|
BGonline.org Forums
I'm still fine with progressive LC.
Posted By: Matt Cohn-Geier In Response To: I'm still fine with progressive LC. (neilkaz)
Date: Sunday, 15 February 2015, at 12:23 a.m.
I have not had much experience with progressive LCs since most LCs are traditional. Very few tournaments have progressive LCs.
That said, the LC in San Antonio was progressive, and as noted, it turned out that it actually had no advantage over a traditional LC. The reasons for this were:
- An extra round was played since it was progressive. That meant a bracket of 256 rather than 128.
- The losers of 9 point matches being fed in rather than the winners of 5 point matches.
A progressive LC could seem to work well in theory, assuming the Conso was already finished down to the money rounds on Saturday night, but I don't have much experience in those tourneys.
The USBGF 1pt freeroll seems a bit silly but it probably wasn't the root cause of most of the delays. It takes about 5 minutes to a 1 point match. Even if you have a giant bracket it hardly matters. More pertinent delays were the Tournament of Stars (doubles), and the LC.
My problem with the "three-match" thing is that after you lose your first two rounds, your third and subsequent matches are now played for pennies. They're played to a length just short enough to feel completely random, but just long enough to hold up the tournament. I would be happier if I could still play for a sizable sum on Sunday, and preferably not have to win 7 or 8 rounds to do so.
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.