I think he's referring to dominant players within the pro ranks - so compared to others playing on the same equipment.
Pool Myths Explained
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
I think he's referring to dominant players within the pro ranks - so compared to others playing on the same equipment.
Ron Swanson
Banned
What is your observation on humans that guess? :scratchhead:
Ron Swanson
Banned
Ron Swanson
Banned
Correct.
Maybe one of the physics geeks could explain why a player in top form gets fewer bad contacts than a player who is out of sorts?
Just a quick summary will suffice. No guesses allowed.
Yep, I know the argument will be made that as fans you notice it more as you're looking for it in this situation, but how many times have you seen a player who is struggling, cueing badly and seemingly not getting any luck, get two or three noticeable kicks in one session? I'd say it's a lot more than you see the same thing happen to a player in top form.
Ron Swanson
Banned
Perhaps the physics guys can explain luck whilst they're at it? No doubting it exists.
Yeah, that's why it's unlikely that this is the explanation. The most likely explanation is that this isn't happening at all. The second most likely is that dominant players use different spin or speed, or that they leave themselves lesser angle shots or something like thay, or maybe they hit with a more level stroke so the cue ball doesn't bounce in the air as much as it travels, etc.
It's still possible that it could be equipment. Not all tables or sets of balls are the same. TV tables play differently from other tables, for example. The top pros could get put on better tables, or have the cue ball cleaned more often than others, or something like that.
Last edited:
I think it's good when people recognize what is known and what is just conjecture. For example, you insist that dominant players get less kicks without presenting any statistical evidence for it. This is actually just a guess on your part.
Ron Swanson
Banned
No, I'm referencing Hendry and O'Sullivan, amongst many other top players and plundits.
I'll listen to their guesses all day long. These are the two greatest snooker players ever, by the way. They know something about monstering a ball. Other people, pethaps less so.
Yeah, good at snooker, but not good at physics or understanding statistical significance. That's the problem.
Like I said, wouldn't be the first time athletes and conventional wisdom get something wrong. Another example. In baseball, a lot of players and commentators think some pitchers have curves or sliders that "break late" meaning that they move mostly in a straight line and then drop down abruptly before reaching the plate. That doesn't actually happen, the ball moves in a smooth curve. The physics is pretty simple, and it's been verified by measuring ball movements scientifically rather than with the naked eye. The late break is an illusion.
The lesson is, trust the science.
Ron Swanson
Banned
And which scientists do you know who can make a maximum?
The late break may be an illusion but that is irrelevant to the batter walking from the field. It was pretty real to him.
Anyway, poor analogy. Hendry and O'Sullivan are shit hot at spotting kicks, you can be sure of that.
Spotting kicks, sure. Assessing the statistical significance of the number of kicks that top versus average pros get, not so much. A better analogy would be gamblers who think that craps tables get "hot" and "cold" because it feels that way to them.
You're right that the illusion of the late break makes a difference. So maybe the question we should be discussing isn't why do top pros get less kicks, but rather why do people believe that in the first place. And, more to the point, why do they believe that it's because of something mystical like a "pure stroke" rather than a conventional physics explanation like they use different spin.
Ron Swanson
Banned
It's not necessarily the top players, more players playing at the top of their game.
You are free to do as many scientific studies as you wish. You can do one on why players in form have good luck at the same time.
Play well and you'll get fewer kicks.
Play well and you get the rub of the green.
Prove me wrong.
Players in form don't have better luck. That's another myth. It's possible that getting lucky gives a psychological boost that results in better form, which is not the same thing.
"Prove me wrong."
Umm, it doesn't work that way. You're the one putting forward strange and implausible theories, the burden of proof is on you.
I rarely get kicks or skids. Pretty sure I can count the number of times on one hand I've had them in the 12 years I've been playing.
Which leads us to only two possible conclusions.
1. I play as good as Hendry
2. Your opinion on the subject is incorrect.
I'll let you decide which of those is more plausible.
luck is a skill.... the more they practice the luckier they become.
Players in form do "real eyes" that consistent luck is a skill.... the more they practice the luckier they become.
Players in form do "real eyes" that consistent luck is a skill.... the more they practice the luckier they become.
I wish we could delete the last few useless pages of this thread and replace them with your quoted statement. Then we could wait for a plausible theory (if there is one) to explain the untested and unfounded anecdotal claims. And in the meantime, meaningful discussion concerning other myths could take place.
In other words, good post!
Regards,
Dave
People can't handle the truth."Should have gone with my gut"or "my first thought was the right choice". These are myths and excuses.
Truth is, the shot was missed because you didn't execute it properly. If you would have committed fully and made the shot the words would have never been said.
Truth is, the shot was missed because you didn't execute it properly. If you would have committed fully and made the shot the words would have never been said.
The proof is clear -- Earl has been getting the vast majority of the bad rolls in his matches for 40 years.