I agree with this, in fact, the tighter the pocket is, the more luck-based the game becomes. I've had a long discussion a very long time ago about this, people mostly didn't agree but I still believe it.
At a pro high-end level, the tighter pocket will give more leverage for the weaker pro player, because you added more luck into the game by allowing the game to decide who wins, sometimes the better wins, sometimes the weaker wins....some people couldn't grasp this. My idea is that there are a few areas where luck comes into play.
A) the break, due to the layout and how hard it is.
B) When a ball is missed, the luck comes after the missed ball because nobody knows what will happen next...will it favor player B, or will the guy who missed come back one inning later smelling like roses? If the later situation occurs this is unlucky for the player who was seated in the chair and extremely lucky for the player who missed. Or alternativaly a player misses and the ball wiggles and sit inside the pocket, which in this case may favor the other player who might be weaker.
Anyways, my idea is with smaller pockets, both players may miss, which leads to leaving everything to the hands of pool gods. It's really bad enough to have extreme luck in the break whether the pockets are small or large, now you added this? It's not good long term.
Let the dominant players dominate the weaker ones by running some packs. The weaker pro player will still miss, the extreme top nutch pro will miss less and thats how pool is played, by running 6 packs.
Imo, remove alternative breaks in rotation too, thats another topic, its boring as hell.
Also leave the pockets at pro size, thus removing the extreme luck that occurs after players miss a shot.
