How to Get a Random Rack?

[Patrick Johnson]

In another thread an idea for getting a truly random rack was suggested (by myself and Bob Olson). I think hearing other ideas for how to do this would be interesting - please tell us yours.

To be practical, I think the methods should be as close as possible to the way racks are made now: extra equipment (like a "hat" to pull the balls from) and extra motion will slow play down and make the idea less popular.

To start things off, here's the method mentioned in the other thread:

The racker picks the balls up in random order by taking them out of the ball return or the foot pockets without looking, places them in the rack in a standard order, and then swaps the 1 and the money ball into their proper positions. A refinement of this might be to have the non-racking player (or the referee) "scramble" the balls before the racker picks them up blind. Another refinement might be to have the racker pick the balls one at a time and place them in the rack in a specific order like top-to-bottom, left-to-right.

How else would you do it? How would you improve this method?

Thanks,

pj
chgo

 

[Johnnyt]

I would go with a deck of cards with a different pattern on each. before the match shuffle the deck and then before one racks they pick a card from the top with a pattern on it. Only takes a few seconds to draw a card.

The ideal way is to have an alternate racker that can rack tight and not pattern rack. 9-ball has become joke with pattern racking and 10-ball is getting there if somethings not done to stop it. Johnnyt

 

[klockdoc]

Write a "rack shuffler" program on your I Phone. The program can have a fixed 1 and 9 ball positions....every time you hit a button, the rack re-shuffles the other 7 balls (considering it is a 9 ball game) and you place them accordingly.

Have a 9 year old Chinese kid write it for you.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I honestly don't think there's a need to randomize the rack. A better solution in 9b would be to force the breaker to break from a SMALL breakbox or even the spot itself and to require a hard break speed.

 

[ironman]

In another thread an idea for getting a truly random rack was suggested (by myself and Bob Olson). I think hearing other ideas for how to do this would be interesting - please tell us yours.

To be practical, I think the methods should be as close as possible to the way racks are made now: extra equipment (like a "hat" to pull the balls from) and extra motion will slow play down and make the idea less popular.

To start things off, here's the method mentioned in the other thread:

The racker picks the balls up in random order by taking them out of the ball return or the foot pockets without looking, places them in the rack in a standard order, and then swaps the 1 and the money ball into their proper positions. A refinement of this might be to have the non-racking player (or the referee) "scramble" the balls before the racker picks them up blind. Another refinement might be to have the racker pick the balls one at a time and place them in the rack in a specific order like top-to-bottom, left-to-right.

How else would you do it? How would you improve this method?

Thanks,

pj
chgo

I can't believe this is even a topic!!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I honestly don't think there's a need to randomize the rack. A better solution in 9b would be to force the breaker to break from a SMALL breakbox or even the spot itself and to require a hard break speed.

That's another way to restrict control over the break shot - I wonder which would make the game better. If we don't have an easy way to randomize the rack we don't have that choice.

Another possibility is the "lawless" option: let the breaker rack and break however he wants. That would introduce another skill to the game (and Corey would be world champion).

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JohnnyT:
I would go with a deck of cards with a different pattern on each.

klockdoc:
Write a "rack shuffler" program on your I Phone.

I think these are good ideas, but I'd personally prefer not to introduce new gadgets to the game. Too much change is hard to sell.

pj
chgo

 

[Jerry Forsyth]

I would suggest that you throw the balls, one at a time, up into the air. Have them ricochet off of your head and into the rack. If you remain conscious until all 9 balls are in the rack you win that game and begin again. Winning player is the first guy to leave the hospital.

 

[pulzcul]

That's another way to restrict control over the break shot - I wonder which would make the game better. If we don't have an easy way to randomize the rack we don't have that choice.

Another possibility is the "lawless" option: let the breaker rack and break however he wants. That would introduce another skill to the game (and Corey would be world champion).

pj
chgo

I think random racking is just something you do until you know better. I'm watching dvd's of the predator tour and robles,sigel and 4 others are racking thier own and each has their own "formula" that puts the balls in general areas after the break. They all see what the other is doing and no ones calling a foul. When your opponent is racking he places them so the balls go to opposite ends[generally] and when tournament refs rack they are instructed to place key balls to achieve ball placement in order to move the game along.Most instructors teach you how to rack to make it easier to run. I think the answer is to rack em 1,2,3,4,9,5,6,7,8. Every time. If you figure out a way to take advantage, more power to ya!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think random racking is just something you do until you know better.

That's an argument for random racking, not against it. If non-random racking is an advantage to the racker, then it should be illegal (it is illegal in World Standardized Rules).

pj
chgo

 

[Andrew Manning]

That's an argument for random racking, not against it. If non-random racking is an advantage to the racker, then it should be illegal (it is illegal in World Standardized Rules).

pj
chgo

I think you may have missed his point; he's saying if a single pattern is always required for all racks, then it's an equal advantage/disadvantage to everyone. The players that figure out the best way to break that specific pattern will be rewarded with easier layouts. The players who don't figure it out will be penalized for failing to analyze the pattern effectively. If this will inevitably lead to layouts that are too consistently easy, then that's only proof that 9-ball is a game that is too easily solved at the pro level, and a switch is in order.

-Andrew

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Wouldn't single pattern racking such as racking the balls in rotation (except the nine of course) have another drawback inherent to any racking pattern, that being that the same balls will tend to end up in the same areas every game, thereby reducing the variety of table layouts players have to manage their way through?

 

[pulzcul]

Wouldn't single pattern racking such as racking the balls in rotation (except the nine of course) have another drawback inherent to any racking pattern, that being that the same balls will tend to end up in the same areas every game, thereby reducing the variety of table layouts players have to manage their way through?

Possibly, but only in a very general way. The speed and angle you break with throws balls to radically different positions. Cory used a very soft break to successfully control his racks but world organizations have made new rules about what is a legal break. The soft break is no more[at those tournaments anyway]. Watching the break,varying the angle and speed to achieve an advantage is a skill. I think you would still need that skill even if its racked the same. IMO

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Just recently I had a player come to me and ask the ruling on deliberate racking.

We went back to the table and I explained the rule (WSR 9Ball) that the rules stipulate 'random only' racking.

The racker (rack your own) was racking the 2 and 8 ball in the second row every time. The non shooting player wanted me to make sure that the 2 and 8 were behind the 9 ball. I told him that this would be pattern racking also and he and I then got into a semantic discussion.

Random racking isn't very difficult. you just put the one ball up front and push two balls behind it. Then the 9 in the middle and two balls on either side. Two of the last 3 balls go behind the 9 and then the last ball goes at the bottom.

And remember, you've always have the right to inspect the rack.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I would go with a deck of cards with a different pattern on each. before the match shuffle the deck and then before one racks they pick a card from the top with a pattern on it. Only takes a few seconds to draw a card. ...

But to have all possible patterns requires 5040 cards -- that's one big deck. I suppose you could have one deck per tournament and you could hand out 21 cards to each match. Use any card only once in the entire tournament.

The Iphone app would work, or you could have a program print out the random racks in order for each match.

I just grab the balls and put them in the rack without thinking about the numbers. I studied breaks for pattern rackers about 15 years ago, and few of them play well enough to make any use of the pattern. That was before the advent of truly tight racks and the automatic wing ball.

 

[TWOFORPOOL]

But to have all possible patterns requires 5040 cards -- that's one big deck. I suppose you could have one deck per tournament and you could hand out 21 cards to each match. Use any card only once in the entire tournament.

The Iphone app would work, or you could have a program print out the random racks in order for each match.

I just grab the balls and put them in the rack without thinking about the numbers. I studied breaks for pattern rackers about 15 years ago, and few of them play well enough to make any use of the pattern. That was before the advent of truly tight racks and the automatic wing ball.

Now that I think about it, it is 7 factorial and 5,040 possible combinations (didn't think there were that many - thanks Mr. Jewett!). I also just grab the balls ramdomly and rack them.

 

[Johnnyt]

But to have all possible patterns requires 5040 cards -- that's one big deck. I suppose you could have one deck per tournament and you could hand out 21 cards to each match. Use any card only once in the entire tournament.

The Iphone app would work, or you could have a program print out the random racks in order for each match.

I just grab the balls and put them in the rack without thinking about the numbers. I studied breaks for pattern rackers about 15 years ago, and few of them play well enough to make any use of the pattern. That was before the advent of truly tight racks and the automatic wing ball.

Thanks Bob. I was wondering when someone would put the 5040 combo's up. I've played dogs and horses all my life so was aware how many possible patterns their would be. Like you said just give out 20-25 cards for a race to 9.

I also thought that racks and racking is tighter today than years ago, but wasn't sure. That right there could be something made better that causes a problem. Thanks. Johnnyt

 

[Quatsch83]

All you need is 7 cards. Just shuffle them and put the balls in the same order as the cards...

EDIT: that would be 7 playing cards...2 through 8 of any suit...not the special rack pattern cards mentioned before

 

[btoneill]

How about this...

The opponent arranges the balls in the rack, and the breaker is responsible for aligning the ball on the spot, making the rack tight, and removing the rack. That way the breaker can't complain about a loose rack and the non-breaker can't complain about pattern racking.

Brian

 

[ugotactionTX]

if it had to be done...

this is not a bad idea. As long as the process didn't take too long, it could be workable. no gadgets, no programs, no 5040 cards

All you need is 7 cards. Just shuffle them and put the balls in the same order as the cards...

EDIT: that would be 7 playing cards...2 through 8 of any suit...not the special rack pattern cards mentioned before