Pattern Racking

[Paul Schofield]

the current rule is fine. Pattern racking can be prohibited when it is an issue.

I respectfully disagree. The current rule is squishy. The current rule guarantees that there will be pattern racking. No one can stop it. There are players that are very good at it and are very good at disguising it. A well educated ref can't stop it. The only way to stop it is to have a process that guarantees a random rack.

The better players must be snickering at this entire thread. In public I hear one thing and in private I have overheard just the opposite. Players want to pattern rack. They are looking for every little edge they can get. This all needs to stop.

 

[Grilled Cheese]

Look, putting an end to rack manipulating is not rocket science. It’s about the ball on the break. What is the ball on the break anyway? Well, a ball on the break gets done in one of two ways: 1) the ball gets lucked in or 2) the rack gets finagled to increase probability. We don’t like slop and all this racking nonsense is just crap. Has pool lost its way here or what? Why is a player required to slop a ball in a hole to get the opening shot? Are we shooting dice or pool? I can cover the top of a pool table with useless racking and breaking gadgets put forward over recent years. These gadgets are the ultimate finagle. Man-oh-man, just rack the balls and break!

The answer is simple. Get rid of the ball on the break requirement. Make it moot, as it should be. Breaker shoots after a legal break. Once you say “Breaker shoots after the break whether he makes a ball or not”, what’s the problem? All the garbage just goes away. It becomes “case closed”. The ball on the break ain't so great. All it does is create problems. Just get rid of it. The next natural move is to alternate breaks.

The benefit of doing this is far more than what meets the eye. I am not alone on this. The following is a list of advocates. One notable signer-on is someone who was mentioned a number of times in this thread: racking and breaking guru Joe Tucker. All of these people have thought long and hard about it. I encourage you to read the “No Conflict Rules” and think what it all means. It is so obvious and simple. It is also more fun.

http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/noconflict.html

Bob Jewett: “I think Paul's rules above solve the problems.”

Danny DiLiberto: “I will talk about these rules every chance I get when I commentate.”

Fred Bentivegna: “I personally think he has a great new idea.”

Joe Tucker: “I believe this rule will cost me MONEY! But I still think it should be implemented”

John Schmidt: “this is exactly how the games should be played”

Pat Fleming: “I think Paul’s new rules are in the game’s best interest.”

Robert Byrne: “You can use my name as a strong advocate for a rules change for the break.”

Scott Lee: “I like your no-conflict rules”

Those rules suck. While they are for the purpose of eliminating racking conflicts as well as pattern racking, they unfortunately also change the game quite a bit.

Solutions to racking conflicts/problems should be limited to racking - and not alter or change the whole game.

These rules totally change what a legal break is and what allows a player to continue their inning.

I don't like alternate breaks, but can live with it. However, these rules basically gives everyone the automatic right to play out the rack if they get two balls past the center string. Two balls past the center string? APA 4's can do that 99% of the time.

If you think about it, these rules neuter the entire breaking aspect of the game. The idea is to fix or solve racking conflicts, not to take the break out of the game.



Want to take the open break out of the game? Play 14.1.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I respectfully disagree. The current rule is squishy. The current rule guarantees that there will be pattern racking. No one can stop it. There are players that are very good at it and are very good at disguising it. A well educated ref can't stop it. The only way to stop it is to have a process that guarantees a random rack.

The better players must be snickering at this entire thread. In public I hear one thing and in private I have overheard just the opposite. Players want to pattern rack. They are looking for every little edge they can get. This all needs to stop.

This is the crux of the matter. Let's face it, the rule is not like the rule requiring one to break from behind the head string. Obviously the head string rule is easy to identify and enforce whereas pattern racking is very difficult to detect and to prove even if detected.

So the question to me is less about prohibiting an opponent from doing it as much as its about each individual player's sense of honor, whether a player himself will abide by the rule regardless of the fact that it would be difficult to get caught.

Every time this subject comes up it amazes and saddens me at the number of players who apparently feel it is OK to break the rule for whatever reason. All the excuses about it being unenforceable, could be interpreted as being legal, others do it so why can't I, it doesn't really give you an advantage, it wasn't expressly addressed and prohibited at the tournament, etc. are besides the point.

The only question is: are you the kind of player that plays by the rules or not? Sadly it appears many are not.

If someone pattern racks against me I guess I'll start breaking with the cue ball placed between the side pockets. :grin:

 

[Paul Schofield]

Those rules suck. While they are for the purpose of eliminating racking conflicts as well as pattern racking, they unfortunately also change the game quite a bit.

Solutions to racking conflicts/problems should be limited to racking - and not alter or change the whole game.

These rules totally change what a legal break is and what allows a player to continue their inning.

I don't like alternate breaks, but can live with it. However, these rules basically gives everyone the automatic right to play out the rack if they get two balls past the center string. Two balls past the center string? APA 4's can do that 99% of the time.

If you think about it, these rules neuter the entire breaking aspect of the game. The idea is to fix or solve racking conflicts, not to take the break out of the game.



Want to take the open break out of the game? Play 14.1.

Bola-Thanks for the gut reaction. I have been waiting for someone to disparage the rules. I am sure there are many players who have read this thread that think the same way. I would say this. Don't discount the rules so fast. I encourage you and others to put some time in and try it, think through it, and find out what it means. The truth is in the actual play. If you were to try them, you may be suprised, and you might just prefer them.

The break actually becomes more important. The rules reward cue ball control, 1-ball control, and getting a good spread on the balls. This is where the focus should be, not on a slopped or finagled ball.

http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/noconflict.html

A quarter million racks played under these rules in my place tells me a lot about acceptance.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... If you think about it, these rules neuter the entire breaking aspect of the game. The idea is to fix or solve racking conflicts, not to take the break out of the game. ...

If the rack is tight, the wing ball goes over 90% of the time. If the wing ball doesn't go, the player was probably cheated by the rack. What is your solution to this?

 

[Paul Schofield]

If the rack is tight, the wing ball goes over 90% of the time. If the wing ball doesn't go, the player was probably cheated by the rack. What is your solution to this?

Bob – The answer is obvious. If the breaker is cheated, he must be made whole. This would be done by removing the entitled should-have-been-pocketed wing ball from the table and the breaker continues to shoot. (I am not serious.)

I will say it again: The ball made on the break is either “slopped” or “finagled” and should not be rewarded. At the same time, FAILURE to slop or finagle a ball in on the break should not be punished.

 

[AtLarge]

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.

Scott, the two shots you cite above are certainly known to many players and are tried sometimes in exhibitions or "fun" games, even today. But do you believe the probability of success on one of those shots is high? even 50%? Did pros really play them to open championship matches?

 

[Clark_the_Shark]

Bob – The answer is obvious. If the breaker is cheated, he must be made whole. This would be done by removing the entitled should-have-been-pocketed wing ball from the table and the breaker continues to shoot. (I am not serious.)

I will say it again: The ball made on the break is either “slopped” or “finagled” and should not be rewarded. At the same time, FAILURE to slop or finagle a ball in on the break should not be punished.

Paul... I think Bob was asking that question of Bolo Ocho, to see if he had any ideas as to how to fix the problem, other than using your method.

 

[Paul Schofield]

.I will say it again: The ball made on the break is either “slopped” or “finagled” and should not be rewarded. At the same time, FAILURE to slop or finagle a ball in on the break should not be punished.

I want to add to this just to be clear. The ball on the break should be made moot. It's garbage. It should be ignored.

Combine a random rack process with "breaker shoots after a legal break" and all the shenanigans comes to a halt. Nine-Ball is OK again...otherwise we will be playing Eleven-Ball in 2030 and Twelve-Ball in 2050(and of course with the same old convoluted rules). Let's clean the game up.

 

[dedstroke38]

Those rules suck. While they are for the purpose of eliminating racking conflicts as well as pattern racking, they unfortunately also change the game quite a bit.

Solutions to racking conflicts/problems should be limited to racking - and not alter or change the whole game.

These rules totally change what a legal break is and what allows a player to continue their inning.

I don't like alternate breaks, but can live with it. However, these rules basically gives everyone the automatic right to play out the rack if they get two balls past the center string. Two balls past the center string? APA 4's can do that 99% of the time.

If you think about it, these rules neuter the entire breaking aspect of the game. The idea is to fix or solve racking conflicts, not to take the break out of the game.



Want to take the open break out of the game? Play 14.1.

Exactly like Paul said, these rules would actually increase the skill in the break. I think we can all agree that the current break system either consists of making the wing ball which depending on the table and conditions can be dead 90% of the time or it consists of hitting hard and hoping. This is the most important shot as skill levels between players increase and this is what it comes down to?

How much more finesse and thought would it take if you were only concerned with playing position for the 1? As well as worrying about the quality of spread? These seem like quality skill shots just as the rest of a 9 ball game is.

We are just so accustomed to the way the break has been with rewarding a ball on the break that we just assume it's the way it should be. We just assume its the best way, but rules change in all sports for a reason. Skill levels increase and the game changes.

Lets think about it, the biggest variable in a player being able to put together packages is how they END UP on the 1 or lowest ball after the break. When usually the order of priorities in a players mind of what they are trying to accomplish are worrying about a ball on the break, a good spread and then somewhat controling the cue ball though in cut break even that goes out the window. So why should ending up on the lowest ball be the biggest factor when thats not even close to the first priority when a player break the balls. If you take out the requirement for a ball on the break, then one ball control and cue ball control all of a sudden becomes first priority. Not to say a ball or more on the break won't make the run easier. But what it does do is reward the proper priority of hitting the break in a skilled and finesse manner first, and if you can do that with more power and make some balls then thats bonus and you will be rewarded as well! IMO this rule change would reward a player properly and only increase players love of the game.

 

[Paul Schofield]

IMO this rule change would reward a player properly and only increase players love of the game.

Thank you for the input...some very well thought out comments... I was very surprised at your insight in the last sentence in the post. In the end, it is the intangible human factor that rules the day. Some of the best thought out ideas never advance for reasons that cannot be explained. If it is fun, people will do it and love it. If it is no fun, people won't do it. There is no definitive equation for "fun". I can tell everyone with with certainty, the "No Conflict Rules" make our beloved game more fun.

http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/noconflict.html

 

[Paul Schofield]

Youtube link please! Post holds no weight without proof.

Note that I mention no names. There is no intent to disparage anybody. Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?index=52&playnext=1&v=kCTic8mX2CQ&list=PLDE353EAF3379BB90

If you really care, watch this whole thing. It is truely outrageous (both players). If you are mildly interested, go to minute 39. You can watch a couple of minutes of this garbage that sums up everything. Pattern racking (5,6 behind the 1), ball tapping, racking, re-racking over and over, checking for advantagous ball spacing (10-ball), time wasted, manipulation at its worst! He wants to make the 10 on the break or a ball in the second row in the side. This goes on at every pro event. Is this what we are? Is this what we want? I will not stand for it. In my events there WILL be a random rack process and I will use the No Conflict Rules.

Note that the comentators barely had a clue and if there were refs, they were oblivious.

http://goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/noconflict.html

 

[duckie]

Maybe its time have someone become the racker and breaker for a match. This way neither player has anything to do with the rack or the break.

Why not even just pull someone in off the street that has nothing to do with pool to rack and break.

 

[Black-Balled]

Maybe its time ...pull someone in off the street that has nothing to do with pool to rack and break.

Yes. Agreed.

 

[Clark_the_Shark]

I couldn't get the UStream video to work, but I did find the same one on YouTube. Shane got the 10-ball to go in like 3 times on his break. That's cheating if you ask me. Plus, all those times racking at 1:09:30 is rediculous!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCTic8mX2CQ&p=DE353EAF3379BB90&playnext=1&index=52

 

[Paul Schofield]

bump

I am bumping this thing, replacing the UStream with Youtube. I challenge everyone to answer the question: "Is this good for the game?"

Note that I mention no names. There is no intent to disparage anybody. Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCTic8mX2CQ&p=DE353EAF3379BB90&playnext=1&index=52

If you really care, watch this whole thing. It is truely outrageous (both players). If you are mildly interested, go to minute 39. You can watch a couple of minutes of this garbage that sums up everything. Pattern racking (5,6 behind the 1), ball tapping, racking, re-racking over and over, checking for advantagous ball spacing (10-ball), time wasted, manipulation at its worst! He wants to make the 10 on the break or a ball in the second row in the side. This goes on at every pro event. Is this what we are? Is this what we want? I will not stand for it. In my events there WILL be a random rack process and I will use the No Conflict Rules.

Note that the comentators barely had a clue and if there were refs, they were oblivious.

http://goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/noconflict.html

 

[GetMeThere]

OK. I see your point. Unfortunately, this is not the current reality. The reality is that there is to be no pattern racking and there is no prescribed process for guaranteeing a random rack. The result is confussion, accusations of cheating, and more conflict. I have played thousands of racks with the described process. I like it because it is so simple and easy. I also like the fact that I can't get pattern racked and when I rack, my integrety is never questioned. If the 2-ball winds up behind the 9-ball on the hill-hill game, oh well, I won't be second guessed.

If the goal is "fairness" then the only consistent and sensible solution is to rack with an absolute pattern. That way, all players face the same conditions at all times (the definition of fairness). The problem with "randomness" is that, just by chance, one player COULD end up getting lucky or unlucky in a match--especially short matches of, say, race to 7 or fewer. With so few racks, it's entirely plausible that "random" racks will accidentally be patterned to favor one player over the other.

The "fairest" method in relatively short 9-ball matches:

1) Lag for first break.
2) Rack balls in the identical, pre-established, pattern in EVERY rack.
3) Alternate break.

4) For longer matches it could be the same, with the option of winner breaks, in order to allow a comparative test of ability to string runs.

Edit: Now that I've read the proposed "no conflict" rules:

1) I disagree with "random" racking. Rack orders should be pre-determined. That's the only way to create identical conditions for all players. It may be that it will require some education and knowledge to best break the pre-determined ordering, but education and knowledge are prerequisites for playing pool. Also, people will start to worry if the "random rack" was scammed, by rackers "peeking," etc. A pre-determined ordering eliminates any and all worry or complaints of an advantage of one player over another--even one due to pure chance.

2) I agree with "breaker is the first to shoot." There is still ENORMOUS dependence on the quality of the break in that scenario, so important aspects of "breaking skill" are still included--but there's much less (but not zero) influence of "breaking luck."

"Breaking luck," like any kind of luck, can always play a large part--the shorter the match, the larger the potential luck effect. But having "breaker shoots" eliminates a major luck factor of whether a ball is made or not (but, of course, there will still be a major reason for players to try to make balls on the break).


FURTHER EDIT: To put it succinctly: Random ordering produces fair playing conditions EVENTUALLY (players will face an equal number of tough racks and easy racks after enough racks have been played, statistically); pre-determining order produces fair playing conditions (i.e., equal conditions between players) ON EVERY RACK.

 

[Paul Schofield]

If the goal is "fairness" then the only consistent and sensible solution is to rack with an absolute pattern. That way, all players face the same conditions at all times (the definition of fairness). The problem with "randomness" is that, just by chance, one player COULD end up getting lucky or unlucky in a match--especially short matches of, say, race to 7 or fewer. With so few racks, it's entirely plausible that "random" racks will accidentally be patterned to favor one player over the other.

The "fairest" method in relatively short 9-ball matches:

1) Lag for first break.
2) Rack balls in the identical, pre-established, pattern in EVERY rack.
3) Alternate break.

4) For longer matches it could be the same, with the option of winner breaks, in order to allow a comparative test of ability to string runs.

Edit: Now that I've read the proposed "no conflict" rules:

1) I disagree with "random" racking. Rack orders should be pre-determined. That's the only way to create identical conditions for all players. It may be that it will require some education and knowledge to best break the pre-determined ordering, but education and knowledge are prerequisites for playing pool. Also, people will start to worry if the "random rack" was scammed, by rackers "peeking," etc. A pre-determined ordering eliminates any and all worry or complaints of an advantage of one player over another--even one due to pure chance.

2) I agree with "breaker is the first to shoot." There is still ENORMOUS dependence on the quality of the break in that scenario, so important aspects of "breaking skill" are still included--but there's much less (but not zero) influence of "breaking luck."

"Breaking luck," like any kind of luck, can always play a large part--the shorter the match, the larger the potential luck effect. But having "breaker shoots" eliminates a major luck factor of whether a ball is made or not (but, of course, there will still be a major reason for players to try to make balls on the break).


FURTHER EDIT: To put it succinctly: Random ordering produces fair playing conditions EVENTUALLY (players will face an equal number of tough racks and easy racks after enough racks have been played, statistically); pre-determining order produces fair playing conditions (i.e., equal conditions between players) ON EVERY RACK.

Thank you for your comments. They are well thought out and well written.

To be honest with you, fairness is not the goal. I have always believed that "fair" is a dirty word in pool. The fairer you try to make things, the more unfair they actually become. What takes priority over "fair" is "FUN". We are doing recreation. My goal is to make our favorite games more fun. If the games are more "FUN", that will mean more players and more pool being played.

Some of the pros have shown that pattern racking the entire rack generates repetitive layouts. I think they call it a road map. The idea of designating a spot for every ball has previously been proposed and rejected. A random rack means random layouts which creates variety and more fun.

Our rules for racking and breaking just need to make more sense. Count how many seconds it takes to "Random Rack" the balls my way in my video (it is easy and takes no time at all). Now count how long it takes the pros in the tournament video we are looking at (they go on and on).

Fun is the ticket. The "No Conflict Rules" make pool more fun. The matches move faster and are absent much of the usual antagonism.

 

[GetMeThere]

Some of the pros have shown that pattern racking the entire rack generates repetitive layouts. I think they call it a road map. The idea of designating a spot for every ball has previously been proposed and rejected. A random rack means random layouts which creates variety and more fun.

Our rules for racking and breaking just need to make more sense. Count how many seconds it takes to "Random Rack" the balls my way in my video (it is easy and takes no time at all). Now count how long it takes the pros in the tournament video we are looking at (they go on and on).

Fun is the ticket. The "No Conflict Rules" make pool more fun. The matches move faster and are absent much of the usual antagonism.

I have to say that your position strikes me as a bit facile. I'm don't agree that a subtle pattern which might be shown statistically--but which certainly would not show up on every break--would take fun out of the game.

Certainly, a good stiff break injects a great deal of randomness into a 9 ball layout. Furthermore, the very raison d'etre of the game of 9-ball, the 9 ball itself, has a heavily patterned representation in the game--it almost always spends its time at the foot end of the table. I never heard anybody complain that takes the "fun" out of 9-ball.

"Fun" is difficult to qualify (and I'm not sure how important "fun" is to anyone who tries to play well. I don't play for "fun," I play for satisfaction: making shots, getting position, and running racks!). A rule to intentionally randomize a rack is, IMO, just as psychically onerous (maybe moreso) as a recipe for how the balls should be laid out. I never heard anyone complain about the trouble involved in putting the 1 in front and the 9 in the middle, for example. People don't mind a simple rule. One simple rule for a 9 ball rack could be that the balls are racked in order, except for the 9:

1
2,3
4,9,5
6,7
8

It would take very little effort (and no memorization of complicated rules)--it would be a "mindless" sort of rule. I don't imagine anyone resenting it, or finding it confusing or tedious.

And you're definitely wrong about the concept of fairness. The fun in any game is immediately and totally stripped away if/when people detect that the game isn't fair. Rules for games are fundamentally created to present identical conditions of play for all players--that is fairness defined. The very purpose of rules is to ensure fairness among the players.

Doing it my way would forever prevent the possibility of someone grousing about how they got bad racks several times a row in their match, and that's why they lost--something that could not happen if the balls were always racked the same way. People like to notice (or imagine) problems. With the balls racked the same all the time there is no possibility of finding (or imagining) a problem in that area.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I have to say that your position strikes me as a bit facile. I'm don't agree that a subtle pattern which might be shown statistically--but which certainly would not show up on every break--would take fun out of the game.

Certainly, a good stiff break injects a great deal of randomness into a 9 ball layout. Furthermore, the very raison d'etre of the game of 9-ball, the 9 ball itself, has a heavily patterned representation in the game--it almost always spends its time at the foot end of the table. I never heard anybody complain that takes the "fun" out of 9-ball.

"Fun" is difficult to qualify (and I'm not sure how important "fun" is to anyone who tries to play well. I don't play for "fun," I play for satisfaction: making shots, getting position, and running racks!). A rule to intentionally randomize a rack is, IMO, just as psychically onerous (maybe moreso) as a recipe for how the balls should be laid out. I never heard anyone complain about the trouble involved in putting the 1 in front and the 9 in the middle, for example. People don't mind a simple rule. One simple rule for a 9 ball rack could be that the balls are racked in order, except for the 9:

1
2,3
4,9,5
6,7
8

It would take very little effort (and no memorization of complicated rules)--it would be a "mindless" sort of rule. I don't imagine anyone resenting it, or finding it confusing or tedious.

And you're definitely wrong about the concept of fairness. The fun in any game is immediately and totally stripped away if/when people detect that the game isn't fair. Rules for games are fundamentally created to present identical conditions of play for all players--that is fairness defined. The very purpose of rules is to ensure fairness among the players.

Doing it my way would forever prevent the possibility of someone grousing about how they got bad racks several times a row in their match, and that's why they lost--something that could not happen if the balls were always racked the same way. People like to notice (or imagine) problems. With the balls racked the same all the time there is no possibility of finding (or imagining) a problem in that area.

Who can explain the human psych. Sometimes when things are equally unfair, it can be more fun. Who knows.