[POOL] Fwd: Argonne Pool League PROPOSED CHANGES

[Craig Stacey]

I've never lost an 8-1 that I felt I could have won had it gone 10-1.

In those matches, I invariably play my best in the first 4 matches,  
and beyond that it just goes downhill.

Just personal experience on that issue.


On Sep 5, 2007, at  2:10 PM, Aaron Magill wrote:

> As the favored to be one of the 1's in a 10-1, I do have to say  
> that as
> long as the matches were, at 10-1 I still feel like I have chance to
> pull off a win... 8-1 would probably be the same, but at 5-1 I'd  
> pretty
> much assume I had NO chance.
>
> Just another perspective...
>
> --
> Aaron
>
>
> Robert Jacob wrote:
>> At 12:56 PM 9/5/2007, John Valdes wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 10:09:20AM -0500, Robert Jacob wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd propose something similar to what Ti said:   Go down
>>>> to 4 games in a match but don't count match wins, just count game
>>>> wins.   Then a 2-2 tie doesn't mean anything.   Team rankings  
>>>> will be
>>>> determined by total games won-loss.
>>>
>>> This makes a lot of sense to me, and admittedly, this is how I  
>>> thought
>>> rankings were initially determined when I first started playing.
>>>
>>> Also, having played (and lost :( ) a fair number of marathon 10-1
>>> match-ups lasting 2 hours or more (one had to be continued on a 2nd
>>> day), I wouldn't object to having those match-ups tweaked some (eg,
>>> maybe 8-1 or maybe even 5-1).
>>
>> Yes.  I've also lost some 10-1 and they always take forever.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>> John
>>
>>
>> !DSPAM:46defe22179451301126775!

--
Craig