Shane makes it look that way and a few other players can do the same... YMMV tho and the ones thinking this way likely need to spend their time working on the break and their run out skills instead of spending that time whining....
Pool Myths Explained
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
In each format, they play 21 racks (potentially, unless someone gets to 11 early), and the lag winner breaks 11 times out of those 21. Winner break versus alternate breaks only changes the order the racks are played.
Of course, if one guy gets to 11 before 21 racks are played, then they don't play the rest of the racks because the outcome of the match won't change. So in your 11-1 example, all of the unplayed racks would belong to the loser's break. But there's no point in playing them, because the loser can only get to 10 even if he wins them all.
In order to win, in either format, if you win the lag you have to win either 11 on your on break, or 10 on your break and 1 on the other guy's, or 9 and 2, or 8 and 3 and so on. Winner or alternate breaks, same deal.
As for your second example. If player 1 is up 10-5, in winner breaks, that means that he has already had either 10 or 11 breaks, depending on who won the lag. If player 2 is breaking, that means that the 6 remaining breaks belong to player 2, so it will come out to 11 breaks for the lag winner and 10 for the other guy if it goes the distance. Again, if player 2 loses one of these last 6 games, they don't play the rest of it it out, because it would be pointless, the winner is already determined.
In alternating breaks, at 10-5, with player 2 breaking, player 1 has had 8 breaks and player 2 7 so far. They alternate and again the lag winner gets 11 out of the 21 potential breaks, but again all the games might not be played out.
Being up 10-5 in winner breaks is a different thing than being up 10-5 in alternate breaks. That's true. But winning a race to 11 (or any number) is mathematically the same either way.
I think we are in agreement then. My point was just that in a handicapped situation or at any point in the race where someone is down, they are depending on their opponent giving them at least one chance for each rack they are down. In winner breaks, one chance is enough no matter how far you are down.
I don't think saying "accelerating through the ball" would be considered a "myth". Yes, when the tip his the cueball, your cue will slow down (though not enough to notice) but the concept of following through applies to pretty much very single sport I can think of... boxing, baseball, soccer etc.
I agree.....pool is a war game....so is chess and boxing.
If your opponent doesn't affect your choice of shots, how can you know
what a winning shot is?
I try to play the last thing my opponent wants to see.
Yeah, we agree. It makes a difference when giving games on the wire. And it is definitely easier to come back from behind in winner breaks. It just doesn't change the outcome of an even race starting from 0-0.
Personally I like watching and playing winner breaks better. Partly because the "it's never over" thing, and also the excitement of stringing racks (that's mostly watching for me lol).
The myth I was referring to is when you hear people or TV commentators say stuff like "the lag is extra-important in this format" or "with this format, winning your break is extra important" or "alternate breaks give weaker players more of a chance" and so on.
The mathematical difference is when the rest of the racks aren't played though. If you play someone a race to 7 and they break and run 7 racks, you don't get to break at all. If it's alternate breaks you get to break every other rack.
But that makes no difference to the outcome of the match. In alternate brakes, if you win the lag and break and run every time you break, you will win the match 100% of the time, no matter what the other guy does on his break. The only thing that changes is the final score.
If you wanted, you could play it out to the full 13 racks, so after one guy runs 7 and is up 7-0, then the other guy gets to break 6 times, but it would just be a waste of time.
If you've never gotten a bad roll, I can only assume you play on perfect on near perfect tables. You know, not the kind found at a lot of busy bars pool room/action spots, bad slate seams, uneven cloth wear, talc & chalk buildup under the cloth especially along the edge of the rails, etc.
Dale
Myth: You can learn alot and improve faster by reading/following the AZ Billiards Forums.
Think that has everything to do with reading comprehension and choosing what to listen to or not LOL
But you and your opponent both played on the same table, so you both had the same chance of bad rolls because of bad equipment. The "win" stills comes down to 99% skill.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as willing to blame a loss on bad luck as the next guy. But I know it's just to appease my own ego.
Depends on what type of filter you use, 2" MERV 7, or 4" MERV 8
Bad or faulty equipment just adds another variable to the shot. If a player overlooks the variable then the undesirable outcome is his own fault.
I have played on tables that had a bad drift. I had a "hanger" to shoot but because of the layout of the other balls I needed to shoot the shot slow. Because of the drift I knew I could not shoot it slow and still execute the shot. I had 3 choices: 1- attempt the slow roll anyway and risk missing the ball completely, 2- shoot with speed, making the ball but missing cue ball position, 3- shoot a different shot.
This scenario has come up numerous times and I have found choosing the 3red option has offered more positive results.
Also, I stated rolls "for the most part" are a myth. Occasionally something flukish will happen. But it's just my opinion and the way I choose to approach the game. It helps me to stay positive and not get caught up in the biggest myth of all, "THE WRATH OF THE POOL GODS." If I believe I am losing because of mistakes I am making, I can overcome that. If I believe I am losing because "it's just not my day" or "the pool gods are frowning upon me" or "my opponent is just the luckiest guy on earth," then I can't overcome those factors.
This one is actually easy. Just play the videos in super slow motion, can be done on ay YouTube video, and see what happened. Compare the body motion before and after impact with the successful shots.
Of course some people are wired better for certain activities. Some people have better hand-eye coordination. But this doesn't mean that there is a "pool gene" and it doesn't mean that someone who isn't born with superior hand-eye coordination can't train themselves to have it and thus become good pool players.
I read The Talent Code, Talent is Overrated, and The Sports Gene.
Your mother was right. "Accomplished" is the perfect word to describe what Shane is. That's what 6-10 hours of practice/play per day can do. I've seen it with guitar players..."man, that kid's only been playing for two years, yet he's better than anyone I've seen who've played for decades"...what they miss is that fact that that "kid" was locked in his room with that guitar for many, many hours every day, totally absorbed in it, while the guy who's played for decades probably plays his guitar for a couple of hours a week.
I've played pool for over 30 years...but most of the total hours I've played were concentrated in the first 5 years. That's when I was at my best, playing 6 hours a day 7 days a week. Now I'm lucky to get 6 hours a week...and it shows. Am I less talented? nope. Less skilled? nope. Less intelligent? nope. Less accomplished? absolutely.
Not sure I agree. I think some folks have fantastic hand eye coordination, and this makes it easier for them to gain a higher level of skill. Of COURSE practice is absolutely needed, but natural skills help.