In my opinion, this is way too complicated. It sounds like a Sodoku puzzle with pool balls!
Inventing a new pool game: "Colors"
- Thread starter Pre-Flag Master
- Start date
In my opinion, this is way too complicated. It sounds like a Sodoku puzzle with pool balls!
Racists. All of you.
Sounds like you are describing the game Cribbage that has been around forever.
I see the challenge in this game but I prefer straight pool and banks and the occasional one pocket game. I do think this could be interesting on a bar box table and might make the game of 8 ball more challenging. Personally I do not believe we need more game to play but certainly, if it caches on then more power to you.
Whatever dudes
It's not the same as Cribbage or the "colors" game that Ralph linked to. You don't keep score. You don't pocket balls by color, you contact balls by color, and you have to clear every ball on the table before attempting the money ball.
I'm not saying I came up with something wonderfully unique here, but "virtually identical" does not fit either.
Fatz
It's not the same as Cribbage or the "colors" game that Ralph linked to. You don't keep score. You don't pocket balls by color, you contact balls by color, and you have to clear every ball on the table before attempting the money ball.
I'm not saying I came up with something wonderfully unique here, but "virtually identical" does not fit either.
Fatz
I think the major difference between this is, like 9 ball... nothing at all counts until the game ball. So any progress your opponent makes, even if he makes 7 pairs... doesn't count unless he runs all the way out. If he doesn't get out, you can mop up and win.
He can theoretically make 14 balls, and you make just one... and you win.
This is pretty clearly not very fair, which is why I would prefer cribbage every time.
It's not a bad idea, but it's just already been done better.
He can theoretically make 14 balls, and you make just one... and you win.
This is pretty clearly not very fair, which is why I would prefer cribbage every time.
It's not a bad idea, but it's just already been done better.
I like the name "pairs".
If going in rotation, it could become almost as difficult as 15 ball rotation. You could easily not have a shot on the 1 or the 9.
Strategically it might be similar to Cribbage and "SF Colors", but I'd prefer to play the game where you don't keep a score.
How is it a step backward from "SF Colors"? To re-iterate, my goal here was to create a game thats harder than 8-ball, but easier than 15 ball rotation. So it may be possible that I want it to be a step backwards. But please do explain *why* it is a step backwards.
thanks
Fatz
Efren would dominate any game he and I played. :grin-square:
I'm not trying to invent something the pros are going to end up adopting. I don't have any such high-falutent goals.
I was just trying to create a single rack game that's harder than 8-ball but easier than 15 ball rotation, that my buddies and I could play - and anybody else that might like it. One pocket is too taxing for me at my current level, and it doesn't really appeal to me anyway. I'll take up straight pool eventually, but it's not a single rack game.
And I think the idea of using colors rather than numbers to form the pairs has been around for at least 20 years. I think it's a good way to do pairs for those who are innumerate. Also, it's easier to see the patterns. On the other hand, standard cribbage gives an advantage to those who can still add. Here is Cribbage from the 1945 BAA (later BCA) rulebook:
Actually, I wanted it to be hard. Just not as hard as 15 ball rotation.
How many people can run 11 in a row when it has to be in numerical sequence and there are 15 balls on the table? Too hard. How many people can run 15 balls in a row given the choice of any ball? Too easy.
However, you are correct that you might run 14 and still lose the game. I actually like that aspect, because you have to be able to finish. I wouldn't say it's "not fair". That's just how it works in rotation games - same thing in 9/10 ball. I just wanted this to be easier than the ultimate rotation game.
Now I am also thinking that with this game - I'm going to go ahead and call it "Pairs" for now - it might be too easy as it is now since you can choose any color. I may change it to that you have to shoot at single ball colors if they exist. This would introduce more of a safety play aspect.
Umm... Not one player in 10,000 can do that half the time.
Okay, I didn't read Post #18 closely enough.
Then my comment is that the additional "hit the nominated color ball first, but pocket anything" concept might need some tweaking. Especially on the break or when balls from other color pairs start dropping on legal or illegal shots.
What does the incoming player do if two pairs have only a single representative. What does he shoot at first?
Last edited:
I'm not surprised to hear that I'm not the first one to think of the concept, as was implied earlier. Was your point that employing a previously used concept as part of a larger rule set makes it a bad game?
As stated, I haven't actually tried the new game yet, so I could be wrong here, but at first it seems to me that running an entire rack of 15 balls, one pair at a time, might actually be pretty challenging in terms of pattern play.
Fatz
Perhaps I give myself too much credit. Or perhaps I'm playing on equipment that's too easy. I'd acknowledge either.
edit: Actually doing that half the time is a pretty high standard, I would agree.
Last edited:
As it stands now, at the beginning of your inning, you are allowed to nominate ANY color you want, whether that color has two balls or one ball on the table doesn't matter. Once you have nominated a color and made a legal shot, you are now required to stick to that color, for that inning, until all the balls of that color are gone.
I am thinking about changing this to requiring to nominate a "single ball color" first if such colors are on the table. edit: decided not to do this.
Fatz
Last edited:
Actually I never liked that about 9 or 10 ball either
but I'll allow that's my personal preference.As bob stated, running all the balls (even without restriction) is pretty hard. With 9 ball and 10 ball you have less congestion and a realistic chance at running all the way out from the first shot. But in this game... most players would be best served by simply refusing to shoot until 2 or 3 sets are off the table. Hell, give the other guy ball in hand. He's not getting out but he might clear out half the balls for you.
There should be some way to adjust for this. Maybe a texas express type rule... if you fail to complete a pair after three innings, you lose?
If I did add the above rule then: If there is more than one "single ball color" on the table, players choice which one to nominate. If there is only one "single ball color" on the table, you must play that color.
I haven't decided whether to employ this rule or not though. I would like to have some strategic safety play opportunities, but I don't want it to become just as hard as 15 ball rotation.
edit: decided not to add this rule.
If I add this rule, I would say it would have to be not applicable on the first shot after the break.
Last edited:
Actually I never liked that about 9 or 10 ball either
I could tell. :grin:
Remember though, you have multiple pairs to choose from. You may find it easier than you think to find two or three pairs that you can eliminate, clearing space to make subsequent pairs easier.
One thing to keep track of over multiple innings, I hate that kind of stuff. But good input none the less. And it makes me realize that I need to address whether the three foul rule should be used.
edit: no "three foul" rule
Fatz
Last edited:
Rules now in first post.
Last edited: