PDA

View Full Version : USPPA Tourney - Press Release



Troy
12-19-2002, 10:20 PM
For those unfamiliar with the USPPA, a handicap tournament is held twice yearly at the Sands in Reno, NV just prior to the Sands Reno Open. There was to be a $6000 bonus if a qualified player won the tournament, but the bonus was NOT PAID due to apparent cheating.

Tony Annigoni is the Managing Partner of the USPPA. Tony issued a press release which has been put on AZBilliards.com -- http://www.azbilliards.com/2000pressrelease.cfm?id=81

I agree 100% with Tony Annigoni's decision to withhold the $6000 bonus money. As I mentioned to Tony right after his decision, "If fixing the outcome of a match is NOT cheating, I would be hard-pressed to come up with a definition".

Every member of the USPPA signes an application clearly stating that if caught cheating the member may be BARRED FOR LIFE.

Some may think not paying the bonus will hurt the USPPA. I believe that honesty and integrity must prevail and will be a plus for the organization.

Troy...~~~ A USPPA Tournament Director

12-19-2002, 11:17 PM
I agree with everything but the savers. Why should players be at the mercy of the tournament director's breakup of the money?

Allen Hopkin's Valley Forge Amateur event has a $5,000 first prize, with only $2,000 to second. After beating 9 or so players, I don't think either player would be wrong to want a saver.

If the 8-ball tourney in S. Padre Island is still going around, the disparity in the money there is unspeakable. It's probably the most top-heavy tournament I've heard of. I can't say that I blame the TD; he wants to get as much publicity as possible with a monstrous top prize. But this doesn't mean it's fair to the players.

It should also be pointed out that the very act of a saver implies the match will be played on the up-and-up. Nothing wrong with that.

On top of that, I'm not very familiar with the USPPA, but this bonus money system seems a little screwy. I'm all for thinking the best of people, but that doesn't negate the fact that there's a lot of bad and desperate people out there.

Troy
12-20-2002, 10:15 AM
It is customary to pay approximately 25% of the field. The USPPA Handicap tournament payed 96 players with a field of about 220. That is considerably above 25%. The payout was $4000, $2100, $1500, $1100, $840, $600, etc., down to $60 each for placing 65-96.

The bonus incorporated by the USPPA is very simple. At the May 2002 event in Reno there was to be a $3000 bonus if the winner was "qualified". Since the winner was NOT "qualified", the bonus was rolled over to $6000 for the December event.

The definition of "qualified" is simply having competed in a minimum of 36 local USPPA tournaments in the six months since the last Reno USPPA tournament.

Of the two finalists at the December event, one was "qualified" and the other was not. These two players conspired, they pre-determined the winner, and agreed to split the $6000 bonus. If this isn't cheating, I would be hard-pressed to come up with a definition.

Troy...~~~ A USPPA Tournament Director
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nobody_Knows:</font><hr> I agree with everything but the savers. Why should players be at the mercy of the tournament director's breakup of the money?

Allen Hopkin's Valley Forge Amateur event has a $5,000 first prize, with only $2,000 to second. After beating 9 or so players, I don't think either player would be wrong to want a saver.

If the 8-ball tourney in S. Padre Island is still going around, the disparity in the money there is unspeakable. It's probably the most top-heavy tournament I've heard of. I can't say that I blame the TD; he wants to get as much publicity as possible with a monstrous top prize. But this doesn't mean it's fair to the players.

It should also be pointed out that the very act of a saver implies the match will be played on the up-and-up. Nothing wrong with that.

On top of that, I'm not very familiar with the USPPA, but this bonus money system seems a little screwy. I'm all for thinking the best of people, but that doesn't negate the fact that there's a lot of bad and desperate people out there.

<hr /></blockquote>

Alfie
12-20-2002, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> The payout was $4000, $2100, $1500, $1100, $840, $600, etc., down to $60 each for placing 65-96.

The bonus incorporated by the USPPA is very simple. At the May 2002 event in Reno there was to be a $3000 bonus if the winner was "qualified". Since the winner was NOT "qualified", the bonus was rolled over to $6000 for the December event.

The definition of "qualified" is simply having competed in a minimum of 36 local USPPA tournaments in the six months since the last Reno USPPA tournament.

Of the two finalists at the December event, one was "qualified" and the other was not. These two players conspired, they pre-determined the winner, and agreed to split the $6000 bonus. If this isn't cheating, I would be hard-pressed to come up with a definition. <hr /></blockquote> A can win $10,000 but B can win only $4,000!
The USPPA is creating this problem itself.

IMO

SPetty
12-20-2002, 12:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nobody_Knows:</font><hr> If the 8-ball tourney in S. Padre Island is still going around, the disparity in the money there is unspeakable. It's probably the most top-heavy tournament I've heard of. I can't say that I blame the TD; he wants to get as much publicity as possible with a monstrous top prize. But this doesn't mean it's fair to the players.<hr /></blockquote>Hi Nobody_Knows,

That 8-ball tourney is history. I called the people that run it earlier this year, and they had some kind of run-in with the convention center, so they won't be having that tournament any more. They seem to have deferred to the Windy City Open. (I don't know about you, but I'd rather be in South Padre than Chicago in January!)

http://www.windycityopen.org/

There is, however, a new 9-ball tournament being held there 1/31-2/2. Info on that can be found here:

http://www.sopadre.com/pool_tournament.asp

The tournament is being directed by The Academy of Billiards, CCB's own randyg.

12-20-2002, 01:19 PM
Troy, I understand about the qualifier/bonus money. I was saying that it's a system that needs to be corrected, because it's bordering on entrapment. You either have a completely "open" tournament, where everyone has an equal chance at the same prizes, or you have a tournament that is only open to the "qualified" players. Doing both at the same time is silly, and begs these problems.

Also, you wrote: "These two players conspired, they pre-determined the winner, and agreed to split the $6000 bonus. If this isn't cheating, I would be hard-pressed to come up with a definition."

I'm not sure if you read my post, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. Of course that's cheating. I never said different.

Troy
12-20-2002, 02:17 PM
I have suggested to Tony Annigini that the May USPPA event, with a bonus (now) of $9000 with yet another roll-over, be re-structured. I fully intend to continue lobbying for a change in distribution and I'd like to believe I will have some influence on a final decision.

And Yes, I read your post. I was only reinforcing my feelings that the two players were guilty of cheating.

Troy...~~~ USPPA T.D.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nobody_Knows:</font><hr> Troy, I understand about the qualifier/bonus money. I was saying that it's a system that needs to be corrected, because it's bordering on entrapment. You either have a completely "open" tournament, where everyone has an equal chance at the same prizes, or you have a tournament that is only open to the "qualified" players. Doing both at the same time is silly, and begs these problems.

Also, you wrote: "These two players conspired, they pre-determined the winner, and agreed to split the $6000 bonus. If this isn't cheating, I would be hard-pressed to come up with a definition."

I'm not sure if you read my post, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. Of course that's cheating. I never said different. <hr /></blockquote>

HOWARD
12-20-2002, 07:07 PM
Troy,

I agree with Alfie, Tony caused this problem with the extra 6K to a qualified player.

I understand he was trying to promote the USPPA. I also agree he made the correct decision - as things have been described here.

Let us hope in the future Tony find a better way to promote the USPPA. A for instance would be only a $1000.00 - the other five thousand - break into 5 $1000. tourneys scattered around the ph that helps the USPPA at various dates for instance.

Best Regards,

Howard

Rod
12-20-2002, 07:16 PM
Quote, A can win $10,000 but B can win only $4,000!
The USPPA is creating this problem itself.

That is how I view the situation. There setting themselves up for a problem.

L.S. Dennis
01-11-2003, 10:54 AM
Even given all the heat Tony has had to take on this I think he made the right decision. I've been in the USPPA for a number of years and on on balance it's not a bad system that could be made a lot better with a few changes.

One being to scrap the score sheet system and incorportate a system in which you average goes up a set number of point or points if you win a match or down in an equal manner. This would allow chances for buy back into the tournament if you were to lose your first match and elinate the need to keep score for your opponent in the event of your previous loss.

I like the basic handicap system of the USPPA that is race to five and maximum games on the wire of three. That part of it should not change.

Just my 2 cents worth on this

L.S. Dennis

Troy
01-11-2003, 01:34 PM
The USPPA average is not based solely on games/matches won or lost but is based on a combination of Open/Safe leaves, innings, plus wins/losses. The info from the scoresheets are entered into an algorithm to derive the average and thus the handicap.

Since last June 1, I have NOT had third party scorekeepers. The players keep their own scoresheets with monitors to assure it's done correctly. This makes for quicker tournaments, less bickering about keeping score, and no decrease in accuracy. Buy-backs are an option this way with no alteration to the basic system.

Troy...~~~ USPPA TD
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote L.S. Dennis:</font><hr> Even given all the heat Tony has had to take on this I think he made the right decision. I've been in the USPPA for a number of years and on on balance it's not a bad system that could be made a lot better with a few changes.

One being to scrap the score sheet system and incorportate a system in which you average goes up a set number of point or points if you win a match or down in an equal manner. This would allow chances for buy back into the tournament if you were to lose your first match and elinate the need to keep score for your opponent in the event of your previous loss.

I like the basic handicap system of the USPPA that is race to five and maximum games on the wire of three. That part of it should not change.

Just my 2 cents worth on this

L.S. Dennis <hr /></blockquote>

L.S. Dennis
01-12-2003, 12:06 AM
Troy,
It is because of this system of safties and open shots that I disagree with you on the quality of the USPPA system. Any disgruntled player who has just lost a match and is now scoring for the person who just beat him could intentionally give more s's than he should have just out of spite. Conversally the more accomplished play will find it much easier to sand bag by missing shots intentially several times and still manage to beat a player of lesser skill, thereby attempting to lower his average while still winning the match.

No I've been in the USPPA for too long and have seen too much to to be convinced that the system can't be improved upon. The score sheets should have to go, then and only then will the system finally turn the page!

jjinfla
01-12-2003, 08:04 AM
Hi Troy, Well it seems once again people enter a tournament, read the rules (I hope), and then commence to tell the TD what he should do, how he should run the thing. If they don't like the way it is run then they shouldn't enter it and should perhaps try and run their own tournament. I wonder if there is any saver in those winner take all tournaments that are on TV for $25K or $50K?. Jake

Troy
01-12-2003, 10:14 AM
Apparently you didn't read my statement about players keeping their own score, with monitors. Also, ANY handicap system is open for sandbagging. Your solution does not solve sandbagging.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote L.S. Dennis:</font><hr> Troy,
It is because of this system of safties and open shots that I disagree with you on the quality of the USPPA system. Any disgruntled player who has just lost a match and is now scoring for the person who just beat him could intentionally give more s's than he should have just out of spite. Conversally the more accomplished play will find it much easier to sand bag by missing shots intentially several times and still manage to beat a player of lesser skill, thereby attempting to lower his average while still winning the match.

No I've been in the USPPA for too long and have seen too much to to be convinced that the system can't be improved upon. The score sheets should have to go, then and only then will the system finally turn the page! <hr /></blockquote>

L.S. Dennis
01-12-2003, 10:51 AM
Sorry Troy I must admit that I didn't quite undersand at first what you were talking about the players kepping Their own score,this only makes the system even more absurd!

How in the world can a player consentrate on his/her game while trying to keep their own score with a monitor overlooking (assuming one were available everything this were to take Place). This whole concept stikes me as being totally over the edge!

Playing here in the Bay Area in the USPPA for about 20 years now, I never seen this done at any of the places I've played and for good reason.

Respectfully I once again maintain that the score sheets should go altogether and go with a match win/loss point system similar to the NPL's without the rediculas rating system they have.

Dennis

Troy
01-12-2003, 12:16 PM
You certainly are welcome to your negative opinions.

I choose to make the USPPA a better handicap organization by doing the best I can as a Tournament Director and supporter.

Troy

L.S. Dennis
01-12-2003, 06:36 PM
Troy,
Don't get my wrong, I'm trying to offer suggestions that will make the system better. All the things that I pointed out were and are true. The race to 5 with a maximum of 3 game spot I think is good. I'm saying let's keep the good and change the bad, what's wrong with that?

Troy
01-12-2003, 07:18 PM
This conversation has gone off subject, that being -- CHEATING.

While some changes are quite possible / probable, elimination of the foundation (scoresheets) is definitely not one. Potential changes forthcoming would be aimed at curtailing sandbagging and eliminating cheating.

Actually, there just may be scoresheets required not only at Local tournaments, but also at future Regional tournaments and maybe even at the Reno bi-annual tournaments.

More should be known in the next month or so.

Troy

L.S. Dennis
01-12-2003, 07:46 PM
Troy, I realize that old habits are hard to kick and that is why don't think the score sheet format will unfortunately ever be replaced. We are in agreement about the cheating aspect, no true pool player should condone this type of activitey. I applaud what Tony is trying to do with the system in an effort to move it forward, I say the best of luck to him!