Shot clock

[Hardmix]

The conclusion of our 3rd Members tournament begs the question......why in the world is a 32 player field finishing at 5 am Monday morning! We all love the game but we also have work to deal with Monday.

We need a shot clock to keep the matches moving along.


Hardmix

 

[youngstown]

Shot clock

A very easy fix is to make it a race to 2 in the losers.

 

[mr3cushion]

100% Agree about shot clock needed!!

 

[BrookelandBilly]

The conclusion of our 3rd Members tournament begs the question......why in the world is a 32 player field finishing at 5 am Monday morning! We all love the game but we also have work to deal with Monday.

We need a shot clock to keep the matches moving along.


Hardmix

It was agonizing watching several of the matches during prime time. Players at this level should have a better grasp of the table and not spend excessive time walking around and around the table after traveling half way across the continent to win $1060 (not including the Calcutta). Unless you lived in proximity to the venue you couldn’t do any better than breaking even.

 

[Nick B]

Shot clock

A very easy fix is to make it a race to 2 in the losers.

Problem is you lose the flip and your a big dog racing to 3. It’s more about slow play as opposed to shorter races.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[crabbcatjohn]

A very easy fix is to make it a race to 2 in the losers.

Yep. Its the only compromise that makes sense at this time without messing with the purists and i'm getting ready to prove it. Stay tuned.

 

[crabbcatjohn]

Problem is you lose the flip and your a big dog racing to 3. It’s more about slow play as opposed to shorter races.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean 2 and thats why you lag.

 

[crabbcatjohn]

IMO the problem with shot clocks is they simply won't work in a tournament format using them on every table. Unless you had refs at every table..How do you tell when your time runs out? A buzzer? a flashing light right as you pull the trigger?? Kinda don't work with other tables next to you either. Of course i'm just throwing out scenarios here. At California billiards, Red shoes etc they have 48 player tournaments all the time that are completed in 1 day. Why? The races are shorter...lol

 

[Cory in dc]

IMO the problem with shot clocks is they simply won't work in a tournament format using them on every table. Unless you had refs at every table..How do you tell when your time runs out? A buzzer? a flashing light right as you pull the trigger?? Kinda don't work with other tables next to you either. Of course i'm just throwing out scenarios here. At California billiards, Red shoes etc they have 48 player tournaments all the time that are completed in 1 day. Why? The races are shorter...lol

I think you're right that a clock is good in theory but just too tough to administer in practice.

I really don't like a race to 2 if it could be avoided in any way. That's basically allowing 10% of the players/matches to mess things up for the entire field.

In addition to some slow play, double elimination format really makes things drag along forever. A whole side of the bracket gets stuck waiting for a match to finish, and the winner of the winner's side has to wait forever.

Later, I'll try to revive an old post I made before the first Members Tournament. The gyst was to use round robin groupings to winnow the field down to 8 players who would then play a single elimination bracket. I still think that would be an improvement on several fronts. It uses tables more efficiently because they are all in near-continuous use until the cut is made. More efficient use of tables means the total tournament time is reduced. Everyone gets to meet and play more people. And it's longer until the first person is eliminated. Play would continue on Saturday night until all RR brackets are completed and Sunday would have 3 rounds to determine the winner.

You might still need to impose a clock or Grady rules on select matches at the 2 hour mark.

And congrats to Tom! He had an amazing shot to get past Dave 12^2.

 

[Jeff sparks]

The conclusion of our 3rd Members tournament begs the question......why in the world is a 32 player field finishing at 5 am Monday morning! We all love the game but we also have work to deal with Monday.

We need a shot clock to keep the matches moving along.


Hardmix

No easy solution here Ben...
Especially for a member tournament...
Feelings are big in the members, along with financial considerations, it’s very difficult to send someone home on Friday after two loses... Meaning, that if we play more rounds on Friday, so we can finish Sunday afternoon, then imo, it will make the event less social and more competitive... While that sets ok with me, eliminating players on Friday could easily affect the player participation numbers down the road...

Political debate opponents are granted equal time in which to respond, not so in a one pocket match... When watching some matches, it’s very easy to see how truly lopsided the time scale actually is... Certain players styles are just more deliberate than others, and therefore they consume the majority of the time used in tournaments...

When these styles meet, and play each other in a match, it becomes difficult to commentate, watch, or not lose interest altogether and switch channels... Inordinate amounts of time used by any individual should be governed, but therein lies the rub, how can it be done to fit the whole... Unless we get tough, and lay down some hard rules regarding time used, there is no easy solution Ben...

 

[crabbcatjohn]

I think you're right that a clock is good in theory but just too tough to administer in practice.

I really don't like a race to 2 if it could be avoided in any way. That's basically allowing 10% of the players/matches to mess things up for the entire field.

In addition to some slow play, double elimination format really makes things drag along forever. A whole side of the bracket gets stuck waiting for a match to finish, and the winner of the winner's side has to wait forever.

Later, I'll try to revive an old post I made before the first Members Tournament. The gyst was to use round robin groupings to winnow the field down to 8 players who would then play a single elimination bracket. I still think that would be an improvement on several fronts. It uses tables more efficiently because they are all in near-continuous use until the cut is made. More efficient use of tables means the total tournament time is reduced. Everyone gets to meet and play more people. And it's longer until the first person is eliminated. Play would continue on Saturday night until all RR brackets are completed and Sunday would have 3 rounds to determine the winner.

You might still need to impose a clock or Grady rules on select matches at the 2 hour mark.

And congrats to Tom! He had an amazing shot to get past Dave 12^2.

The only races that need to be reduced is the loser sides as there are simply more matches there. Its very,very common in tournaments to do this to keep things moving and it penalizes you for being on the B side. Also puts the heat on your butt for being over there which i love...lol
I run my own tournament every year using a 3/2 format. People know my 64 man 8 ball tournament starts at around 2 and gets over before midnight. Personally i don't have a problem with RR formats because i understand them, but they are unique to most which makes them a hard sale.

 

[lll]

another idea
standard one pocket until 2 hours
then gradys rules

 

[ChicagoFats]

Round robin game per game would be interesting, but it removes the player and table dynamics that can develop in a race to 3.

I do think that some of these matches were difficult to watch for this reason but it was fun chatting it up in the box.

 

[warrenr]

If you charge more to play you would lose some of the people. This tournament is more of a good time than winning a lot of money. When watching the matches on your computer you can hear the guys in the back ground talking and visiting with the people they beat are got beating by. In big tournaments you don’t see that. They get away from the table and hit the door as fast as they can. Let’s see everyone in Houston in October.

 

[Jeff sparks]

I think you're right that a clock is good in theory but just too tough to administer in practice.

I really don't like a race to 2 if it could be avoided in any way. That's basically allowing 10% of the players/matches to mess things up for the entire field.

In addition to some slow play, double elimination format really makes things drag along forever. A whole side of the bracket gets stuck waiting for a match to finish, and the winner of the winner's side has to wait forever.

Later, I'll try to revive an old post I made before the first Members Tournament. The gyst was to use round robin groupings to winnow the field down to 8 players who would then play a single elimination bracket. I still think that would be an improvement on several fronts. It uses tables more efficiently because they are all in near-continuous use until the cut is made. More efficient use of tables means the total tournament time is reduced. Everyone gets to meet and play more people. And it's longer until the first person is eliminated. Play would continue on Saturday night until all RR brackets are completed and Sunday would have 3 rounds to determine the winner.

You might still need to impose a clock or Grady rules on select matches at the 2 hour mark.

And congrats to Tom! He had an amazing shot to get past Dave 12^2.

Wouldn’t the issue of deliberate play still be a problem? After all, a match is a match isn’t it? Whether it’s played in the traditional dbl elim format, or the RR format, wouldn’t people still be waiting on an opponent to finish a match in order to proceed?

Any format that would allow play to proceed in a timely fashion would really help the game of one pocket... I’d like to learn more about the RR format, especially if it will help solve some of the time issues that tend to cloud our great game...

 

[Cory in dc]

Round robin game per game would be interesting, but it removes the player and table dynamics that can develop in a race to 3.

I do think that some of these matches were difficult to watch for this reason but it was fun chatting it up in the box.

Round robin would get you to 8 players, then it becomes race to 3. So you'd still have some of those dynamics.

 

[Henry]

I think you're right that a clock is good in theory but just too tough to administer in practice.

I really don't like a race to 2 if it could be avoided in any way. That's basically allowing 10% of the players/matches to mess things up for the entire field.

In addition to some slow play, double elimination format really makes things drag along forever. A whole side of the bracket gets stuck waiting for a match to finish, and the winner of the winner's side has to wait forever.

Later, I'll try to revive an old post I made before the first Members Tournament. The gyst was to use round robin groupings to winnow the field down to 8 players who would then play a single elimination bracket. I still think that would be an improvement on several fronts. It uses tables more efficiently because they are all in near-continuous use until the cut is made. More efficient use of tables means the total tournament time is reduced. Everyone gets to meet and play more people. And it's longer until the first person is eliminated. Play would continue on Saturday night until all RR brackets are completed and Sunday would have 3 rounds to determine the winner.

You might still need to impose a clock or Grady rules on select matches at the 2 hour mark.

And congrats to Tom! He had an amazing shot to get past Dave 12^2.

I wonder if you could just put a time limit on matches and who ever is ahead once the time limit is reached is the winner. It would also require a shot clock to keep someone from getting ahead and running out the clock. I am against anything that changes the rules of the game. The Grady rule is not bad and does not change the game dramatically. Maybe play total ball count instead of by the game. That is a concept that Ronnie was pushing and it has merit

 

[Cory in dc]

Wouldn’t the issue of deliberate play still be a problem? After all, a match is a match isn’t it? Whether it’s played in the traditional dbl elim format, or the RR format, wouldn’t people still be waiting on an opponent to finish a match in order to proceed?

Any format that would allow play to proceed in a timely fashion would really help the game of one pocket... I’d like to learn more about the RR format, especially if it will help solve some of the time issues that tend to cloud our great game...

RR doesn't make people play faster. Well, it might since you don't get hill-hill games where people tend to tighten up. At least, not as many (at the end of a grouping, some matches will effectively only be for funsies while others will determine who advances).

The benefit of a RR is that you can still make good progress even when one match gets behind schedule. With DE, you can get a bunch of games on hold waiting for one match to finish and you can never really catch up after that.

Crab's right that race-to-2 would solve the time problem. But I think that could make for a bad experience for those who go 2 and out. One option would be to bake in a second chance single elimination tournament for the 8 people who go 2 and out; it could start as soon as the main tournament doesn't need the tables, probably late Saturday afternoon.

Yet another option is to use the first two rounds to create two single elimination brackets. One on the winners side has 8 players and one on the losers side has 16. Two-thirds of the money goes into the first bracket and one-third into the second. Pay 60/30/10 (or whatever split you like) in both.

Another option that could work with any of the above is that we all throw in an extra $10 to pay for a timekeeper or two to clock any match that isn't at hill-hill by the 2 hours mark. 45 seconds + 3 timeouts of 2 minutes would not affect the large majority of matches, but would really help on the slowest 10%.

 

[keoneyo]

Playing a race to 2 in the losers bracket is fine for a small tournament or a regional one. But for our annual affair it doesnt work for me. At least I for one would not enter into it.
Our game is decidedly a specialist event. To convert it for a popular commercial audience just removes its basic premise. That is to say skill and intelligence and theory all combined is required. So is time.
Im sure you could make Chess a faster game if you take out 4 pawns and the Castles but then it wouldnt be Chess.
Ive watched the AccuStats events and they use a clock which seems to keep the game moving faster and give ample amount of time.
I agree something must be done. Playing for 12 hours and more just doesnt allow a human being to play optimally. And I worry about the health of our members as well.

 

[crabbcatjohn]

RR doesn't make people play faster. Well, it might since you don't get hill-hill games where people tend to tighten up. At least, not as many (at the end of a grouping, some matches will effectively only be for funsies while others will determine who advances).

The benefit of a RR is that you can still make good progress even when one match gets behind schedule. With DE, you can get a bunch of games on hold waiting for one match to finish and you can never really catch up after that.

Crab's right that race-to-2 would solve the time problem. But I think that could make for a bad experience for those who go 2 and out. One option would be to bake in a second chance single elimination tournament for the 8 people who go 2 and out; it could start as soon as the main tournament doesn't need the tables, probably late Saturday afternoon.

Yet another option is to use the first two rounds to create two single elimination brackets. One on the winners side has 8 players and one on the losers side has 16. Two-thirds of the money goes into the first bracket and one-third into the second. Pay 60/30/10 (or whatever split you like) in both.

Another option that could work with any of the above is that we all throw in an extra $10 to pay for a timekeeper or two to clock any match that isn't at hill-hill by the 2 hours mark. 45 seconds + 3 timeouts of 2 minutes would not affect the large majority of matches, but would really help on the slowest 10%.

There is still a race to three on the winners so 2 on the losers isn't that big a deal. Yes 2 and out sucks, but it happens all the time. Its helped improve my game by giving me the desire to not go 2 and out. It won't dissuade me from going back to DCC every year...lol We talked about having a second chance for the 2 and outs on Sunday in the upcoming event but decided against pulling from the main prize fund to do it. If there is interest the 8 and out players can have a mini.