2017 WCS One Pocket - Rebroadcast Today!

Hey All,
I've decided to re-broadcast the ENTIRE $6,000 Added, One Pocket Challenge from California Billiards which, took place from July 5th-7th.

We've actually been online for the last 24 hours and are just finishing a re-broadcast of the 'PRO 10' event that took place just prior to the One Pocket.

There were a lot of people to thank on this one, but mostly I'd like to give a shout out to John Henderson, Bernie Pettipiece, Jerry Matchin, Kenny Crenshaw, Dan Louie, Chris Swart and Ken Schuman for helping out with commentary on some of these matches.

LIVE NOW: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7buuQO49gE[/ame]

'Keep Loving Pool!'

Hi Daniel, i missed some of the tony/dennis match due to computer problems. is there any way for me to see that match? thanks keith

Thanks Daniel, Gerry. I don't know if you had a chance to get an offer to Tony for the next broadcast, if you didn't then I am really disappointed with Tony. You guys did a great broadcast.

Scrzbill said:

Thanks Daniel, Gerry. I don't know if you had a chance to get an offer to Tony for the next broadcast, if you didn't then I am really disappointed with Tony. You guys did a great broadcast.

Click to expand...

Tony turned down our offer. After all is said and done, I'm glad he did.

That was awesome. I caught pag shane and some of pag orcollo. Thanks Daniel!

Unrelated, but did I catch that right Alex had to beat Dennis twice in the final? I'm not going to beat around the bush, that is just so ridiculous. I thought they only did that in eight ball, single game bar tournaments. The worth of beating the guy who's made it to the finals twice is worth a lot to me... like he should get 20 or 30% more $ if he's able to do that. The premise of double elimination to me is it gives a little buffer because someone could have got a tough draw, or somebody may have had a really unlucky match. But, by the time you get to the finals you just forget all that. You certainly don't make the guy who's labored through the losers side win twice against the "best player in the tournament", my god. I half apologize for the rant.

El Chapo said:

That was awesome. I caught pag shane and some of pag orcollo. Thanks Daniel!

Unrelated, but did I catch that right Alex had to beat Dennis twice in the final? I'm not going to beat around the bush, that is just so ridiculous. I thought they only did that in eight ball, single game bar tournaments. The worth of beating the guy who's made it to the finals twice is worth a lot to me... like he should get 20 or 30% more $ if he's able to do that. The premise of double elimination to me is it gives a little buffer because someone could have got a tough draw, or somebody may have had a really unlucky match. But, by the time you get to the finals you just forget all that. You certainly don't make the guy who's labored through the losers side win twice against the "best player in the tournament", my god. I half apologize for the rant.

Click to expand...

Seems to me the guy who was able to sail through undefeated should get some benefit from that. It's fairly often that the two guys in the final have just played each other a couple or three rounds earlier, and the winner got the hot seat. If the loser of that match could win the tournament outright by simply evening the score from the prior match, the hotseat dude would feel screwed.

However, if the challenger in the final happened to lose an early-round match, and had to slog his way through the whole losers' bracket, an argument can be made that he showed more by getting there through that route than the hotseat dude showed.

There's also the matter of time.... getting the tournament completed more-or-less on schedule. Maybe a single race -- longer than the others? -- with the hotseat dude getting first break and the first break when one player got to the hill... a break and a half. I could go for that (but I don't think just first break is enough reward for going undefeated.)

Just my opinion (but I've never been wrong before. )

LSJohn said:

Seems to me the guy who was able to sail through undefeated should get some benefit from that. It's fairly often that the two guys in the final have just played each other a couple or three rounds earlier, and the winner got the hot seat. If the loser of that match could win the tournament outright by simply evening the score from the prior match, the hotseat dude would feel screwed.

However, if the challenger in the final happened to lose an early-round match, and had to slog his way through the whole losers' bracket, an argument can be made that he showed more by getting there through that route than the hotseat dude showed.

There's also the matter of time.... getting the tournament completed more-or-less on schedule. Maybe a single race -- longer than the others? -- with the hotseat dude getting first break and the first break when one player got to the hill... a break and a half. I could go for that (but I don't think just first break is enough reward for going undefeated.)

Just my opinion (but I've never been wrong before. )

Click to expand...

I think the first question we ask ourselves on this topic is why do we even have double elimination tournaments? Why not single? It's essentially to weed out any "error" that our ubiquitous short races will result in. In essence, no matter what the outcome when the final two players met, they have both "benefited" from that buffer. One guy actually used his buffer, but the other guy did too in many ways, he didn't have to sweat a couple of his matches so hard because he knew he wouldn't be out if he lost, maybe he wouldn't even have shown up to single elimination. Plus, the player in the hot seat could have easily just gotten a much better draw.

We could go through some examples in other sports and I think it bolsters the point. Can you imagine a World Series, NBA final or super bowl be "you've gotta beat them twice because you lost more in the regular season". You're right though of course, there's an argument both ways, I just totally disagree with a player having to beat another twice in the finals because 1) he's in the finals and has proven to be one of the two best players in the tournament, and 2) it's so hard to beat a guy twice... I mean the stats on it are out of this world, I remember them from the old accustat days... it's next to impossible for a player to overcome it (according to stats)... and I just think that's way outta line for a final, especially because of the nature or varying difficulties in draws. It really should just be thought of more like we're using the double elimination to eliminate outlier results, and at some point those records are tossed (on finals day or even before like during quarter finals).

El Chapo said:

Why not single? It's essentially to weed out any "error" that our ubiquitous short races will result in.

Click to expand...

You caused me to think about how it would work to do single elimination, but race to 6 instead of race to 3. I think I see 3 disadvantages:

When two slow players meet, the tournament delay they would cause would tend to be twice as long;

In amateur tournaments, the "dead money" players have less chance to win a match against a stronger player, and anything that discourages those players is a bad idea;

In pro tournaments with high entry fees, the guys nearer the bottom of the totem pole have less chance playing race to 6; like above, these are the players who need to be encouraged if the tournament is to be a success.

I think that for both promoters and most fans, upsets are a good thing. The question is, would we prefer more excitement with more matches in doubt before they start, or more certain wins by the best players?

LSJohn said:

You caused me to think about how it would work to do single elimination, but race to 6 instead of race to 3. I think I see 3 disadvantages:

When two slow players meet, the tournament delay they would cause would tend to be twice as long;

In amateur tournaments, the "dead money" players have less chance to win a match against a stronger player, and anything that discourages those players is a bad idea;

In pro tournaments with high entry fees, the guys nearer the bottom of the totem pole have less chance playing race to 6; like above, these are the players who need to be encouraged if the tournament is to be a success.

I think that for both promoters and most fans, upsets are a good thing. The question is, would we prefer more excitement with more matches in doubt before they start, or more certain wins by the best players?

Click to expand...

I know, it's super tough to get the balance right. I remember hearing Deull say, for example, he just won't travel long distances to go play a race to 7. I suppose for big events the promoters would want all the best players possible, so it would make sense to have longer races. Local events maybe the opposite is true to get the dead money in.

LS John, thanks for speaking up for us dead money players. If I travel a couple of hundred miles, and lay out cash for motel and food in addition to entry fees, I appreciate knowing that I get two matches at least. By encouraging more dead money players, I might even get to beat one of them!

I also think a single longer race for the finals makes sense. Jerry and Billy had a marathon at the last Super Seniors and it got so late almost nobody was left to watch.