Pattern Racking

cbaumann212 said:
There's 1 minute of my life that I'll never get back.
Click to expand...
I don't know you, but from the nature of that remark, I'm surprised your attention actually spanned the whole minute! When someone takes the trouble to record and put up a video, and you don't have any substantive criticisms to offer, why not just try keeping quiet?

I've always thought that random racking should involve radioactivity or a lotto machine, but some might consider his method more practical.

Jim
 
This video should've been in the movie airplane. I agree with the poster above. I want the minute of my life back I just spent watching this.
 
donny mills said:
This video should've been in the movie airplane. I agree with the poster above. I want the minute of my life back I just spent watching this.
Click to expand...

Do you pattern rack? Do you permit it to be done to you?

The first time I ran into it was in the mid 70's while playing a road player from Oklahoma in Oregon. I knew I was a better player. I lost. I ran into him again six months later in Ohio and lost again. Both sessions were long and I played my game. The third time we went to play, he began to bury me from the onset. I finally caught it. This was before there was the coined phrase "pattern rack". I had never seen or heard of it before. What he was doing was not obvious. I pulled up, sat down, and refused to play. I would only agree to play if this practice ended and we would double the bet. He agreed. It worked out for me.

All along, I was playing a much harder game than he was and the net result was that my playing advantage was negated by a "pattern rack".

It is my opinion that all this nonsense that goes on in racking and breaking is a negative, a distraction, and is destructive. We ought to look for ways to end all of it. It is just wrong.
 
Last edited:
Paul Schofield said:
Do you pattern rack? Do you permit it to be done to you?

The first time I ran into it was in the mid 70's while playing a road player from Oklahoma in Oregon. I knew I was a better player. I lost. I ran into him again six months later in Ohio and lost again. Both sessions were long and I played my game. The third time we went to play, he began to bury me from the onset. I finally caught it. This was before there was the coined phrase "pattern rack". I had never seen or heard of it before. What he was doing was not obvious. I pulled up, sat down, and refused to play. I would only agree to play if this practice ended and we would double the bet. He agreed. It worked out for me.

All along, I was playing a much harder game than he was and the net result was that my playing advantage was negated by a "pattern rack".

It is my opinion that all this nonsense that goes on in racking and breaking is a negative, a distraction, and is destructive. We ought to look for ways to end all of it. It is just wrong.
Click to expand...

I think we should too before it goes on another 100 years!!
i think the pattern Segal used was taught to him by Hubbart who learned it from Lassiter who learned it from Moses.
 
Paul Schofield said:
The process demonstrated in this video puts an end to pattern racking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3FiUd-Wsk

http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/noconflict.html
Click to expand...


my new question is, why cant we just accept the fact that racking is just part of the game, part of the knowledge that each player needs to have. the players who knows more about the rack may tend to win more.

if you really look closely at pattern racking, well, what are the odds of making a ball on the break? if you happen to not make a ball, isn't your pattern there for the opponent now. in other words, it doesn't necessarily help the person who is attempting to pattern rack like some may think.

i really do think it is simple:
-1 ball goes in the front, nine in the middle. those are the only hard and fast requirements.
-if somebody is breaking and running off continuous, easy racks, the other player should be able to do that as well then. if he can't, he loses for the same reason all people lose matches, lack of knowledge and execution.


i just think we have made a problem where there really isn't one. the whole source of this "problem" seems to have originated from the seemingly HUGE number of pool players that feel it is somehow their right to get to the table a certain amount of times per match. look, this is pool, people play well. sometimes you may get to the table twice in a race to 7. shut up and deal with it. im tired of it all, it is NOT a problem, people need to shut up, play pool, and concentrate on playing good.
 
enzo said:
my new question is, why cant we just accept the fact that racking is just part of the game, part of the knowledge that each player needs to have. the players who knows more about the rack may tend to win more.
Click to expand...

I am guessing eventually, every player would pattern rack each and every rack right down to the last ball. These strategies evolve over time. This leads to a somewhat predictable lay out. There are other unintended consequences of doing just this. I can think of a few more problems with it.

To answer your question: The fact is that for the most part, a large sector of the pool community does not accept that it is part of the game. It is unresolved business. I am saying this: "Let's just come out and make pattern racking a part of the rules. As it now stands, pattern racking is prohibited but there is no prescribed way to guarantee a random rack. The net result is a whole lot of chicanery. The alternative would be to define a random racking process. Then it is case closed."
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm way off base here but I can't imagine how you get blown out of the water by someone purely because of the pattern of the balls in the rack. Even moreso if you know what he's doing.

Sorry.
 
Paul Schofield said:
I am guessing eventually, every player would pattern rack each and every rack right down to the last ball. These strategies evolve over time. This leads to a somewhat predictable lay out. There are other unintended consequences of doing just this. I can think of a few more problems with it.

To answer your question: The fact is that for the most part, a large sector of the pool community does not accept that it is part of the game. It is unresolved business. I am saying this: "Let's just come out and make pattern racking a part of the rules. As it now stands, pattern racking is prohibited but there is no prescribed way to guarantee a random rack. The net result is a whole lot of chicanery. The alternative would be to define a random racking process. Then it is case closed."
Click to expand...

unfortunately, unlike something say like our constitution, people didn't think too long and hard when they wrote our pool rules. what that means is we should not be illogical enough to follow them if they were written poorly. i mean i guess i could write paragraphs about how the word "pattern" could never be defined here. let me just ask you.... what is a pattern? and how would it be detected? i can tell you now, it would be VERY difficult (if not impossible) to analyze if there were patterns in a given number of racks. then what should we do? 2 choices.... let people just rack the balls however, or just make everybody rack the same pattern. the same pattern method runs into problems because balls arent perfectly round, and they age differently. sometimes you cant get a good rack without moving the balls around. anyway, hopefully this subject will become passe soon. i guess your spinning rack method can be appreciated, in a perfect world, but we both know within the pool world this is going to do nothing but start a million arguments BEFORE the balls are ever even racked (you didnt look away, you didnt spin twice, etc etc).
 
enzo said:
but we both know within the pool world this is going to do nothing but start a million arguments BEFORE the balls are ever even racked (you didnt look away, you didnt spin twice, etc etc).
Click to expand...

enzo - I do know differently. I have first hand experience. I have run 3 regional events in my room in the last year using the "random racking process". It worked splendidly. Players in my room have played tens of thousands of racks utilizing this process. There has never been even one argument about the procedure. After a short time playing with it, it becomes habit and the players do it automatically.

I will admit, the process seems odd and kind of silly, but after thinking about it, I can think of many odd and silly traditions in our game. This is just so easy and fast that it is do-able.
 
Last edited:
If you dont like pattern racking, or dont want to learn how to do it, Dont agree to "rack your own" :D
 
AfghanBilliards said:
If you dont like pattern racking, or dont want to learn how to do it, Dont agree to "rack your own" :D
Click to expand...

His point is, if you're racking for your opponent you can pattern rack too -a bad pattern.

The ultimate solution is not playing 9 ball on buckets. Then it doesn't matter as much. Or even better, play 10 ball.

Chris

.
 
Last edited:
TATE said:
The ultimate solution is not playing 9 ball on buckets. Then it doesn't matter as much. Or even better, play 10 ball.

Chris

.
Click to expand...

Chris - You are correct in stating that the tighter pockets diminish the impact of pattern racking. Youtube is rife with examples of pattern racking and rack manipulation in Ten-Ball by the best players in the world. The "Random Racking Process" can also be used for Ten-Ball.
 
Paul Schofield said:
Chris - You are correct in stating that the tighter pockets diminish the impact of pattern racking. Youtube is rife with examples of pattern racking and rack manipulation in Ten-Ball by the best players in the world. The "Random Racking Process" can also be used for Ten-Ball.
Click to expand...

Right now in 10 ball the 1,2,3 and 10 are assigned a spot, the 10 on the brteak doesn't count as a win, so the ability to manipulate the rack is limited.

Paul, I hate to say it, but I've come to the conclusion the whole pattern racking thing is overblown. It's just another excuse when someone is losing.

I was in a tournament and the racks were plastic junk - impossible to get the first three balls to freeze because they didn't fit the rack. I was messing with a rack, flipping it, rotating it, etc. and finally found the 4 and 7 would freeze behind the 1 because they were less worn then the other balls, so I started racking that way.

I beat this guy 4 games in a row, and he said "no pattern racking". I politely explained the only way I could get a tight rack was to fit the balls into the right spot. Truthfully I was surprised he even knew the rule about pattern racking. He looked at me puzzled, like he was not even comprehending what I was saying. I was thinking "what advantage does he think I'm gaining racking the 4 and 7 behind the 1 on my own break?". I just said Ok and started giving myself crappy racks. I beat him 7-0 and He made about 2 balls the whole match and blamed it on me for "pattern racking".

If someone racks a "good pattern" against me and doesn't make a ball, they just gave me a roll. If they rack a "bad pattern" against me and I don't make a ball, they gave themselves a bad roll.

Truthfully, I recall reading that accustats did a big review on the 9 ball break. and guess what? The break is a disadvantage percentage-wise. Usually the breaker wins because winner breaks, so the better player is breaking more. In other words, if I break and run 20% of the time, my equally matched opponent is running out off my break more than 20% of the time.

I think you've got a good system to avoid pattern racking, I just don't think pattern racking is too important. If I were to make a 9 ball rule, I wouldn't personally allow the 2 or 3 to be behind the 1 in 9 ball, or at the back of the rack, but that's about it, mainly to avoid roadmaps - makes the game too dull.

Chris
 
Last edited:
This is my exact thought. I've had guys think they're 'pattern' racking me and I kinda just chuckle to myself. I mean I can soft break , safety break , let it rip ,whatever. After they rack and I can see it what's been set then who's has the advantage ? Me.

You know , I get a guy from time to time that still lines up the "9" with the number on the following ball cause he thinks that old wives tale is true. :grin-square:

Same deal getting slug racks in 8 ball. I look at the rack and either ask for a re-rack or break accordingly and put it right back on them.

I can see where it can make a subtle difference here and there but if I'm getting blown out by someone , it sure as heck isn't because of that.



TATE said:
Right now in 10 ball the 1,2,3 and 10 are assigned a spot, the 10 on the brteak doesn't count as a win, so the ability to manipulate the rack is limited.

Paul, I hate to say it, but I've come to the conclusion the whole pattern racking thing is overblown. It's just another excuse when someone is losing.

I was in a tournament and the racks were plastic junk - impossible to get the first three balls to freeze because they didn't fit the rack. I was messing with a rack, flipping it, rotating it, etc. and finally found the 4 and 7 would freeze behind the 1 because they were less worn then the other balls, so I started racking that way.

I beat this guy 4 games in a row, and he said "no pattern racking". I politely explained the only way I could get a tight rack was to fit the balls into the right spot. Truthfully I was surprised he even knew the rule about pattern racking. He looked at me puzzled, like he was not even comprehending what I was saying. I was thinking "what advantage does he think I'm gaining racking the 4 and 7 behind the one on my own break?". I just said Ok and started giving myself crappy racks. I beat him 7-0 and He made about 2 balls the whole match and blamed it on me for "pattern racking".

If someone racks a "good pattern" against me and doesn't make a ball, they just gave me a roll. If they rack a "bad pattern" against me and I don't make a ball, they gave themselves a bad roll.

Truthfully, I recall reading that accustats did a big review on the 9 ball break. and guess what? The break is a disadvantage percentage-wise. Usually the breaker wins because winner breaks, so the better player is breaking more. In other words, if I break and run 20% of the time, my equally matched opponent is running out off my break more than 20% of the time.

I think you've got a good system to avoid pattern racking, I just don't think pattern racking is too important. If I were to make a 9 ball rule, I wouldn't personally allow the 2 or 3 to be behind the 1 in 9 ball, or at the back of the rack, but that's about it, mainly to avoid roadmaps - makes the game too dull.

Chris
Click to expand...
 
TATE said:
Truthfully, I recall reading that accustats did a big review on the 9 ball break. and guess what? The break is a disadvantage percentage-wise. Usually the breaker wins because winner breaks, so the better player is breaking more. In other words, if I break and run 20% of the time, my opponent is running out off my break more than 20% of the time.

I think you've got a good system to avoid pattern racking, I just don't think pattern racking is too important. Chris
Click to expand...

Chris - I talked with Pat Fleming a year ago about the Nine-Ball break. He said that the break was a huge advantage on regular equipment but then the pros began playing on the pro-cut pocket Diamonds. The break advantage was virtually wiped out. You are on the money.

I respectfully disagree about the importance of pattern racking. On regular equipment (most of the equipment) where top players are concerned, every little thing matters. The slightest advantage can make a winner. Most people do not understand a good pattern racking strategy. A good strategist never pattern racks untill it matters. He may random rack an entire set and then pattern rack the hill-hill game. He won't be questioned.

You are right that for 90% of the players, it is not important because they cannot get out anyway.
 
it's math time y'all

so 9ball rack you have 9 spots to put the balls, but the 1 and 9 have to go in a perticular spot so (stay with me folks) you now have 7 spots to fill meaning (pulls up calculator ) 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 5040 and there you have how many different rack patterns you could have in 9 ball.

for more info on the math check out the website here:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/combinatorics/combinations-permutations.html

i warn you its a bit of a read but not to bad.

now if i take this a step further and say "hey how about we put the 1 up front, the 9 in the middle and the 2 in the rear" do the math you end up with 720 posible rack patterns....

now if this "no confict racking" is doing it for you then alright... in my mind though it doesn't really do it for me, if your not a fan of the break then play a different game hit up the snooker or 14.1 or 1 pocket OR a game that has no break to speak of and play 3 cushion billiards

Vince (it ain't broke stop trying to fix it" S

it's 4 am when the hell did that happen
 
Play 10 ball or 14:1. In 9 ball there will be pattern racking and other sharking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top