PDA

View Full Version : 7ft vs 9ft Stats


BeiberLvr
07-23-2016, 02:40 AM
All stats provided courtesy of AtLarge.
SBE Stats (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=424583)
Us Open 10 Ball Stats (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=5615941#post5615941)

As most of you know I have been pretty vocal about my disdain for professionals playing on 7' tables. That when it comes to the best players, it's too easy for them. Below are comparisons from the 2016 Super Billiards Expo (9' tables) and the recently finished 2016 US Open 10 Ball (7' tables). Both have similar sample sizes and similar field strengths.

Whether or not you actually enjoy watching pros play on 7' tables, I think it's pretty clear that it is much easier for them.




SBE
Break-and-run games: The 45 break-and-run games represented 18% of all 253 games, 36% of the 125 games won by the breaker, and 35% of the 128 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

US Open 10 Ball
Break-and-run games: The 89 break-and-run games represented 38% of all 232 games, 64% of the 138 games won by the breaker, and 49% of the 183 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).


SBE
• 42% (105 of 253) of the games ended in one inning – 18% (45) won by the breaker (B&R) and 24% (60) won by the non-breaker. 15% (37 of 253) of the games lasted 4 or more innings.

• 33% (84 of 253) of the games were run out by the player who was at the table following the break.

• The player who made the first ball after the break:
- Won the game in that same inning 48% of the time (122 of 253)

US Open 10 Ball
• 62% (143 of 232) of the games ended in one inning – 38% (89) won by the breaker (B&R) and 23% (54) won by the non-breaker. 8% (18 of 232) of the games lasted 4 or more innings.

• 48% (112 of 232) of the games were run out by the player who was at the table following the break.

• The player who made the first ball after the break:
- Won the game in that same inning 70% of the time (162 of 232)

Texas Carom Club
07-23-2016, 04:58 AM
Top pros playing on valleys and even 7ft diamonds is just gross

LIAKOS27
07-23-2016, 05:25 AM
The only way I'll watch a pro 7ft match is if the table has 3" pockets.

Also, after the break, the player shooting has to say where every ball is going to be pocketed before his first shot(after the break)! He/she misses,,,, BIH for incoming player,,,, no safes:)

I've never been a fan of 7fters! Yrs ago when I played APA, I made it to an 8 in 9-ball. I was a high B low A and people thought I was sandbagging a tad so I didn't get to 9! I never sandbagged, I just kept losing in 7ft tables(which God awful cloth, balls, and rolls)

My captain always used to laugh at me! I had a 97% win rate on 9fters and a 90% lose rate on anything other than 9fters!

One time somebody wanted to gamble with me on 7-8fter(I forgot) and he wanted weight! I told him we play even on these tables. He said no way because I was waaaaaaayyyyy better than he was. Not on these tables I replied! We play even here or you get 2 to 7 with the wild 8 on any 9fter!

The only person who really understood that was my captain. And to this day, I still don't understand why I play so horrible on 7's!

gxman
07-23-2016, 10:31 AM
I agree, 7ft tables are just too easy for pros. But if they can't overcome the added expense of bringing in the big tables, 7ft will just have to do.

Rodney vs Busty, 10b race to 21 on a 7ft diamond?? I really hope its not on a 7ft. The flyer left that small detail out.

BeiberLvr
07-23-2016, 10:36 AM
I agree, 7ft tables are just too easy for pros. But if they can't overcome the added expense of bringing in the big tables, 7ft will just have to do.

Rodney vs Busty, 10b race to 21 on a 7ft diamond?? I really hope its not on a 7ft. The flyer left that small detail out.

All challenge matches are on the 7 footers

BRussell
07-23-2016, 10:37 AM
Rodney vs Busty, 10b race to 21 on a 7ft diamond?? I really hope its not on a 7ft. The flyer left that small detail out.


7-ft. for sure. I don't think they have any 9-footers there.

Poolhall60561
07-23-2016, 11:26 AM
It's like pro tennis players on a pickleball court or professional golfers playing mini golf.

9andout
07-23-2016, 11:36 AM
All good proof stats.
I think the one that shows the player making the first ball after the break getting out in 1inning, is the most telling.

Superiorduper
07-23-2016, 12:15 PM
Interesting stats, I understand the argument of "more congestion" and it is definitely a different style of play, i.e. bumping balls more often for position, less cue ball travel, which I don't mind watching due to educational purposes. But as for top level professionals competing for THE US open? It's definitely too easy...for their caliber for play.

A full length table shot, shooting close to off the rail on a 7' table has no where near the amount of difficulty that it has on a 9'. I noticed during the US 10 ball players generally opted not to play safe on shots where had it been a 9' table they most definitely would have, due to distance and difficulty of their opponent making a good hit/kicking safe in return.

It's comparable to professional golfers playing the US open on a 9 hole, walking only, rinky dink municipal course. All they'd have to do is hit a wedge off the tee and a wedge to the green lol. The PGA makes the US open as difficult playing conditions as possible to make it a challenge. Long holes(especially par 3's), narrow fairways, thick ass rough, DEEP bunkers, lightning fast, hard, greens with difficult pin locations. It's challenging for the best of the best and it's fun to watch.

Pool needs to do the same thing, hell might as well make them 10' tables with 4" pockets. Last night Jay and whomever else was commentating kept mentioning that they hadn't seen the bridge used once? That immediately takes away a degree of difficulty(reaching/using a bridge). It would be way more enjoyable to watch imo, less run outs, much more precision, and it would make great shot even that much greater imo. Anyway enough ramble, I really don't know why I felt compelled to type that much

Cameron Smith
07-23-2016, 01:25 PM
I don't know what the viability of 7 foot competition is. I get the feeling that more people may be willing to play and but I can't imagine 7 foot tables alone attracts more ppv buys. But I don't have the numbers in front of me so I can only guess.

But I must say I was surprised at the sudden shift to professional competition to the smaller tables. It feels like not too long ago everyone was discussing moving to 4-4.25inch pockets as the norm. I never expected the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction.

I used to enjoy the USBTC, it was a fun change in pace. But much like I enjoy the snooker shootout once a year, or 6 red snooker championship, I would never want to see it more than once or twice a year.

sixpack
07-23-2016, 01:42 PM
All stats provided courtesy of AtLarge.
SBE Stats (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=424583)
Us Open 10 Ball Stats (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=5615941#post5615941)

As most of you know I have been pretty vocal about my disdain for professionals playing on 7' tables. That when it comes to the best players, it's too easy for them. Below are comparisons from the 2016 Super Billiards Expo (9' tables) and the recently finished 2016 US Open 10 Ball (7' tables). Both have similar sample sizes and similar field strengths.

Whether or not you actually enjoy watching pros play on 7' tables, I think it's pretty clear that it is much easier for them.




SBE
Break-and-run games: The 45 break-and-run games represented 18% of all 253 games, 36% of the 125 games won by the breaker, and 35% of the 128 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

US Open 10 Ball
Break-and-run games: The 89 break-and-run games represented 38% of all 232 games, 64% of the 138 games won by the breaker, and 49% of the 183 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).


SBE
42% (105 of 253) of the games ended in one inning 18% (45) won by the breaker (B&R) and 24% (60) won by the non-breaker. 15% (37 of 253) of the games lasted 4 or more innings.

33% (84 of 253) of the games were run out by the player who was at the table following the break.

The player who made the first ball after the break:
- Won the game in that same inning 48% of the time (122 of 253)

US Open 10 Ball
62% (143 of 232) of the games ended in one inning 38% (89) won by the breaker (B&R) and 23% (54) won by the non-breaker. 8% (18 of 232) of the games lasted 4 or more innings.

48% (112 of 232) of the games were run out by the player who was at the table following the break.

The player who made the first ball after the break:
- Won the game in that same inning 70% of the time (162 of 232)

Most barbox players I know run out way more than that. Just ask them. :)

jburkm002
07-23-2016, 01:42 PM
Personally I rather watch pros on the baby tables, which is what i mainly play on. I get to learn little more than I would watching them play on the big boy table. A low percentage shot on the big boy table turns into a safety most times. Hardly see banks on the big boy table. Where they are more likely to try on the baby table. Sure the run outs or higher but not just because its an easier table but because they may have went for a bank or tough shot where they would have played a safe on the tougher table. Nothing wrong with defense but i like seeing them go for tougher shots.

9andout
07-23-2016, 05:44 PM
Personally I rather watch pros on the baby tables, which is what i mainly play on. I get to learn little more than I would watching them play on the big boy table. A low percentage shot on the big boy table turns into a safety most times. Hardly see banks on the big boy table. Where they are more likely to try on the baby table. Sure the run outs or higher but not just because its an easier table but because they may have went for a bank or tough shot where they would have played a safe on the tougher table. Nothing wrong with defense but i like seeing them go for tougher shots.
Tougher shots on a 7'??
Pleeease!

AtLarge
07-24-2016, 12:13 AM
All stats provided courtesy of AtLarge.
SBE Stats (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=424583)
Us Open 10 Ball Stats (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=5615941#post5615941) ...

You beat me to it. I was going to do some comparisons after both US Open events are over.

But one key factor distorts the comparisons you have made here. That is the fact that a wooden triangle was used to rack the balls at the SBE, whereas the Magic Rack was used in the US Open 10-Ball.

When the Magic Rack (or another racking template) is used, the percentage of successful breaks (making at least one ball and not fouling) goes up, sometimes substantially. That raises the opportunities for break-and-run games, which raises the actual percentage of B&R games and several of the other percentages.

Here's a comparison for the streamed matches of 10-Ball events that all used racking templates. To get higher counts, I combined two events on 7-footers and 2 events on 9-footers. The field strength (streamed matches only) was high for all 4 events.

A = 2015 and 2016 US Open 10-Ball Championships, combined (7-footers)
B = 2015 Accu-Stats "Make It Happen" Invitational 10-Ball event and 2014 CSI Invitational 10-Ball Championship, combined (9-footers)

Made at least one ball on the break and did not foul:
A -- 75% (392 of 523)
B -- 71% (394 of 553)

Breaker won the game:
A -- 58% (305 of 523)
B -- 56% (311 of 553)

Break-and-run games:
A -- 34% (178 of 523)
B -- 28% (154 of 553)

Break-and-run games on successful breaks:
A -- 45% (178 of 392)
B -- 39% (154 of 394)

Run-outs by non-breaker after fouled or dry breaks:
A -- 41% (54 of 131)
B -- 38% (60 of 159)

Total run-outs by player at table after the break;
A -- 44% (232 of 523)
B -- 39% (214 of 553)

And here's a similar comparison of results I did last year for 8-Ball matches played on 7-footers versus 9-footers: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5255675&postcount=3

So when the conditions are quite similar other than table size, the results may be a bit closer than many people would expect.

cleary
07-24-2016, 03:19 AM
According to Fargo Rate, 9' tables and 7' tables are the same.

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2015/07/So-Stupid.gif?gs=a

Bank it
07-24-2016, 03:29 AM
According to Fargo Rate, 9' tables and 7' tables are the same.



http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2015/07/So-Stupid.gif?gs=a



Righhhhhhht, sure they are

Straightpool_99
07-24-2016, 03:48 AM
All stats provided courtesy of AtLarge.
SBE Stats (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=424583)
Us Open 10 Ball Stats (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=5615941#post5615941)

As most of you know I have been pretty vocal about my disdain for professionals playing on 7' tables. That when it comes to the best players, it's too easy for them. Below are comparisons from the 2016 Super Billiards Expo (9' tables) and the recently finished 2016 US Open 10 Ball (7' tables). Both have similar sample sizes and similar field strengths.

Whether or not you actually enjoy watching pros play on 7' tables, I think it's pretty clear that it is much easier for them.




SBE
Break-and-run games: The 45 break-and-run games represented 18% of all 253 games, 36% of the 125 games won by the breaker, and 35% of the 128 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

US Open 10 Ball
Break-and-run games: The 89 break-and-run games represented 38% of all 232 games, 64% of the 138 games won by the breaker, and 49% of the 183 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).


SBE
42% (105 of 253) of the games ended in one inning 18% (45) won by the breaker (B&R) and 24% (60) won by the non-breaker. 15% (37 of 253) of the games lasted 4 or more innings.

33% (84 of 253) of the games were run out by the player who was at the table following the break.

The player who made the first ball after the break:
- Won the game in that same inning 48% of the time (122 of 253)

US Open 10 Ball
62% (143 of 232) of the games ended in one inning 38% (89) won by the breaker (B&R) and 23% (54) won by the non-breaker. 8% (18 of 232) of the games lasted 4 or more innings.

48% (112 of 232) of the games were run out by the player who was at the table following the break.

The player who made the first ball after the break:
- Won the game in that same inning 70% of the time (162 of 232)

The stats are confirming what everyone with their eyes open allready knows. It's silly to believe that a 7 footer is on par with a 9 footer in terms of difficulty. There are no tough shots on a 7 footer (for a pro).

Diamond tables actually reduce the difference between the two types in terms of the shots played. The 9 foot Diamond is a great table, but has very bouncy rails. You hardly ever have to stroke the ball to get anywhere, and they tend to roll very true. This means that you can punt the ball a lot more, than say on a tough but slightly ratty GC. A medium speed hit will get a ball that's near straight in off the rail, while another table would make you pound it (for instance).

When you reduce the size of the Diamond, you obviously get a true playing table, but also you increase the amount of "punting" even more. I believe the true difference between many pros and high level amateurs is their ability to stroke the ball hard with precision. Everyone can punt a ball straight! When you take the power shot out of the game, the difference between players is diminished. I've played some very low level snooker players that can roll in balls all day on a tight snooker table, but once they must up the power and the distances start to increase, they can hardly make a ball. That's on pockets that makes the Diamonds look like buckets. Reducing pocket size won't necessarily show this difference in know how, but long distance and slower rails will.

GideonF
07-24-2016, 09:20 AM
According to Fargo Rate, 9' tables and 7' tables are the same.



http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2015/07/So-Stupid.gif?gs=a



Mike hasn't said that. In fact, he's said the opposite.

His point is that both players are playing on the same table - they both get the same benefits.

You either aren't really listening to his responses or you are deliberately misstating in order to try to prove your point. IMHO doing so doesn't aid your case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ChicagoRJ
07-24-2016, 09:23 AM
yep, no doubt 9 footers are tougher. A few very good players on the bar box joined our ACS league with 9 footers, and suddenly they were middle of the pack guys, and soon quit the league and went back to the bar box league. I guess being a big fish in a small pond was more "fun" for them ;)

I like both. I like to watch both as well. but that's just me, I'm kooky that way ;)

gxman
07-24-2016, 10:08 AM
Maybe team USA can request the MC cup be played on a 7ft table. Might better our chances.

MuchoBurrito
07-24-2016, 10:32 AM
You beat me to it. I was going to do some comparisons after both US Open events are over.

But one key factor distorts the comparisons you have made here. That is the fact that a wooden triangle was used to rack the balls at the SBE, whereas the Magic Rack was used in the US Open 10-Ball.

When the Magic Rack (or another racking template) is used, the percentage of successful breaks (making at least one ball and not fouling) goes up, sometimes substantially. That raises the opportunities for break-and-run games, which raises the actual percentage of B&R games and several of the other percentages.

Here's a comparison for the streamed matches of 10-Ball events that all used racking templates. To get higher counts, I combined two events on 7-footers and 2 events on 9-footers. The field strength (streamed matches only) was high for all 4 events.

A = 2015 and 2016 US Open 10-Ball Championships, combined (7-footers)
B = 2015 Accu-Stats "Make It Happen" Invitational 10-Ball event and 2014 CSI Invitational 10-Ball Championship, combined (9-footers)

Made at least one ball on the break and did not foul:
A -- 75% (392 of 523)
B -- 71% (394 of 553)

Breaker won the game:
A -- 58% (305 of 523)
B -- 56% (311 of 553)

Break-and-run games:
A -- 34% (178 of 523)
B -- 28% (154 of 553)

Break-and-run games on successful breaks:
A -- 45% (178 of 392)
B -- 39% (154 of 394)

Run-outs by non-breaker after fouled or dry breaks:
A -- 41% (54 of 131)
B -- 38% (60 of 159)

Total run-outs by player at table after the break;
A -- 44% (232 of 523)
B -- 39% (214 of 553)

And here's a similar comparison of results I did last year for 8-Ball matches played on 7-footers versus 9-footers: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5255675&postcount=3

So when the conditions are quite similar other than table size, the results may be a bit closer than many people would expect.

These stats are actually pretty close, although clearly the 7' play a little easier, a difference in break and runs of 34% to 28% is not really that big. If you consider the effects of the magic rack, this shrinks a little more.

So in a race to 10 say, where the match goes hill-hill, the difference would translate into at most, one extra break and run on the 7'? That's not so much. Same goes for run outs by player at table after the break, there's a difference, but it's very small.

And actually, the 8 ball stats are interesting, it seems that the pro's play 8 ball better on the 9' table according to these stats.


Personally I like to play/watch rotation games on the 9', and play/watch 8 ball on the 7'.

gxman
07-24-2016, 10:52 AM
I think only a small handful of elite world class players will have a BNR rate of 28% on a big table. Most tournaments, 10b BNR rate is around 18-20% on the big table.

fastone371
07-24-2016, 11:16 AM
According to Fargo Rate, 9' tables and 7' tables are the same.

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2015/07/So-Stupid.gif?gs=a

No, I think what Fargo says is that when 2 players face each other they both play on the same table and play each other, not the table. I have yet to see a match were 2 players play each other and one shoots on a 7' table while the other shoots on a 9' table. Unless Mike has changed Fargo it is still based on how players play against each other, not how players play against the table. If that was the case you would need a FargoRate number for each person on a 7', 8', & 9' tables, Valleys, Diamonds, Olhausen, Brunswick, or other tables and also Pro-Cut or League Cut pockets in each size and brand. Each person would have at least 4 different ratings, maybe as many as 30 ratings even according to your view.

calcwby4u
07-24-2016, 11:22 AM
Get over it .......

mikepage
07-24-2016, 11:45 AM
According to Fargo Rate, 9' tables and 7' tables are the same.


I believe you are being less than sincere here, cleary.

AtLarge
07-24-2016, 02:15 PM
I think only a small handful of elite world class players will have a BNR rate of 28% on a big table. Most tournaments, 10b BNR rate is around 18-20% on the big table.

A breaking template makes a difference. I just looked at 14 past 10-Ball events on 9-foot tables (8 events using a template, 6 using a triangle), and the aggregate B&R percentages were 25% with a template, 16% without a template, and 22% in total.

cleary
07-24-2016, 06:41 PM
Mike hasn't said that. In fact, he's said the opposite.

His point is that both players are playing on the same table - they both get the same benefits.

You either aren't really listening to his responses or you are deliberately misstating in order to try to prove your point. IMHO doing so doesn't aid your case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No it seems he doesn't understand that while yes, both are playing on the same table, the lesser player has a better chance to win or even make it closer. The table is much easier to play on.

I don't care about my case. I'm just calling em as I'm seeing em. I don't have a horse in the race.

cleary
07-24-2016, 06:49 PM
I believe you are being less than sincere here, cleary.

Am I though? I've been pretty vocal about table size mattering. Look at these stats. Yes, both players take advantage of the easier table but that doesn't mean the boost is necessarily equal. If both players players are even, and both pro level players, the match could be 7-7 or 7-0 and neither of those scores reflects the difference in ability. However if the two players are different levels, like a 600 vs 700, the 600 has a much better chance of winning on the little table vs big table. A 600 can still run the set out on a little table. 700 vs 500, on a big table... the 500 might win a game if they're lucky. Little table, just needs an opportunity and could put together a few games or even make the set close. Hell, in a short race can even win. Sorry bud but that's just how it is.

mikepage
07-25-2016, 10:11 AM
Am I though? I've been pretty vocal about table size mattering. Look at these stats. Yes, both players take advantage of the easier table but that doesn't mean the boost is necessarily equal. If both players players are even, and both pro level players, the match could be 7-7 or 7-0 and neither of those scores reflects the difference in ability. However if the two players are different levels, like a 600 vs 700, the 600 has a much better chance of winning on the little table vs big table. A 600 can still run the set out on a little table. 700 vs 500, on a big table... the 500 might win a game if they're lucky. Little table, just needs an opportunity and could put together a few games or even make the set close. Hell, in a short race can even win. Sorry bud but that's just how it is.

You are conflating two issues Cleary. I've tried to explain this subtlety before.

Here are two statements that SEEM to be saying the same thing, and so it seems they are either both true or both untrue. But that is an illusion; they actually express independent ideas

(1) A 600 is more likely to win a particular race against a 700 on a small table than on a big table

(2) The lower-rated player is given a boost on the small table

How can (1) be true without (2) being true? This is what we call a run-length issue. If the players run more racks on an easier table, then then the
race-to-7 acts statistically more like a race-to-5, and everybody knows the weaker player is more likely to pull one out in a shorter race.

This can all be true WITHOUT the weaker player getting a boost on the easier table.

For instance, Corey Deuel is more likely to beat SVB in a race to 13 on a small easy table than on a big hard table. I think we both believe this.

What I am saying is this can be true WITHOUT Corey getting a boost relative to Shane on the small table. That is they are still 50 points apart.

If they played 1200 games on the small table it would be about SVB 700 Corey 500.
If they played 1200 games on the big table it would be about SVB 700 Corey 500.

But because of the run length issue, Corey is more likely to win a race on the small table. In other words the fluctuations converge to the long-haul 700/500 ratio more quickly on the big table.

Here is one more way to look at it. If I play a races to 30 9-ball against SVB, I will never win a set. But if I play races to 30 straight pool I will occasionally win a set. I may still only win 20% of the games/points in the long haul for either one. But that straight-pool race to 30 is effectively a shorter race than is the 9-ball race to 30.

Does this make sense?

cleary
07-25-2016, 10:58 AM
You are conflating two issues Cleary. I've tried to explain this subtlety before.

Here are two statements that SEEM to be saying the same thing, and so it seems they are either both true or both untrue. But that is an illusion; they actually express independent ideas

(1) A 600 is more likely to win a particular race against a 700 on a small table than on a big table

(2) The lower-rated player is given a boost on the small table

How can (1) be true without (2) being true? This is what we call a run-length issue. If the players run more racks on an easier table, then then the
race-to-7 acts statistically more like a race-to-5, and everybody knows the weaker player is more likely to pull one out in a shorter race.

This can all be true WITHOUT the weaker player getting a boost on the easier table.

For instance, Corey Deuel is more likely to beat SVB in a race to 13 on a small easy table than on a big hard table. I think we both believe this.

What I am saying is this can be true WITHOUT Corey getting a boost relative to Shane on the small table. That is they are still 50 points apart.

If they played 1200 games on the small table it would be about SVB 700 Corey 500.
If they played 1200 games on the big table it would be about SVB 700 Corey 500.

But because of the run length issue, Corey is more likely to win a race on the small table. In other words the fluctuations converge to the long-haul 700/500 ratio more quickly on the big table.

Here is one more way to look at it. If I play a races to 30 9-ball against SVB, I will never win a set. But if I play races to 30 straight pool I will occasionally win a set. I may still only win 20% of the games/points in the long haul for either one. But that straight-pool race to 30 is effectively a shorter race than is the 9-ball race to 30.

Does this make sense?

It's not that I don't understand what you're trying to say, it seems like you're not understanding me. Your system isn't about who wins a set, it's winning games. I used a race to 7 in my example because it's a situation that frequently happens.

Yes, both 1&2 are correct. Just like I said. What I said is that the boost between two players may not be equal. Each player has a ceiling for how good they're even capable of playing. A basketball player is more likely to make more free throws than 3 pointers. Few can hang around with S Curry from the 3 line but they start to have a better chance at the free throw line. Why? It's easier, like a bar box. Still, their mechanics won't match his from the free throw line and he will win in the long run... But they come closer. The same principles apply to a bar box vs big table. Yes the better player is still better but I have a better chance to win more games on the easier table... YES, so does he. I get that. But on a larger table I'll make many more mistakes than him while on a little table I might only make a few more mistakes. If you want, I can draw you pictures or graphs or whatever it takes to help you get this.

billiardthought
07-25-2016, 11:11 AM
Where is the link to Cleary-Rate? Or is it just easier to knock progress than to come up with it yourself?

Nick B
07-25-2016, 12:05 PM
Where is the link to Cleary-Rate? Or is it just easier to knock progress than to come up with it yourself?

I don't think Cleary is talking down the value or accuracy of Fargo-rate system. This bar box thing has been discussed to death but I have to admit I as well am firmly in the 9 Foot camp. I have huge respect for Mark G but the BB only thing I believe more about validation than dollars (I could be wrong).

You have thousands of league players there and the inevitable thinking would be that we must be playing on less than real equipment because the big kids are playing on full sized tables. Simple solution...lets all play on BB and prove that BB pool is real pool. Well it is except not quite. Take myself. I buy almost anything that is a real match of quality. EVERY TAR event in person or bought stream. Two cock roaches mating on a 9 or 10 footer and I will drop the cash. BB not so much. The challenge matches that are coming up I would buy in a heart beat. World class champs in long races regardless of discipline. On current equipment....No. Mark says that they get bigger viewership on BB and I believe him. It doesn't make financial sense to bring in 10 - 9 footers and the extra space. OK. His gold. His rules. The man does and will do more for pool than I will ever achieve. Who am I to argue. The only vote I get is whether to buy or not. Unfortunately I will not. Why because it's too easy for even a short stop. Top tier professionals just tear it up. To steal from Cleary's example.

What would the NBA be like if they played on a miniature court c/w 5 Foot tall hoops? White man don't need to jump. Same game. Same rules. Just not the same.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fgJ2CaTfaxU/maxresdefault.jpg

Again thank you Mark for all you do for pool. Please bring back 9 footers for pros. Joe Public wont care. Nick B will.

gxman
07-25-2016, 12:24 PM
I'd imagine if guys like Wu and Ko would play a bunch of 7ft table matches vs some of the barbox "superstars" like Skylar Woodward, Shane Winters, etc, their(Wu/Ko) fargo rating would drop a significant number.

Where Wu and Ko might win 75/25 on the big table, they might play 50/50 on a 7ft verses the barbox specialty players.

BeiberLvr
07-25-2016, 12:36 PM
I'd imagine if guys like Wu and Ko would play a bunch of 7ft table matches vs some of the barbox "superstars" like Skylar Woodward, Shane Winters, etc, their(Wu/Ko) fargo rating would drop a significant number.

Where Wu and Ko might win 75/25 on the big table, they might play 50/50 on a 7ft verses the barbox specialty players.

No

No

No

Wrong

DoubleA
07-25-2016, 01:11 PM
Don't like 7 ft'ers, don't play on them. Don't like to watch play on 7 ft'ers, don't watch. Want tourneys to be played only on 9 ft'ers, open a place large enough and add good money, the players don't care if it is 9 or 7 ft'er, they will go where the money is.

bad_hit
07-25-2016, 01:34 PM
My favorite pool game is Honolulu. No straight in shots...just banks, carom, billiards, combos. No casual pool player wants to watch me play that, they don't understand it and fans can't relate because it's not the same game they play.

Casual pool players in the US play on 7' tables ONLY. They play call shot 8-ball.

I like Honolulu though, and I'm gonna keep on playing it, but because I like it, not because it's good for pool.

Same goes for 10 ball, 9 ball, banks, one-pocket, etc. Casual players/fans (a hundred million of them) don't know what that is and can't relate.

Bottom line: all of us pool nerds (the 1%) can play whatever game we want on any size table we like....and I'll even argue that pool is a more beautiful, pure game on larger tables, I even like it better...but pros playing on 7', which are same tables as the casual players (the other 99%), CAN'T be a bad thing.

cleary
07-25-2016, 02:10 PM
Where is the link to Cleary-Rate? Or is it just easier to knock progress than to come up with it yourself?

lol the age old pool saying "if you don't like it, make your own". Which is why pool is so damned watered down to the point that nobody really makes any money.. Just spread so thin. Because of thinking like yours. A true visionary you are.

I've given my input to improve his system. Fargo has holes in it. He doesn't have to agree and I don't have to shut up.

barrymuch90
07-25-2016, 04:25 PM
I'm not a statistician but I'm pretty sure in the Shane vs Roberts match on 7ft tables Shane's break n run percentage was 8-8 or 100%

yelvis111
07-25-2016, 08:10 PM
Here are two statements that SEEM to be saying the same thing, and so it seems they are either both true or both untrue. But that is an illusion; they actually express independent ideas

(1) A 600 is more likely to win a particular race against a 700 on a small table than on a big table

(2) The lower-rated player is given a boost on the small table

How can (1) be true without (2) being true? This is what we call a run-length issue. If the players run more racks on an easier table, then then the
race-to-7 acts statistically more like a race-to-5, and everybody knows the weaker player is more likely to pull one out in a shorter race.

Isn't there a performance threshold in 8-ball, above which your benefit from being a better player gets exponentially smaller?

In other words, in a single game of 8 ball you can't perform better than running 8-and-out.

Wouldn't this "runout horizon" be (much) lower on a 7-ft table than a 9-ft table?

I'm making up the following numbers to make a point:

Let's say Shane was 98% likely to run 8-and-out on a random 8-ball layout on a 9-foot table. Let's say Corey Deuel was 95% likely to run 8-and-out on that same layout on that same 9-foot table. In n games, this represents a given advantage.

However, let's say Shane was now 99% likely to run 8-and-out on that same layout on a 7-foot table. However, let's also say that Corey was now 97% likely to run 8-and-out on that same layout on that same 7-foot table. In the same n games, Shane's advantage can't be the same as it was on the 9-footer.

Shane's performance advantage can't be carried over and represented as being 101% likely to run 8-and-out on the 7-footer, nor can his advantage be represented as his being more likely than Corey to run 10 balls in that game of 8-ball.

I realize that Fargo rating only represents Player A's likelihood of winning x games against Player B's winning y games, but given that Shane and Corey's ability levels remain unchanged, doesn't the lower necessary performance threshold to win a game of 8-ball on a 7-footer have to result in a smaller advantage for Shane over Corey?

Once again, I'm a HUGE supporter of the Fargo rating system, and believe it will only bring benefit to the game. However, criticism of Fargo Rate should not be assumed to be criticism of Mike Page.

Pax,

Taek

sixpack
07-25-2016, 10:45 PM
Then how come Shane keeps winning bar table events? If that thinking is true, shouldn't he win less on a barbox?

cleary
07-26-2016, 03:25 AM
Then how come Shane keeps winning bar table events? If that thinking is true, shouldn't he win less on a barbox?

No, he's still amazing. See my example of free throws vs 3 pointers. Steps Curry is still the best shooter. You've just got a much better shot going toe to toe at the free throw line. Not that he will do worse but you will do better.

Daryle
07-26-2016, 03:42 AM
If you accept the OP'er proposition, then Snooker is the King of all games, because of the size of the table. Personally, I like all games regardless of the table size. Your opponent is playing on the same size table as you, but it's just that smaller tables are less forgiving.

jay helfert
07-26-2016, 03:51 AM
There were a lot of very good players competing in both these events and we saw some excellent pool being played. I enjoy watching good Pool wherever its played, 9-Ball, Ten Ball, Eight Ball, One Pocket, Banks, even Chinese Eight Ball. 7', 8', 9', 10', 12', Billiards or Snooker, different skills are required. Shane proved once again why he is one of the worlds best players and he won $21,000 in the process, not too shabby imo. He is a complete player, a notch above the rest in the U.S.

bad_hit
07-26-2016, 10:30 AM
No, he's still amazing. See my example of free throws vs 3 pointers. Steps Curry is still the best shooter. You've just got a much better shot going toe to toe at the free throw line. Not that he will do worse but you will do better.

Maybe the problem is really that races on bar tables should be longer, 2 more games or something. Can we agree that the better player will usually win the longer race, regardless of equipment? I like 7' tables for the sheer fact that it's what 90+% of people in the US play pool on. League players and causal fans (the 90+%) can relate to the same size table, and can really relate to the game of 8 ball. As long as we find a way that the winner still consistently reflects the better player, we're good, no?

MuchoBurrito
07-26-2016, 10:39 AM
Maybe the problem is really that races on bar tables should be longer, 2 more games or something. Can we agree that the better player will usually win the longer race, regardless of equipment? I like 7' tables for the sheer fact that it's what 90+% of people in the US play pool on. League players and causal fans (the 90+%) can relate to the same size table, and can really relate to the game of 8 ball. As long as we find a way that the winner still consistently reflects the better player, we're good, no?

I see what you're saying, but again, take Golf by way of analogy.

The average golfer has no idea how difficult the courses played by the pros are compared to their local course. At least another 1000 yards of distance, tight fairways, brutally punitive rough, water and bunkers near every landing zone, etc.

I'm not sure I want to see pro's play the white tees at a local club and everybody shoot 61 every round. Yes we'd be able to relate to it more, maybe even have a better appreciation for the difference between us and them, but they're pros for a reason. They should be playing on the most difficult courses available.

I really think that at the professional level, barbox events should clearly be named as such, and treated a little separately (ex. giving mosconi cup points for an 8 ball barbox event is questionable). When it comes to rotation games at least, I think they should always be on bigger tables.

And I agree with you that barbox events should have longer races. If you watch the USBTC, a guy can play flawless 8 ball and still lose the match just because he lost the lag. That is not fair at the professional level.

Nick B
07-26-2016, 10:40 AM
Then how come Shane keeps winning bar table events? If that thinking is true, shouldn't he win less on a barbox?

Because he's that good. How did he lose his first round match to a relative unknown? Same game and race length...would it happen on a 9 footer? I suspect not.

mikepage
07-26-2016, 11:27 AM
Isn't there a performance threshold in 8-ball, above which your benefit from being a better player gets exponentially smaller?

I think there is not

In other words, in a single game of 8 ball you can't perform better than running 8-and-out.

Wouldn't this "runout horizon" be (much) lower on a 7-ft table than a 9-ft table?

There are more runouts on the 7' table, but I don't think the concept of a horizon that a player reaches is a useful one here


I'm making up the following numbers to make a point:

Let's say Shane was 98% likely to run 8-and-out on a random 8-ball layout on a 9-foot table. Let's say Corey Deuel was 95% likely to run 8-and-out on that same layout on that same 9-foot table. In n games, this represents a given advantage.

gotcha

However, let's say Shane was now 99% likely to run 8-and-out on that same layout on a 7-foot table. However, let's also say that Corey was now 97% likely to run 8-and-out on that same layout on that same 7-foot table. In the same n games, Shane's advantage can't be the same as it was on the 9-footer.

still with you

Shane's performance advantage can't be carried over and represented as being 101% likely to run 8-and-out on the 7-footer, nor can his advantage be represented as his being more likely than Corey to run 10 balls in that game of 8-ball.

I realize that Fargo rating only represents Player A's likelihood of winning x games against Player B's winning y games, but given that Shane and Corey's ability levels remain unchanged, doesn't the lower necessary performance threshold to win a game of 8-ball on a 7-footer have to result in a smaller advantage for Shane over Corey?

The closer Shane gets to 100%, the more advantage he realizes from smaller changes in his his runout percentage. This concept of a "horizon" goes away if instead of looking at this percentage directly, you look at the impact of this percentage on the run length. So a player who runs out 90% of the time has a 50% chance of running 6 (.9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9). This expected run length, [log(.5)/log(.9)] here, does not rise linearly with the runout percentage. Shane and Corey will maintain the same ratio of expected run lengths.

BeiberLvr
07-26-2016, 11:44 AM
Mike

How do you factor in the ease or difficulty of a layout into your formula?

Does it matter?

sixpack
07-26-2016, 11:50 AM
No, he's still amazing. See my example of free throws vs 3 pointers. Steps Curry is still the best shooter. You've just got a much better shot going toe to toe at the free throw line. Not that he will do worse but you will do better.

Because he's that good. How did he lose his first round match to a relative unknown? Same game and race length...would it happen on a 9 footer? I suspect not.

For the record, I agree with you. I almost jumped on a champion the other day and I would have wanted to play him on the barbox because I feel like I have a better chance to beat him there. I just miss too many shots on the big table that he doesn't and I make almost as many shots on the bar table that he does... So even though my odds of beating him are poor on either table, I felt it would be closer and more fun on a barbox.

It's not fun when you rattle open shots etc...

However, it is really odd to me that bar table, big table, 10' table, 9-ball, 10-ball - the better players still win and their win % are about the same.

Shane lost first game to someone he wouldn't have lost to on a big table. Maybe. I saw Jason Williams beat a bunch of people on a big table that he wasn't "supposed" to a few weeks ago.

And then Shane won 9 or 10 matches in a row to win the tournament. If it was easier for those players to beat him on a barbox, how did he win 10 in a row?

The other side of the 'easy' thing is this: When I watch the pros play on tight pocket 9' tables. They miss a lot of shots that *I* would make on a bar table. And they would never miss on a BB. Even the Pagulayan/Orcullo matches at Hard Times and California Billiards Club. In rotation pool, a lot of good things can happen when a player gets to the table after an unforced error, even if the table is tight.

I like the Fargo system and I'm willing to wait and see where this shakes out. I'm willing to be shown that my perception is incorrect and that I have the same chance to beat a player 100 points better than I am on either table.

Danimal
07-26-2016, 12:06 PM
Maybe the problem is really that races on bar tables should be longer, 2 more games or something. Can we agree that the better player will usually win the longer race, regardless of equipment? I like 7' tables for the sheer fact that it's what 90+% of people in the US play pool on. League players and causal fans (the 90+%) can relate to the same size table, and can really relate to the game of 8 ball. As long as we find a way that the winner still consistently reflects the better player, we're good, no?

It's true (and unfortunately so) that the majority of amateur pool in the US is played on 7' tables. But this move from professional tables was borne out of a money and space issue, not due to a skill issue.

Imagine other pro sports went broke and decided to downsize. If football fields shrunk from 100 yards to 75 yards. If basepaths moved from 90 feet to 70 feet. If basketball hoops lowered from 10' to 8'.

All of these standards have been historically set because they are the delineative line that separates the wheat from the chaff. Like the professional 9' table, anything less is not an elite test of ability deserving of the most skillful practitioners of our game.

robsnotes4u
07-26-2016, 12:09 PM
Here is what makes it challenging for the naysayers and people on the fence.

You are unable to see all the data. Mike is able to pull games and matches out to prove what he says is true. He has done this many times and posted it for various things.

The only time we are able to see every game a person has played is with ourselves.

We only get to see part of the whole story.

Are you a soldier or a scout
https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_galef_why_you_think_you_re_right_even_if_you _re_wrong/transcript?language=en





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cleary
07-26-2016, 12:10 PM
Maybe the problem is really that races on bar tables should be longer, 2 more games or something. Can we agree that the better player will usually win the longer race, regardless of equipment?

Absolutely. Thing is, Fargo isn't about winning a match, it's about how many games in that match did you win. So yes, in a perfect world that would mean longer races but pool is a total shit show and all tournaments have different formats... because we all know, if you don't like it, you gotta create your own tournament!

bad_hit
07-26-2016, 01:34 PM
Because he's that good. How did he lose his first round match to a relative unknown? Same game and race length...would it happen on a 9 footer? I suspect not.

Relative unkown? He's #55 player in the country according to Fargorate. Just because YOU don't know him doesn't make him an unknown. People rated below Taylor Anderson on that list are -

Jeremy Jones
Ike Runnels
Jesse Bowman
Toby Robles
...and a bunch of other "unknowns"

No one wins them all. Shane can and will get beat by other good players...reagardless of table size.

AtLarge
07-26-2016, 01:41 PM
... Are you a soldier or a scout
https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_galef_why_you_think_you_re_right_even_if_you _re_wrong/transcript?language=en

Thanks for that, Robert -- soldier mindset (motivated reasoning) vs. scout mindset.

Cameron Smith
07-26-2016, 05:27 PM
For the record, I agree with you. I almost jumped on a champion the other day and I would have wanted to play him on the barbox because I feel like I have a better chance to beat him there. I just miss too many shots on the big table that he doesn't and I make almost as many shots on the bar table that he does... So even though my odds of beating him are poor on either table, I felt it would be closer and more fun on a barbox.

It's not fun when you rattle open shots etc...

However, it is really odd to me that bar table, big table, 10' table, 9-ball, 10-ball - the better players still win and their win % are about the same.

Shane lost first game to someone he wouldn't have lost to on a big table. Maybe. I saw Jason Williams beat a bunch of people on a big table that he wasn't "supposed" to a few weeks ago.

And then Shane won 9 or 10 matches in a row to win the tournament. If it was easier for those players to beat him on a barbox, how did he win 10 in a row?

The other side of the 'easy' thing is this: When I watch the pros play on tight pocket 9' tables. They miss a lot of shots that *I* would make on a bar table. And they would never miss on a BB. Even the Pagulayan/Orcullo matches at Hard Times and California Billiards Club. In rotation pool, a lot of good things can happen when a player gets to the table after an unforced error, even if the table is tight.

I like the Fargo system and I'm willing to wait and see where this shakes out. I'm willing to be shown that my perception is incorrect and that I have the same chance to beat a player 100 points better than I am on either table.

The interesting thing I find is that 'harder' doesn't necessarily result in better competition. 10 ball on a very tight and difficult table can lend itself to a few more upsets because it forces more misses on the 5, 6 or 7 balls leaving an opponent an easy out. I've watched a lot of matches on tight tables where the match was decided by late rack mistakes and not nearly as much by the opponents performance.

But at the same time, a top player can tear through that same field if they get in the zone while the rest are struggling to find their stride. I remember a tournament where Dennis Orcullo was playing the tight tables like they had buckets, but everyone else was struggling. It might have been a hardtimes event I think.

Where the 7-foot table can have an advantage is the ease of the table results in fewer late rack misses. But you will still see upsets since I believe the percentage of runouts for 700-730 level players (I'm guessing at the ratings) increases such that they hold their serve more than they might on a 9 foot table (higher BNR, higher run out percentage). I wonder what effect a winner breaks race to 11 format would have? I can see Shane and other top players stringing a lot more racks together. And although players under 700 may be able to put together some packages, I can't imagine they'd be able to keep up with the fire power of top players.

In my opinion, you see more consistent results in 8 ball, 9 ball and 10 ball when the games have a higher run out percentage. The bane of consistency for these games seems to be the late to mid rack mistakes which gifts free games to their opponents. But if it's too easy then boosts lower players, and I'm not certain it's necessarily an equal boost for top players and lower rated players. My reasoning is simply top players don't miss much on 9 foot tables, so they aren't getting the same kind of benefit as slightly lower rated players. Top players will mostly get stopped by positional errors. I'm not sure if that makes sense and I don't have any data to support that.

Just some thoughts I've been considering recently. I prefer 9 foot tables, but this is my attempt at explaining Shane's performance and consistency.

Nick B
07-26-2016, 08:40 PM
Relative unkown? He's #55 player in the country according to Fargorate. Just because YOU don't know him doesn't make him an unknown. People rated below Taylor Anderson on that list are -

Jeremy Jones
Ike Runnels
Jesse Bowman
Toby Robles
...and a bunch of other "unknowns"

No one wins them all. Shane can and will get beat by other good players...reagardless of table size.

Why do you assume I don't know who he is? Note my original comment of relative unknown. I don't want to disrespect the man but he finished 25th in a 50 man field. I bet you SVB would like that one back and Taylor beating Shane is on his bucket list. I suspect on a 9 footer his chances would have been 3x of that on a BB.

Every tournament has upsets. On a BB it's just easier to do. Just like if all events were race to 3.

mikepage
07-29-2016, 09:58 AM
[...]
I like the Fargo system and I'm willing to wait and see where this shakes out. I'm willing to be shown that my perception is incorrect and that I have the same chance to beat a player 100 points better than I am on either table.


For the record--and this is the subtlety I've been trying to explain--I DO NOT SAY you have the same chance of beating someone 100 points ahead of you on either size table. If you are are run-out-level players, then you likely will have a higher chance to win a set of a given length on the easier table.

What I DO SAY is your ratio of wins will be about 2 to 1 in the long haul on either table. So in a race to 100, you will lose about 100 to 50 on either table.

To many, these sound like a contradiction. But they are not. And this is what we call the "run length" issue.

This is not an easy issue for people to understand. So let me try another example. Suppose we find a pro that SVB beats at a 2-to-1 ratio playing rotation on a 9' table. Hunter Lombardo is an example.

Hunter has a pretty small chance of beating Shane in a race to 15 on a tough table, even though in the long haul he will average 7 or 8 in each match.

Now we are interested in what happens when we switch to a situation where they both run out more. Instead of switching to a smaller table or a table with bigger pockets, let's do an extreme version of this switch. let's switch to straight pool, where we consider each point to be a game. Now even an average league player is capable of running a "6-pack." What happens?

In the long haul, Shane still beats Hunter at a 2-to-1 ratio, as in 1000 to 500, etc. But in a race to 15, Hunter has a WAY higher chance of winning a "set." I even have a chance of beating Shane in a race to 15 in straight pool.

This can be true even though in the long haul I'm going to get to 200 when he gets to 1000 whether we're playing straight pool, rotation on a 9' table, or 8-ball on a 7' table.