Break Stats -- 2015 World Chinese 8-Ball Masters, January 2015

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are some aggregate break statistics from several of the matches of the 2015 World Chinese 8-Ball Masters event, played this week in Qinhuangdao, China with free streaming.

This was a 24-player invitational event, with 12 players from China and 12 from elsewhere. Stage 1 was round-robin play in 4 groups of 6 (3 from China, 3 from elsewhere). The top 2 from each group formed an 8-player modified-single-elimination bracket competing for the event title and positions 2 through 8. The 3rd- and 4th-place players from each group formed a similar second 8-player bracket, competing for positions 9 through 16 (different prize money for each spot).

The conditions for this call-shot event included: 9-foot table with fairly tight pockets and rounded pocket jaws, Andy green cloth, Super Aramith Pro balls, measles cue ball, jump cues allowed, referee racks using a template, alternate breaks, foul on all balls, table open after the break, ball in hand behind the line after a foul on the break, making an 8-ball on the break does not count as a win, races to 13 subject to a 130-minute match clock, 45-second time clock (one extension allowed per game) with losing player at halftime having the option to reduce it to 30 seconds, and an illegal break unless at least 3 balls are pocketed or reach the head string.

These stats are for 4 full matches and the tail end of 3 other matches, as follows:

Mon., Jan. 5 (in China)​
Gareth Potts def. Wang Yun 13-12 (stats collected for last 3 games only)​
Tues., Jan. 6
Earl Strickland d. Stephen Hendry 13-10 (last 9 games only)​
Wed., Jan. 7
Chen Qiang d. Daryl Peach 13-10 (last 7 games only)​
Chris Melling d. Yang Fan 13-6​
Thurs., Jan. 8
Yang Fan d. Gareth Potts 13-7​
Gareth Potts d. Wang Peng 13-10 (3rd and 4th places)​
Yang Fan d. Zheng Yubo 13-9 (finals)​


Overall results -- The breaker made at least one ball and did not foul 70% of the time (72 of 103), won 66% of the games (68 of 103), and broke and ran 49% of the games (50 of 103).

Here's a more detailed breakdown of the 103 games.

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:​
Breaker won the game: 54 (52% of the 103 games)​
Breaker lost the game: 18 (17%)​
Breaker fouled on the break:​
Breaker won the game: 3 (3%)​
Breaker lost the game: 3 (3%)​
Breaker broke dry (without fouling):​
Breaker won the game: 11 (11%)​
Breaker lost the game: 14 (14%)​
Therefore, whereas the breaker won 66% (68) of all 103 games,​
He won 75% (54 of 72) of the games in which he made at least one ball on the break and did not foul.​
He won 50% (3 of 6) of the games in which he fouled on the break.​
He won 44% (11 of 25) of the games in which he broke dry but did not foul.​
He won 45% (14 of 31) of the games in which he either fouled on the break or broke dry without fouling.​

Break-and-run games: The 50 break-and-run games represented 49% of all 103 games, 74% of the 68 games won by the breaker, and 69% of the 72 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

With alternating breaks, B&R "packages" of the normal type are not possible. But we can still look at the breaks of a given player and see how many he ran on his own successive breaks, and we can call these "alternate-break packages." The 50 break-and-run games consisted of 2 alternate-break 7-packs (by Melling and Yang Fan), 1 alternate-break 5-pack (by Zheng), 4 alternate-break 3-packs, 4 alternate-break 2-packs, and 11 singles. Yang Fan's 7-pack was preceded by a 3-pack at the end of his previous match, so he essentially had an alternate-break 10-pack.

8-balls on the break: The 8-ball was made on the break twice (1.9% of all 103 breaks), but did not count as a win.
 
Last edited:

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Mention has been made several times on AzB of the difficulty of Chinese 8-Ball because of the pockets -- fairly small pocket mouths and rounded pocket lips.

So let's do a comparison of results from this Chinese 8-Ball Masters event and the Accu-Stats "Make It Happen" Invitational 8-Ball event from a couple months ago. Although my data set is fairly small for both events, both are similar in size -- 103 games for one and 117 games for the other. And both events were for top-level players.

Made at least one ball on the break and did not foul:
• Chinese 8-Ball -- 70% (72 of 103)
• Accu-Stats 8-Ball -- 73% (85 of 117)

Breaker won the game:
• Chinese 8-Ball -- 66% (68 of 103)
• Accu-Stats 8-Ball -- 61% (71 of 117)

Break-and-run games:
• Chinese 8-Ball -- 49% (50 of 103)
• Accu-Stats 8-Ball -- 50% (59 of 117)

Break-and-run games on successful breaks:
• Chinese 8-Ball -- 69% (50 of 72)
• Accu-Stats 8-Ball -- 69% (59 of 85)

Comments?
 
Last edited:

jsp

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Awesome stats, AtLarge!

I need some time to digest all of it. But what stands out is the amazing fact (at least to me) that the break-and-run percentages are so similar, given the differences in playing conditions. I would have guessed that the Chinese 8-ball percentages would be much lower, but they're not.

The data makes you think that playing on a Chinese table is no harder than playing on an American table. But based on what I've seen, I simply don't believe that.
 

nine_ball6970

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Awesome stats, AtLarge!

I need some time to digest all of it. But what stands out is the amazing fact (at least to me) that the break-and-run percentages are so similar, given the differences in playing conditions. I would have guessed that the Chinese 8-ball percentages would be much lower, but they're not.

The data makes you think that playing on a Chinese table is no harder than playing on an American table. But based on what I've seen, I simply don't believe that.

I would think because of how much more difficult the Chinese tables are that those players are stronger to keep the stats even close. If the Make it Happen was played on Chinese tables I bet you would see a lower BAR percentage by a fair amount. I mean the balls I saw missed in the Chinese 8 ball tournament would be pocketed without even touching the points on American table for the most part.

How many break and runs did Earl and Dennis have respectively?

Invite Gareth Potts to the next Make it Happen 8 ball and see how he does on American tables.
 

victorl

Where'd my stroke go?
Silver Member
It's also important to note that of the 7 matches in AtLarge's sample, 5 of them involve Potts and Yang, who were 2 of the strongest players in the tournament. So the actual b&r percentage through the entire tournament would likely be lower than the reported 49%.
 

BJTyler

AzB Member
Silver Member
It's also important to note that of the 7 matches in AtLarge's sample, 5 of them involve Potts and Yang, who were 2 of the strongest players in the tournament. So the actual b&r percentage through the entire tournament would likely be lower than the reported 49%.

I've played on C8B tables, and while the corner pockets were definitely more difficult than diamonds, the side pockets played considerably easier - imo. In fact, with the rounded noses, I thought the sides played very large.

For a game like 8ball, while they definitely play differently, I'm not certain that c8b tables play that much tougher than a pro cut diamond with a deep shelf.

On the other hand, I would suspect that rotation would play much tougher on C8b tables.
 
Last edited:

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
It's also important to note that of the 7 matches in AtLarge's sample, 5 of them involve Potts and Yang, who were 2 of the strongest players in the tournament. So the actual b&r percentage through the entire tournament would likely be lower than the reported 49%.

Agree. Even within the 103 games in the sample, if we split them in two groups we have the following B&R results:

• Yang and Potts -- 54% (29 of 54)
• All others -- 43% (21 of 49)
• Total -- 49% (50 of 103)

No two of the six Make-It-Happen players represented as large a share of the total of 117 games, but two of them did represent 30% of the total games and had a combined B&R of 69%. And those six players were chosen as six of the best, so, as a group, they could be expected to outperform a larger tournament group playing American 8-Ball.
 

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Good work. Thanks Atlarge. I like that you compare with MIH stats so see how it stands.
From the very few matches I have seen I am impressed with quality of matches except for that Earl-Hendry match which had many errors and which may have pulled down average in your sample LOL.
These guys make it look easy and looking at them you wouldn't know they are playing tough tables than American pool tables- I am not surprised that their stats are better then MIH
I am convinced that Potts will do very well in an 8 ball tourney like MIH cos really C8B rules are quite similar to American 8B (A8B).
English 8B(E8B) on other hand have some different rules .
I hope there is WPA W8B later this year and hopefully Potts and some of these C8B players will take part
:)
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Good work. Thanks Atlarge. I like that you compare with MIH stats so see how it stands.
From the very few matches I have seen I am impressed with quality of matches except for that Earl-Hendry match which had many errors and which may have pulled down average in your sample LOL.
These guys make it look easy and looking at them you wouldn't know they are playing tough tables than American pool tables- I am not surprised that their stats are better then MIH
I am convinced that Potts will do very well in an 8 ball tourney like MIH cos really C8B rules are quite similar to American 8B (A8B).
English 8B(E8B) on other hand have some different rules .
I hope there is WPA W8B later this year and hopefully Potts and some of these C8B players will take part
:)

Yes, that Strickland/Hendry match was something, although I only saw the final 9 games (9 misses and a scratch in one of those 9 games!).

But I wouldn't say the Chinese 8-Ball stats were better than the Make-It-Happen stats; they were quite similar. The number of games was rather small in both cases, so we shouldn't generalize much from those results.

And I, too, think Potts (and Yang, and Zheng, and Melling, and ...) would do fine playing 8-ball on an "American" table.
 

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes, that Strickland/Hendry match was something, although I only saw the final 9 games (9 misses and a scratch in one of those 9 games!).

But I wouldn't say the Chinese 8-Ball stats were better than the Make-It-Happen stats; they were quite similar. The number of games was rather small in both cases, so we shouldn't generalize much from those results.

And I, too, think Potts (and Yang, and Zheng, and Melling, and ...) would do fine playing 8-ball on an "American" table.

Are you sure ? C8B looked much better on this stat- but I agree it is not big enough sampling size.
Breaker won the game:
• Chinese 8-Ball -- 66% (68 of 103)
• Accu-Stats 8-Ball -- 61% (71 of 117)

I noticed few matches I watched that these C8B are pretty good breakers especially that impressive Yang guy- he spreads the balls and importantly the CB is parked in middle of table. Maybe the 3 point rule force them to really break
In the exhibition Potts/Hendry v Yang/Zheng after final , Zheng let loose and one of the last racks he broke one of biggest 8 ball break I have seen- all 16 balls spread and covered whole area of table LOL
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... I noticed few matches I watched that these C8B are pretty good breakers especially that impressive Yang guy- he spreads the balls and importantly the CB is parked in middle of table. Maybe the 3 point rule force them to really break
...

What struck me about the breaking was that (1) they broke from almost on the long string, and some of them from well behind the head string (with their hand on the short rail) and (2) they hit it at just a medium speed, not really a full power break. But they hit the head ball very squarely. The most common ball(s) to fall on the break were the balls behind the head ball, in a side pocket.
 
Last edited:

victorl

Where'd my stroke go?
Silver Member
What struck me about the breaking was that (1) they broke from almost on the center string, and some of them from well behind the head string (with their hand on the short rail) and (2) they hit it at just a medium speed, not really a full power break. But they hit the head ball very squarely. The most common ball(s) to fall on the break were the balls behind the head ball, in a side pocket.

Yes, I noticed that as well. From my limited experience on those tables, the rounded side pockets provide a larger opening for the second row of balls that makes the medium strength break more viable than it would be on a regular pool table.
Even playing 9-ball, my Chinese friend would break from center and make the second ball quite regularly, while I struggled to make the wing ball with the standard rail break.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
84 matches were played in this event. 50 of those matches involved a Chinese player against a non-Chinese player. The results were:

Round-robin stage: China 22 - Rest of World 14 (China won 61%)

Modified single-elimination stage: China 10 - Rest of World 4 (China won 71%)

Total: China 32 - Rest of World 18 (China won 64%)
 

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Great stats AtLarge! As always!

Interesting how bigger tables result in even higher pot out rates than smaller tables in rounded rail games. The quality of players here helps boost that percentage, but it is clear to me that good players thrive when there is less cluster to deal with.

I'm pretty sure the quality of potters in the Chinese event is significantly better than at the accustats event.

Have played in some 9 foot table english pool events and hundreds of 7 foot table english pool events and the snooker players / great shooters / offensive players rise to the top consistently on the larger tables.

FWIW, the Chinese 8 ball game is as great an offensive game requiring advanced cuing skills as I've seen.
 

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
AtLarge,

Thanks again for continuing to do this. It is always interesting to see the stats from the pro tournaments.

FYI, as always, I've added a quote of (and link to) your post on my break statistics resource page, which is now categorized into the different games (8-ball, 9-ball and 10-ball), making it much easier to see comparable results.

Regards,
Dave

Here are some aggregate break statistics from several of the matches of the 2015 World Chinese 8-Ball Masters event, played this week in Qinhuangdao, China with free streaming.

This was a 24-player invitational event, with 12 players from China and 12 from elsewhere. Stage 1 was round-robin play in 4 groups of 6 (3 from China, 3 from elsewhere). The top 2 from each group formed an 8-player modified-single-elimination bracket competing for the event title and positions 2 through 8. The 3rd- and 4th-place players from each group formed a similar second 8-player bracket, competing for positions 9 through 16 (different prize money for each spot).

The conditions for this call-shot event included: 9-foot table with fairly tight pockets and rounded cushion noses, Andy green cloth, Super Aramith Pro balls, measles cue ball, jump cues allowed, referee racks using a template, alternate breaks, foul on all balls, table open after the break, ball in hand behind the line after a foul on the break, making an 8-ball on the break does not count as a win, 130-minute match clock, 45-second time clock (one extension allowed per game) with losing player at halftime having the option to reduce it to 30 seconds, and an illegal break unless at least 3 balls are pocketed or reach the head string.

These stats are for 4 full matches and the tail end of 3 other matches, as follows:


Mon., Jan. 5 (in China)
  • • Gareth Potts def. Wang Yun 13-12 (stats collected for last 3 games only)

Tues., Jan. 6
  • • Earl Strickland d. Stephen Hendry 13-10 (last 9 games only)

Wed., Jan. 7
  • • Chen Qiang d. Daryl Peach 13-10 (last 7 games only)
  • • Chris Melling d. Yang Fan 13-6

Thurs., Jan. 8
  • • Yang Fan d. Gareth Potts 13-7
  • • Gareth Potts d. Wang Peng 13-10 (3rd and 4th places)
  • • Yang Fan d. Zheng Yubo 13-9 (finals)



Overall results -- The breaker made at least one ball and did not foul 70% of the time (72 of 103), won 66% of the games (68 of 103), and broke and ran 49% of the games (50 of 103).

Here's a more detailed breakdown of the 103 games.

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:
  • • Breaker won the game: 54 (52% of the 103 games)
  • • Breaker lost the game: 18 (17%)

Breaker fouled on the break:
  • • Breaker won the game: 3 (3%)
  • • Breaker lost the game: 3 (3%)

Breaker broke dry (without fouling):
  • • Breaker won the game: 11 (11%)
  • • Breaker lost the game: 14 (14%)

Therefore, whereas the breaker won 66% (68) of all 103 games,
  • • He won 75% (54 of 72) of the games in which he made at least one ball on the break and did not foul.
  • • He won 50% (3 of 6) of the games in which he fouled on the break.
  • • He won 44% (11 of 25) of the games in which he broke dry but did not foul.
  • • He won 45% (14 of 31) of the games in which he either fouled on the break or broke dry without fouling.

Break-and-run games: The 50 break-and-run games represented 49% of all 103 games, 74% of the 68 games won by the breaker, and 69% of the 72 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

With alternating breaks, B&R "packages" of the normal type are not possible. But we can still look at the breaks of a given player and see how many he ran on his own successive breaks, and we can call these "alternate-break packages." The 50 break-and-run games consisted of 2 alternate-break 7-packs (by Melling and Yang Fan), 1 alternate-break 5-pack (by Zheng), 4 alternate-break 3-packs, 4 alternate-break 2-packs, and 11 singles. Yang Fan's 7-pack was preceded by a 3-pack at the end of his previous match, so he essentially had an alternate-break 10-pack.

8-balls on the break: The 8-ball was made on the break twice (1.9% of all 103 breaks), but did not count as a win.
 
Top