The Thinking On Bigfoot Slop

[AtLarge]

I watched eleven of the fifteen matches played, and I'd have to say that the Bigfoot 10-ball event was unimprovable. Yeah, the rules sure did create a jokish final four of Souquet, Feijen, Bustamante and Van Boening. Oh wait - those guys are pretty good. Never mind. And, of course, using slop rules in nine ball brought us Van Boening as the champion.

As I've noted before on AZB, those who suggest that nine ball with slop is broken and that it randomizes the results of matches need look no further than the list of Derby City nine ball champions. It's an absolute who's who of pool, and cinderella stories just don't happen at the Derby City Nine Ball event. The last eleven winners were 2014 Van Boening, 2013 Pagulayan, 2012 Van Boening, 2011 Orcullo, 2010 Reyes, 2009 Van Boening, 2008 Souquet, 2007 Feijen, 2006 Souquet, 2005 Reyes, and 2004 Souquet, every single one of them a current or future BCA hall of famer. Slop counts, rack your own and no jump cues, all of which so many suggest block the cream from rising to the top, have made no difference year after year after year. ...

I've rebutted this many times, most recently just one month ago in this thread: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=346849. See post #30 and subsequent discussion after that post. I'm tiring of doing this over and over with you and Jay. Clearly, you are not going to change your minds (and I doubt I'll change mine). But your repeated listing of top players winning top events does nothing to address the points I and others make on this issue. Of course one of the top players will win. But under different rules, it might be a different one of the top players in any given event. And the order of finish, and money won, might be different on down the line.

When Appleton and Bustamante compete in a big match, I don't want it to end by one of them completely missing the 9-ball and slopping in the 10-ball (Bigfoot, Match #8).

But I will give Jay credit for a couple improvements in the rules. A year ago at Derby City, a 10-ball made on the break in any pocket counted as a win. Seven months ago at the Tunica Bigfoot event, a 10-ball made on the break in either foot-rail pocket did not count as a win. [And that was a timely change, because the 10-ball went in on the break 10 times in the final two matches!] This year at the DCC, a 10-ball made on the break in any pocket did not count as a win. All 3 events were rack your own.

 

[sjm]

I've rebutted this many times, most recently just one month ago in this thread: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=346849. See post #30 and subsequent discussion after that post. I'm tiring of doing this over and over with you and Jay. Clearly, you are not going to change your minds (and I doubt I'll change mine). But your repeated listing of top players winning top events does nothing to address the points I and others make on this issue. Of course one of the top players will win. But under different rules, it might be a different one of the top players in any given event. And the order of finish, and money won, might be different on down the line.

When Appleton and Bustamante compete in a big match, I don't want it to end by one of them completely missing the 9-ball and slopping in the 10-ball (Bigfoot, Match #8).

But I will give Jay credit for a couple improvements in the rules. A year ago at Derby City, a 10-ball made on the break in any pocket counted as a win. Seven months ago at the Tunica Bigfoot event, a 10-ball made on the break in either foot-rail pocket did not count as a win. [And that was a timely change, because the 10-ball went in on the break 10 times in the final two matches!] This year at the DCC, a 10-ball made on the break in any pocket did not count as a win. All 3 events were rack your own.

Yeah, we do tend to get back to this debate. I respect yours as a very informed opinion. We both love pool, that's for sure, and your rebuttals are always offered with clarity and in a civil and respectful tone, and I appreciate that and try to respond with similar respect.

My real problem is that I go to virtually every major event on the American pool calendar and have attended hundreds of live events since 1976 and I do not feel that slop has made much difference. Jay and I, who have discussed this, have always been of the opinion that no matter what the equipment and no matter what the rules or format, the same guys are the ones to beat, and they keep on proving it. Rotation pool, Texas Express style, is a beautiful game that keeps delivering from my vantage point.

... but I know where you are coming from and respect your opinion. I'm also, in general, a big fan of your posts.

 

[AtLarge]

Yeah, we do tend to get back to this debate. I respect yours as a very informed opinion. We both love pool, that's for sure, and your rebuttals are always offered with clarity and in a civil and respectful tone, and I appreciate that and try to respond with similar respect.

My real problem is that I go to virtually every major event on the American pool calendar and have attended hundreds of live events since 1976 and I do not feel that slop has made much difference. Jay and I, who have discussed this, have always been of the opinion that no matter what the equipment and no matter what the rules or format, the same guys are the ones to beat, and they keep on proving it. Rotation pool, Texas Express style, is a beautiful game that keeps delivering from my vantage point.

... but I know where you are coming from and respect your opinion. I'm also, in general, a big fan of your posts.

Thanks for the compliments, and I feel similarly about your participation here.

Of course you are right that a fairly small group of guys "are the ones to beat, and they keep on proving it." But that does not at all mean that slop has no effect on which one of them wins and who beats whom throughout the event. I wish I could give you lots of data to show that, but I can't. But I have seen it over and over in person at events, on streams, and in my own competitive career (at a considerably lower level).

 

[jay helfert]

I hate hearing "slop" addressed to my Ten Ball event. I do not think for a minute that slop is what helps a player win this event. I prefer to say that this is a "non call shot" event. I would actually prefer for the ten ball to count on the break, since it is rarely made on the 10' Diamond tables. But this is one rule where I listen to the majority of the players and have agreed to take winning on the break out of the contest.

It's true that a few players would prefer to play call shot and for that reason they may not play in the Bigfoot event. But they are the exception rather than the rule. The consensus among the top players is unequivocally this is the best test of skill all week at DCC. Long Ten Ball matches on the 10' table are a real test of all the skills among pool's elite players. Getting "lucky" has little to do with who wins most of the matches. Only in the Bustamante match with Darren did luck play a part. Francisco had to play great to get to hill-hill and even on his final shot may not have given Darren much of a shot if the ten ball didn't go in.

I think being able to play a two way shot is an essential part of the game, far more important than the risk of someone getting a lucky roll. In actuality there are few lucky rolls among players this good, maybe one or two per match. That's not enough to alter the outcome in a long match. It can happen I agree, but most matches are won by the player who played the best throughout the match, with rare exceptions.

Shane finally won this event, mainly because he had the best break and played good behind it. I doubt that a player without a strong break can win this event. The four semifinalists all broke good all week, Shane and Niels breaking by far the best.

One more thing, I did turn down several players who were ready, willing and able to put up $1,000 to enter. I want this event to be contested among the best players possible. This year's Bigfoot may have had the strongest field, top to bottom, of any one we have produced so far. All were Class A players imo! There were one or two players I really wanted to get in but for one reason or another they couldn't attend. Bottom line, the best player won and the second best player finished second. And it wasn't "slop" that got them there!

 

[SakuJack]

I agree. I mentioned this to Jay, after it cost me my match last year against Kiamco. Spending a $1000 to lose due to balls slopping in, is hard to take.

I assume from this post you made zero mistakes in that game, then?

 

[Johnnyt]

I hate hearing "slop" addressed to my Ten Ball event. I do not think for a minute that slop is what helps a player win this event. I prefer to say that this is a "non call shot" event. I would actually prefer for the ten ball to count on the break, since it is rarely made on the 10' Diamond tables. But this is one rule where I listen to the majority of the players and have agreed to take winning on the break out of the contest.

It's true that a few players would prefer to play call shot and for that reason they may not play in the Bigfoot event. But they are the exception rather than the rule. The consensus among the top players is unequivocally this is the best test of skill all week at DCC. Long Ten Ball matches on the 10' table are a real test of all the skills among pool's elite players. Getting "lucky" has little to do with who wins most of the matches. Only in the Bustamante match with Darren did luck play a part. Francisco had to play great to get to hill-hill and even on his final shot may not have given Darren much of a shot if the ten ball didn't go in.

I think being able to play a two way shot is an essential part of the game, far more important than the risk of someone getting a lucky roll. In actuality there are few lucky rolls among players this good, maybe one or two per match. That's not enough to alter the outcome in a long match. It can happen I agree, but most matches are won by the player who played the best throughout the match, with rare exceptions.

Shane finally won this event, mainly because he had the best break and played good behind it. I doubt that a player without a strong break can win this event. The four semifinalists all broke good all week, Shane and Niels breaking by far the best.

One more thing, I did turn down several players who were ready, willing and able to put up $1,000 to enter. I want this event to be contested among the best players possible. This year's Bigfoot may have had the strongest field, top to bottom, of any one we have produced so far. All were Class A players imo! There were one or two players I really wanted to get in but for one reason or another they couldn't attend. Bottom line, the best player won and the second best player finished second. And it wasn't "slop" that got them there!

Thanks, that's what I was asking "What is the thinking behind it" I guess taking the 2 way shot away wouldn't be any better for top tier players. When you put it this way I have to agree with you. Johnnyt

 

[CreeDo]

Something I keep seeing, that AtLarge also explained, is that call shot somehow "eliminates" the 2-way.
This is wrong.

It only eliminates a specific, rare kind of 2-way shot, where you play to make 2 balls simultaneously.
You don't see it much - pros just try to run out, without the cue ball bumping other balls.
The resort to this kind of shot when it's almost unavoidable or they have a high chance
(but no guarantee) of making the game-winning ball.

I'd guess that making a ball by accident (like Busty's shot) is MORE common than this rare 2-way shot.

The MAJOR 2-way that is arguably the soul of 9-ball,
is the ability to play a shot and play defensively at the same time.
You can miss and leave them hooked, or leave distance, or leave only a bank.

That kind of 2-way is incredibly common and playing call-shot does not eliminate it.

If you don't think that's significant or doesn't come into play much,
try 10-ball under "passback" rules where you can pass back after any miss.
It completely changes the game.

THEN you'll understand what it means to truly 'eliminate the 2-way shot'.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Something I keep seeing, that AtLarge also explained, is that call shot somehow "eliminates" the 2-way.
This is wrong.

It only eliminates a specific, rare kind of 2-way shot, where you play to make 2 balls simultaneously.
You don't see it much - pros just try to run out, without the cue ball bumping other balls.
The resort to this kind of shot when it's almost unavoidable or they have a high chance
(but no guarantee) of making the game-winning ball.

I'd guess that making a ball by accident (like Busty's shot) is MORE common than this rare 2-way shot.

The MAJOR 2-way that is arguably the soul of 9-ball,
is the ability to play a shot and play defensively at the same time.
You can miss and leave them hooked, or leave distance, or leave only a bank.

That kind of 2-way is incredibly common and playing call-shot does not eliminate it.

If you don't think that's significant or doesn't come into play much,
try 10-ball under "passback" rules where you can pass back after any miss.
It completely changes the game.

THEN you'll understand what it means to truly 'eliminate the 2-way shot'.

Everything you just pointed out I was just getting ready to bring up myself. Thanks for saving my typing finger a lot of work.

 

[Island Drive]

When the rules change the ability to play two and three way shots, you help the lesser player not the better player.

If it's going to be call shot, then you should be allowed to call two and three way shots.

Jaden

I look at it like golf, luck is part of the game. Why does it have to always be squeaky clean for the guy on the fairway, when at times being in the rough proved better. It's part of the game and its Fun to shake em up at times. Break shot come to mind?

 

[poolguy4u]

Lucky Pool Player....

I love slop pool!

To be honest...even if I call a shot, believe me if I make it, it was just plain lucky.


Lots of good players do this.

 

[Dudley]

Then why have it if it makes little difference. Thus, the only possible benefactor is the guy who got lucky on one shot that could swing the set, so why give it to him?

9b and 10b are different animals, why keep putting them in the same cage ??

ChicagoRJ,

I mentioned the reasons I like non-call shot rules in the rest of my post.

Sometimes the rolls go your way other times they don't. It all equals out in the end as it's random.

This is 100% my perspective, I don't have to convince you or others that my perspective is right.. This is just how I see it.

Regarding the differences between 9 and 10 ball--> There is only one more ball on the table. The only major difference imo is that it's much harder to make a ball on the break. Harder to string racks together but that's about it.

Dudley

 

[Dudley]

Something I keep seeing, that AtLarge also explained, is that call shot somehow "eliminates" the 2-way.
This is wrong.

It only eliminates a specific, rare kind of 2-way shot, where you play to make 2 balls simultaneously.
You don't see it much - pros just try to run out, without the cue ball bumping other balls.
The resort to this kind of shot when it's almost unavoidable or they have a high chance
(but no guarantee) of making the game-winning ball.

I'd guess that making a ball by accident (like Busty's shot) is MORE common than this rare 2-way shot.

The MAJOR 2-way that is arguably the soul of 9-ball,
is the ability to play a shot and play defensively at the same time.
You can miss and leave them hooked, or leave distance, or leave only a bank.

That kind of 2-way is incredibly common and playing call-shot does not eliminate it.

If you don't think that's significant or doesn't come into play much,
try 10-ball under "passback" rules where you can pass back after any miss.
It completely changes the game.

THEN you'll understand what it means to truly 'eliminate the 2-way shot'.

As a one pocket player who looks for these rare shots I have to disagree. But you do make some good points. I would still play a tournament with call shot rules But I prefer the slop rules that are commonly used in 9ball.

Dudley

 

[CreeDo]

As a one pocket player who looks for these rare shots I have to disagree. But you do make some good points. I would still play a tournament with call shot rules But I prefer the slop rules that are commonly used in 9ball.

Dudley

Well one pocket, whole different animal. I'd never change it to call-shot.

But even for 9b... As a player, I prefer slop too, to be honest.
Lately I honestly have more fun playing 9 ball than any other game.

That being said, if I'm playing in a tournament, and someone shits in a ball and it costs me thousands,
I will be really pissed. Even if I wasn't going to win the tournament anyway,
just finishing further down the bracket can cost me a lot of money.
Like in the example people keep citing (Busty vs. Appleton), what if appleton won that set, and one more?
$4000 up instead of $1000 in the hole.

So for banging 'em with my buddies and maximizing fun, sure, slop is great.
But it's not so great, when it can cost you a few thousand bucks.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Called shot changes everything. In this thread, I have read the back and forth over the slopped ball vs the 2 and 3 way shots. This is not where calling balls has its biggest impact on luck. The shot that comes up most often where called shot impacts the most is the kick shot.

Why institute a rule that increases the good luck for a player that just missed? It is tough enough when a player misses a shot that the incoming player has to kick at a ball to make a hit but now he has to call the shot!

Because of the frequency of kick shots (more than slopped balls), calling balls helps the player that misses most often...that would be the weaker player.

(Also, calling balls is no fun.)

 

[Bigtruck]

These little short races don't mean anything. It should favor entertainment and it should be fun and exciting to watch. I think it was.

If you really wanna see a test.......did anyone here see Rodney Morris defeat the 10 Ball ghost on the Bigfoot in the action room? 166 games....Rodney up by 8. Call shot, no early wins, no soft breaks, no pattern racking and 4.25 pockets. It was quite impressive.

Ray

 

[AtLarge]

Called shot changes everything. In this thread, I have read the back and forth over the slopped ball vs the 2 and 3 way shots. This is not where calling balls has its biggest impact on luck. The shot that comes up most often where called shot impacts the most is the kick shot.

Why institute a rule that increases the good luck for a player that just missed? It is tough enough when a player misses a shot that the incoming player has to kick at a ball to make a hit but now he has to call the shot!

Because of the frequency of kick shots (more than slopped balls), calling balls helps the player that misses most often...that would be the weaker player.

(Also, calling balls is no fun.)

With high-level players, aren't far more kick shots taken after the opponent plays an intended safety than after he slops into a safety on a missed shot? How, then, is slopping in a ball on the kick shot a good response to the skill shot (the safety) that preceded it?

And, we could do away with the ills of slopped safeties by allowing the incoming player to pass the shot back. Some people don't like going that far.

(Also, calling balls is more fun.)

 

[Paul Schofield]

With high-level players, aren't far more kick shots taken after the opponent plays an intended safety than after he slops into a safety on a missed shot?

I am not sure what the above has to do with the subject at hand.

I am saying that having to call a pocket on a kick-shot after a player misses happens far more often than slopping in a ball on a clear shot. Pick your poison. Adding the called shot requirement is over the top.

Furthermore, making the hit on a kick shot is more skill than luck. Pocketing a called ball on a kick shot is far more luck than skill. If the latter is true then it is in fact a slop shot. I say give the unfortunate player 5 more pockets to make his ball. This would be a better response (more fun).

Don't make pool torturous. It is already hard enough as it is.

 

[Dudley]

Well one pocket, whole different animal. I'd never change it to call-shot.

But even for 9b... As a player, I prefer slop too, to be honest.
Lately I honestly have more fun playing 9 ball than any other game.

That being said, if I'm playing in a tournament, and someone shits in a ball and it costs me thousands,
I will be really pissed. Even if I wasn't going to win the tournament anyway,
just finishing further down the bracket can cost me a lot of money.
Like in the example people keep citing (Busty vs. Appleton), what if appleton won that set, and one more?
$4000 up instead of $1000 in the hole.

So for banging 'em with my buddies and maximizing fun, sure, slop is great.
But it's not so great, when it can cost you a few thousand bucks.

Creedo,

I'm not making this point to win the argument just to add a thought. -->It isn't a bad feeling to benefit from a little luck sometimes too. It goes both ways.


Dudley

 

[Bigtruck]

These little short races don't mean anything. It should favor entertainment and it should be fun and exciting to watch. I think it was.

If you really wanna see a test.......did anyone here see Rodney Morris defeat the 10 Ball ghost on the Bigfoot in the action room? 166 games....Rodney up by 8. Call shot, no early wins, no soft breaks, no pattern racking and 4.25 pockets. It was quite impressive.

Ray

Rodney Morris defeat the 10 Ball ghost on the Bigfoot in the action room? 166 games....Rodney up by 8. Call shot, no early wins, no soft breaks, no pattern racking and 4.25 pockets. It was quite impressive.

Ray

 

[sjm]

10-ball is not a new game, RJ.....saw and played lots of it from the 70s on.
....it's 9-ball with one more ball...other than that, it's the same game.

And great multi-choice shots have won more games by far, at a high level,
than luck shots....in my experience, of course.

..check this one out at 3:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IocXrswOU1o

As far as I know, although it was contested occasionally earlier, 10-ball's first major presence in pro pool came when the PBT (aka the Camel Tour) switched from 9-ball to 10-ball in, what I believe, was 1999. Texas Express rules were used even after the switch and the ten counted on the break.

I remember of couple of these events, and remember, in particular, the 10-ball event in Pennsauken, New Jersey (Pennsauken is just outside of Cherry Hill) in 1999. Two things happened there that I'll never forget.

1) Earl just about went crazy when a fellow named David Smith snapped the ten ball three times to beat him and challenged David to a gambling match when the match ended, which David quickly, and logically, declined.

2) Buddy Hall called referee Scott Smith over claiming slow play twice in the same rack. Buddy was playing the slowest player I have ever watched, named Greg Fix, and was quite clearly losing his patience.

Ah, those were the days.