There's been a lot of discussion lately about the role of luck in pool. Personally I don't think it's that big of an issue, but since it's a hot topic, I offer here my solution to remove pretty much all luck from a tournament and leave only skill.
There are two primary causes of luck in pool: the opponent and the break shot. Eliminate them both and you go a long way towards making a pool game based on skill alone.
Here's my proposal, tentatively called Runout 8 Ball:
Play a pool tournament like a golf tournament. Each day of a tournament would consist of 18 pre-determined 8 ball layouts. The layouts would be prepared using software like the Wei cuetable program. For example, a layout could start with the "8 ball break" function on Cuetable and be adjusted by the tournament director(s) for difficulty (e.g., creating clusters, blocking pockets, and so on).
A typical tournament would work like this:
Why 8 ball?
It's the most creative game for an offense-only setup. Each player is confronted with the same layout, but by starting with cue ball in hand anywhere and choice of suit, there are a large number of potential patterns. Watching the same rotation rack over and over would be endlessly boring. Straight pool would be too easy. 8 ball offers the right balance of difficulty and creativity. Also it's the most recognizable game for amateurs.
Pros:
Cons:
At the end of the day I think you would see the same people winning. I certainly don't think this is a replacement for the regular tournament format, but I would be very curious to see it played occasionally at the highest level.
All thoughts welcome. And apologies for the length of this post - kudos to anyone who made it all the way through.
- Geoff
There are two primary causes of luck in pool: the opponent and the break shot. Eliminate them both and you go a long way towards making a pool game based on skill alone.
Here's my proposal, tentatively called Runout 8 Ball:
Play a pool tournament like a golf tournament. Each day of a tournament would consist of 18 pre-determined 8 ball layouts. The layouts would be prepared using software like the Wei cuetable program. For example, a layout could start with the "8 ball break" function on Cuetable and be adjusted by the tournament director(s) for difficulty (e.g., creating clusters, blocking pockets, and so on).
A typical tournament would work like this:
Set up a row of 9 tables. Each table is designated for a particular layout, and the table is marked (say, with tailors' chalk) prior to play for easy repositioning of balls.
- A player starts on Table 1 and has one opportunity to run out Layout 1. Play starts with cue ball in hand anywhere on the table. From that point, standard 8 ball rules apply. The player must pocket a called ball to select a suit, then must run out that suit through the 8 ball. Call ball, call pocket. If the player runs out successfully, he gets 1 point. If he does not run out, he gets 0 points.
- The player then progresses to Table 2 and attempts Layout 2. And so on. At the end of the "front nine," the player's score can range from a maximum of 9 to a minimum of 0.
- Each layout would have a strict game clock of five minutes. Take as long as you want planning a runout or a particular shot, but if your five minutes expires before running out, you get 0 points.
- You can also utilize a shotgun start (especially in the early rounds) to keep the tournament moving.
- The tournament could have as many or as few layouts as desired, but to keep with the golf analogy, let's posit two 9-layout rounds per day (for a total of 18 layouts per day), over a stretch of four days, leading to a total of 72 layouts. Maximum score over all four days would be a 72. You can also set up a cut line after day 2 to keep with the golf analogy, where only the top half of the field continues to the weekend. Highest total score over the four days is the winner. In the weekend rounds, players start play in reverse standings order, so the leaders are all playing at the end and at the same time, like in golf. In the event of a tie, there would be a sudden-death playoff with new layouts.
Why 8 ball?
It's the most creative game for an offense-only setup. Each player is confronted with the same layout, but by starting with cue ball in hand anywhere and choice of suit, there are a large number of potential patterns. Watching the same rotation rack over and over would be endlessly boring. Straight pool would be too easy. 8 ball offers the right balance of difficulty and creativity. Also it's the most recognizable game for amateurs.
Pros:
- There is no luck. No arguing over racking or breaking. No bad beats or tough draws. Everyone plays the same layout and starts with ball in hand. If you don't run out, it's your own fault.
- The tournament schedule is very predictable. At a maximum of 5 minutes per rack, plus, say, 5 minutes to re-set the balls, total the scores, and move everyone down one table, you know that each layout will take 10 minutes. Multiply out for the number of players and the number of tables available, and you have a schedule that actually works. Players will never have to wait to play past the posted starting time, and fans will never suffer that unpredictability.
- All players are guaranteed to play at least two days, or 36 layouts. And there's a good chance that all the top players will make it past the cut. Promoters do not have to worry about a top player losing early and leaving the venue.
- The layouts can be shared before, during, and after the tournament. You could easily take a layout to the pool room and try it yourself. And you can compare your pattern to the pros' patterns. Also the 8 balll format would help expand the game to casual players.
- Alternatively, the layouts could be kept secret until play begins, making the players think through a tough runout on the fly, like a regular match. The game clock becomes a much bigger deal here. And this gives the leaders an advantage, as they have more time to review the layouts before starting their round. The challenge would be preventing leaks, which is why I'm defaulting to releasing all layouts in advance.
Cons:
- It may be very boring to watch the same layout over and over again. On the other hand, if the layout is sufficiently challenging, maybe it would be interesting to compare the various patterns. I don't know if this would be interesting or boring.
- It may not work well for live streaming. This depends a lot on how boring (or not) the format turns out to be. Ideally TV coverage would work like golf, with cameras on each table and the ability to follow a particular player over various layouts. But that may not be cost-efficient given today's technology.
- You would need a scorekeeper/ball replacer/referee on each table. That might get prohibitively expensive. And you would have to be very precise about the ball markings and ball replacement.
- You would need an interested tournament director to design layouts that are interesting and at the right level of difficulty. Not too hard, not too easy. Many realistic patterns. It's akin to the job of a golf course designer. I don't know how easy or hard it would be to do this.
- There is no safety play. Personally I love watching good safety battles, so that's a real tough thing to give up. However there is still creativity in pattern selection. So it's not a total loss.
At the end of the day I think you would see the same people winning. I certainly don't think this is a replacement for the regular tournament format, but I would be very curious to see it played occasionally at the highest level.
All thoughts welcome. And apologies for the length of this post - kudos to anyone who made it all the way through.
- Geoff
