Racking 10-ball

hdgis1

hdgis1

New member
I was watching the Orcolla match that Justin put up and noticed that every time they would rack, they racked the two and three ball in the back corners. So during practice time yesterday I gave it a try to see how it worked. Not only were those two balls infrequently made but they went all helter-skelter all-over the table! So I guess I missed something!?

Chris
 
hdgis1 said:
I was watching the Orcolla match that Justin put up and noticed that every time they would rack, they racked the two and three ball in the back corners. So during practice time yesterday I gave it a try to see how it worked. Not only were those two balls infrequently made but they went all helter-skelter all-over the table! So I guess I missed something!?

Chris
Click to expand...
I think with the 2 & 3 balls in the back corners of the rack, you cant 'really' control where they are to end up. In 9 ball, if the 2 is at the back, it tends to do 3 things (from my experience)...go up table into the kitchen, hit another ball and stay below the headspot, or get kicked in by one of the balls that are racked just above the 2. So you are gaining an advantage 'knowing' where the 2 is going if you are able to consistently pot the 1 in the side.
 
hdgis1 said:
I was watching the Orcolla match that Justin put up and noticed that every time they would rack, they racked the two and three ball in the back corners. So during practice time yesterday I gave it a try to see how it worked. Not only were those two balls infrequently made but they went all helter-skelter all-over the table! So I guess I missed something!?

Chris
Click to expand...
It is not their strategy to rack the 2 & 3 in the corners, it is how the are required to rack in that particular tournament.
 
If you watch SVB, the idea is to get the 2 or 3 or both going 4 rail and back down table a go in one of the head corners. If racked tight, hit right, and get no kisses, they are dead. Johnnyt
 
Johnnyt said:
If you watch SVB, the idea is to get the 2 or 3 or both going 4 rail and back down table a go in one of the head corners. If racked tight, hit right, and get no kisses, they are dead. Johnnyt
Click to expand...

I think you meant "foot" corners. :embarrassed2: :thumbup:
 
Johnny - I did notice the 4 rail thing but it seemed pretty low percentage. Do you any links to watch. SVB?
Chris
Johnnyt said:
If you watch SVB, the idea is to get the 2 or 3 or both going 4 rail and back down table a go in one of the head corners. If racked tight, hit right, and get no kisses, they are dead. Johnnyt
Click to expand...
 
In my experience, the 4-railer into the same foot corner occurs rather regularly when breaking head-on into the 1-ball from the typical 9-ball breaking spot.

The most probable balls to make with that 10-ball break is the 1-ball in the opposite side pocket... and the 4-railer into the corner.
 
hdgis1 said:
I was watching the Orcolla match that Justin put up and noticed that every time they would rack, they racked the two and three ball in the back corners. So during practice time yesterday I gave it a try to see how it worked. Not only were those two balls infrequently made but they went all helter-skelter all-over the table! So I guess I missed something!?

Chris
Click to expand...

Folks:

It's racked that way (i.e. "2-ball" and "3-ball" in the apex/corners of the rack) because the rules initially called for it that way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-ball
220px-Ten_Ball.png

​

Interestingly, the WPA modified the rules in January 2009 to drop the "2 and 3 in the corners" requirement. Many tournaments, however (e.g. Tony Robles' Predator Open/Pro 10-Ball Tour, U.S. Open 10-Ball) still require it.

Methinks the idea was to prevent pattern-racking -- e.g. an attempt to ensure that the 1, 2, and 3 balls were as spread out from each other as possible when the rack was broken -- so as to minimize "cookie cutter" runouts. That was the theory, anyway.

Hope this is helpful!
-Sean
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top