Completely Worthless Random Thought

B

BasementDweller

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've always thought the most amazing accomplishment on any type of table with pockets was the 146 break in snooker. Watching someone pull this off is awe inspiring.

BUT...

Have you considered the fact that going for the perfect break can be counter productive when it comes to actually winning the frame (I believe that's what they call it)? If one was in a match and they had their life on the line, do you think they would play position for the black when the pink was in a much easier position? Also, at some point during the run the frame is pretty much over and all you are shooting for is the perfect break. This is unlike major runs in 14.1 where every ball made brings you closer to victory but if you miss you can still lose. In 14.1 someone could run 149 balls in a match to 150 only to miss and have his opponent run 150 and out.

OF COURSE I would still give my left ring finger from the knuckle down (everyone would just think I have it folded under anyway) to pull off a 146 break but I've been thinking these 2 little issues point out a couple of "cultural" differences between the snooker players and pool players. More likely, they point out absolutely NOTHING!

How's that for a completely worthless random thought??? If you send me a self addressed stamped envelope, I will return to you the last 3 minutes of you life.
 
Need some R&D

BasementDweller said:
I've always thought the most amazing accomplishment on any type of table with pockets was the 146 break in snooker. Watching someone pull this off is awe inspiring.

BUT...

Have you considered the fact that going for the perfect break can be counter productive when it comes to actually winning the frame (I believe that's what they call it)? If one was in a match and they had their life on the line, do you think they would play position for the black when the pink was in a much easier position? Also, at some point during the run the frame is pretty much over and all you are shooting for is the perfect break. This is unlike major runs in 14.1 where every ball made brings you closer to victory but if you miss you can still lose. In 14.1 someone could run 149 balls in a match to 150 only to miss and have his opponent run 150 and out.

OF COURSE I would still give my left ring finger from the knuckle down (everyone would just think I have it folded under anyway) to pull off a 146 break but I've been thinking these 2 little issues point out a couple of "cultural" differences between the snooker players and pool players. You more likely, they point out absolutely NOTHING.

How's that for a completely worthless random thought??? If you send me a self addressed stamped envelope, I will return you the last 3 minutes of you life.
Click to expand...

BasementDweller:

Your notion that winning the frame is the most important aspect in snooker is indeed entirely correct. A player that consistently "merely only" runs 72 in each frame (with the opponent nodding concession of the frame, because there's now not enough points left on the table and he/she needs snookers) will still win the match, regardless of what the other player does in a single frame.

However, a few corrections to your post:

  1. The "maximum" in snooker is 147, not 146. (Actually, it's 155 using a free color ball on a foul, but we won't go there for the moment.)
  2. 146 is a total clearance. It's just that you potted a pink (6 points) instead of a black (7 points) somewhere during your red/black/red/black/red/black/... sequence.
  3. Comparing 14.1 to snooker in the way you do is 100% flawed. First, it's true that you can run 149 in a 150-point 14.1 match, miss, and sit in your seat while your opponent runs 150-and-out. (This happened to Mike Sigel in a very famous match, where his opponent took off his sunglasses, looked at Mike, and said, "Mike, you know this match isn't over, right?" and then proceeded to run 150-and-out on him.) However, in snooker, if you run 140 and miss that last black, you've still automatically won the frame. Even if the opponent is pig-headed and wants to try to run 35 consecutive snookers on you to make up the 140 point deficit, he/she can't, because there's only one ball on the table and nothing to hide behind. It's an automatic win. And, even if there are *two* balls still left on the table, I don't think even Alain Robidoux himself would think to try to attempt almost 3 dozen consecutive successful snookers to make up the point deficit. All opponents would just wave their hand to the ref and concede the frame (it's pointless to do otherwise).
I don't think your thought was worthless; it just needed some R&D before posting, 's all. :)

Good stuff nonetheless,
-Sean
 
Probably the reason they play multi-frame sets in snooker.

I love snooker so much I should have been born in England.
 
BasementDweller said:
.... Also, at some point during the run the frame is pretty much over and all you are shooting for is the perfect break. ...
Click to expand...

Typical professional snooker tournaments include prizemoney for the high break. So in many cases they are not just shooting for a perfect game, they are trying to win bonus money.

Dave
 
I would love to get into playing snooker. There's just nowhere within a reasonable drive that has a snooker table.
 
BasementDweller said:
I've always thought the most amazing accomplishment on any type of table with pockets was the 146 break in snooker. Watching someone pull this off is awe inspiring.

BUT...

Have you considered the fact that going for the perfect break can be counter productive when it comes to actually winning the frame (I believe that's what they call it)? If one was in a match and they had their life on the line, do you think they would play position for the black when the pink was in a much easier position? Also, at some point during the run the frame is pretty much over and all you are shooting for is the perfect break. This is unlike major runs in 14.1 where every ball made brings you closer to victory but if you miss you can still lose. In 14.1 someone could run 149 balls in a match to 150 only to miss and have his opponent run 150 and out.

OF COURSE I would still give my left ring finger from the knuckle down (everyone would just think I have it folded under anyway) to pull off a 146 break but I've been thinking these 2 little issues point out a couple of "cultural" differences between the snooker players and pool players. More likely, they point out absolutely NOTHING!

How's that for a completely worthless random thought??? If you send me a self addressed stamped envelope, I will return to you the last 3 minutes of you life.
Click to expand...
You get reps just for being hilarious!

I think it is interesting...that's what the forums are for, to talk about stuff related to our game, no matter what.

Thanks for the laugh.
 
DaveK said:
Typical professional snooker tournaments include prizemoney for the high break. So in many cases they are not just shooting for a perfect game, they are trying to win bonus money.

Dave
Click to expand...
And we're talking serious money too...like 147,000 EUROS for a maximum break!

How sweet is that?
 
Not a worthless thought but I don't completely agree. First it's 147, not 146. Second, I believe there is a major financial bonus for running 147 in a pro tournament in Britain which makes it well worth the risk most of the time.
 
I remember thinking that too while watching a higgins run. Not a totally worthless concept.

In straight pool, if someone's game-winning ball happened to fall on a break ball, they of course would want to just roll it in gently (and avoid the rack, if they got correct shape to do so) rather than blast the rack open like a normal break ball. I've heard of guys continuing to shoot after winning if they're on a personal high run, but most guys just unscrew their cue and go get some cheetos.
 
sfleinen said:
BasementDweller:

Your notion that winning the frame is the most important aspect in snooker is indeed entirely correct. A player that consistently "merely only" runs 72 in each frame (with the opponent nodding concession of the frame, because there's now not enough points left on the table and he/she needs snookers) will still win the match, regardless of what the other player does in a single frame.

However, a few corrections to your post:

  1. The "maximum" in snooker is 147, not 146. (Actually, it's 155 using a free color ball on a foul, but we won't go there for the moment.)
  2. 146 is a total clearance. It's just that you potted a pink (6 points) instead of a black (7 points) somewhere during your red/black/red/black/red/black/... sequence.
  3. Comparing 14.1 to snooker in the way you do is 100% flawed. First, it's true that you can run 149 in a 150-point 14.1 match, miss, and sit in your seat while your opponent runs 150-and-out. (This happened to Mike Sigel in a very famous match, where his opponent took off his sunglasses, looked at Mike, and said, "Mike, you know this match isn't over, right?" and then proceeded to run 150-and-out on him.) However, in snooker, if you run 140 and miss that last black, you've still automatically won the frame. Even if the opponent is pig-headed and wants to try to run 35 consecutive snookers on you to make up the 140 point deficit, he/she can't, because there's only one ball on the table and nothing to hide behind. It's an automatic win. And, even if there are *two* balls still left on the table, I don't think even Alain Robidoux himself would think to try to attempt almost 3 dozen consecutive successful snookers to make up the point deficit. All opponents would just wave their hand to the ref and concede the frame (it's pointless to do otherwise).
I don't think your thought was worthless; it just needed some R&D before posting, 's all. :)

Good stuff nonetheless,
-Sean
Click to expand...


Sean,

I wanted to respond back on this but got a little busy.

Thanks for the correction on the 147 - doh! I knew 147 was the perfect break, at least somewhere in the back of my brain. I was going to attempt to respond by saying: "Yeah, I know 147 is the perfect break, but I think a 146 is more difficult, with having to actually pocket a pink and all." I didn't think I could pull that off.

I didn't quite understand what you meant by saying my straight pool to snooker comparison was completely flawed. It sounded like we were saying the same thing to me. I was trying to say that while closing in on the 146 (meaning 147), at some point the frame is over. However, in straight pool every ball still counts and until you get to 150 you can still lose.

Lastly, I don't do R&D for my worthless random thoughts because they then lose their randomness;)
 
Aesthetics

Played a bit of snooker in my life.
73 is the most important number in snooker..assuming even match...
..your opponent needs at least 2 snookers.

A 100 run at straight pool is aesthetically more pleasing...
..every ball is more important..till the game is over.
I've had high run money at both games in tournaments...
.but the straight pool money was more satisfying.
 
pt109 said:
Played a bit of snooker in my life.
73 is the most important number in snooker..assuming even match...
..your opponent needs at least 2 snookers.

A 100 run at straight pool is aesthetically more pleasing...
..every ball is more important..till the game is over.
I've had high run money at both games in tournaments...
.but the straight pool money was more satisfying.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. While my thought was random and worthless, your's was thoughtful and factual. Very nice.

Others have mentioned that someone gunning for a 147 are probably shooting for a handsome reward. But I bet 9 out of 10 147's are completed outside of a major tournament and there isn't a reward for this accomplishment awaiting them. So while it's still an amazing accomplish, once they pass the 73 point mark it is "all for fun" most of the time.
 
BasementDweller said:
Sean,

I wanted to respond back on this but got a little busy.

Thanks for the correction on the 147 - doh! I knew 147 was the perfect break, at least somewhere in the back of my brain. I was going to attempt to respond by saying: "Yeah, I know 147 is the perfect break, but I think a 146 is more difficult, with having to actually pocket a pink and all." I didn't think I could pull that off.

I didn't quite understand what you meant by saying my straight pool to snooker comparison was completely flawed. It sounded like we were saying the same thing to me. I was trying to say that while closing in on the 146 (meaning 147), at some point the frame is over. However, in straight pool every ball still counts and until you get to 150 you can still lose.

Lastly, I don't do R&D for my worthless random thoughts because they then lose their randomness;)
Click to expand...

BasementDweller:

That would've been funny if you tried to pull off the "146 is better than a 147 because..." thing. Maybe if you waited until this Friday (April 1st), you quite possibly could have? I would've played along. :p

And actually, shortly after I posted that, I realized that I misread your original post, and actually responded in a way that agrees with what you were saying. (I at first thought you were trying to say something else.)

However, I'm of the type that doesn't "slyly edit" his/her posts to cover his/her own petut, but rather commits, and gives the other person a chance to reply, even if it takes a couple days. I'm glad you did, and I acknowledge my error. We are indeed on the same page about the "maximums" in snooker and straight pool not being the same thing. (I.e. that running a maximum in snooker -- after the frame has already been won -- is either for personal or financial gain [*if* there's a monetary reward for it, that is], while a "maximum" in straight pool is not only desired, but it's the only way to guarantee preventing your opponent from getting out of the chair and doing the same to you [the opponent can't, if his/her opponent ran the match out].)

As for R&D pulling the floorboards out from the "randomness" of thoughts, I respectfully disagree. R&D doesn't change the fact that a random thought "just came to you out of the blue" (it's still random); it's just that you substantiated some of the facts/scenarios behind it before posting. ;) However, "unsubstantiated random thoughts" are a completely different story. :p We do have a lot of posters that subscribe to that theory / methodology, as you know.

Good stuff nonetheless. Snooker and straight pool -- while completely different games on different equipment -- *do* share the common thread that knowledge, skill, consistency, tenacity, lucidity, focus, and perseverance are root principles of the game, not luck.

Great thread,
-Sean
 
Maybe random but not worthless. You answered questions that I, as a pool player totally ignorant of snooker, would not have thought to ask. Thank you.

I will, nonetheless, send you a stamped , self-addressed envelope for the return of the last 3 minutes of my life. First of all I didn't know you had them and second, at the end of my life, I'm sure I'll be begging for 3 more minutes. Throw in a couple extra if you have any that may have fallen on the floor or something as I'm not particular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top