Managing One Pocket tournament time --DCC edition

[NH Steve]

I’m looking to make next years DCC my first tournament. Did purchase the PPV this year and paid close attention to comments and chat while taking in all possible from commentaries. Getting a good brake and if possible break and 8 is our local goal. Hard to consider anything else..... but open to helping tournament play if necessary. Heard a lot of different views and sure something good will come of it. Pockets neutral on break would be quicker then rebrake.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pockets neutral" but it would prevent run-outs and still save time versus re-racking if the breaker got to keep the ball made on the break but they did not get to shoot again -- very simple and eliminates break and runs.

Of course, break and runs actually SPEEDs UP MATCHES, NOT SLOWS THEM DOWN so if Greg wants to implement the re-rack he would be actually adding time to any matches that saw a ball made on the break.

 

[NH Steve]

Was Bergman one of the culprits of slow play? He finished second, so everyone was either playing him at the end, or waiting to play the winner of his match.

Yes, but he was just one of them. There were plenty lol. He was undefeated in 9-Ball too, and I thought I saw in the schedule he was behind a couple of rounds in 9-ball -- I don't even know how they would be able to manage that with their round-by-round drawings. But I think they do it something like this -- ask both players involved if they are going to buy back or not. Then put in "either/or" names in the upcoming draw, and for the matches that get drawn for those "either/or" player/s in the draw, assign TBD for the time and table assignments, until you have a winner/loser for real. It must get even trickier if they are still behind yet another round later (which Bergman appeared to be).

 

[NH Steve]

There is no way the venue is changing any time soon because they sign multi-year contracts, not individual ones. So put those other venue ideas down as a "maybe someday" idea at best. Sorry -- and I miss the Exec West too

Tents in the parking lot would be easier lol. <--- that was't a serious suggestion, but maybe it should be lol. Or bring in a temporary quonset hut

 

[NH Steve]

To me, a big part of the appeal of DCC is that you can play world champions for 100 dollars.
I have talked to lots of other players who play from goober speed, to good shortstop, and that's what brings them for 7 to 10 days every year, and they are mostly the guys with jobs, so they can spend money while they are there.
If you do away with that aspect, you have 6 great players to a room, eating food from down the road, and the vendors can stay home.
If they lose those people they might as well shoot themselves in the foot.

I agree -- I don't think that a big price jump would fly -- either for Greg or all the people that come. I sincerely believe Greg really values the "peoples tournament" mentality.

 

[LSJohn]

If Greg has no problem with more tables, then that, along with scheduling needs to be addressed when players are involved in multiple events...

I have been assuming that the casino is contributing some funds to the prize fund, or paying Diamond, whatever. If so, that will be a possible kicker in finding another place. My understanding is that Greg has been looking for another place for at least a couple of years but so far no luck.

 

[Knuckles54]

I'm not sure what you mean by "pockets neutral" but it would prevent run-outs and still save time versus re-racking if the breaker got to keep the ball made on the break but they did not get to shoot again -- very simple and eliminates break and runs.

Of course, break and runs actually SPEEDs UP MATCHES, NOT SLOWS THEM DOWN so if Greg wants to implement the re-rack he would be actually adding time to any matches that saw a ball made on the break.

Neutral pockets are the four left on the table that don’t count, if a ball is make in one, they spot after ones ening. I’m kinda new maybe those pockets are not referred as neutral. If ball or balls made on break in either bottom pocket, to be fair would not count. To help speed up game, could count but play ends.

 

[sappo]

We have discussed this topic on onepocket.org quite a bit -- sometimes theoretically and sometimes for real situations. Well, this one is real and it is one of our favorite events -- the Derby City One Pocket division. This year the One Pocket ran way past its scheduled finals slot of Thursday night, into the late hours of Friday night. I don't think I've seen it fall a whole day behind like that since back at the Exec West.

I spoke with Greg Sullivan and he wants us to talk about this, along with other rule changes he is thinking about for Derby City, and come up with suggestions (that they might or might not decide to incorporate).

1. Time clocks when a match is running behind. However Greg commented that he doesn't think that would solve the problem, because they even had slow matches on the TV table. If players don't shoot at their hole, it drags the games out no matter what clock you use.
2. Limit racking time (this was less of a One Pocket problem, but was a problem in 9-Ball)
3. He doesn't want players jumping the cue ball off the table to prevent an opponent from scoring a hanging ball.
4. He likes the idea of a re-racking when a player makes a ball on the break in One Pocket because it is fairer (even though it does not speed up the game).
5. He doesn't like players asking to have a ball or the cue ball picked up and cleaned (unless there is some obvious debris).
6. Suggestions???

The bottom line is they need to come up with some agreeable clear cut ways to prevent such serious over-runs in the One Pocket. There was also some concern that the Wednesday night slot for the HOF dinner was a factor in the delay.

So Greg is looking for suggestions... I have my own thoughts, but this opening post is basically to reflect Greg's concerns as he spoke them to me.

He also is interested in general DCC feedback and suggestions for how the event can be improved. He also commented he is planning to increase the prize funds based on the increased turnouts they are getting.

When it comes to finding ways to prevent the event from running behind I hate the idea of changing the rules of the game. Before I would change the game I think a better solution would be to shorten the races to 2 games for the first several rounds and once the field was narrowed down to say 16 players go back to races to 3. Keith

 

[Cory in dc]

When it comes to finding ways to prevent the event from running behind I hate the idea of changing the rules of the game. Before I would change the game I think a better solution would be to shorten the races to 2 games for the first several rounds and once the field was narrowed down to say 16 players go back to races to 3. Keith

I suspect opinions are all over the map. Personally, race to 2 is very short so I'd prefer race to 3, but going to 7 balls. They could even do that for the first 2 or 3 rounds and then revert to games to 8. In fact, they could adopt the rule that all hill-hill games in any round are played to 8 and still speed things up a lot.

Someone who's bored could review Chohan-Orcullo and see what the match score would have looked like were they going to 7 to see how big a change that would be.

 

[FrenchAT]

1. Time clocks when a match is running behind. However Greg commented that he doesn't think that would solve the problem, because they even had slow matches on the TV table. If players don't shoot at their hole, it drags the games out no matter what clock you use.
Incorporate a time limit on each game instead of the entire match. Whoever is ahead gets the game. Down by 2 balls with 5 minutes left, they will shoot at their hole. A race to 3 has a maximum of 5 games. Divide your desired match time by 5 and you get finished on time or early, every match. In the rare occasion it is 2-2 and the same ball count, next ball wins! If you put a time limit on the match, a guy up 1-0 and up in the ball count in the 2nd game could drag it out forever. This way the opponent at least gets to start another game every 30-40 minutes instead being held hostage for 3 hours only playing 3 games. Also incorporate a 90 second shot clock. I like the time limit suggestion, I just think it has to be brought down to the shot and game level to be effective. This would speed up play because it would become very important and strategic to establish an early ball count lead over your opponent.

2. Limit racking time (this was less of a One Pocket problem, but was a problem in 9-Ball)
I dont believe this a problem very often with 1 pocket.

3. He doesn't want players jumping the cue ball off the table to prevent an opponent from scoring a hanging ball.
I dont want players jumping balls off of the table as a scratch either but I was basically crucified for stating this not long after joining the site. If you dont have the skill to follow it in, you dont get to pull it out. That was just my personal opinion but as far as speeding up the game im not sure how this accomplishes that? Does Greg believe that retrieving the cue ball is time intensive or does he believe that less people have the skill to follow the ball in than jump it off of the table therefor leading to more pocketed balls in the opponents pocket when they fail to follow it in/? Just a question.

4. He likes the idea of a re-racking when a player makes a ball on the break in One Pocket because it is fairer (even though it does not speed up the game).
The point was to speed up the game. I dont care who racks it, checks it or if we need to bring back the Sardo rack. If the ball falls, the ball counts. The point of any pool game is to make balls in the pocket. No other game do you spot a ball, give up your turn, or re-rack after making a ball on the break in your pocket. The break is part of every billiards game, those attempting to minimize it are only doing so to suit their own playing style and not the betterment of the game. The break is huge in every other game no matter how many people try to change how it is done or how it is racked, a good player will practice it until they can gain an advantage, as they should! For the record, I have never broke the balls and ran 8 and out off the break. However, it has happened to me. Just means I need to work on my breaking and running ability more!

5. He doesn't like players asking to have a ball or the cue ball picked up and cleaned (unless there is some obvious debris).
Suggestions???
Corey Deuel is going to be pissed!lol You want to penalize him for mastering the break and now you dont want him to get his ball cleaned in an attempt to get a better angle on a ball he cant quite see well enough to make. lol

Also read that there is an idea of not only taking a ball from a player who fouls but he also has to give it to the opponent instead of spotting it. Forst, this makes a 1 ball foul into a 2 ball swing in score and depending on score more than twice the penalty. Second, the opponent has not done the work to pocket that ball and therefor I would never, ever, ever, ever condone such a thing to happen. This is the most insane thing i have ever heard. Once again this is only to suit someone's own personal style of play and not the betterment of the game. I would consider spotting 2 balls before I would give one to the opponent who didnt pocket it. You dont do the work, you dont get credit. Must be constructive credit day at the pool hall. If a guy pockets a ball on the break, we take it away but a guy who didnt make a ball gets one from his opponent? Wow! Also again for the record, I rarely take an intentional foul. That doesnt mean I dont foul, just not on purpose.lol

I think if you put a time limit on the game instead of the match, most of the other problems where people want to give balls away to opponents will not be required.

 

[lll]

bad hit on azb posted this
your thoughts
................
This is a chess clock -

You set each side to half the allotted time of the match.

When your turn at the table is over you hit your side to stop your clock and start your opponents.

Take as long as you want on a particular shot, it's up to you to budget your allotted match time. If someone runs out of time, you lose the match.

Seems to me like these solve all tournament scheduling problems, and they're about 20 bucks, price of a cue ball.

Why aren't they used in pool touraments?

 

[baby huey]

Why did this years One Pocket Event at DCC take so long? That's the question. I have played at DCC for ten years straight and this is the first year where a scheduling problem ocurred. Same promoter, same tournament staff, same rules and same number of players. Until we identify why this ocurred, why would we consider changing the rules of the game? If we artificially change the game then we need to expect a huge amount of BLOWBACK. Then next year we'll have to manage that and more changes will occur and/or people will stop attending. One of the reasons DCC is so popular is their format and venue works. Again, something happened this year........what? We have lost the 14.1 event and that's sad because it was fun to watch those high runs.

 

[sneakynito]

bad hit on azb posted this
your thoughts
................
This is a chess clock -

You set each side to half the allotted time of the match.

When your turn at the table is over you hit your side to stop your clock and start your opponents.

Take as long as you want on a particular shot, it's up to you to budget your allotted match time. If someone runs out of time, you lose the match.

Seems to me like these solve all tournament scheduling problems, and they're about 20 bucks, price of a cue ball.

Why aren't they used in pool touraments?

I've brought this up several times and even started a thread on it awhile back I think.
No one's ever been too keen on the idea.

One of the issues i see with it is that one of the key tenets of one pocket is that once you get a lead in the game you send the balls up table, prolonging the game.
So even if you used 18 of your 20 minutes to get the score to 7-0 and the other 8 balls are up in a wedge, if the losing player has more time on the clock they can just pussy foot around and run your clock down.
It would have a material impact on the game I think. Running the other person's clock down would be become a strategy.
I still like the idea.
For one, it does put a solid limit on games. 20min/side means never a game over 40 minutes.
And if people are watching the clock you'd see people take some more interesting shots towards the end game.
I've yet to experiment with it but i've wanted to.

 

[darmoose]

He likes the idea of a re-racking when a player makes a ball on the break in One Pocket because it is fairer (even though it does not speed up the game).
The point was to speed up the game. I dont care who racks it, checks it or if we need to bring back the Sardo rack. If the ball falls, the ball counts. The point of any pool game is to make balls in the pocket. No other game do you spot a ball, give up your turn, or re-rack after making a ball on the break in your pocket. The break is part of every billiards game, those attempting to minimize it are only doing so to suit their own playing style and not the betterment of the game. The break is huge in every other game......

The one pocket break is as much a defensive shot as it is an offensive shot. No breaker is gonna deliberately risk selling out a ball to try to make a ball.

Firstly..in no other game on a pool table do you have "a pocket". One pocket is unique and as popular as it is precisely because it vastly different than all other games. The fact that you have a pocket means there is another pocket that you must defend, unlike any other pool game.

Secondly..while the break is part of all pool games and is important, it is not always an offensive weapon. Straight pool, which dominated the pool world for a very long time involves a defensive break (perhaps you are unaware of). You probably are not familiar with snooker either (another very popular game worldwide), where the break is also a defensive opening.

You may not know either that one pocket was played for many decades vastly differently than it is today. The variety of strategies and subtleties as well as the endless number of creative shots not part of any other pool game are the enduring draws to this game. Only recently has the emphasis on offensive shooting become so prevalent. Even so, quite often when two modern day aggressive professionals go head to head (particularly in a tournament) the match breaks out into a defensive and long affair (think Frost v. Schmidt a few years back). If I recall correctly there may have been about 32 pennies on the table.

It is very unclear that attempting to "neutralize" the break somewhat is offered to favor a particular style of play and not to "better" the game. To make that assumption is narrow minded. Every experienced one pocket player knows the break is worth a ball or two, and recent discussions have valued the break as a 5% to maybe 10% advantage, and that's without making a ball. If a ball is made the advantage can be many more balls and maybe the game. To attempt to neutralize the break somewhat to allow both players a chance at the table is only fair and does make for a better game. There is logic and merit to it and not just individual unsupported opinion.

 

[darmoose]

Also read that there is an idea of not only taking a ball from a player who fouls but he also has to give it to the opponent instead of spotting it. Forst, this makes a 1 ball foul into a 2 ball swing in score and depending on score more than twice the penalty. Second, the opponent has not done the work to pocket that ball and therefor I would never, ever, ever, ever condone such a thing to happen. This is the most insane thing i have ever heard. Once again this is only to suit someone's own personal style of play and not the betterment of the game. I would consider spotting 2 balls before I would give one to the opponent who didnt pocket it. You dont do the work, you dont get credit. Must be constructive credit day at the pool hall. If a guy pockets a ball on the break, we take it away but a guy who didnt make a ball gets one from his opponent? Wow! Also again for the record, I rarely take an intentional foul. That doesnt mean I dont foul, just not on purpose.lol

I think if you put a time limit on the game instead of the match, most of the other problems where people want to give balls away to opponents will not be required.

Well, isn't that quite an opinion. Have you tried it? I do agree with you that none of the solutions you have enumerated shorten the game without significantly changing the game. There ain't no way to apply a time limit that won't foster a delaying protective strategy, whether it's by the game or by the match. How insanely awful it would be to watch or play in a game where you are down a few balls and get froze out by an opponent who simply puts on the stall until time runs out.

If the goal is to shorten the length of the game and at the same time not introduce an arbitrary outside factor (like a time clock), or change the natural play of the game on the table, nothing does that like the "give a ball rule".
The only changes made are OFF the table and in the SCORING and not in the playing. The current penalty of losing only one ball for a foul is completely arbitrary and could have been something more from the very inception of the game, and we would still have had the game pretty much as we know it.

How do we know if a one ball lost penalty for fouls is the right penalty, we don't. And while applying a two balls lost penalty (as you prefer) might cause us to take better care of "whitey", (which I don't think anyone would argue is a bad thing) as CB control is highly valued in one pocket, it would only serve to slow the game down even more.

But, by taking that one ball that we owe due to a foul and instead of spotting it, giving it to the opponent look what happens.

1.Emphasis is applied to taking care of whitey.
2.If we foul while pocketing a ball in our hole, a ball goes to our
opponent and another ball goes on the spot, maybe shortening the game
even more.
3.The game goes forward and never backwards.
4.Intentional fouls attempting to escape from a successfully applied trap
become more expensive.
5.A superior player can't use intentional fouls as readily to gain an advantage
by lengthening the game.

What we don't know is how much this rule will shorten the game. But, think about how many fouls occur in the avg game, the effect could be significant.

I think your adversity to giving a ball to your opponent is just something to get over. One pocket is scored with positive balls and negative balls. They are ALL of equal value, whether applied positively to your opponent or negatively to you.

As opinions go, I think this rule, if given the chance could solve all timing problems in tournaments, and make one pocket an even better gambling game.

 

[Kybanks]

What most aren't realizing is that the banks had 60 more people than last year which means there are 30 more matches that need to be fit in on the first day. That puts everything behind schedule after that. The tourney may be out growing the confines of the casino which in my opinion will never be the exec west.

 

[stevelomako]

A few things:

What no one has brought up yet and is pretty important.


How long should a race to 3 take???

Then, when would you implement any rule to get the match done with...after 2 hours, 3 hours???

Then, after you implement the rule, how long should the end result take???

 

[stevelomako]

Another thing that added to the "perfect storm" of this years time constraints:

A few years ago the 9 ball was changed from a race to 7, to a race to 9. I think everyone can agree it takes longer for a race to 9 than a race to 7.

Just because it didn't show up in the previous couple of years as bad doesn't mean it wasn't going to, or will again.


Because of everything from the start of the event, leading to only one round of one pocket on the first day of the nine ball caused the length of the tournament.


If you don't make good use of all the time you have...right from the beginning...you're going to have the "perfect storm" again.

 

[NH Steve]

I think it is clear most of use would like to see solutions that do not fundamentally alter the game we love. So let's start with those ideas:

What about tweaks to the buy back rules, so any issues of waiting for buy backs are eliminated, speeding up the round by round drawings

As soon as you have certain players running behind, their next matches go on more closely supervised tables near the TD desk, with certain ?TBD? measures to speed those matches.

Shorter races for those players until they are caught up???
Shot clocks for those players (that limit the time per shot for each player)?
Chess style clocks for both players (that limit the overall time for the match)?

More than one round of One Pocket on the first day of 9-ball.

Extend the playing day one extra start time -- especially for players who are behind -- make them get caught up THAT NIGHT.

Other ideas I missed??

 

[BRLongArm]

I think it is clear most of use would like to see solutions that do not fundamentally alter the game we love. So let's start with those ideas:

What about tweaks to the buy back rules, so any issues of waiting for buy backs are eliminated, speeding up the round by round drawings

As soon as you have certain players running behind, their next matches go on more closely supervised tables near the TD desk, with certain ?TBD? measures to speed those matches.

Shorter races for those players until they are caught up???
Shot clocks for those players (that limit the time per shot for each player)?
Chess style clocks for both players (that limit the overall time for the match)?

More than one round of One Pocket on the first day of 9-ball.

Extend the playing day one extra start time -- especially for players who are behind -- make them get caught up THAT NIGHT.

Other ideas I missed??

Bill's rule: After 3.5 hours of play, all games remaining shall be 11 ball one pocket. 10 ball rack, with one on the bottom rail in the middle.

 

[cincy_kid]

I love the idea of a shot clock but then again I do play faster than most of my opponents. Not saying that is a wise thing but I feel I see the shot right away and shoot it pretty soon after.