PDA

View Full Version : Do you think?


Fatboy
04-16-2007, 12:10 PM
That considering the skill level of todays modern day pro's that if $1,000,000 was put in an escrow account guaranteeing full payment if the feat of pocketing 1000 balls with out missing on a 9' table with factory pockets, and video taped, witnessed by a predetermined number of people. it could be done with in a year, thus the escrow account would be closed and the $$$ returned to who ever posted it. Not a bogus "Hole in One" insurance thing like on Earls thing years ago etc.

I'm not going to post the $$ this is just a hypothetical question and I thought it would make a cool conversation.


I think that if the pro's knew 100% the money would be solid and for this discussion it is a one time payment of a million not some 20 payment thing that 1000 in one inning would happen within the year. I dont know who would do it but I'm sure we would see alot more straight pool and it would bring out the best in alot of top players leading to a winner, I think it wouldnt happen with in the first 6 months because there isnt alot of attention on straight pool by all the players but the million would fix that in a hurry and with a few months practice it would happen, there would be some 400's within a month and it just keep going.

what do you think?

selftaut
04-16-2007, 12:18 PM
1000 is a lot , I don't think it could be done in a year or maybe even never , but would be interesting.

Steve Lipsky
04-16-2007, 01:49 PM
Put me in the camp of "never". That is about 72 racks. It's not easy to do anything 72 times in a row, let alone this.

Maybe if the participant was allowed to rest whenever he wanted during the inning, it might change things a tad.

Just my opinion,
Steve

RobertR
04-16-2007, 02:16 PM
Put me in the camp of "never". That is about 72 racks. It's not easy to do anything 72 times in a row, let alone this.

Maybe if the participant was allowed to rest whenever he wanted during the inning, it might change things a tad.

Just my opinion,
Steve

72 racks and 71 break shots. The odds of hitting 71 break shots and getting a shot 71 times are about the same as hitting the lottery (which would pay more than $1M).

Bob Jewett
04-16-2007, 03:51 PM
72 racks and 71 break shots. The odds of hitting 71 break shots and getting a shot 71 times are about the same as hitting the lottery (which would pay more than $1M).
It's not that bad, maybe. Depending on how you do the analysis, both Mosconi and Cranfield were something like 90% to get through a rack starting from a break ball. If fatigue is not a factor, and you accept the simple probability argument, then for one of those guys to run 1000 from any particular start is about a 1-in-2000 shot. If you happened to have 10 Mosconis and 10 Cranfields who each tried 100 times, you would very likely see a 1000 run. You would also expect to see something like 37 runs over 526.

There are two problems here: we don't have 20 players who are 90% to get from one break ball to the next, and if any such player does exist these days, he's not trying to run 1000. At Derby City this year, Mika Immonen had the best average and he was only about 80% to get through a rack. There is a huge difference between 80% and 90%. If Mika could hold the 80%, he would be a 1-in-10 million shot to get to 1000 on any particular try.

bruin70
04-16-2007, 04:13 PM
..............no way...............

besides the difficulty of actually doing it, add to that the restrictions of time and place AND in front of a crowd AND the nerves required. engert said he was nervous and sweating bullets as he approached 500 when he fell short....and he was nowhere close to being in the same enviroment.

3andstop
04-16-2007, 04:45 PM
While I also agree that running a thousand balls is a lottery hit at best, I do believe that some organized format for high run records and weekly high payouts would give the game of straight pool just the kick in the pants it needs to start it on its way to becoming a popular and mainstream game again.

If the payout was high enough pro players may start devoting more time to the effort of winning either a weekly or overall high run payday. The more they play the game I think the more every day players would follow suit. I know I would enjoy watching those efforts.

Bob Jewett
04-16-2007, 05:46 PM
... engert said he was nervous and sweating bullets as he approached 500 when he fell short....and he was nowhere close to being in the same enviroment.
Some people play better in front of an audience. And I think that Thomas won't be so nervous once he has a few 550s under his belt.

The current competition record is 182. I think a 200 under the conditions at Derby City is quite reasonable, but 300 would be a major stretch unless there are more 80%/rack players in the future. Unfortunately, there is no longer anyone officially keeping records, so far as I know.

bruin70
04-16-2007, 05:55 PM
While I also agree that running a thousand balls is a lottery hit at best, I do believe that some organized format for high run records and weekly high payouts would give the game of straight pool just the kick in the pants it needs to start it on its way to becoming a popular and mainstream game again.

If the payout was high enough pro players may start devoting more time to the effort of winning either a weekly or overall high run payday. The more they play the game I think the more every day players would follow suit. I know I would enjoy watching those efforts.


i dunno, man. while i agree that pool can always do with a shot in the arm(don't think it would ever really help, though),,,,this is more akin to "homerun derby" - nice on occasion, but after a few events the glow wears thin.

3andstop
04-16-2007, 07:20 PM
I see your point, but I'm saying a running purse on a weekly and total basis, maybe regional, where anyone could take a shot. Something with a small entry fee. Homerun derby gets dull cause we aren't invited. :)

pdcue
04-16-2007, 07:52 PM
That considering the skill level of todays modern day pro's that if $1,000,000 was put in an escrow account guaranteeing full payment if the feat of pocketing 1000 balls with out missing on a 9' table with factory pockets, and video taped, witnessed by a predetermined number of people. it could be done with in a year, thus the escrow account would be closed and the $$$ returned to who ever posted it. Not a bogus "Hole in One" insurance thing like on Earls thing years ago etc.

I'm not going to post the $$ this is just a hypothetical question and I thought it would make a cool conversation.


I think that if the pro's knew 100% the money would be solid and for this discussion it is a one time payment of a million not some 20 payment thing that 1000 in one inning would happen within the year. I dont know who would do it but I'm sure we would see alot more straight pool and it would bring out the best in alot of top players leading to a winner, I think it wouldnt happen with in the first 6 months because there isnt alot of attention on straight pool by all the players but the million would fix that in a hurry and with a few months practice it would happen, there would be some 400's within a month and it just keep going.

what do you think?

Under your proposed conditions, Mosconi in his prime, could have done
it for sure. Today's pros don't come close to that level. So,
Maybe, but no lock

Dale

bruin70
04-17-2007, 12:48 AM
concomitant to the original question, if not made obviously clear, is the assumption that pool players are more skilled today. i don't believe this is necessarily so, and there's nothing to indicate that they are. today they play on better equipment with better instruments. if anything there may have been a dumbing down(if you listen to the "old timers" :):):) ) in pool.

what you DO have, though, is MORE skillfull players. it is a quantitative, not necessarily a qualitative thing.

Takumi4G63
04-17-2007, 03:14 AM
Under your proposed conditions, Mosconi in his prime, could have done
it for sure. Today's pros don't come close to that level. So,
Maybe, but no lock

Dale

This is an immense assumption. How do you know he could have done it for sure? Like I've said before, all we have to go off of is how he played running a few hundred and once 526. He never ran even close to 1000. We don't have any idea how he'd hold up approaching 1000 physically or mentally.

And Bob I have to disagree that the 90% probability of running a rack is applicable to any particular rack. I guess that means I disagree with the assumptions you mentioned. That statistic is really only a rough idea, because it would seem that the probability of running through any particular rack will change depending on how high the run is and other factors. For example, the probability of running through a rack when you are at 900 physically tired and mentally thinking about hitting 1000 has to be different than running through a rack when you are starting out. The probability is conditional not only on the rolls of the table but everything else going on in the mind and environment of the shooter, which is very difficult to estimate when nobody has been that far.

Gerry
04-17-2007, 03:26 AM
I think it would be an attainable goal, and the high ball runner would invariably come from the Philippines IMO. Dangle a giant bet out there and those guys will find a way to win it!:)

1000 is a crazy notion in these day of 9ball, but like I think you are hinting to, the talent is out there if the payday is large enough. Yes, it will get people playing more 14.1, but they might start to not like 9ball so we better not have any of that! :rolleyes:

Also, I don't think it would take $1mil, I think the top players would wholeheartedly go after it for $100,000. I'd offer $100k and I own the rights to the video.:)

Gerry

Danny Harriman
04-17-2007, 06:45 AM
I do believe that you would see some runs in the 700's, lets face it they can make tables play as easy as they want. Take the brunswick Metro for an example, can you imagine that table with a bevelled slate in the pocket (drop pockets.) The reason they call this table the Metro is obvious, the facings on the pockets are dead which helps the object ball to slow way down which in turn makes the pocket play larger than any metropollitan city. For myself I can't bring my A game to the table on this equipment, trick shots along and bank pool is still fun cause you can hit everything at warp speed and it still goes. To answer the question I think yes it could be done only if the player had phony equipment (modified drop pockets) and was in great physical condition, as for me being able to do it probably never - I prefer to keep the equipment respectable enough where a two hundred ball run is doing something.

JoeW
04-17-2007, 07:08 AM
Given the time factor, witnesses, fatigue, etc why not try something like the highest continuous run in one hour. That is speed and accuracy. TV might even like it.

Fatboy
04-18-2007, 01:45 AM
i'm leaving for Germany in a few hours and will be off the net for a couple days, I wanted to wait for more input before I would give my 2 cents,

thinking about it i'm gonna wait, but for the sake of discussion, yes the player could take as many rest periods as he wanted for what ever time he wanted, there is no rush,

The equipment would be ANY 9' commercial table with what ever the factory specs are, the player could chose his cue, balls, bridges, talk glove etc. and cloth, but no modifing the rails or pockets or slate-has to be just a factory spec table, and any cloth,

the table would have to be in a public venue not in a home,

and were keeping the stake at one million, i agree there would almost the same effort for less $$$, but since were just discussing the limitations, playing conditions etc. were gonna keep it at one mil.

SpiderWebComm
04-18-2007, 01:16 PM
I don't think anyone's running 1000, either with rests or not. The odds are so far out of whack - it's a pretty safe assumption. Even if someone was 90% to run a rack (such as straight pool wizard Willie Mosconi), there are far too many variables against you. At 90%, there's 7 - possibly 8 racks that you're statistically not supposed to get there (i.e. break shot and no shot, straight in break shot w/ no break, unbreakable cluster, miscue, miss, anything). That's huge to overcome.

I bet if you were banking the bet, you could make a living w/ "attempt fees" collected. Meaning, charge someone $100 / try and have $500k in escrow. Not to mention, playing "towards" a number is TOTALLY different than running that number during regular play. Bet a 0-handicap golfer $500 he can't shoot par on his course. See if he likes it.

Just my humble opinion :)

pdcue
04-19-2007, 01:28 PM
This is an immense assumption. How do you know he could have done it for sure? Like I've said before, all we have to go off of is how he played running a few hundred and once 526. He never ran even close to 1000. We don't have any idea how he'd hold up approaching 1000 physically or mentally.

And Bob I have to disagree that the 90% probability of running a rack is applicable to any particular rack. I guess that means I disagree with the assumptions you mentioned. That statistic is really only a rough idea, because it would seem that the probability of running through any particular rack will change depending on how high the run is and other factors. For example, the probability of running through a rack when you are at 900 physically tired and mentally thinking about hitting 1000 has to be different than running through a rack when you are starting out. The probability is conditional not only on the rolls of the table but everything else going on in the mind and environment of the shooter, which is very difficult to estimate when nobody has been that far.

if you want to look it up Charlie Ursetti(sp?) tells the story of Mosconi
practicing for his "match" with Fats.
Charlie racked the balls. Willie had a run of something like 685 with a perfect break shot and quit because it was time for dinner. He left the
table with the remark "See Charlie, it's not that hard to run 700 balls".

Back in the 70s a Lou Thayer(?) straight pooler with runs in the
300s and 400s used to wite letters to the National Billiard News,
in an open letter to Mosconi, HE said he was sure Willie could
run 1000 if he had ever cared to.

So what's the source of your opinion?

Bob Jewett
04-19-2007, 03:27 PM
... And Bob I have to disagree that the 90% probability of running a rack is applicable to any particular rack. ... .
Sure, in the same way that a 50% probability of flipping heads is not applicable to any particular coin flip once it has been flipped. There is a standard way of talking about probabilities and statistics and chances and such. There is no guarantee that any of that applies in any way at all at pool. I used to think I could roll 6-6 whenever I needed to at Monopoly. Statistics did not apply to me. Fortunately I mostly got over that idea before I was old enough to go to casinos, but look at all the (increasingly) poor people in casinos who feel the laws of probability don't apply to them.

You offered lots of possible mechanisms that could conceiveably negate the statistics at pool. Unless you actually demonstrate some of those, it is perfectly reasonable to lump all of it into "random chance." As quickly as you can come up with mechanisms that might make the player do worse on long runs, I can come up with mechanisms that make him play better. Neither sort of idle speculation has much value.

bruin70
04-19-2007, 05:20 PM
Back in the 70s a Lou Thayer(?) straight pooler with runs in the
300s and 400s used to wite letters to the National Billiard News,
in an open letter to Mosconi, HE said he was sure Willie could
run 1000 if he had ever cared to.

So what's the source of your opinion?

players played with tougher equipment back then,,,i think they were BETTER back then.

but unless some does it at an appointed time and place, saying he could means nothing. if i ran two racks with ease and ended it there, saying "see how easy,,,,i can run three more racks",,,well you know as well as i that simply doesn't happen(*snap*) just like that.

the actual running of 1000 balls is within everyone's grasp, and there probably isn't a pro out there who doesn't think he can....but all it takes is ONE ball to roll 1/8" too far and you're screwed. if it was that easy, then willie should have run 150 every time he came to the table........but he didn't - so what stopped him,,,probably that ball rolling 1/8" too far.

Bob Jewett
04-19-2007, 06:10 PM
... if it was that easy, then willie should have run 150 every time he came to the table........but he didn't - so what stopped him?
The fact that he had reached 150 (or whatever). From what I have heard, it was not usual in exhibitions for him to go on unless he had not run 100 and was on a pretty good run. In any case, he seems to have been only around 90% to run each rack (on average, all other things being equal, and on a semi-full stomach and with a reasonable night's sleep). That means that 10% of the time he wouldn't have gotten through his first rack.

One thing that's a little curious about Mosconi is that he never ran more than 150 or so in a championship match, even when they were playing long matches. Procita, not Mosconi, holds the record at 182.

bruin70
04-19-2007, 06:28 PM
The fact that he had reached 150 (or whatever). .

so you're implying willie ran out EVERY chance he had:):):),,,that game's end was THE ONLY THING that ended his runs.....never got hooked, never got stuck, never missed.

Fatboy
04-19-2007, 06:33 PM
OK I made it to Germany and thought about it on the flight, and I dont think it can be done, too many racks, something has to go wrong at some point, a ball can skid etc, something funny and poof game over, but It would get alot of gys trying,

I like the idea of charging $50-$100 for each attempt and give them the 11th one free, you would cover the million, it would be like an on going raffel, even better do it like Mega-Bucks slot machines they all are linked together, so the jackpot is huge, install a 1000 run table in any pool room that would cooperate and have them all standardized and video each attempt, no prazctice on that table but it would sure bring people in to play 14.1 on the other boxes and when they wanted to take a shot at the million then play on that table, if there were 50 tables like that in america it would be cool

Bob Jewett
04-19-2007, 07:25 PM
... I like the idea of charging $50-$100 for each attempt and give them the 11th one free, you would cover the million, ...
I think this is the same sort of thinking as the insurance company that had to pay Earl the million (discounted to $600k, so I heard) for his 10-rack run. Put the right person on a 9-foot with the right "factory" pockets and cushions, and you might not like it. In any case, we're already into the third year of the 100-year plan to give away a million dollars for high runs at straight pool. We seem to do better by 20 balls each year, so I expect we'll get to 1000 by 2049. The pockets may be an issue, though.

Fatboy
04-20-2007, 01:42 AM
I think this is the same sort of thinking as the insurance company that had to pay Earl the million (discounted to $600k, so I heard) for his 10-rack run. Put the right person on a 9-foot with the right "factory" pockets and cushions, and you might not like it. In any case, we're already into the third year of the 100-year plan to give away a million dollars for high runs at straight pool. We seem to do better by 20 balls each year, so I expect we'll get to 1000 by 2049. The pockets may be an issue, though.


actually the Govt would probably deem this challenge a lottery or some other form of gambling and piss all over it, sad so much for the "land of the free" but it does make good conversation. I'd just like to see anything happen to give pool a shot in the ass, I'm in Germany and have 17 glorious days of live snooker to watch on Euro Sport. It starts tomarrow

pdcue
04-20-2007, 05:30 AM
players played with tougher equipment back then,,,i think they were BETTER back then.

but unless some does it at an appointed time and place, saying he could means nothing. if i ran two racks with ease and ended it there, saying "see how easy,,,,i can run three more racks",,,well you know as well as i that simply doesn't happen(*snap*) just like that.

the actual running of 1000 balls is within everyone's grasp, and there probably isn't a pro out there who doesn't think he can....but all it takes is ONE ball to roll 1/8" too far and you're screwed. if it was that easy, then willie should have run 150 every time he came to the table........but he didn't - so what stopped him,,,probably that ball rolling 1/8" too far.

Apointed time and place? I assume you understand the VAST diference
between being capable of running X number of balls, and being
able to do it on demand<no living human>

The word was, when Willie was on the exhibition trail<1930s - 1950s?>
he had a standing offer to bet even money on running 100 from a
setup break shot. This on tables, in rooms that may have been complely
new and strange to him.
And that's running 100 on ONE try, not one day.

I'm no Bob Jewet, but if my memory key to Stat is still functioning:
Given a 90% prob of running 1 rack, the conditional prob of
running 7racks is 43%, 8 racks 38%.

Considering how famous Mosconi was for avoiding bad bets like
the plague, he would need to severely misjudge his own
abilities<probability of 0.1%> to offer this wager.

Plus the part about the publicly stated opinion of a ball running machine,
who was there.

Dale

Takumi4G63
05-03-2007, 01:17 PM
You offered lots of possible mechanisms that could conceiveably negate the statistics at pool. Unless you actually demonstrate some of those, it is perfectly reasonable to lump all of it into "random chance." As quickly as you can come up with mechanisms that might make the player do worse on long runs, I can come up with mechanisms that make him play better. Neither sort of idle speculation has much value.

I don't need to demonstrate anything, you completely misunderstand my point. I am saying that your inference is unjustified because there are too many unknown factors in a 1000 ball run for you to ever be able to know that "person x could run 1000 balls". Statistics are based on past events, and you use induction from that to predict the future. It's easier to do that in simpler things (like making a single ball), but very difficult in something like a 1000 ball run where there is so much complexity to it both on the table and with the person playing, and the event has never occurred. You simply don't know how the conditions, physical stamina and mental focus are going to hold up approaching a 1000 ball run, which is why we really cannot know. And even if you could know there was a very high probability of running 1000 for some player, it still might never occur because he might be unlucky. In any case you can't know any player was 'capable' of a 1000 ball run. I think you might be reasonable in thinking this person capable, but you don't know. If you disagree, explain how you know this. I take it that you think you know because earlier you just asserted it as fact that a few of these guys could have run 1000.

I also maintain my point that it's unclear what it means to say somebody is 'capable of' or 'could' run 1000 balls when they never have and likely never will. I'd like anyone to actually define what this means clearly as applied to a massive pool run. This is probably the source of unclarity in this topic.

Bob Jewett
05-03-2007, 01:59 PM
... In any case you can't know any player was 'capable' of a 1000 ball run. I think you might be reasonable in thinking this person capable, but you don't know. ...
Sure. None of us really knows anything about future outcomes. I was making some statements based on the more or less standard ways of applying statistics to events, along with a cut or two from Occam's razor. We don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I'm willing to proceed as if it will, even though I can think of several things that could prevent it.

mnorwood
05-03-2007, 05:52 PM
I think it is possible under certain conditions.

1. It would have to be on a very forgiving table. Wide, shallow cut pockets and spanking new 760 with a heated slate bed.

2. It would take months for a player using the same set of equipment to pull it off.

However, under regular conditions it is impossible.

MVPCues
05-03-2007, 06:32 PM
I don't need to demonstrate anything, you completely misunderstand my point. I am saying that your inference is unjustified because there are too many unknown factors in a 1000 ball run for you to ever be able to know that "person x could run 1000 balls". Statistics are based on past events, and you use induction from that to predict the future. It's easier to do that in simpler things (like making a single ball), but very difficult in something like a 1000 ball run where there is so much complexity to it both on the table and with the person playing, and the event has never occurred. You simply don't know how the conditions, physical stamina and mental focus are going to hold up approaching a 1000 ball run, which is why we really cannot know. And even if you could know there was a very high probability of running 1000 for some player, it still might never occur because he might be unlucky. In any case you can't know any player was 'capable' of a 1000 ball run. I think you might be reasonable in thinking this person capable, but you don't know. If you disagree, explain how you know this. I take it that you think you know because earlier you just asserted it as fact that a few of these guys could have run 1000.

I also maintain my point that it's unclear what it means to say somebody is 'capable of' or 'could' run 1000 balls when they never have and likely never will. I'd like anyone to actually define what this means clearly as applied to a massive pool run. This is probably the source of unclarity in this topic.

A bit surprised you are arguing with Bob Jewett about this. In Bob's original post, he stated:

"If fatigue is not a factor, and you accept the simple probability argument,..."

Then you make an effort to impeach what he says by referring to possible unkown fatigue factors. That is an assumption he already gave. Emperical evidence is used in prediction models all the time. Predictions/extrapolations outside of the range of your data used to build the equations always requires assumptions. Bob assumed those were a given, and was using emperical evidence that suggested 1000 was in reach given x players had x probability of getting from one break ball to the next.

Kelly

Dan White
05-03-2007, 08:30 PM
Predictions/extrapolations outside of the range of your data used to build the equations always requires assumptions. Bob assumed those were a given, and was using emperical evidence that suggested 1000 was in reach given x players had x probability of getting from one break ball to the next.

Kelly

Hell, there's a finite probability that a monkey hitting typewriter keys will accidentally type out War and Peace. I think it's a given that if the calculation needs to account for the times when a banana falls out of the sky and hits the monkey on the head, then the probability calculation would have to change.

dwhite

Takumi4G63
05-10-2007, 12:34 AM
A bit surprised you are arguing with Bob Jewett about this. In Bob's original post, he stated:

"If fatigue is not a factor, and you accept the simple probability argument,..."

Then you make an effort to impeach what he says by referring to possible unkown fatigue factors. That is an assumption he already gave. Emperical evidence is used in prediction models all the time. Predictions/extrapolations outside of the range of your data used to build the equations always requires assumptions. Bob assumed those were a given, and was using emperical evidence that suggested 1000 was in reach given x players had x probability of getting from one break ball to the next.

Kelly

Well clearly the fact that he stated his assumtions does not mean they actually hold. I stated that my disagreement indicated that whatever assumptions were made would not be jointly acceptable. I just do not see how you could be confident in this case in an inductive argument, except maybe if you admit that you have an unhelpfully rough estimate of the probability. I already layed out why I think you can't know a player is/was capable of a 1000 ball run, and I stated that this is partly because induction is less justified in this case than other things (like the sun rising tomorrow or plenty of other scientific information).

As for Bob's reply, I suppose my point would be directed more towards any one of those people (not you) who has just asserted that some player is/was capable of 1000 as if they know that. A big problem is that it's unclear what this means, as I've said. You might say "A player is capable of running 1000 balls if and only if they have the mental and physical ability to run 1000 balls under normal playing conditions and rolls." The problem is that unlike a similar definition for 1 rack of 9 ball which seems easy to meet, 'normal' playing conditions in a 1000 ball sequence offer so many opportunities for bad rolls or tiny errors that it simply might never happen. So in what sense then could we say this person is capable if they've tried so long and never succeeded? And of course there's the problem with even knowing if someone satisfies a definition like this. And I think similar problems would plague other attempts at defining what it means to be capable of a 1000 ball run. I suppose a sufficient condition would be actually running 1000 recently, but that's not too helpful.

I hope this is interesting to more people than just myself.:D

CreeDo
05-10-2007, 07:54 AM
Here's a variation. I think the 1 mil for 1000 balls is unrealistic. We have only a handful who are even a threat to get halfway there. It's so unrealistic I can cheerfully say "sure I'll put up the mil!" because I know nobody's gonna do it.

A more realistic proposition (note - I'm not actually putting up money for this):

1,000 dollars per ball to anyone who passes mosconi's official 526 record.

So ...529 balls, $529,000 bucks. It's proportionate to the million dollars for 1,000 balls, but you get credit if you fall short (but no credit if you don't at least pass 526). Since there are several top players living who have run 400+, 527 is within spitting distance. Once a new world record is set, the proposition can stand, but replace the 526 with whatever the new record is... so if thorsty runs 615, then 616 is now the new minimum for the prize.

The practical concerns make this really tricky, as it has to be gotten on tape, and it has to be very secure, and the players should be allowed rest between runs. In an ideal situation you have a hotel with a big room set up with 10 video cameras on 10 tables, and all the top pros gather in that room and try their hardest for as long as they care to, sleeping in their hotel room as needed... something like 2006 world straight pool championships shooting environment. The upside is that all those fantastic high run tapes could be sold to straight pool fans to offset a little of the cost. I'd pay to see even failed attempts in the 3 or 400s caught on tape.

edit: I know I know Eufemia and others supposedly beat 526 already. Let's get it on tape plz :D

Dan White
05-10-2007, 05:30 PM
The problem is that unlike a similar definition for 1 rack of 9 ball which seems easy to meet, 'normal' playing conditions in a 1000 ball sequence offer so many opportunities for bad rolls or tiny errors that it simply might never happen. So in what sense then could we say this person is capable if they've tried so long and never succeeded? And of course there's the problem with even knowing if someone satisfies a definition like this. And I think similar problems would plague other attempts at defining what it means to be capable of a 1000 ball run. I suppose a sufficient condition would be actually running 1000 recently, but that's not too helpful.

I hope this is interesting to more people than just myself.:D

Yes, it is. OK, maybe you'd be more comfortable with another way to look at it. There are a few people who have run 500, right? What's the probability they can run 500 twice in a row?

dwhite