Proposed TAR - TOI VS NO AIMING SYSTEM

[jay helfert]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Efren was at my pool room when I was playing my best on the 10' table and wouldn't play me even. You can scoff at this all you want, I'm certainly not going to try to stop you, but the facts are the facts.

On a 10' table Efren would have had his hands full playing Earl or me one pocket. On a 9' table we would have needed 8/6, but that's a table you can squeeze someone to death.The way Shane plays right now Efren would NEVER have beaten him playing on a 10' table. Again, you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.
The fact is Efren was never that great off the end rail and his stroke wasn't exactly powerful....of course he could make up for it with his finesse and cue ball control, although on a 10' table that would NOT hold up under the gun.

I have plenty of people that were there, a whole room full as a matter of fact, Roger Griffis was going to go in with me,(Roger played Efren and beat him that night on a 9' table with 10/5) and Tommy Rae was putting up money as well to see me play Efren EVEN on the 10' table. At that time no one would consider playing me even 9 Ball on the 10' table either (one foul or two foul).

The Truth will set you free.

Those are your facts CJ, and I'm beginning to question them due to the liberties you have taken on here already. The REAL facts are, did you or Earl ever play Efren any One Pocket and how did it turn out if you did. An honest answer to that question I would consider a fact, not some idle speculation about a game that never happened!

Efren was no fool, he may have wanted a little time to practice on that table. All you've told us is that Roger Griffis (a damn good player) beat Efren getting 10-5, a huge spot! Efren wasn't unbeatable, he made some bad games from time to time because no one was interested in playing him even. I saw (and bet against) Efren when he played Toby in Vegas and tried to give him 9-6 on his table.

All I can tell you about your last post is that if I EVER saw Efren playing you or Earl even One Pocket any time up until the last few years, I would empty out betting on him! How's that for speculating?

 

[jay helfert]

Those are your facts CJ, and I'm beginning to question them due to the liberties you have taken on here already. The REAL facts are, did you or Earl ever play Efren any One Pocket and how did it turn out if you did. An honest answer to that question I would consider a fact, not some idle speculation about a game that never happened!

Efren was no fool, he may have wanted a little time to practice on that table. All you've told us is that Roger Griffis (a damn good player) beat Efren getting 10-5, a huge spot! Efren wasn't unbeatable, he made some bad games from time to time because no one was interested in playing him even. I saw (and bet against) Efren when he played Toby in Vegas and tried to give him 9-6 on his table.

All I can tell you about your last post is that if I EVER saw Efren playing you or Earl even One Pocket any time up until the last few years, I would empty out betting on him! How's that for speculating?

Look CJ, I know you beat Efren playing 9-Ball and that's a fact. You could have easily played him some One Pocket as well but you chose not to. And that's a fact too, isn't it? By the way did you ever chase Parica around the country and challenge him to play you some 9-Ball? You do know that he ROBBED Earl when they played, and it was right in your neighborhood. In fact he robbed EVERYONE who got on the table with him. His One Pocket game was one of the best kept secrets in pool as well. He was probably the second best player after Efren. But you know all that I'm sure.

 

[row21097]

This has been an entertaining thread and, while I don't believe either side of the game complexity arguments are relevant, I don't expect my observations will impair the ongoing conversation.

the limiting factor is not the game's (9 ball / one pocket) complexity, but the limited ability of the human mind to manage those complexities. Research I am familiar with (see George Miller's "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two" http://www.musanim.com/miller1956/) suggests that as the number of pieces of discrete information held in working memory approaches 7 (+- 2)
human judgement becomes overwhelmed.

In short both games offer the opportunity to"wreck" judgement.

Bert

 

[Ken_4fun]

Those are your facts CJ, and I'm beginning to question them due to the liberties you have taken on here already. The REAL facts are, did you or Earl ever play Efren any One Pocket and how did it turn out if you did. An honest answer to that question I would consider a fact, not some idle speculation about a game that never happened!

Efren was no fool, he may have wanted a little time to practice on that table. All you've told us is that Roger Griffis (a damn good player) beat Efren getting 10-5, a huge spot! Efren wasn't unbeatable, he made some bad games from time to time because no one was interested in playing him even. I saw (and bet against) Efren when he played Toby in Vegas and tried to give him 9-6 on his table.

All I can tell you about your last post is that if I EVER saw Efren playing you or Earl even One Pocket any time up until the last few years, I would empty out betting on him! How's that for speculating?

Jay -

Everyone in the world would too.

To even mention that Efren got beat while giving up a 10-5 spot is so silly, it isn't worth talking about.

Efren is the best player I have ever seen in my lifetime, and his thumping of Jason Miller at the finals (or semi finals) in a race to 3 in about 20 is the most amazing exhibition of pool maybe ever seen.

This whole conversation reminds me of the story about a youngster killing a bear with a switch...it really is just that silly.

Ken

 

[CJ Wiley]

I played both Efren and Jose One Pocket .

Look CJ, I know you beat Efren playing 9-Ball and that's a fact. You could have easily played him some One Pocket as well but you chose not to. And that's a fact too, isn't it? By the way did you ever chase Parica around the country and challenge him to play you some 9-Ball? You do know that he ROBBED Earl when they played, and it was right in your neighborhood. In fact he robbed EVERYONE who got on the table with him. His One Pocket game was one of the best kept secrets in pool as well. He was probably the second best player after Efren. But you know all that I'm sure.

Yes, I played both Efren and Jose One Pocket .... one pocket is far from my best game, but at one time Tommy Rae in Dallas taught me a thing or two with the help of "The Imperial Lizard". 'Their Game was My Teacher' (for awhile anyway)

 

[CJ Wiley]

Linguistic modality, covering expressions of how the world might be and should be,

This has been an entertaining thread and, while I don't believe either side of the game complexity arguments are relevant, I don't expect my observations will impair the ongoing conversation.

the limiting factor is not the game's (9 ball / one pocket) complexity, but the limited ability of the human mind to manage those complexities. Research I am familiar with (see George Miller's "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two" http://www.musanim.com/miller1956/) suggests that as the number of pieces of discrete information held in working memory approaches 7 (+- 2)
human judgement becomes overwhelmed.

In short both games offer the opportunity to"wreck" judgement.

Bert

That seems correct, Bert, although I understand it as you can only be consciously aware of 7 + or - 2 bits of information at the same time.......anything after that overwhelms the modalities*. In the context of "One Pocket" vs "Two Shot Shoot Out" we are actually dealing with two separate "worlds" on the pool table governed by someone's experience of their "world" and how they file and process information mentally.

* Linguistics

Modality (semiotics), the channel by which signs are transmitted (oral, gesture, written)
Linguistic modality, covering expressions of how the world might be and should be, including expressions of necessity, permissibility and probability, and negations of these - Semantic approaches dealing with modality are traditionally based on the principles of modal logic. Both work with the notion that propositions can be mapped to sets of possible worlds, that is, a proposition can be defined as the set of worlds in which that proposition is true. For example, the proposition ‘the earth is flat’ corresponds to the set of possible worlds in which the earth is in fact flat.
In this framework, modal expressions such as must and can are then analyzed as quantifiers over a set of possible worlds. This set of worlds is given by the modal base and is said to be the set of accessible worlds: For example, in sentence (2) above, the modal base is the knowledge the speaker has in the actual world. Therefore, the set of accessible worlds is defined by the information the speaker has about John. Assume for example that the speaker knows that John just bought a new luxury car and has rented a huge apartment. The speaker also knows that John is an honest person with a humble family background and doesn't play the lottery. The set of accessible worlds is then the set of worlds in which all these propositions which the speaker knows about John are true.
The notions of necessity and possibility are then defined along the following lines: A proposition p follows necessarily from the set of accessible worlds, if all accessible worlds are part of p (that is, if p is true in all of these worlds). Applied to the example in (2) this would mean that in all the worlds which are defined by the speaker's knowledge about John, it is the case that John earns a lot of money (assuming there is no other explanation for John's wealth).
In a similar way a proposition p is possible according to the set of accessible worlds (i.e. the modal base), if some of these worlds are part of p.
For further reading, see for example Kratzer 1991, Kaufmann et al. 2006 and Portner 2009.

 

[CJ Wiley]

One pocket, 9 Ball and Straight Pool on a 10' table is a much more difficult game

Jay -

Everyone in the world would too.

To even mention that Efren got beat while giving up a 10-5 spot is so silly, it isn't worth talking about.

Efren is the best player I have ever seen in my lifetime, and his thumping of Jason Miller at the finals (or semi finals) in a race to 3 in about 20 is the most amazing exhibition of pool maybe ever seen.

This whole conversation reminds me of the story about a youngster killing a bear with a switch...it really is just that silly.

Ken

Efren is, without a doubt the best all around pool player that ever lived. His best game is straight rail "balkline" billiards. When he combined his knowledge in billiards with his knowledge in rotation he created an unbeatable one pocket game.

One pocket, 9 Ball and Straight Pool on a 10' table is a much more difficult game because of the extra distance. You have to hit everything approximately 20% firmer and the shots are longer on the average - of course this is all common sense to the pocket billiard afishionado. 'The 10' Game is the Teacher'

 

[Rusty C]

Yes, indeed, Keith played 'Two Shot Shoot Out' as good as anyone and knew how to create two way shots in nearly all offensive situations. He also played One Pocket in much the same manner, and we've gambled at both games....I have nothing but the highest respect for Keith's game and his ability to win under pressure.

Here's the article from the link posted above by franko in case someone didn't see it.


Tough Rolls

By Keith McCready, InsidePOOL Columnist

The pool industry has weathered some tough rolls over the years. It has accomplished many successes, in many respects, upon entering the international arena as well as acquiring lucrative sponsors, and these endeavors are made possible by the personal contributions of hard-working folks who have a vision and want to take pool to a higher level. I have always wondered, though, how the two-shot/push-out rule from the early '70s changed to the o*ne-foul/ball-in-hand rule used in today's competitions. My guess at that time, it was because the people from the East Coast couldn't beat the people from the West Coast, so they had to change the rule.



For those who may not know what the two-shot/push-out rule is, it goes like this. At any time during the game, you can push the cue ball to anywhere o*n the table that you think you are able to make the shot and your opponent cannot. Your opponent then decides whether or not he wants to shoot this shot. Whoever takes the shot must make a legal hit o*n the object ball without scratching. A legal hit means you must hit the object ball with enough speed to allow the object ball to hit the rail or, if the cue ball hits the rail first and then makes contact with the object ball, the object ball must hit the rail. If no legal hit is executed, then the other player gets ball in hand.
Let me tell you a cute story. There was a high-paying tournament in Memphis, Tennessee, and all of the best "gunfighters" and stake-horses were in attendance. I was about 21 years old, a little green in some ways, but I was virtually unknown in these parts. By the end of the tournament, I already had my target, a local fellow by the name of St. Louis Louie Roberts. Needless to say, he was o*ne of the top players in the world at that time.
After some barking back and forth, the railbirds settled o*n their perches, and it didn't take long for the game to begin. We decided to play a 7-ahead set, meaning o*ne player had to win seven games ahead of the other. Now, Louie was rated as o*ne of the toughest 9-ball players in the world and I was real young and o*n the road, but I had no fear as I raced to the table to flip the coin.
Louie could cut a ball o*n a dime, but what he didn't know was that I was practicing the cut shots myself. So he could not roll out for these really hard cut shots, and if he did, I would either make the shot or leave him safe, instead of letting him shoot, which left him benched more times than not. At the conclusion of each set, Louie would politely excuse himself from the table for a few minutes and played it off as if he was going to wash his hands, and after a period of time, I started breaking him down o*n the strength of the two-shot/push-out rule. We ended up playing four sets of the 7-ahead game, and I won all four.

paragraph deleted ........

In the days of two-shot/push-out, it was harder to beat a good player like St. Louis Louie Roberts. The best player would be forced to out-shoot their opponent in order to win. There would be more offense with your defense. Now there is a lot more luck involved in the game of pool, which I can't stand. If the rules used back in the '70s were in force, I think my game could maybe shine all over again. The victory could, and would, not be won with lucky rolls, and it would force players use their pool-playing skills and God-given talent. The game would not rely o*n the luck factor as much, and we could transform the tournament trail back to where I think it should be: Two-shot/push-out, and let the best player win.

Visit InsidePOOL for the latest techniques from the world of billiards and pool.

For those who may not know what the two-shot/push-out rule is, it goes like this. At any time during the game, you can push the cue ball to anywhere o*n the table that you think you are able to make the shot and your opponent cannot. Your opponent then decides whether or not he wants to shoot this shot. Whoever takes the shot must make a legal hit o*n the object ball without scratching. A legal hit means you must hit the object ball with enough speed to allow the object ball to hit the rail or, if the cue ball hits the rail first and then makes contact with the object ball, the object ball must hit the rail. If no legal hit is executed, then the other player gets ball in hand.


Keith's a little off on his 2 foul rules,the only way you can get ball in hand,is the same player must commit 2 fouls in a row.

 

[CJ Wiley]

There's actually two different ways to play Two Shot Shoot Out

For those who may not know what the two-shot/push-out rule is, it goes like this. At any time during the game, you can push the cue ball to anywhere o*n the table that you think you are able to make the shot and your opponent cannot. Your opponent then decides whether or not he wants to shoot this shot. Whoever takes the shot must make a legal hit o*n the object ball without scratching. A legal hit means you must hit the object ball with enough speed to allow the object ball to hit the rail or, if the cue ball hits the rail first and then makes contact with the object ball, the object ball must hit the rail. If no legal hit is executed, then the other player gets ball in hand.


Keith's a little off on his 2 foul rules,the only way you can get ball in hand,is the same player must commit 2 fouls in a row.

There's actually two different ways to play Two Shot Shoot Out and that's "any two fouls," or "two fouls by the same player"......so you guys are BOTH right, the absolute best way is "two fouls by the same person," however you will get some "re roll outs" by the player that feels they are at a disadvantage shooting a particular type of shot ie: banks, cuts, certain long shots, etc.

For regular play I'd recommend "any two fouls" to keep the games from being too defensive, like one pocket.

 

[backplaying]

For those who may not know what the two-shot/push-out rule is, it goes like this. At any time during the game, you can push the cue ball to anywhere o*n the table that you think you are able to make the shot and your opponent cannot. Your opponent then decides whether or not he wants to shoot this shot. Whoever takes the shot must make a legal hit o*n the object ball without scratching. A legal hit means you must hit the object ball with enough speed to allow the object ball to hit the rail or, if the cue ball hits the rail first and then makes contact with the object ball, the object ball must hit the rail. If no legal hit is executed, then the other player gets ball in hand.


Keith's a little off on his 2 foul rules,the only way you can get ball in hand,is the same player must commit 2 fouls in a row.

I have played it two fouls by the same player, or any two fouls.

 

[backplaying]

There's actually two different ways to play Two Shot Shoot Out and that's "any two fouls," or "two fouls by the same player"......so you guys are BOTH right, the absolute best way is "two fouls by the same person," however you will get some "re roll outs" by the player that feels they are at a disadvantage shooting a particular type of shot ie: banks, cuts, certain long shots, etc.

For regular play I'd recommend "any two fouls" to keep the games from being too defensive, like one pocket.

I can tell you, being a good banker was a big advantage playing two foul on the bar boxes back then. You sure got to see some great shots back in the 2 shot days. Allen Hopkins was another great 2 shot roll out player.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

This has been an entertaining thread and, while I don't believe either side of the game complexity arguments are relevant, I don't expect my observations will impair the ongoing conversation.

the limiting factor is not the game's (9 ball / one pocket) complexity, but the limited ability of the human mind to manage those complexities. Research I am familiar with (see George Miller's "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two" http://www.musanim.com/miller1956/) suggests that as the number of pieces of discrete information held in working memory approaches 7 (+- 2)
human judgement becomes overwhelmed.

In short both games offer the opportunity to"wreck" judgement.

Bert

What do you think about the ability to manage 46 simultaneous games of blindfold chess in a 24-hour period (winning or drawing in all but two of them), which is the current world record? This feat requires forming a mental picture of each 64-square game board and all its pieces for every move that is made by either party.

Makes the complexities of any cue sport seem kinda tame, doesn't it?

BTW I failed to mention that the current record for simultaneous blind pool games is zero.

 

[ChopStick]

There's actually two different ways to play Two Shot Shoot Out and that's "any two fouls," or "two fouls by the same player"......so you guys are BOTH right, the absolute best way is "two fouls by the same person," however you will get some "re roll outs" by the player that feels they are at a disadvantage shooting a particular type of shot ie: banks, cuts, certain long shots, etc.

For regular play I'd recommend "any two fouls" to keep the games from being too defensive, like one pocket.

I don't know what "any two fouls" means. The only way I have played or seen played is two consecutive fouls by the same player. For example, a guy pushes out to a thin cut. I tell him to shoot again. He misses the entire ball or scratches. Ball in hand for me.

 

[Rusty C]

I have played it two fouls by the same player, or any two fouls.

No 2 fouls have to be commited by the same player in a row,or it defeats the whole purpose of playing the game that way.I'll give you an example,say your opponent rolls out,and you don't like the shot,but you don't want to give it back to him either,now you can pushout and give him the same option.

 

[CJ Wiley]

There's some amazing things in this world that no one can explain

What do you think about the ability to manage 46 simultaneous games of blindfold chess in a 24-hour period (winning or drawing in all but two of them), which is the current world record? This feat requires forming a mental picture of each 64-square game board and all its pieces for every move that is made by either party.

BTW I failed to mention that the current record for simultaneous blind pool games is zero.

Makes the complexities of any cue sport seem kinda tame, doesn't it?

"CTE Stan" said his father was a world class checkers player and he used to play other champion players without using a board, They'd just call out the moves and keep track of the whole board in their head.

I'm not saying this is more advanced than your example because it isn't, but it's still impressive. Come to find out checkers is a very challenging game at the highest level.

There's some amazing things in this world that no one can explain, here's an example - CLICK HERE

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

"CTE Stan" said his father was a world class checkers player and he used to play other champion players without using a board, They'd just call out the moves and keep track of the whole board in their head.

I'm not saying this is more advanced than your example because it isn't, but it's still impressive. Come to find out checkers is a very challenging game at the highest level.

I don't play checkers, but I know it's a very complex game at the highest level. There's a game called 10-square draughts which is played on a board that has 10 squares to a side, or 100 total squares vs. 64 on a regular board. This is orders of magnitude more complex than ordinary checkers. The late great Russian chess grandmaster Tigran Petrosian not only played the game but wrote extensively about it, so it must be a very serious game.

Personally, I think that pool is 90% mental at the highest levels. Players who can let go and trust the unconscious mind to guide the body will always have a big advantage over players who try to control everything using the conscious mind. As BeiberLvr mentioned in an earlier posts, much of this is innate and cannot be taught. Physical repetition and conditioning will only take you so far. Being a natural athlete and having great eyesight may be helpful, but the real inborn talent likely lies more in the way we are hardwired to perform the mental aspects of the game.

 

[SJDinPHX]

Dick, I don't suppose you have noted any similarities between CJ's Papal Infallibility with any other "ain't never wrong, beat everybody" poster we're familiar with?

Lou Figueroa

If you are referring to a certain gentleman from the "windy city", Lou ?.. I have already conceded in an earlier post, that
CJ can give that guy 8 to 5, and the break, when it comes to the "3 B's" !..He may be able to give up even more,..in the
"self promotion" dept. !

He is 'super fast' in that area !

 

[SJDinPHX]

I don't know what "any two fouls" means. The only way I have played or seen played is two consecutive fouls by the same player. For example, a guy pushes out to a thin cut. I tell him to shoot again. He misses the entire ball or scratches. Ball in hand for me.

Correction...I have NEVER, ever played 2 shot foul "ball in hand" ...It was ALWAYS ball in hand "in the kitchen only"!..If the lowest # ball was in the kitchen too, it spotted up !

PS,,Of course, I could be wrong !..I only played it that way, for the 50 yrs. prior to those stupid 'Texas Express' rules coming out !

 

[BeiberLvr]

Correction...I have NEVER, ever played 2 shot foul "ball in hand" ...It was ALWAYS ball in hand "in the kitchen only"!..If the lowest # ball was in the kitchen too, it spotted up !

PS,,Of course, I could be wrong !..I only played it that way, for the 50 yrs. prior to those stupid 'Texas Express' rules coming out !

That's how it should be, in the kitchen only with the lowest ball spotting up. Keep the one foul rules though. Now playing safe to get ball in hand would still be an advantageous strategy, but it would make running out just a little bit tougher.

Not to mention, if the OB is on the opposite end rail, it's still tough for even the top pros to play a lock up safety if they decide to pass on a bank.

 

[ChopStick]

Correction...I have NEVER, ever played 2 shot foul "ball in hand" ...It was ALWAYS ball in hand "in the kitchen only"!..If the lowest # ball was in the kitchen too, it spotted up !

PS,,Of course, I could be wrong !..I only played it that way, for the 50 yrs. prior to those stupid 'Texas Express' rules coming out !

I remember getting surprised when they explained the new Texas Express rules. I got ball in hand and walked to the kitchen and they said no, anywhere on the table. I never heard of such a thing in any pool game before.

Wow, I guess you have been playing for a pretty long time. So what was Thomas Jefferson like? Was he cool?