Waiting List Qualifier w/Seeded Finals

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Yes, I am for real. Last years MOT had the written bracket you could follow. Without that you need some way of following, and I knew there could be no written bracket.
Written brackets are given way to being able to check your bracket on line, as have been the case in tournaments I have attended where no written bracket is available, so reasonable question on my part, which you answered.

The pluses of your Chip format were highlighted in the previous thread, which were good pluses to have! The minuses which are ever bit as of importance to consider, for me are;

1. a players ability to stay on a table until they lose, I would prefer a player holding the table for 2 games only.

2. Concern 1. could possibly lend to much disparity in the # of games played by each player.

I believe the format has been thought out, and you have extensive knowledge of a chip format, and therefore finding it is best that a player can hold the table indefinitely.

I have held the table many times and for hours, tell I quit, when playing bar 8-ball next up table challenge. That's my limited knowledge of 'king of the hill'. For real; that could be a good name for this tournament format; 'king of the hill'.

With that said, I have nothing more to add, for I have never played a format such as this before, so my questions have been asked based on my limited knowledge of this format, and it seems the questions asked and I are not for real! So I am good, and understand where Mark is coming from.

Once again it was good idea to start your own thread! Carry on gentlemen, thanks, Whitey

[darmoose]

Longer games would result in the loser being placed on the waiting list below losers who played in shorter games. ��. “At bats” would only be tracked if I wanted to ensure everyone got the same number of calls. But with such a short waiting list there is little that can be done without disrupting the flow of the others, so I wouldn’t want to do that. Allowing a slow player to wreck a tourney designed for maximum play would be counterproductive. The extreme case you’re thinking of is really not a big concern of mine.

Well, the length of any OP game can be the result of a slow player or it can be due to a playing style. Seems I recall someone calculating that the average time for one of our recent MOT"S was 45 mins/game. I would bet that there were players who averaged 30 mins. or even less, and I would bet there were players that averaged more than 45 mins., maybe even up to 60 mins/game.

You are planning 12 hrs of play before the first cut. I don't know what it means to get "lapped", but it seems to me that over 12 hrs of play the 30 min. player could build quite a lead in "at bats", maybe 50% or more. Do you disagree?

I can see where this doesn't make too much difference when playing 9 ball, but OP being played by a bunch of old men incorporates several strategies and playing styles. Seems to me, if I am making the correct assumptions ( and pls correct me if you don't agree) this format favors and promotes the speedier players and the "ball runners", the shooters over the movers, if you will. I have to say that if "at bats" can be easily tracked, but you don't want to because you feel that slow players "wreck" tournaments, so let's just run them over, i am concerned about that.

I have already said I like this format, and so I am not trying to poo-poo it at all. I have a suggestion to resolve this concern, maybe you have more? Since the avg. time has been set at 45 mins. for a OP game in our MOT's, why not divide the 12 hours of play by 45 mins (which equals 16 games), and stop play there, at least until the slower players catch up. If there is still time left when everyone is caught up, play can resume for everybody until quitting time.

16 games is plenty for Friday, by all comments I have heard, and by doing this we are at least holding everybody to a "standard" of 45 mins/game, and if we wish we can cut them off at quitting time, whether they have played 16 games or not. If necessary, we could use the same formula during the next cuts, but as they are pretty short it might not be necessary.

The slow player still gets a ton of table time. Everyone needs a short break from time to time, so moving him to the top of the waiting list all the time to make up for slow play can be grueling. Over the course of several rounds I wouldn’t think the would get lapped more than once anyway, but who knows. I’m not worried about the extreme cases, if this works great for 99% then IMO it’s way better than the alternatives.

I appreciate your concern for the slower player being stressed by putting him to the top of the list all the time, but I think he would still like to have the same number of "at bats". I don't think that what you have proposed so far will satisfy 99% of the entrants.

I have offered what I think is a reasonable solution, which I hope you will endorse, because I like the Chip or Waiting list format, with that one caveat.What do you think?

[youngstownkid]

Waiting List Qualifier w/Seeded Finals

Consider this scenario - player one stays on the table for 7 games. During that time an there were 30 names written to the waiting and some of them were written more than once. So player one gets placed on the waiting list at the bottom. Player 1 has played more games than everyone else. Should the TD move him up the waiting list because he has one fewer at bat? I say that doing that can make things weird. Also, as a TD, I want to run a low maintenance tourney, so I prefer not to keep track of things, if I can avoid it. For the first waiting list tourney I’d rather keep it as simple as possible, and I think the players would too.

[youngstownkid]

Waiting List Qualifier w/Seeded Finals

The best feature of waiting list tournament is that there is absolutely no stop in table usage. You get as many games as humanly possible during the time period allowed. I’m not stopping 19 other players to wait for a slow game to finish!

[lll]

one thing i think needs to be considered
is the goal of the tourney to win (of course for you studs ) over play and meet the guys?
remember its a members only tourney...
depending on your priorities the few skewed "unfairness" may not be relevant
just sayin from someone who doesnt expect to win....
you killers can always match up to see whose balls are bigger...

[darmoose]

Consider this scenario - player one stays on the table for 7 games. During that time an there were 30 names written to the waiting and some of them were written more than once. So player one gets placed on the waiting list at the bottom. Player 1 has played more games than everyone else. Should the TD move him up the waiting list because he has one fewer at bat? I say that doing that can make things weird. Also, as a TD, I want to run a low maintenance tourney, so I prefer not to keep track of things, if I can avoid it. For the first waiting list tourney I’d rather keep it as simple as possible, and I think the players would too.

Mark,

I was editing my last post because I realized that in the 18 hours of play over Friday and Saturday, you planned to have the first cut at 3pm on Saturday after 12 hours of play (which equates to 16 games @ 45 mins/game), so let me deal just with that initial period for now.

It seems my thought of trying to equal out the "at bats" is not good for reasons that you explained. What is important though, is for every player to get to play the same number of games. So, when your "player one" gets to play 16 games he stops. Play continues until all players get to play 16 games, keeping to the 45 min. standard. When the allotted time is up at 3pm on Saturday, all play stops whether everybody gets to 16 games or not.You make the cut as you have described and move on from there. Whether we do anything similar the rest of the way we can discuss later.

Doesn't seem like there is anything to keep track of there. When each player gets to 16 games he will have a W/L record, and he will be done til you make the cut and continue play with the remaining players.

How does that sound?

[12squared]

This stuff is so far above my pay grade, just tell me who I play and when.

Thanks,
Dave

[Mkbtank]

Waiting List Qualifier w/Seeded Finals

This stuff is so far above my pay grade, just tell me who I play and when.



Thanks,

Dave

Amen. Lol

[Tobermory]

Kings of the Hills might be the right name for this format.

So long as the waiting list on Friday and Saturday is reasonably short, this format works well to provide for plenty of games and random match ups for everyone. No 2 losses and you're out, which guarantees every player will get their money's worth. I like it!

I'm wondering, if we had access to 16 tables on Sunday morning, whether we'd actually need to eliminate anyone from the final day single elimination race to 2 tournament. If we want to reward the Kings of the Hills for their superior play on Friday and Saturday, we could seed the top 16 contestants so they play the bottom 16 in the first round, or give them the first break. There might even be a way to give out some byes as the reward...not sure.

If this is not a "chips" format, so we don't need to call it a chips event, then let us strive not to use the word "chips" any longer....

...unless someone who knows what a "chips" format it could explain what it is. I'm still curious about that.

[LSJohn]

Mark,


What is important though, is for every player to get to play the same number of games.

Generally speaking, the better players will play more games in any given amount of time. If I am reading you correctly, you're suggesting that everyone already having 16 games completed sits down and waits for the slower players to catch up. I wouldn't be one sitting down, but I think this is not good.

But, dammit, it does seem that equal number of games is important.

[LSJohn]

This stuff is so far above my pay grade, just tell me who I play and when.

Thanks,
Dave

Now that's a vote Steve (and all us nitpickers) like to hear. Ya can't beat, "I'll be there, I'll have fun, and I won't worry about the details." Two thumbs up!

Now if I had 31 guys like that, LSJohn's rules would be.....

aw, nevermind.

[youngstownkid]

Waiting List Qualifier w/Seeded Finals

Nobody is going to be penalized for winning too much. The goal isn’t to get all the kindergarten kids the same number of games. We’re not passing out participation trophies here.

[youngstownkid]

Waiting List Qualifier w/Seeded Finals

Maybe a “King of the Hill” Qualifier is a better name. Thanks.

[mr3cushion]

Maybe a “King of the Hill” Qualifier is a better name. Thanks.

This would describe this possible approach exactly!

[jlcomp45]

Nobody is going to be penalized for winning too much. The goal isn’t to get all the kindergarten kids the same number of games. We’re not passing out participation trophies here.

I call bs on that. I give Matt my money and get my participation trophy t-shirt!