Breaking Stats -- Turning Stone XVII 9-Ball vs. 10-Ball

A

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
As some of you may remember, I have posted data a few times this year regarding tournament matches streamed by Accu-Stats or Inside Pool Magazine. Those tournaments were 10-ball. For the past three days, I have been able to watch quite a few 9-ball matches streamed by AzB/Accu-Stats from the Turning Stone event. Were the results a lot different for 9-ball than for 10-ball? Let's see.

I kept track of the breaking data for 12 9-ball matches (184 games) from Turning Stone, as follows:
Fri., Sept. 9 -- Morris def. Pagulayan 9-6, Morris d. Zuglan 9-4, Van Boening d. Shuff 9-4​
Sat., Sept. 10 -- Pagulayan d. Heidrich 9-8, Pagulayan d. Mastermaker 9-7, Morris d. Williams 9-5, Archer d. Williams 9-8​
Sun., Sept. 11 -- Morris d. Parica 9-5, Archer d. Ulrich 9-2, Morris d. Putnam 9-8, Pagulayan d. Putnam 9-8, Morris d. Pagulayan 13-7.​

The 10-ball results I'll use for comparison (375 games), are the streamed matches I watched from the 10-Ball Masters event in Virginia and the 10-Ball Pro Players Championship in Pennsylvania, both in March, 2011.

Breaker made at least one ball on the break and did not foul:
10-ball -- 230 of 373 (62%)​
9-ball -- 110 of 184 (60%)​

Breaker won the game:
10-ball -- 194 of 375 (52%)​
9-ball -- 89 of 184 (48%)​

Break-and-run games:
10-ball -- 70 of 375 (19%)​
9-ball -- 40 of 184 (22%)​

Obviously, the players, conditions, rules, and equipment were all a bit different among these three events. I think they were all played on Diamond tables. The 10-ball events were alternate break, rack your own. The 9-ball event was winner breaks, loser racks. All three events were played with triangle racks rather than the Magic Rack or something similar.

But the (perhaps) surprising thing is, that for a fairly large sample of games played by top professionals, the breaking results are quite similar for the two games.

Here's a little further detail on the 9-ball results (184 games I watched) from this weekend, "Made a ball" means made at least one ball and did not foul.
- Breaker made a ball and won the game -- 38%​
- Breaker made a ball and lost the game -- 22%​
- Breaker did not make a ball but won the game -- 11%​
- Breaker did not make a ball and lost the game -- 29%​

- The breaker won 63% of the games in which he made a ball on the break.​
- The breaker won 27% of the games in which he did not make a ball on the break.​
 
Last edited:
Results!

This is really great info! Thanks! I have played pool for many years and have listened to to many player cry about the break in 9 ball, but I have watched matches all over the country, many for big money and have seen the game come to many factors and the break seems to even out in both games, 9 & 10 ball.
 
Great stuff, thanks for posting this. Only comment I have if you are interested in getting more is it would be so interesting to compare the 9 ball numbers to a rack your own event.

I have always loved that everyone seems to think the break is such a huge advantage, but it is really just a coin toss. I don't think you could say that with rack your own however, I bet the results would favor the racker/breaker as winner. The most interesting point to me on this subject, I think breaking SHOULD be an advantage. In essence, I feel rack your own would give the breaker the advantage we all think the breaker has. One day I hope we move toward rack your own and alternate breaks as the norm.

Also noteworthy, and this is based on numbers i have seen P Flemming collect in the past as well, breaker in 9 ball seems to actually be at a slight disadvantage. This makes sense, if you have the person trying to beat you racking, they are going to do some funny stuff. If they don't, they aint going to be pros. You see how that works -- if they aint good with the rack, you aint seeing them out there. This is why I get so mad when I see people that are supposedly taking the "moral high-ground" talk bad about good players and the way they rack.
 
Last edited:
i had the impression that the wing ball was pretty much flying in on every break at the turning stone 9 ball. Also a lot of players were softbreaking.
The huge difference is in 9 ball they used the triangle rack and in 10 ball the magic rack. If they used the magic rack on 9 ball the percentage would be much higher.
Also we know breaking in 10 ball is harder than 9 ball ( harder to make a ball, more clusters) so I really don't like the looser break rule.
 
Last edited:
Slh said:
i had the impression that the wing ball was pretty much flying in on every break at the turning stone 9 ball. Also a lot of players were softbreaking.
The huge difference is in 9 ball they used the triangle rack and in 10 ball the magic rack. If they used the magic rack on 9 ball the percentage would be much higher.
Also we know breaking in 10 ball is harder than 9 ball ( harder to make a ball, more clusters) so I really don't like the looser break rule.
Click to expand...

The initial poster said the 10 ball was a triangle rack. He was watching closely, so he's probably right, but if you are correct, that would be interesting. Very interesting. Regardless, if the corner ball was going a lot as you say it seems like the breaker winning % should favor the 9 ball. I bet that 10 ball breaker winning percentage would come down with more collected data, if not though that is very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the great stat's!!!

I'd be really interested in seeing a large amount of data from events that players were not allowed to rack for their opponents. Because as we all know (Or should), the rack can be manipulated.
 
The Chinchilla said:
... it would be so interesting to compare the 9 ball numbers to a rack your own event. ... One day I hope we move toward rack your own and alternate breaks as the norm.

... breaker in 9 ball seems to actually be at a slight disadvantage. This makes sense, if you have the person trying to beat you racking, they are going to do some funny stuff. If they don't, they aint going to be pros. ...
Click to expand...

The data in post #1 are based on 10-ball events that were rack your own and alternate breaks. The 9-ball event was winner breaks, loser racks. I think you know that, but I'm just making sure.

I'm sure you're right that rack manipulation occurs in pro events. But do you really think it is common for the top pros playing each other -- the guys who play all the big events and face each other time after time? The event this past weekend had Morris, Pagulayan, Putnam, Archer, Parica, and Williams at the end. I'd like to think that they were all trying to rack properly.
 
Slh said:
i had the impression that the wing ball was pretty much flying in on every break at the turning stone 9 ball. Also a lot of players were softbreaking.
Click to expand...
No, not all the time. The data show that the breaker made a ball without fouling just 60% of the time. However, once a guy gets "dialed in," the numbers for him can change quite a bit. For example, Morris played 3 matches on the Accu-Stats table on Sunday. In the first match he made a ball 4 times out of 8 (50%). In the second match, he made a ball 6 times out of 8 (75%). And in the finals, he made a ball 11 times out of 12 (92%, usually including the wing ball), including 5 break-and-run games.

The huge difference is in 9 ball they used the triangle rack and in 10 ball the magic rack. If they used the magic rack on 9 ball the percentage would be much higher.
Click to expand...
I think they used the Delta-13 triangle rack for the two 10-ball events mentioned above, not the Magic Rack.

Also we know breaking in 10 ball is harder than 9 ball ( harder to make a ball, more clusters) so I really don't like the looser break rule.
Click to expand...
"Breaking in 10 ball is harder" is the conventional wisdom. I'm trying to see whether the data support that impression. So far, not so much.
 
Last edited:
The Chinchilla said:
... I bet that 10 ball breaker winning percentage would come down with more collected data, if not though that is very interesting.
Click to expand...

For the streamed 10-ball matches I've watched recently, the breaker won the game as follows:
  • Fatboy 10-Ball Challenge at DCC in Jan., 2011 -- 55 of 99 games (56%)
  • 10-Ball Masters in March, 2011 --130 of 256 games (51%)
  • Pro Players Championship in March, 2011 -- 64 of 119 (54%)
  • Seminole Pro Tour in Canton OH, Aug., 2011 -- 37 of 68 (54%)

The total for these 4 events is 286 wins for the breaker in 542 games, or 53%.
 
Thanks for putting so much effort into this & for posting the results. Very gracious of you!
 
Break from the box

It should be noted that all Joss events are break from the box which changes the break quite alot. Most tournaments allow the side rail break in which the wing ball goes easily without a cut break. Don't know what those numbers would be but I know from playing in a few Joss events that breaking from the box slows down quite a few players.
 
kryptonite9 said:
It should be noted that all Joss events are break from the box which changes the break quite alot. Most tournaments allow the side rail break in which the wing ball goes easily without a cut break. Don't know what those numbers would be but I know from playing in a few Joss events that breaking from the box slows down quite a few players.
Click to expand...

Good point. Morris sure figured out how to make the wing ball from the box in the finals, but that wasn't the norm.
 
AtLarge said:
No, not all the time. The data show that the breaker made a ball without fouling just 60% of the time. However, once a guy gets "dialed in," the numbers for him can change quite a bit. For example, Morris played 3 matches on the Accu-Stats table on Sunday. In the first match he made a ball 4 times out of 8 (50%). In the second match, he made a ball 6 times out of 8 (75%). And in the finals, he made a ball 11 times out of 12 (92%, usually including the wing ball), including 5 break-and-run games.

Have you ever seen that happen in a 10 ball match? I don't think even SVB has that good stats in 10 ball breaking
I think they used the Delta-13 triangle rack for the two 10-ball events mentioned above, not the Magic Rack.


"Breaking in 10 ball is harder" is the conventional wisdom. I'm trying to see whether the data support that impression. So far, not so much.
Click to expand...
well in 10 ball there isn't the so called wing ball.... I mean the are balls that are supposed to go in more often but are not certain as 9 ball.... There was a 9 ball tournament ( the 1999 WPC? The 2002WPC? The 2007 WPC?I don't remember sorry) where the wing ball was dead 90% or more of the time.
Found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0DEW8xVCiQ
Watch this match and the others. The wing ball was dead every rack, have you ever seen that happen in 10 ball?
 
AtLarge said:
The data in post #1 are based on 10-ball events that were rack your own and alternate breaks. The 9-ball event was winner breaks, loser racks. I think you know that, but I'm just making sure.

I'm sure you're right that rack manipulation occurs in pro events. But do you really think it is common for the top pros playing each other -- the guys who play all the big events and face each other time after time? The event this past weekend had Morris, Pagulayan, Putnam, Archer, Parica, and Williams at the end. I'd like to think that they were all trying to rack properly.
Click to expand...

Oh man, I totally did miss that. I think I read it too quick (got excited to see some data :)). I thought it was all loser racks. Wow, those really are some interesting numbers then.

I don't want to talk too bad about the pros, but may I ask you.... how do you account for the differences in winning percentage with the harder breaking game (10ball) being more of a winner for the breaker (that was a mouthful)? I personally think if you collected more of this data the exact same way (ie 9ball loser rack vs 10 ball rack your own) that you'd see the same trend. And if you got stats on a 9 ball rack your own the winning % stat for the breaker would shoot way up, by maybe 3 or 4 points.

So what would all that tell you?

Now that I got this data straight there is another inference there. The 9 ball loser racks breaker winning percentage should be a tad higher than the data indicate because you have to think the better player is breaking to a larger extent of the time (not so in alternate breaks). So, what that means is there is actually a larger disparity between the breaker winning % in 9ball vs 10ball than we see in that data!! Very good stuff, really. The data is pretty much saying rack your own is a huge advantage. If you ever look at winning % for players, efren has like a 55% winning percentage.... so every little point is huge (eg 54 to 55%). So going 48 to 52 is a big deal, plus as I said it would be even a tad bigger if we accounted for the bias of better player breaking more in the winner breaks 9ball.
 
Last edited:
Slh said:
... Watch this match and the others. The wing ball was dead every rack, have you ever seen that happen in 10 ball?[/QUOTE
Click to expand...
No; we sometimes see some pretty consistent breaking results in 10-ball, but not exactly like a wired wing ball in 9-ball. Another famous (infamous?) example of the latter was the Immonen/Klatt match from last year's U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship. Immonen broke and ran 10 times out of 11 breaks (wing ball went all 10 times), and Klatt broke and ran 3 times out of 4 breaks (wing ball went all 3 times). Final score 11-4 with 13 break-and-run games!
 
Last edited:
The Chinchilla said:
Oh man, I totally did miss that. I think I read it too quick (got excited to see some data :)). I thought it was all loser racks. Wow, those really are some interesting numbers then.

I don't want to talk too bad about the pros, but may I ask you.... how do you account for the differences in winning percentage with the harder breaking game (10ball) being more of a winner for the breaker (that was a mouthful)? I personally think if you collected more of this data the exact same way (ie 9ball loser rack vs 10 ball rack your own) that you'd see the same trend. And if you got stats on a 9 ball rack your own the winning % stat for the breaker would shoot way up, by maybe 3 or 4 points.

So what would all that tell you?

Now that I got this data straight there is another inference there. The 9 ball loser racks breaker winning percentage should be a tad higher than the data indicate because you have to think the better player is breaking to a larger extent of the time (not so in alternate breaks). So, what that means is there is actually a larger disparity between the breaker winning % in 9ball vs 10ball than we see in that data!! Very good stuff, really. The data is pretty much saying rack your own is a huge advantage. If you ever look at winning % for players, efren has like a 55% winning percentage.... so every little point is huge (eg 54 to 55%). So going 48 to 52 is a big deal, plus as I said it would be even a tad bigger if we accounted for the bias of better player breaking more in the winner breaks 9ball.
Click to expand...

Some interesting thoughts there, sir. I hope we can get some results with the Magic Rack and some results for rack-your-own 9-ball!
 

AtLarge said:
Slh said:
... Watch this match and the others. The wing ball was dead every rack, have you ever seen that happen in 10 ball?
Click to expand...

No; we sometimes see some pretty consistent breaking results in 10-ball, but not exactly like a wired wing ball in 9-ball. Another famous (infamous?) example of the latter was the Immonen/Klatt match from last year's U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship. Immonen broke and ran 10 times out of 11 breaks (wing ball went all 10 times), and Klatt broke and ran 3 times out of 4 breaks (wing ball went all 3 times). Final score 11-4 with 13 break-and-run games!
Click to expand...

so you agree with me that 9 ball break is easier than 10 ball break, right?
Because with this post seems you agree with me but before you said:
"Breaking in 10 ball is harder" is the conventional wisdom. I'm trying to see whether the data support that impression. So far, not so much.

Also the 2010 us open was the golden break festival.. I don't remember the numbers but the golden breaks were too much. Watch this video 4 golden breaks ( 3 Orcollo and 1 Archer ) and in the other match 2 golden breaks by Charlie Williams who looks embarassed after what happened :D
At the us open they wanted to speed up the racking so they selected the rack your own rule but that's what happened, lots of golden breaks and, as you said ( and you can see on the video) lots of runouts.
 
Slh said:
so you agree with me that 9 ball break is easier than 10 ball break, right?
Because with this post seems you agree with me but before you said:
"Breaking in 10 ball is harder" is the conventional wisdom. I'm trying to see whether the data support that impression. So far, not so much.
Click to expand...

I'm someone who likes to make conclusions based on data and facts. Conventional wisdom, or simple logic, has been that 9-ball is largely a breaker's game. If we'd just move to 10-ball, fewer balls would fall on the break, the table would be more congested after the break, the breaker would run out less often, and we'd have a more skillful and interesting game. But is all that true? Do the facts support those impressions?

The data I have collected so far do not show a huge difference between 9-ball and 10-ball in the percentage of time a ball is made on the break and in the percentage of time the breaker wins the game. But, obviously, these are not controlled experiments. Lots of things are different from one tournament to another, and the data samples are fairly small so far.

But I'll probably continue to compile the numbers and see what conclusions we can draw from them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top