Situation from 2009 Worlds

Steve Lipsky · Feb 14, 2010

The following situation came up in my match with Oliver Ortmann in the 2009 World 14.1 Tournament. Curious for everyone's thoughts here, because Danny DiLiberto strongly disagreed with my choice. (It should be noted that my way didn't work out, but just as in poker, theoretical discussions should rarely be decided based on the results of one iteration.)

I was down 56-39 in a race to 100 and have a ball-in-hand. I had clawed my way back into the match and was feeling good when i got to the table. The momentum of the game was definitely on my side at this point (Mr. Ortmann was up 57-0 at one time).

I was left with this position.

CueTable Help

In my view, even though it is not one of my favorite break balls, the 3 is the only legitimate way to get into the next rack. I deliberated on this position for a short while, truly not sure if the risk of the spot shot was worth a potentially limited reward.

Shooting the 3 first, while a guarantee make, in my view led to nothing substantial. The 15 was not lying in a conducive position to create a breakshot from the 9. Certainly I was not going to be able to create a standard breakshot; at best I would leave something in the side. If I get perfect on the 9, I might be able to kick the 15 out 3 or so feet and keep the cueball in the rack. I then might be able to play the 15 in the side with a BIH. This is really under the best of conditions, though, and side pocket break shots entail some risk themselves.

The table was a bit on the soft side, and I felt that - shooting the spot shot - anywhere I got on the 9 would allow me a way to get to the 3. The best part was that if I made the spot shot, made the 9 and got on the 3 ball well, I had a free shot to hit the rack firmly. If I got stuck, as can occasionally happen on these breakshots, I still had Mr. Ortmann on a foul.

The only other thing I can say in my defense is that I am 100% sure that if the situation were reversed, my opponent would have played the same shot I did. Judging by some of the other shots he took in this game, he was not in the mood to play conservatively.

Anyway, curious to everyone's thoughts. Incidentally, here is what happened:

CueTable Help

Stuck on the rail with a terrible angle (I couldn't even keep it in the rack), I was forced to play safe on the breakball. Here I made a huge mental error and forgot Mr. Ortmann was on a foul; I made a terrible decision and paid for it by leaving him an easy return safe which really handcuffed me. It was my last inning, and it deserved to be.

Again, curious for everyone's thoughts.

Thanks,
Steve

sascha · Feb 14, 2010

I would have played it the same way, so if i understand it correct you ended up behind the 3 ball after playing the 9 right ? then i would have played safe, too. depends on the angle...maybe i would have shot the 3 ball along the rail and draw back into the rack, but of course not in a worlds against Oliver

Blackjack · Feb 14, 2010

Steve

This is one of those situations where you have limited directions in which to go, and you have to make a decision.

In 14.1, effective decision-making is vital, and the less # of balls you have, the tougher those decisions will be.

Less # of balls = Less Options

Having less options will narrow the gap between the percentages. By that, I am saying that because you have fewer options, the line between what is a good choice and what is a bad choice becomes very thin. That line is extremely thin in this situation - and being at the table with this must have felt as if you were walking a tightrope made from a single piece of thread.

You went this way and ended up on the rail.

CueTable Help

It happens. I could be a smart ass and say , next time hit the ball with more speed - but who is to say that if you did that - that the ball wouldn't end up in the kitchen? The pressure of a World Championship match against the 2007 World Champion adds in so many other variables that cannot be measured - nor can many of us empathize with your plight. I think you were taught a lesson to make you a stronger player. These lessons come to us from the pool Gods, and they teach us what we need to learn - even if we don't want to learn it - and usually they pick the worst time to teach us.

That's pool.

But still, let's look at your other options -

You have ball in hand, and you shoot the 3 off and end up somewhere like the diagram below.

CueTable Help

Ok...

Now what do you do?

You basically are surrendering the table to your opponent after your next shot.

Of course you could try to pull some stunt using the SWAG method of kicking the 9 or 15 into BB position, but what the hell would that prove?

Pocketing the 3 is just a bad choice, no matter what - I say look at your other options.

So let's try this:

CueTable Help

Too many things can go wrong here. Speed and control is essential - and your cue ball is going towards the 3 - no matter of I use the draw shot that I illustrated, or if I go two rails. I don't want the cue ball to inadvertently move the 3 ball. Even if I pocket the 15 and avoid running into the 3, I will be shooting the 9 ball - and my cue ball is going AWAY from the 3 ball(Black line) - or I will have to draw back to get on the 3(blue line), or go two rails ( Red Line - creating more distance between the CB and the BB).

CueTable Help

Honestly, I see no other options than the one you chose. You just hit the shot wrong - had a brainfart - it happens.

Williebetmore · Feb 14, 2010

Steve,
I have no idea what Danny would recommend; but would very much like to know. His advice may have been predicated on knowing that your opponent was on one foul.

I would definitely have made the 3 to get straight on the 9. Made the nine, drawn straight back out of the rack so I could then play the usual "side of the rack" safety (Danny estimates that a well executed "side of the rack" safety leads to winning the safety battle about 80% of the time).

The problem is that the 15 ball will be placed on the head spot; and a potential escape for Mr. Ortmann if he can pocket the 15 from a position frozen on the stack. You would be wagering the game then on his ability to pocket such a shot. What do you estimate his chances are of pocketing such a shot (obviously better than mine - but it seems likely that he will be forced to try it, as safety options will be quite limited for him)?

In my view, the 3 is a decent break shot if you can reliably get on it; but the spot shot with position is not 100% assured. Overall I would definitely favor shooting the 3 and playing safe as described; but my level of shotmaking is not world class. It might be that the world class shooter would proceed as you did. I know that George Breedlove favors breakshots like the 3; and after he shoots them, there will not be very many balls touching each other.

I also know that Danny D. has a carefully constructed "DiLiberto View" of things, based mainly on minimizing risk, and focusing on what has won and lost for him on countless occasions of trying to feed himself and his family for 60 years on the road. If you can pin him down and make him explain the exact reasons for his preferences, I find it almost impossible to disagree with him; but he often will not go into great detail as it just seems obvious to him. His preferences are often for things that will succeed 90% of the time, over things that will only succeed 85% of the time. Over 60 years, such things make money for him; but usually are seen as equal options for someone like me.

P.S. - You could also pocket the 3 and try to bump the 15 over into position, naturally leaving the 9 for a key ball. A lot of things could go wrong there.

wrldpro · Feb 14, 2010

Well steve my opinion was that the tables were playing like buckets so your shot selection i agree with.with the 3 ball about 3 balls below the table spot which is a low angle into the rack i might have shot the 3 first and tryed a small bump on the 15 depending also if the 3 ball was froze to the rail.if you hit the 3 with bump speed i dont see any chance of scraching and ortman already on a foul you could have played safe if it didnt work out.however i like to take the for sure shots never worried about the other player but ortmann was running out every session at the tourney.just my opinion and only the player shooting knows exactly all the angles and how he is feeling at the time.

Bobby c.

Steve Lipsky · Feb 14, 2010

Thanks everyone; GREAT responses and I really appreciate it.

Sascha: Yes, that's exactly where I was left. As I recall, when I played the 9 I bumped the 3 just slightly but on the wrong side. This froze the 3 to the rail, making even the silly "up the rail" breakshot that much sillier.

Blackjack: Excellent analysis, and you're right on target that I just had a brainfart and cinched the spot shot in. In doing so, I failed to properly stroke it and wound up in a position that I should never have landed in. I also like what you said about less balls meaning less options, and sometimes the choice between two completely different lines of play in the end-rack being very, very close percentage-wise.

WBM: The short answer is that I didn't think of that. The long(er) answer is that even if I had, I probably wouldn't have done it. The truth is that we tend to think along the lines with which we define ourselves as players. I'm a very aggressive 14.1 player and I just can't see taking a workable position like this and essentially giving up, albeit in a positive equity situation.

Let's reverse the situation. Mr. Ortmann is at the table, and just before shooting, he turns to me and says, "Steve, I'll let you choose which path I take. The spot shot, or the safe into the side of the rack. Which will it be?" I would jump out of my seat asking him to play safe. Please understand that by no means am I saying I feel your shot is wrong. I just feel that, for me, it is too conservative to play when there are other fairly viable options.

Here's why: if I leave him really stuck good to the side of the rack (where there are many open balls and he can't even see the newly-spotted 15), I don't know how much of a choice he has but to take three fouls. Is this really that good for me? I don't know, but I think I tend to doubt it. He loses the 17 more points (he was already on one), which I think we can all agree is pretty meaningless for him. He breaks, and probably won't leave much. Now I'm on two fouls, with maybe a difficult shot at best, and the score is about tied in the high 30s. I just don't see how this is a great spot for me. I guess it's not a bad spot, but considering where I am in the original diagram, I feel like my fortunes have worsened.

Just for the record, though I can't be certain where I forgot that he fouled, I have to assume it was during the racking of the balls for the next rack. So I feel the only thing "forgetting" affected was my choice after the new rack came up, not before. Whatever choice I made with the ball-in-hand, I'll assume I was doing so with the full knowledge that Mr. Ortmann was on one.

Bobby: The 3 was not frozen to the rail. I'd have to set the shot up, but I feel like even if I placed the cueball all the way to the other side of the kitchen, I still would not have the proper angle to naturally slide across and move the 15. Even if I did, this shot has a "put all your eggs in one basket" quality to it that scares me a bit. I love bumping balls but I really don't like where the 9 is laying. Ideally, I'd want to hit the 15 close to full and fairly softly, which would barely leave a shot at the 9 (and a tough one at that). And you are so right about the only player knowing all the angles and how he feels is the shooter. That is why discussions like this can sometimes be difficult I guess.

Also, curious why no one has been mentioning their thoughts on Mr. DiLiberto's suggestion. Stopping the 3, shooting the 9, and bumping the 15 uptable for a possible side pocket break shot. It's definitely a strange manufacture, but worthy of a discussion I'm sure.
Edit: I just realized that in my original post, I didn't mention that this was the announcer's suggestion. Sorry.

Again, thanks so much for the great replies. I really felt this was an interesting position, and I was a bit shocked at how adamant Mr. DiLiberto was that I was committing a mortal sin in shooting the spot shot. While not a standard shot, it's still just a spot shot with a ball-in-hand, when I'm in stroke, on a soft table.

- Steve

Blackjack · Feb 14, 2010

Steve Lipsky said:
Also, curious why no one has been mentioning their thoughts on Mr. DiLiberto's suggestion. Stopping the 3, shooting the 9, and bumping the 15 uptable for a possible side pocket break shot. It's definitely a strange manufacture, but worthy of a discussion I'm sure.
Edit: I just realized that in my original post, I didn't mention that this was the announcer's suggestion. Sorry.

Steve, I was wondering if that was what Danny was recommending. JMO, but I think it was too late in the rack to start rearranging the table. I was taught a long time ago about break balls - and that is - if you already have something to work with - use it. If you're down to three balls and decide to reposition something, every 1/100th of a rotation becomes vital. If you pocket the 3 and move the 15 too far down table (past the side pocket), you have eliminated the 3 and the 15, and all you have left is the 9 sitting up in the triangle.

What do you do then? Pocket the 15 and try to move the 9 - OR - do you just swipe the cue ball, go back to your chair and put on the dunce cap?

I understand what Danny is saying - but you had the momentum - a workable break ball - and a way to get there. Of course the brain fart did you in - but IMO, you made a good decision and then aggressively went for what you felt comfortable with.

Brainfarts happen... but think about it... tramps like us -

Roy Steffensen · Feb 14, 2010

You played the correct shot.

I totally agree with BlackJack, do not bump balls around when there are only 3 balls left on the table.

Interesting choice, as mentioned, would be to play safe putting the cueball on the stack, especially since Ortmann is already on 1 foul.

But, knowing that you play Ortmann, it is probably better to grap the oppurtunity and go for a big run.

TSW · Feb 14, 2010

Steve, I think you played the right shot as well.

As Blackjack said, you had a workable break shot and a way to get there. Manufacturing another break ball would have required a heroic effort. You're playing a world champion in a short race and you're feeling good. You have to try to post a run and this was the only realistic way to get into the next rack. Just my two cents...

sjm · Feb 14, 2010

I think your play here was fine. Though it is possible to do so, there's no simple approach to manufacturing a better break shot than the three, and if you try to and fail, you may end up with no break shot at all.

A case can be made for playing the nine before the fifteen, as the fifteen might be considered a slightly better key ball onto the three than the nine, but, as the nine is a bit tougher to pocket than the spot shot, it's am matter of personal preference.

Playing a pattern onto the three is the right play here.

PoolSharkAllen · Feb 15, 2010

Steve Lipsky said:
WBM: The short answer is that I didn't think of that. The long(er) answer is that even if I had, I probably wouldn't have done it. The truth is that we tend to think along the lines with which we define ourselves as players. I'm a very aggressive 14.1 player and I just can't see taking a workable position like this and essentially giving up, albeit in a positive equity situation.

Let's reverse the situation. Mr. Ortmann is at the table, and just before shooting, he turns to me and says, "Steve, I'll let you choose which path I take. The spot shot, or the safe into the side of the rack. Which will it be?" I would jump out of my seat asking him to play safe. Please understand that by no means am I saying I feel your shot is wrong. I just feel that, for me, it is too conservative to play when there are other fairly viable options.

Here's why: if I leave him really stuck good to the side of the rack (where there are many open balls and he can't even see the newly-spotted 15), I don't know how much of a choice he has but to take three fouls. Is this really that good for me? I don't know, but I think I tend to doubt it. He loses the 17 more points (he was already on one), which I think we can all agree is pretty meaningless for him. He breaks, and probably won't leave much. Now I'm on two fouls, with maybe a difficult shot at best, and the score is about tied in the high 30s. I just don't see how this is a great spot for me. I guess it's not a bad spot, but considering where I am in the original diagram, I feel like my fortunes have worsened.

- Steve

Steve,

It could very well be that shooting the 15 was the right shot for you to take. However, two times in this post you indicated that you were a very aggressive 14.1 player. I'm wondering if your very aggressive style is preventing you from considering other more conservative options like shooting the 3 and then the 9. The 15 would go on the head spot and you could opt to pocket the 15 or play safe. By playing the percentages better, you live to fight another inning where you might still prevail.

The essence of my posting here is to raise the question of whether you sometimes play too aggressively? In any sport, we all need to recognize when a more conservative defensive approach may ultimately yield a better result.

CreeDo · Feb 15, 2010

I'm not qualified to give advice, but was the spot shot missable for you? For me it's only a 70% shot, but for you maybe it's 95%.

If it can be missed, I shoot a draw drag shot on the 3, playing to get an angle on the 9 to bump the 15. Maybe unrealistic but the idea is that the safe is always there since he's on 1. I like plan your A better, but this seems like a viable plan B.

CueTable Help

PS: I wouldn't let Danny rattle your confidence much. One thing he likes to do is talk as if his idea is was only viable one, and it's completely obvious that anything else is idiotic. "no no no, you're not supposed to shoot the fifteen. You just shot your wallet. This one's a no brainer. You shoot the three all day."

But often I think the stuff he sees as a no-brainer is very much up for debate. And I've seen him say such-and-such is the wrong shot, then the player does it anyway to perfection and he has to backpedal a bit.

mosconiac · Feb 15, 2010

I don't feel I'm qualified to voice an opinion either, but here it goes.

Am I off my rocker for using the "in the rack" rule here? IMO it offers the best compromise...easy shots & reasonable break ball. Sure the 15 on the head spot isn't a joy to work with, but its a sure thing versus 1) bumping balls so late in the rack or 2) trying to get into the balls & away from the rack using the 3 (that type of break shot never works for me).

EDIT: Added page 2 for spotting the 15.

CueTable Help

Blackjack · Feb 15, 2010

Mosconiac,

The first thought I had when I looked at your diagram was this:

If there was any possible way to get the cue ball to "B", then when I got there, I would kick myself in the a$$ for shooting off the 3 ball...

CueTable Help

I would much rather have this shot (or GO FOR the chance of having this shot) than to force myself into a situation where I was shooting a safe against a player like Oliver.

Demondrew · Feb 15, 2010

I hate the break shot using the three. I would play the fifteen into the top left corner and bump the three up table. The nine goes in the same corner and gives you a good angle to get on the three for a break shot or the safety. I played it ten times in the basement and eight times I had a side pocket break once I had to play the safe and I missed the fifteen once. So, for me, playing the fifteen into the upper left pocket is the correct shot.

That being said, if i were in the same position as you in the Worlds I would have been so nervous I don't know what I would have done.
Yours was a great attempt. And , of course, you can make the three in the corner as a break ball. Did I mention I hate that shot.
It was great getting a chance to watch you play.

Andy

mosconiac · Feb 15, 2010

You're probably right, David...Nobel Laureate's usually are.

I'm just reluctant to use break balls stuck to the rail as my CB get stuck against the rack more often than not. If I shot the 3 as you've drawn it up, I would use everything in my power to hit the 6 instead of the 15. Folks on your level probably don't sweat it.

In my scenario above (spotting the 15 on the head spot), I've had very good luck getting the balls open. The risk I am taking is a scratch since the CB is let loose. Maybe the percentages will catch up to me.

Steve Lipsky · Feb 15, 2010

More great discussion. PoolSharkAllen, it's a tough call whether I'm too aggressive. I never go for silly shots, that's for sure. But I could certainly keep what you're saying in mind, play around with it, and see what I come up with. Thanks.

Creedo, the spot shot is not 95% for me, but I wasn't looking at the one shot percentages while I was deliberating. I was calculating what I felt gave me the best chance to be shooting the next wide open inning, instead of Oliver. This would have been a series of shots (either the line starting with the spot shot, or the line starting with the 3 and trying to win an ensuing safe battle, or the line with the 3 and playing the 15 as the break shot on the opposite spot). And thanks for the info on Mr. DiLiberto. I didn't mean this thread to be a "me vs. him" thing; I was just surprised at how strongly he disagreed. Nice to hear that just might be his m.o.

Mosconiac, I don't consider myself an expert at that break shot and therefore didn't give it serious consideration. I will practice it a bit more and perhaps increase my comfort level with it. Thanks for the reminder.

Blackjack, it seems you and I are in agreement that, since there was a workable position, voluntarily getting into a safe battle with Oliver was probably not the best way to go. Even though using Williebetmore's safety into the side of the rack will probably put me in a good position, I still don't love the idea of letting a world champion back at a softish table when I didn't necessarily have to.

Andy, the success rate you had with shooting your shot is outstanding. I know for a fact I could not duplicate it, or come close. I share your dislike of the 3 as a break ball, but as far as I'm concerned, with Oliver on a foul I'm in a win-win scenario. I will probably take a bit of speed off the shot, to ensure I pocket it. As long as I pocket it, it's almost inconsequential whether I get a shot or not. If I do, great. If not, my opponent is on a foul, there are balls everywhere, and he's stuck to the rack.

Btw, the reason I feel better about this last scenario (using 3 as a breakshot, and if I get stuck to the rack I know that Oliver is already on one) than voluntarily playing Williebetmore's safe is because I am removing the vig that the safe is unsuccessful. Baked into WBM's percentages are the chances that I play the safe and nothing hits a rail (though rare, we've all seen it), or that I play the safe and an easy ball pops out in an unexpected way, leaving him a hanger. By shooting the 3 as a breakshot, hitting the rack, and then already seeing that I'm completely safe, I've removed the negative equity results I just mentioned. It's like a come-out roll in craps where I can remove the 2,3, and 12 as instant losers.

- Steve

PoolSharkAllen · Feb 15, 2010

Steve Lipsky said:
More great discussion. PoolSharkAllen, it's a tough call whether I'm too aggressive. I never go for silly shots, that's for sure. But I could certainly keep what you're saying in mind, play around with it, and see what I come up with. Thanks.

Blackjack, it seems you and I are in agreement that, since there was a workable position, voluntarily getting into a safe battle with Oliver was probably not the best way to go. Even though using Williebetmore's safety into the side of the rack will probably put me in a good position, I still don't love the idea of letting a world champion back at a softish table when I didn't necessarily have to.

- Steve

Steve,

Your latest posting gives me an opportunity to expand upon what I was trying to say earlier.

In playing a world champion like Oliver Ortmann, he has the psychological advantage of being the much more experienced player. Not to mention the intimidation factor too.

As both you and Blackjack indicated, you don't want to get engaged in a defensive safety battle with Ortmann. Well, if you can't play defensive safeties against Ollie, that now forces you to play more aggressively by playing lower percentage shots and patterns.

Even before the game started, Ollie has the intimidation factor working to his advantage if you're hesitant to play defense (when the situation may call for it).

Some food for thought.

14-1StraightMan · Feb 15, 2010

Just my opinion

Steve:
I am not saying I am right and as long as you give it your best then no way is wrong.
I would of played the 3 first (It is a high % shot) It is easy to get that angle on the 9 to push out the 15.
You can come out with break shot from there, if not. Then you play the safe off the 15 or the rack depending where the cue ball & the 15 ends up.
Even if you miss the push on the 15. You then have the 15 on the head spot to play a safety off of, leaving him up table with a long safe shot on the rack. Also, with him being on one foul, a safety up table would be more pressure on him. (I know you stated that you forgot about it but he knows he's on one and doesn't know if you remember or not).
Very interesting post. I enjoyed reading all the different ideas.

TSW · Feb 15, 2010

One of the problems I have with shooting the 3 first is that it's on the rail.

A stop shot on the 3 leaves you a good angle to play the 9 and bump the 15 out, except that you'd have to play the 9 with draw, which you can't do from the rail. That means you can't simply play a stop shot on the 3 -- you have to pop the cue ball off the rail, which greatly increases the risk of losing the ideal angle on the 9.

If the balls were laying such that a stop shot on the 3 gave you a good angle to make the 9 and bump the 15, then IMO the 3 becomes a much more realistic play.

For example, if the 9 were moved such that a stop shot on the 3 and a follow shot on the 9 could bump the 15:

CueTable Help

Alternatively, if the 3 were off the rail you could play a stop shot and still have the ability to play the 9 and bump the 15 (obviously this changes the merits of the 3 as a break ball as well):

CueTable Help

Situation from 2009 Worlds

On quest for perfect 14.1

AzB Silver Member

Illuminati Blacksmack

Member, .25% Club

H.RUN 311/Diamond W.R.

On quest for perfect 14.1

Illuminati Blacksmack

locksmith

AzB Silver Member

Older and Wiser

AzB Silver Member

Fargo Rating 597

Job+Wife+Child=No Stroke

Illuminati Blacksmack

AzB Silver Member

Job+Wife+Child=No Stroke

On quest for perfect 14.1

AzB Silver Member

High Run 127

AzB Silver Member