Pattern Racking

[RRfireblade]

Now you are just antagonizing...

Antagonizing who ?

I'm not talking about reading a rack , manipulating the spot , etc. We're at 12 pages of a thread based on the OP getting "buried" by a weaker player because of the order of the balls in the rack. I'm just curious what was the order ? If the intent is to stop this kinda thing , then let's here some details. What are the common 'out', racks or whatever. What should you be looking for ,that kinda thing. Assuming a tight rack , all the balls are consistently going to be headed in the same general direction so there can't be a ton of beneficial orders. I think it'd be educational to hear some of the options and/theories.

 

[RRfireblade]

Thanks Ray , that's the kinda thing I was asking.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

You're assumption is only correct if the tournament rules expressly indicate that it is illegal to rack the balls in any order that isn't random. My point was from the position that none of the tournaments I've played have outlined rules which make such practices illegal. Thus the argument you presented is flawed. Of course if this was in a rule set i.e. a league or other ruleset that states racking the balls in such a fashion, then your perception of self governing is valid.

Correct Ray, I was making an assumption. But since we were talking about professionals playing in professional tournaments I think it is a valid assumption that the tournament is governed by WPA rules unless otherwise stated. Therefore I submit that any such tournament would have to expressly allow pattern racking - not the other way around. A good example of a professional tournament deviating from the World rules is the SBE and Predator Tour 10 Ball events. They play option on ANY miss, which is different from the WPA rules, but this deviation is spelled out. Unless otherwise stated, World Standardized rules apply.

Frankly, I think this is pretty much the case in any tournament pro or amateur. For example, do the tournaments you play in expressly state you must break from behind the head string before play commences? No tournament that I've ever played in has spelled out that rule. So then, why can't I place the cue ball between the side pockets and break from there? Again, at just about any tournament that doesn't have its own rule book the assumption is that unless expressly addressed, play will be according to the rules. And the generally accepted rules are the WPA World Standardized rules. And like breaking from in front of the head string, pattern racking is against the rules.

Antagonizing who ?

I'm not talking about reading a rack , manipulating the spot , etc. We're at 12 pages of a thread based on the OP getting "buried" by a weaker player because of the order of the balls in the rack. I'm just curious what was the order ? If the intent is to stop this kinda thing , then let's here some details. What are the common 'out', racks or whatever. What should you be looking for ,that kinda thing. Assuming a tight rack , all the balls are consistently going to be headed in the same general direction so there can't be a ton of beneficial orders. I think it'd be educational to hear some of the options and/theories.

This thread is not based on the OP getting buried by a better player. The OP is a room owner who runs tournaments. He instituted these rules in what he considers the best interest of the tournaments he directs.

BTW, what year and color combo is your bike? :thumbup:

 

[dr_dave]

Isn't there just one best rack?

No, there is not. For one thing, it partly depends where you are breaking from.

FYI, examples of advantageous racking patterns for both rack-your-own and rack-for-your-opponent games are demonstrated here:

NV B.89 - 9-ball racking strategy, from VEPS V​

Enjoy,
Dave

PS: BYW, my thoughts about rules concerning pattern racking can be found here: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/break.html#racking

 

[RRfireblade]

This thread is not based on the OP getting buried by a better player. The OP is a room owner who runs tournaments. He instituted these rules in what he considers the best interest of the tournaments he directs.

BTW, what year and color combo is your bike? :thumbup:

Just going by what he stated , possibly as the catalyst to come up with his current standing.

The "nik" came back from when I bought my 1998 in Pearl Yellow. Which , along with 2 (newer) others , I actually still have.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

FYI, examples of advantageous racking patterns for both rack-your-own and rack-for-your-opponent games are demonstrated here:

NV B.89 - 9-ball racking strategy, from VEPS V​

Enjoy,
Dave

PS: BYW, my thoughts about rules concerning pattern racking can be found here: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/break.html#racking

Dave, I have read your thoughts on pattern racking. But I respectfully disagree that the rule can be interpreted to mean "it doesn't matter where the balls are placed". Frankly I just don't see how someone can purposely place the balls in an intentional pattern and not think it is against the rules that say the balls "be placed in the diamond without purposeful or intentional pattern."

You mentioned league players as some that may interpret the rule this way. I can understand this in the APA. But the APA has its own rule book and the way theirs is written I can certainly see players interpreting the APA rule such that they can rack the balls any way they want. I myself interpret the APA rule exactly that way.

But I just don't see how you can get there with the WPA rules, which are the rules that essentially everyone outside of the APA play by. I've yet to see in a professional tournament a referee that is doing the racking ask the breaking player if he has a preference for how the balls should be placed nor have I ever seen a player instruct the ref to place the balls in a particular pattern. Why not, if it is perfectly within the rules to have them racked any way you want?

 

[Paul Schofield]

Reason #749 that US pool will never go anywhere. Johnnyt

First off, I do not prescribe to this line of thinking. Pool will get there.

One of these days the pool world is going to wake up. In the mean time, I am going to spend the rest of my years throwing cold water in every ones face. FOLKS! WHAT ARE WE DOING AND WHAT HAVE WE DONE! The break is the most critical shot in serious pool and we have made it A SLOP SHOT. Why are we starting every game with a SLOP SHOT? I will never buy into the notion that “this is pool”. Luck is OK but why must it be the predominate force in the most critical shot in a game?

In an effort to inject skill and some hidden advantage into the SLOP SHOT (break), the science of pattern racking has emerged along with all kinds racking gadgets and strategies to further manipulate the rack. All this plotting and scheming has revealed just how stupid and thoughtless our racking and breaking rules really are. We look ridiculous.

The SLOP SHOT (break) ruined Nine-Ball and most everyone believes that Ten-Ball is the answer……WRONG!……The same garbage that ruined Nine-Ball is already beginning to emerge in Ten-Ball. The racking and breaking rules for Nine-Ball and Ten-Ball are almost identical. Give it more time. Ten-Ball is still young.

If we want pool to contend and become a legitimate sport, cleaning up the whole front end of our game would be a good start. It needs to make some sense. Get rid of the “SLOPPED BALL ON THE BREAK”. If we do this, the logic disappears for all the racking and breaking nonsense that has plagued and destroyed our game.

I hope I did not offend anyone here. I am trying to inject some passion into this thing. Pool matters.

Read the rules here.
http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/noconflict.html

 

[Snapshot9]

Paul

What has happened to you to make you so adamant on this subject, and how did you get so much rep with just a 155 posts?

Let me elaborate on a few items - First, 9 ball is probably the most popular game played in tournaments and for money. I have been playing for 49 years, and this has never changed. Pool will not wake up as you hope it to, it will continue pretty much the way it is. Pool first needs a National Pool Organization that is over and makes regulations for all lower, or regional Pool Organizations, and that standardize things in the sport. I don't see that happening soon, do you?

We don't even have a men's pro tour, do we?

I, also, think you are calling everything pattern racking when it is not. There is preference racking (no real intent to undermine the opponent), and there is pattern racking (intent to undermine the opponent), and you can NOT prove intent of a player, besides even if the player intends to undermine the opponent with his racking, he is BASING IT ON HIS OPINION ONLY. The relief valve in all cases though, is the opponent has the right to inspect the rack, and call a bad rack, IF HE/SHE EXERCISES THAT RIGHT, most players do not.

Figuring out how to make a ball or balls on the break is no different than figuring out how to make most shots, and in most cases, is more difficult.
Why should it be taken away? What do you want call shot on the break?
I call see 8 ball being played with call shot on the break, LOL, games would take forever, especially in a tournament. You can 'lobby' all you want, I don't see 8, 9, or 10 ball being much different in the future

I might add that people want excitment in the game, and the break is exciting, and they really want it to flow. If they have to watch 10-16 safeties in a row, they get bored.

If you don't want slop on the break, go play 14.1. I remember when most players use to go for a ball on the break in 14.1, but nowdays they all play a safety on the break.

 

[AtLarge]

... I remember when most players use to go for a ball on the break in 14.1, but nowdays they all play a safety on the break.

On the opening 14.1 break? In professional tournaments? Who, when, where?

 

[Snapshot9]

14.1

On the opening 14.1 break? In professional tournaments? Who, when, where?

I go back to the early 1960's, they used to go for the back corner ball to bank back up table to the corner pocket off the opening break, or some brave souls would bank off the end foot rail into inbetween the back corner ball and the 2nd ball to make the front ball in the side pocket.

Sorry, I can not recall names and dates, and tourney's at that time, my memory is not quite that good.

 

[Black-Balled]

In 9-ball it is common to place spotted balls in the second row behind the one. Once you have agreed to a spot, you should also agree to the placement of the spotted balls so the "random" question doesn't even apply.

OTOH, if you can put it anywhere then so can your opponenet.

Common practice to place spotted balls in the 2nd row...as you surely know.

 

[Black-Balled]

...same garbage that ruined Nine-Ball is already beginning to emerge in Ten-Ball. http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/noconflict.html

So you do know how to post a link!?

Where are the vids referenced earlier?

And the guy who beat you pattern racking? Surely if you noticed it was the rack that beat you then you have an idea of the pattern he used and the outs left?

 

[dr_dave]

FYI, examples of advantageous racking patterns for both rack-your-own and rack-for-your-opponent games are demonstrated here:

NV B.89 - 9-ball racking strategy, from VEPS V​

Enjoy,
Dave

PS: BYW, my thoughts about rules concerning pattern racking can be found here: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/break.html#racking

Dave, I have read your thoughts on pattern racking. But I respectfully disagree that the rule can be interpreted to mean "it doesn't matter where the balls are placed". Frankly I just don't see how someone can purposely place the balls in an intentional pattern and not think it is against the rules that say the balls "be placed in the diamond without purposeful or intentional pattern."

I agree that a strict interpretation and strict enforcement of the rules would prohibit "pattern racking." How, I still think the rule isn't usually interpreted so strictly. Also, here is the remainder of the context of my statement:

I think somebody can easily "pattern rack" without it seeming "intentional" or "purposeful."

Obviously, the best solution is to have a neutral party rack the balls (which is done in the WPBA TV events). With "rack your own" or "opponent racking," "pattern racking" will probably always occur unless each ball is required to be in an exact position, but this would require a rules change.​

I've yet to see in a professional tournament a referee that is doing the racking ask the breaking player if he has a preference for how the balls should be placed nor have I ever seen a player instruct the ref to place the balls in a particular pattern. Why not, if it is perfectly within the rules to have them racked any way you want?

But have you ever seen a referee tell a racking player that he or she can't have the 2-ball in a certain place in the rack (e.g., in the back)?

Regards,
Dave

 

[Big Perm]

Isn't there just one best rack ?

The best rack in pool....

Jeanette Lee????

 

[Bob Jewett]

... But have you ever seen a referee tell a racking player that he or she can't have the 2-ball in a certain place in the rack (e.g., in the back)? ...

I've seen Michaela Tabb (who was racking) tell that to Corey Deuel at a World Championship. I've also seen a tournament in which the 2 was always racked in back.

 

[dr_dave]

... But have you ever seen a referee tell a racking player that he or she can't have the 2-ball in a certain place in the rack (e.g., in the back)? ...

I've seen Michaela Tabb (who was racking) tell that to Corey Deuel at a World Championship. I've also seen a tournament in which the 2 was always racked in back.

Where did she tell him to put the 2? :grin-square:

Seriously, did she place the 2 in a certain place, or was it "random?"

Also, do you think the rules should be changed so the balls are racked in the same "positions" every time? Then nobody would be able to take advantage of, or be subject to, favorable or unfavorable "patterns" (intentional or not) that might result from a "random" racking process.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Paul Schofield]

Also, do you think the rules should be changed so the balls are racked in the same "positions" every time? Dave

We need to be mindful of the "unintended consequences" of making any change. Do I need to remind everyone of the Sardo Rack?

If the balls were racked in the same position every time, would the resulting layout become repetitive?

 

[dr_dave]

We need to be mindful of the "unintended consequences" of making any change. Do I need to remind everyone of the Sardo Rack?

If the balls were racked in the same position every time, would the resulting layout become repetitive?

For the record, I think the rules are fine the way they are. If a player is getting an advantage (rack-your-own) or creating a disadvantage (rack-for-your-opponent) by placing the balls in certain positions, and if an opponent or a ref is observant (and smart), they can ask the racker to be more "random." If an opponent or ref doesn't care where the balls are placed (e.g., because the "pattern" doesn't seem to be making much difference), then the racker can continue as they please.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Bob Jewett]

Where did she tell him to put the 2? :grin-square:

Seriously, did she place the 2 in a certain place, or was it "random?"

Also, do you think the rules should be changed so the balls are racked in the same "positions" every time? Then nobody would be able to take advantage of, or be subject to, favorable or unfavorable "patterns" (intentional or not) that might result from a "random" racking process.

Regards,
Dave

In one tournament (I think both were WCs but I'm not sure) she racked randomly and refused Corey's request to put the 2 in back. In another tournament, the 2 was always racked in back with the other balls at random.

In this case, by "random" I mean however they happen to get into the rack with no conscious decisions by the racker. Of course in the normal situation there is a pattern or tendency for particular balls to be racked first. In the case of a ball-return table, I'd guess that the low balls tend to be grabbed from the hopper first, while for drop pockets, the balls in the foot pockets might be racked first and therefor near the front of the rack. I suspect such patterns are fairly tenuous.

At the last WPA rules revision conference (October 2006), fixed-order racking at nine ball was discussed and discarded. I think the main argument against was repetition of run out patterns.

 

[dr_dave]

At the last WPA rules revision conference (October 2006), fixed-order racking at nine ball was discussed and discarded. I think the main argument against was repetition of run out patterns.

Thanks for the info. I agree with the argument against. Also, it would be annoying (and take a little longer) if we were required to arrange the balls in a set numerical pattern. Also, the current rule is fine. Pattern racking can be prohibited when it is an issue.

Regards,
Dave