Full Time Push Out...

[TWOFORPOOL]

Full Time Push Out.

I made this statement in another thread a few months ago. For those that haven't played roll out I hope this helps your understanding of the game:

"When playing two foul 9 ball it is much harder to beat a world class player than one foul 9. Unintentional hooks are gone and the world class player rolls out to a shot that he can make 9 out of ten times while you can only make it 2 or 3 times out of 10. If you shoot the shot you will probably miss and he runs out. If you have the world class player shoot he will make it and run out. When this happens in a match the weaker players arm gets a little tighter and his speed starts to fade a just a little. Two or three roll outs in a raced to 11 will get the weaker player beat. At 60 years old I have played both ways and I'm telling you two foul 9 ball is a lot tougher game and it favors shot making and running out versus running a few balls and ducking."

It becomes clear very quickly when an "A" player plays a world class player. Playing winner break roll out the world class player has a big advantage.

Playing one foul alternate break takes too much power/control away from the world class player. This gives a weaker player a much better chance to win since the world class player cant run any packages. I have said for years that one foul alternate break is for all of the losers who want to play in a tournament. These losers wouldn't normally play in a roll out tournament because they know they can't win.

I have played in a lot of roll out tournaments 30 years ago knowing I couldn't win but I knew it would make me a better player. Today it's more about the money than getting better.

 

[Black-Balled]

I made this statement in another thread a few months ago. For those that haven't played roll out I hope this helps your understanding of the game:

"When playing two foul 9 ball it is much harder to beat a world class player than one foul 9. Unintentional hooks are gone and the world class player rolls out to a shot that he can make 9 out of ten times while you can only make it 2 or 3 times out of 10. If you shoot the shot you will probably miss and he runs out. If you have the world class player shoot he will make it and run out. When this happens in a match the weaker players arm gets a little tighter and his speed starts to fade a just a little. Two or three roll outs in a raced to 11 will get the weaker player beat. At 60 years old I have played both ways and I'm telling you two foul 9 ball is a lot tougher game and it favors shot making and running out versus running a few balls and ducking."

It becomes clear very quickly when an "A" player plays a world class player. Playing winner break roll out the world class player has a big advantage.

Playing one foul alternate break takes too much power/control away from the world class player. This gives a weaker player a much better chance to win since the world class player cant run any packages. I have said for years that one foul alternate break is for all of the losers who want to play in a tournament. These losers wouldn't normally play in a roll out tournament because they know they can't win.

I have played in a lot of roll out tournaments 30 years ago knowing I couldn't win but I knew it would make me a better player. Today it's more about the money than getting better.

Why would the large majority support a rule scenario that decreases the odds of of a random participant winning?

 

[TWOFORPOOL]

Why would the large majority support a rule scenario that decreases the odds of of a random participant winning?

Because this is a game of considerable skill. If the large majority want a random participant winning they should be playing bingo or some other game where luck is the primary factor of winning.

Changing the rules of a game of considerable skill ruins the game and the game becomes boring. There is nothing more boring than watching one foul alternate break.

 

[Mikjary]

The main sticking point in making open tournaments appealing to amateur players is that it lessens the quality of the play. Any activity, that allows unsanctioned amateurs to compete on an even level with bona fide pros, waters down the level of competition in its events.

While it's great to play against these pros, it should be on a even level where talent bears out the winner. There can be Pro Am events, but the rules should favor the better player.

I'd never expect to be able to put my best team together to play the Knicks or Yankees with a small entry fee. And if I did, I wouldn't ask for a handicap. I'd play to win and let the outcome be decided by talent alone.

Two foul helps to eliminate the underdog getting lucky. Strategy comes into play, but ability is showcased and promoted. No amount of moving will overcome a top player unless it's a very short race. They got that way from experience and pool school.

Best,
Mike

 

[Black-Balled]

Because this is a game of considerable skill. If the large majority want a random participant winning they should be playing bingo or some other game where luck is the primary factor of winning.

Changing the rules of a game of considerable skill ruins the game and the game becomes boring. There is nothing more boring than watching one foul alternate break.

I disagree. With the way pool is- requiring many participants' entry fees to fun prizes- changing things to make the circumstances benefit the best is shooting the game in its proverbial foot.

The better players already play better.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Who has advantage and who wins is neither here nor there. We are talking about making the game more interesting to play and watch. IMO, that is what is important.

 

[HawaiianEye]

Playing 2-Foul allows a player to observe their opponents "strengths" and "weaknesses" and use them to their advantage that 1-Foul doesn't allow. For example:

1) In 1-Foul, I may have to kick at a ball you left me and no matter what I do if I hit the ball it will give you a somewhat "good" shot or if I miss it will give you BIH In 2-Foul, I can push to a spot that will leave you in "worse" position than what I would have given you if I had shot the kick and hit it. My advantage here is that I ALREADY know what I am going to do if you give the shot back to me before I even shoot the first shot. You, on the other hand, have no idea what I am going to do before I do it. Therefore, you have to then think of what you are going to do, then figure your odds, then shoot or pass it back to me

2) After playing a short while, I may notice you have a fat gut and can't reach over the table in a certain way...I am going to make sure I leave you this shot every time I get the chance if I push out. I will make you and the bridge become very acquainted. If you are left handed, I will make sure I push to shot that give the advantage to right handers.

3) If I see you can't bank, I will push to banks. If I see you can't draw the ball as far as me, I will leave you 8-foot straight-in draws shots that you will have to shoot for position on the next ball. If I see you can't shoot over balls, guess what shot I'm going to leave you.

And if my memory serves me correctly, there are spot shots that come into play where you have to shoot behind the head string. I may scratch intentionally in order to leave a spot shot or to tie up balls. The game is TOTALLY different than 1-Foul when it comes to strategies and who is the "smarter" player.

 

[CJ Wiley]

The game is TOTALLY different than 1-Foul when it comes to strategies and knowledge

The "spot shot" you mentioned should be a big part of the game and it's been eliminated for the most part. So has the "who's smartest" battle you spoke of.

This is the battle that's so essential in pool, without the mental, strategic battle the game may as well be pinball. After playing someone for a few hours you will know how they figure percentages, and what their actual skill and knowledge levels are.

This isn't apparent in "one foul ball in hand," which is basically just a run out game (with some kicks/ducks/racks/safes/), and depends mainly on the players breaking and racking abilities.

When someone can't make banks they are at a disadvantage, but instead of buying a special cue they actually have to practice and improve their banking. Top Pros can beat most players in the country playing "one foul" without ever making a bank...we don't have to.

Playing 2-Foul allows a player to observe their opponents "strengths" and "weaknesses" and use them to their advantage that 1-Foul doesn't allow. For example:

1) In 1-Foul, I may have to kick at a ball you left me and no matter what I do if I hit the ball it will give you a somewhat "good" shot or if I miss it will give you BIH In 2-Foul, I can push to a spot that will leave you in "worse" position than what I would have given you if I had shot the kick and hit it. My advantage here is that I ALREADY know what I am going to do if you give the shot back to me before I even shoot the first shot. You, on the other hand, have no idea what I am going to do before I do it. Therefore, you have to then think of what you are going to do, then figure your odds, then shoot or pass it back to me

2) After playing a short while, I may notice you have a fat gut and can't reach over the table in a certain way...I am going to make sure I leave you this shot every time I get the chance if I push out. I will make you and the bridge become very acquainted. If you are left handed, I will make sure I push to shot that give the advantage to right handers.

3) If I see you can't bank, I will push to banks. If I see you can't draw the ball as far as me, I will leave you 8-foot straight-in draws shots that you will have to shoot for position on the next ball. If I see you can't shoot over balls, guess what shot I'm going to leave you.

And if my memory serves me correctly, there are spot shots that come into play where you have to shoot behind the head string. I may scratch intentionally in order to leave a spot shot or to tie up balls. The game is TOTALLY different than 1-Foul when it comes to strategies and who is the "smarter" player.

 

[Mikjary]

Who has advantage and who wins is neither here nor there. We are talking about making the game more interesting to play and watch. IMO, that is what is important.

The result to get to that win is everything to do with the discussion. It comes down to the level of play when a choice is made by the viewer to decide which event to watch.

I've attended many amateur and semi-pro activities as a fan or participant. Unless I have a personal reason to be there, I'll most likely go to the MLB or NFL game instead. I may even get inspired at that level of play and try to apply what I've witnessed to my own experience.

Until professionals are recognized and the rules are standardized, pool will be unknown to the general public. Two shot foul adds a strategy other than ducking and not showing any true offensive speed. Tough shots are like the home run and long TD pass play. That's what people get up out of their seats to see and applaud. That's interesting and gets the heart rate up! :grin:

Best,
Mike

 

[HawaiianEye]

without the mental, strategic battle the game may as well be pinball.

You and I are on the same page. I have called it pinball and pachinko ever since they first started playing it. It is EXACTLY like that now.

I can watch it and almost predict EVERY shot before they shoot it because their "options" have become so LIMITED. Break, shoot a duck or hide, kick, BIH, shoot a duck, rack, break, shoot a duck...etc...etc...etc. You ALMOST NEVER see anybody go for what I would consider a HARD or RISKY shot for fear of giving up BIH. There is NO "Hail Mary", NO "go for broke" shots...it is the SOS, over and over, and over and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...............

 

[Mikjary]

The "spot shot" you mentioned should be a big part of the game and it's been eliminated for the most part. So has the "who's smartest" battle you spoke of.

This is the battle that's so essential in pool, without the mental, strategic battle the game may as well be pinball. After playing someone for a few hours you will know how they figure percentages, and what their actual skill and knowledge levels are.

This isn't apparent in "one foul ball in hand," which is basically just a run out game (with some kicks/ducks/racks/safes/), and depends mainly on the players breaking and racking abilities.

When someone can't make banks they are at a disadvantage, but instead of buying a special cue they actually have to practice and improve their banking. Top Pros can beat most players in the country playing "one foul" without ever making a bank...we don't have to.

When I play I don't have to have a draw stroke with the fast cloth. It comes up so randomly, I hardly practice it. You can get the cue ball moving backwards with minimum effort. Over-drawing is more of a problem.

I played a bunch of banks years ago and like the game. I played a guy 9 ball a couple of months ago and he said I was a good banker. My reply was, "How would you know?", since he ducked every time he had to come with it. :smile: I don't think he comprende'ed my line of thought as he kept dodging the rest of the session.

Best,
Mike

 

[CJ Wiley]

a version of Two Foul that will be great for TV

It's just randomly happened that "one foul" has brainwashed practically the entire pool world. Sometimes I feel like I'm in an episode of 'The Twighlight Zone' - where the aliens snuck to earth and removed all the best parts of pool and no one even noticed.

So far, the few that have commented about "2 Foul," that understand the pertinent strategic information is HawaiianEye and Mikjary.....thanks, I really appreciate it when I can instantly tell the knowledge is advanced. Faking "Two Foul" knowledge is impossible when talking to seasoned gamblers/players.

I have developed a version of Two Foul that will be great for TV and the action on this game will be intense.......and it can also be learned in a few minutes with regular balls.

You and I are on the same page. I have called it pinball and pachinko ever since they first started playing it. It is EXACTLY like that now.

I can watch it and almost predict EVERY shot before they shoot it because their "options" have become so LIMITED. Break, shoot a duck or hide, kick, BIH, shoot a duck, rack, break, shoot a duck...etc...etc...etc. You ALMOST NEVER see anybody go for what I would consider a HARD or RISKY shot for fear of giving up BIH. There is NO "Hail Mary", NO "go for broke" shots...it is the SOS, over and over, and over and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...............

 

[Old Nine Baller]

Can you believe how many people don't know the deep levels of "Two Foul"?

...the 2 Foul rules take 10 times more knowledge than "one foul".....and I'm being conservative.

What are those shortstops thinking? All so-called "top players" don't agree that 1 foul is inferior for the better player. Much like you constantly do, this guy makes up reasons to legitimize his opinions and then ends up fully believing this garbage.

ONB

I feel that Texas Express rules favor the better player by far. Much more demanding game in terms of not only playing the cue ball but also using discretion on safeties (when to and not to play them)Plus there are many more difficult shots that need to be executed playing one foul. Not to mention the added pressure in performing. T.E. puts more pressure on the players because ...innings at the table are more crucial. In "push out" you can afford to make cue ball errors, unlike T.E. However, "push out" favors the better shot maker and banker because you can take more chances with your offense while lessening the risk with cue ball errors. Just my opinion.

To me there is a clear advantage for the better player playing Tex express as opposed to roll out. I played Richie Ambrose roll out in Las Vegas in the 70's and and narrowly beat him. I was the better player but the roll out rule allowed him to push out for his favorite shot (a spin cut length of the table shot) which he executed as well as anyone. After watching him cut this shot in with great consistency I decided to take the push out and either play safe off of it or spin it in myself. I had to develop an understanding of how to defend myself in situations like the one I just described playing roll out, but playing one foul Tex Exp there was no favorite shot that a player could design if he got in trouble, he had to play what he earned and that was that. I later played Richie in his home pool room in Det. "Mr 9 Ball" we played Tex Exp and I beat him easily. The same thing happened when I played Doug Smith in Tex about 7 years ago, except he beat me playing roll out. We switched the game to Tex Exp and I beat him easily because I was a better player (all around) and by playing Tex Exp I took away the bank shot that he kept pushing out for after he played himself out of line.

Roll out allows a player to get a second chance when he commits an error in position play, and to me that's not favoring the better player. Plus there is much more pressure playing Tex Exp when players realize that they don't have another chance if they error with playing position. I've always understood when playing all sports that when you commit an error there is always a consequent for committing the error, However, in roll out you simply roll out to your pet shot.

Better players kick better than other players and play safeties better than other players, both which require a certain skill to execute. Playing roll out neither kicking or safety play is as beneficial to the better player playing roll out, simply because his opponent will just roll out to his pet shot as opposed to having to kick or play a low percentage shot that his opponent has earned through his ability with the execution of the defensive shot.

 

[Old Nine Baller]

Faster is not necessarily better, and in pool's case it's worse, because it dilutes the best qualities of the game. "Running out" is actually one of the easiest (and most boring) parts of the game, especially on Simonis Cloth, with a magic rack, jump cue and "practice cue ball". You don't even need much of a stroke to play world class level these days, the games about not making mistakes, what could be less exciting?

Play the ghost? You realize this means no defense, which is a vital quality in sports.

How would you like to watch football with no defense?

How about baseball with no defense?

How about basketball with no defense?

How about tennis with no defense?

Hockey with no defense?

Soccor with no defense?

Boxing with no defense?

Why do people think pool's the exception to every rule used by other sports?

It will always remain a mystery.

This is an exceptionally well reasoned and well presented post.

Actually, if you take the time to read & understand what he wrote you would realize it's one of the dumbest posts you've ever seen.

Football with no defense? What does that even mean? The 1st team to get the ball on the kickoff must be allowed to run it back for a TD?

Baseball with no defense? Baseball is the only game where the defense holds the ball. If there were no defense there would be no baseball.

Basketball with no defense? Whoever wins the tip-off is allowed to go down and score and then the other team can go down and score. The team that wins the tip-off will always win the game so why play?

Tennis with no defense? I see a player hitting aces and then sitting down while his opponent hits aces.

Hockey with no defense? How would the seconds after the initial puck drop go? Toronto wins the faceoff and the other team must go sit down until they score?

No point in even mentioning Boxing without defense.

Please don't write to me that I proved his point, he made no point. He just posted gibberish, as usual, and he fooled someone, as usual.

ONB

 

[HawaiianEye]

Let's take almost ALL the luck of of the game then. Let's play it like "beginner bangers" where you have to call EVERYTHING! Kisses, banks, safeties, next shot and pocket, etc.

I'd love to play this way. Call ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! Call your ball, call your pocket, call if it will kiss another ball on the way in, call your position on the NEXT ball and pocket and you MUST shoot it at that same pocket even if you can't see it.

Nobody wants to play this way, but I have NO PROBLEM with it. Ask people to play this way and they look at you like you're crazy. Yet, they will jump on a table and luck out safeties, miss pockets and luck the ball in another pocket, miss a ball and their position and then accidentally hook you and think they are playing good pool.

 

[CJ Wiley]

Billy hates 2 Foul, I already knew that. I gave him the 6 Ball playing one foul and got him 17 games loser, he would have absolutely no chance playing me 2 Foul Rules. Even Doug Smith beat him playing 2 Foul and Doug wasn't near the player he used to be.

What are those shortstops thinking? All so-called "top players" don't agree that 1 foul is inferior for the better player. Much like you constantly do, this guy makes up reasons to legitimize his opinions and then ends up fully believing this garbage.

ONB

 

[CJ Wiley]

Yes, they should have always had some kind of call pocket rule in place. Lucking in shots is really bad for the game's overall integrity.

Let's take almost ALL the luck of of the game then. Let's play it like "beginner bangers" where you have to call EVERYTHING! Kisses, banks, safeties, next shot and pocket, etc.

I'd love to play this way. Call ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! Call your ball, call your pocket, call if it will kiss another ball on the way in, call your position on the NEXT ball and pocket and you MUST shoot it at that same pocket even if you can't see it.

Nobody wants to play this way, but I have NO PROBLEM with it. Ask people to play this way and they look at you like you're crazy. Yet, they will jump on a table and luck out safeties, miss pockets and luck the ball in another pocket, miss a ball and their position and then accidentally hook you and think they are playing good pool.

 

[one stroke]

Billy hates 2 Foul, I already knew that. I gave him the 6 Ball playing one foul and got him 17 games loser, he would have absolutely no chance playing me 2 Foul Rules. Even Doug Smith beat him playing 2 Foul and Doug wasn't near the player he used to be.

That sword cuts both way , the people who hate 1 foul are the ones who lack in kicking ability and safety play


1

 

[CJ Wiley]

That's not true at all, everyone hates one foul, they just don't "real eyes" it yet.

That sword cuts both way , the people who hate 1 foul are the ones who lack in kicking ability and safety play


1

 

[HawaiianEye]

That sword cuts both way , the people who hate 1 foul are the ones who lack in kicking ability and safety play


1

I see it totally the OPPOSITE!

People who hate 2-Foul don't have enough creative thinking or guts to play the game at the highest possible offensive manner.

It reminds me of the old-school way of one pocket. Everybody went for the "cinches", played safe, then waited for another "cinch" shot. The new breed of players started going for the 8 and outs. That is what made one pocket more popular.

It is the opposite in 9 ball now. Everybody wants to make the "cinches", play safe, and wait for another "cinch". NOBODY goes for the outs if there is a hint of a possibility of screwing up. They keep it "cinches". That is what makes it so boring.

2-Foul gives the players MORE opportunity for CREATIVE shots that make the game more exciting.