very much respected. And right now their heads are else where. That core is not actively involved in these discussions right now. We have approx. 5 maybe 6 members that have made up the majority of the 300 posts, at least the last 100 posts, of which I think only Steve and I attended the last MOT. So where is the interest for MOT players in voting now, there is none, IMO! Whitey
                    Here, here! 100% on the money!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mr3cushion View Post
                      Here, here! 100% on the money!
                      Thanks, as Steve stated; "when the time comes 'to vote'. At that time lay out all the formats, fairly, which I have done as you know, and take a preliminary vote, and see where everyone is at. Like how they do it on a jury, to determine a starting point. Then open it up for discussions so voters know all the pros and cons, and then take a final vote.
                      The discussion could be lengthy, and right now unless there are some new RR suggestions, or new RR points that need to be made, then I think we are beating a dead RR horse, and we are on to DCC and all that goes with for now!

                      For me this is a now a Chip discussion! Whitey

                      Comment


                      • The simple simple truth

                        Originally posted by NH Steve View Post
                        I could be wrong, but doesn't that mean everyone would then be waiting for the slowest players??


                        No, but It could mean that the slower player have a shorter time on the waiting list occasionally. It would have to be an extreme case to cause a problem, unless were talking about a very small chip tourney, where the waiting list is very small to begin with. Even if it did happen where we have one person who takes 2 hours to play every single game, then we would find they are behind a game or two...then we would have that person play those games at the end of the day to get caught up. With 32+ players and 12 tables, I don’t see it happening as the waiting list might be an hr or more each time. All it would take is one normal length game to get him caught up. With the extreme case, that I mentioned that slow player would absolutely ruin any other format but this format he would barely impact.

                        Comment


                        • The simple simple truth

                          My thought is that if you have a player that plays so consistently slow that he needs to be moved to the very top of the waiting list each time, and at the end of the night he still is behind on games, then so be it. We tried to help by moving him up the waiting list, but that’s possibly where we should draw the line. If he’s behind a game or two, then oh well.

                          Comment


                          • The simple simple truth

                            Another thought, is that once a player gets to the point where he needs moved up on the waiting list...he automatically gets put on a shot clock (along with his opponent or opponents if he stays on the table by winning). We could ask someone from the waiting list to run the shot clock... If he doesn’t need moved up the next time, then no shot clock required. I think it would take more than one slow game to cause this to occur.

                            Comment


                            • The simple simple truth

                              Yet another thought is that the slow player might be low on iterations but not necessarily on games. Players low on iterations maybe should not be cutting in front of players who have played fewer games...so might not be needed unless he’s low on games and iterations...idk...almost a philosophical discussion lol.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X