Call shot Call safe Bad for the Sport

[AtLarge]

... As Jay Helfert has often pointed out, no matter the rules, no matter the format, no matter the race length, the cream will rise to the top, and I totally agree. ...

And as I have often countered, some brand of cream will always rise to the top in big events, but with no-slop rules it might be a different brand of cream.

In other words: luck/slop can enable a lesser player to prevail against anyone in a short race. But luck will never enable a significantly lesser player to survive a gauntlet of top players near the end of a large event. Luck/slop, however, can be a key determinant of which top player beats another top player and which top player wins the event.

I prefer no-slop rules of some sort for all professional events.

Just two nights ago, I watched the Accu-Stats match of Bustamante versus Burford. Let's ignore the push-out requirement of the Arena Rules, and just observe that making the 10-ball on the break counted as a win and slopping in a ball (provided you hit the lowest-numbered ball first) continued the inning.

In game 11, Burford missed a 1-10 combination but slopped in the 5-ball on that shot and ran out. In game 12, Burford made the 10-ball on the break. In game 14, Burford slopped in a missed bank on the 9-ball and ran out. In game 15, Burford made the 10-ball on the break. So in a five-game stretch, slop shots essentially allowed Burford to win four of those games.

Did luck have a key role in determining who won that hill/hill match, or did the luck even out? Bustamante's only slopped-in shot was a missed bank on the 2-ball in game 6 that went in another pocket; he was confused enough to immediately give up the table on a time foul, and Burford ran out. Were Burford's two 10's-on-the-break justifiable wins because he broke so skillfully? No, he broke just as he did on all his other breaks, but fate sent the 10-ball into a foot-rail corner pocket twice. That's not supposed to happen much in 10-ball with the Magic Rack, because the 10-ball usually just stays in the area of the rack -- but it did happen in this match, twice. Was that exciting for the fans? Those in attendance did applaud (after being prompted by the ref once), but, at least for this fan watching at home, it was more disgust than excitement.

Don't mistake -- I'm not saying Burford won solely because of luck. He did a lot of good playing and Bustamante made a lot of mistakes. And I don't have a count on who benefited more from lucky roles on misses. But since this match was so recent, and probably lots of AzB members watched it, I just mention it as an example of how slop significantly intrudes on lots of professional matches if they are played with anything like Texas Express rules.

I also feel it's unlikely that no-slop rules are disenfranchising fans to the extent of preventing pro pool from becoming a much bigger deal. I really don't see pro pool in the U.S. in the 21st century attracting big crowds. I think pool spectating is for pool enthusiasts; pool isn't for the casual entertainment of large crowds. And coming from that viewpoint, I definitely favor rules that serve best to identify who is playing most skillfully in pro events.

 

[risky biz]

And as I have often countered, some brand of cream will always rise to the top in big events, but with no-slop rules it might be a different brand of cream.

In other words: luck/slop can enable a lesser player to prevail against anyone in a short race. But luck will never enable a significantly lesser player to survive a gauntlet of top players near the end of a large event. Luck/slop, however, can be a key determinant of which top player beats another top player and which top player wins the event.

I prefer no-slop rules of some sort for all professional events.

Just two nights ago, I watched the Accu-Stats match of Bustamante versus Burford. Let's ignore the push-out requirement of the Arena Rules, and just observe that making the 10-ball on the break counted as a win and slopping in a ball (provided you hit the lowest-numbered ball first) continued the inning.

In game 11, Burford missed a 1-10 combination but slopped in the 5-ball on that shot and ran out. In game 12, Burford made the 10-ball on the break. In game 14, Burford slopped in a missed bank on the 9-ball and ran out. In game 15, Burford made the 10-ball on the break. So in a five-game stretch, slop shots essentially allowed Burford to win four of those games.

Did luck have a key role in determining who won that hill/hill match, or did the luck even out? Bustamante's only slopped-in shot was a missed bank on the 2-ball in game 6 that went in another pocket; he was confused enough to immediately give up the table on a time foul, and Burford ran out. Were Burford's two 10's-on-the-break justifiable wins because he broke so skillfully? No, he broke just as he did on all his other breaks, but fate sent the 10-ball into a foot-rail corner pocket twice. That's not supposed to happen much in 10-ball with the Magic Rack, because the 10-ball usually just stays in the area of the rack -- but it did happen in this match, twice. Was that exciting for the fans? Those in attendance did applaud (after being prompted by the ref once), but, at least for this fan watching at home, it was more disgust than excitement.

Don't mistake -- I'm not saying Burford won solely because of luck. He did a lot of good playing and Bustamante made a lot of mistakes. And I don't have a count on who benefited more from lucky roles on misses. But since this match was so recent, and probably lots of AzB members watched it, I just mention it as an example of how slop significantly intrudes on lots of professional matches if they are played with anything like Texas Express rules.

I also feel it's unlikely that no-slop rules are disenfranchising fans to the extent of preventing pro pool from becoming a much bigger deal. I really don't see pro pool in the U.S. in the 21st century attracting big crowds. I think pool spectating is for pool enthusiasts; pool isn't for the casual entertainment of large crowds. And coming from that viewpoint, I definitely favor rules that serve best to identify who is playing most skillfully in pro events.

Good post. Top level games are worthless if played this way.

Even in casual 10-ball I play called pocket, 10 ball spots on the break. That's what makes 10-ball a different game from 9-ball.

 

[Slh]

And as I have often countered, some brand of cream will always rise to the top in big events, but with no-slop rules it might be a different brand of cream.

In other words: luck/slop can enable a lesser player to prevail against anyone in a short race. But luck will never enable a significantly lesser player to survive a gauntlet of top players near the end of a large event. Luck/slop, however, can be a key determinant of which top player beats another top player and which top player wins the event.

I prefer no-slop rules of some sort for all professional events.

Just two nights ago, I watched the Accu-Stats match of Bustamante versus Burford. Let's ignore the push-out requirement of the Arena Rules, and just observe that making the 10-ball on the break counted as a win and slopping in a ball (provided you hit the lowest-numbered ball first) continued the inning.

In game 11, Burford missed a 1-10 combination but slopped in the 5-ball on that shot and ran out. In game 12, Burford made the 10-ball on the break. In game 14, Burford slopped in a missed bank on the 9-ball and ran out. In game 15, Burford made the 10-ball on the break. So in a five-game stretch, slop shots essentially allowed Burford to win four of those games.

Did luck have a key role in determining who won that hill/hill match, or did the luck even out? Bustamante's only slopped-in shot was a missed bank on the 2-ball in game 6 that went in another pocket; he was confused enough to immediately give up the table on a time foul, and Burford ran out. Were Burford's two 10's-on-the-break justifiable wins because he broke so skillfully? No, he broke just as he did on all his other breaks, but fate sent the 10-ball into a foot-rail corner pocket twice. That's not supposed to happen much in 10-ball with the Magic Rack, because the 10-ball usually just stays in the area of the rack -- but it did happen in this match, twice. Was that exciting for the fans? Those in attendance did applaud (after being prompted by the ref once), but, at least for this fan watching at home, it was more disgust than excitement.

Don't mistake -- I'm not saying Burford won solely because of luck. He did a lot of good playing and Bustamante made a lot of mistakes. And I don't have a count on who benefited more from lucky roles on misses. But since this match was so recent, and probably lots of AzB members watched it, I just mention it as an example of how slop significantly intrudes on lots of professional matches if they are played with anything like Texas Express rules.

I also feel it's unlikely that no-slop rules are disenfranchising fans to the extent of preventing pro pool from becoming a much bigger deal. I really don't see pro pool in the U.S. in the 21st century attracting big crowds. I think pool spectating is for pool enthusiasts; pool isn't for the casual entertainment of large crowds. And coming from that viewpoint, I definitely favor rules that serve best to identify who is playing most skillfully in pro events.

I agree with you, but what about the two-way shots?

 

[sjm]

I agree with you, but what about the two-way shots?

Bingo!

I'm not a one pocket player, but I'll say this. Without two way shots, ten ball as a game is far inferior to one pocket, in which the ability to design shots having both offensive and defensive elements brings out the maximum possible creativity from the players.

I'm OK with call shot ten-ball, which only slightly reduces one's ability to play with maximum creativity and design, but I always refer to the "option to return the table after a miss" version of ten ball as "dumbed down ten ball" as it demands that one greater lower the tone with respect to creativity and imagination.

If all I'm interested in is who can run out, I'd rather watch pros pros playing the ghost than playing "dumbed down ten ball."

Should this version of ten ball ever become the only version of ten ball played, my days of traveling to watch a ten ball event will be over. In a gambling match, the rules should be whatever the participants agree upon, but in tournament play, removing the two way shot, the most majestic of all shots, leaves the fan with an inferior product, and a type of pool so irreconcilable with the way amateurs play rotation pool that it's a disgrace.

There's a reason that most amateurs could care less these days about ten ball! It's the exact same reason that the ABP devised it's tornament guidleines without any input from fans and promoters --- "professional players are not interested in what the fans of the game want" and they really go out of their way to prove it over and over.

 

[TheNewSharkster]

Yeahhhhhh Im gonna have to disagree...

Football is a really bad example aswell. I mean they cheat by running out the clock like a bunch of pansys!!! They should be forced to play the ball and not be able to run out the clock!! Anything could happen (fumble or interception) that could change the outcome of the game.

Yeahhhhh dont like football much...

Well that downright silly. They *ARE* forced to play in Football. That is why they have a play clock.

 

[krupa]

Well that downright silly. They *ARE* forced to play in Football. That is why they have a play clock.

Yeah, but I hate football and try to avoid watching it all costs and even I know there are ways to fart around to run the clock down thereby limiting the other team's opportunities.

 

[krupa]

Bingo!

I'm not a one pocket player, but I'll say this. Without two way shots, ten ball as a game is far inferior to one pocket, in which the ability to design shots having both offensive and defensive elements brings out the maximum possible creativity from the players.

I'm OK with call shot ten-ball, which only slightly reduces one's ability to play with maximum creativity and design, but I always refer to the "option to return the table after a miss" version of ten ball as "dumbed down ten ball" as it demands that one greater lower the tone with respect to creativity and imagination.

If all I'm interested in is who can run out, I'd rather watch pros pros playing the ghost than playing "dumbed down ten ball."

Should this version of ten ball ever become the only version of ten ball played, my days of traveling to watch a ten ball event will be over. In a gambling match, the rules should be whatever the participants agree upon, but in tournament play, removing the two way shot, the most majestic of all shots, leaves the fan with an inferior product, and a type of pool so irreconcilable with the way amateurs play rotation pool that it's a disgrace.

There's a reason that most amateurs could care less these days about ten ball! It's the exact same reason that the ABP devised it's tornament guidleines without any input from fans and promoters --- "professional players are not interested in what the fans of the game want" and they really go out of their way to prove it over and over.

My understanding of a two-way shot is that you take a shot where if you make the ball, you're in position for the next ball, but if you miss it, you leave the other guy safe. If that's correct, I don't understand how ten-ball eliminates this except where the object ball falls into a different pocket.

(My additional understanding of ten-ball rules is that the incoming player only has the play-option if the called object ball is pocketed someplace other than the called pocket or you pocket a ball you did not call.)

 

[AtLarge]

My understanding of a two-way shot is that you take a shot where if you make the ball, you're in position for the next ball, but if you miss it, you leave the other guy safe. If that's correct, I don't understand how ten-ball eliminates this except where the object ball falls into a different pocket. ...

WPA (World-Standardized) 10-ball rules do not eliminate this most common form of two-way shot. Tony Robles' Predator Tour rules (also used once at the SBE pro event) do eliminate this form of two-way shot.

A second type of two-way shot is where you try to make either or both of two balls. E.g., the 5-ball is the lowest-numbered ball on the table and you try to make either the 5-ball or the 10-ball (which might be hanging near a pocket). Both sets of rules identified above require that you designate only one ball and one pocket, so they eliminate this type of two-way shot.

To my mind, the evils of slop pool (including winning on the break) exceed any problems created by either of the sets of rules identified above.

 

[krupa]

WPA (World-Standardized) 10-ball rules do not eliminate this most common form of two-way shot. Tony Robles' Predator Tour rules (also used once at the SBE pro event) do eliminate this form of two-way shot.

A second type of two-way shot is where you try to make either or both of two balls. E.g., the 5-ball is the lowest-numbered ball on the table and you try to make either the 5-ball or the 10-ball (which might be hanging near a pocket). Both sets of rules identified above require that you designate only one ball and one pocket, so they eliminate this type of two-way shot.

To my mind, the evils of slop pool (including winning on the break) exceed any problems created by either of the sets of rules identified above.

Thanks for the clarifications.

 

[sjm]

My understanding of a two-way shot is that you take a shot where if you make the ball, you're in position for the next ball, but if you miss it, you leave the other guy safe. If that's correct, I don't understand how ten-ball eliminates this except where the object ball falls into a different pocket.

(My additional understanding of ten-ball rules is that the incoming player only has the play-option if the called object ball is pocketed someplace other than the called pocket or you pocket a ball you did not call.)

This is mistaken.

No, the version of ten ball in use at Valley Forge allow giving back any table after a miss, and it is this, and only this form, of ten ball to which I strongly object. It eliminates the two way shot in which offense and defense are played simultaneously because a player shooting a tough shot can usually not logically play the defense with it for fear of playing same on themselves. In more standard rules (including those used in both the Derby City ten ball and the US Open 10-ball, a player can chance even an extremely difficult shot if they can play it with some defense, and the result is that players can more often justify trying to make extremely difficult shots.

I don't really have a big problem with the rule that if you call safe and make a ball, the table can be truned back. I don't love it, but I can live with it.

 

[sheffield6]

if you call the 3 in the corner, miss, leave me snookered,you're shooting again, shove yer two way shots up yer jacksie.
10 ball call safe, the way forward.