Winner Break, Loser Break, Alternating Break...

[ElCorazonFrio]

All of the formats for breaking have problems.

Winner break leaves a potential for very large packages being put up, effectively freezing out an opponent.

Loser break is so messed up that I don't think it is used outside of small bar tourneys.

Alternating break doesn't allow for any packages. Is relatively fair, but doesn't allow people to get on a roll and have chances to create larger leads.

So, a thought came to me...and it would only work for longer races (probably to 7, minimum).

Why not have the breaks be set up like the serve in tennis? Have the break alternate in groups of a few breaks (or several, depending on the race). It doesn't allow for huge packages, but will allow for larger leads and a bit of putting your opponent on the cooler.

Say in a race-to-seven, the winner of the lag beaks games 1-3, 7-9, and 13, his opponent would break 4-6 and 10-12.

This way there would be a definite knowledge that each person will see the table, even in relatively short races. There is also the pressure of making one's breaks count and of trying to steal a rack.

I haven't heard of this ever happening, maybe it has...if so, did it work well? Any negatives I haven't thought of?

 

[Cameron Smith]

On the euro tour years back they allowed for a player to break three (I think) consecutive times before passing the break to the other player.

I don't remember if they kept the break whether they lost the last game or not. I have a sneaking suspicion that they did, because I remember objecting to the idea. Someone gets on the hill and is essentially given three chances to close out the match.

But no one is watching anyways, so might as well make all races to 20 and winner breaks. No one is going to run 20 racks of 10 ball, so each player should have equal opportunities to play.

 

[King T]

You make a good point,

I watched the USBT Open and I thought the same thing, just make it a race to 13 or 14 and let the packages begin.

 

[JAMSGOLF]

ElCorazonFrio - not that I'm adding anything more than my support, but I will add that at least. I actually do like that setup. It allows for smaller packages if both players are on their game and doesn't allow for a shutout from the lag. I really like that idea!

 

[JAMSGOLF]

...plus I'd know I'd personally get at least three chances to break!!!

 

[MitchAlsup]

I still don't see why one should give up an inning when he has not missed or fouled.

The fact one can put a long package together means that he has the better game (at least that night).

There are historical 14.1 games that were lost on the lag.

 

[pt109]

I still don't see why one should give up an inning when he has not missed or fouled.

The fact one can put a long package together means that he has the better game (at least that night).

There are historical 14.1 games that were lost on the lag.

I agree with this post.
Alternate breaks cater to "everyone wins a prize" thinking.....
...the elite tournaments should not cater to mediocrity.

Can you imagine Ronnie the Rocket having a 30 cap put on his snooker runs?

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

I still don't see why one should give up an inning when he has not missed or fouled.

The fact one can put a long package together means that he has the better game (at least that night).

There are historical 14.1 games that were lost on the lag.

The same argument could be used in other sports that do use the format. Tennis, Volleyball, table tennis, etc..

I would say that those sports need it much less than pool does because the non-serving player gets an opportunity at the ball.

You say that the person who runs a set is the better player that day? How do we know this? If a guy breaks and runs seven off the first break, what have we seen of his opponent's game?

Pool/snooker are the only sports or games I can think of which can be won outright without both participants getting an opportunity to actually play.

That might be part of the waning success of pool.

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

Can you imagine Ronnie the Rocket having a 30 cap put on his snooker runs?

Maybe if they did it would make it more interesting to watch. Maybe you'd see Ronni make his 30th and pull a wicked snooker, causing his opponent to go negative. That might actually be fun to watch. Better than red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-yellow-green-brown-blue-pink-black.

It would actually add another element to the game.

 

[Cameron Smith]

Maybe if they did it would make it more interesting to watch. Maybe you'd see Ronni make his 30th and pull a wicked snooker, causing his opponent to go negative. That might actually be fun to watch. Better than red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-red-black-yellow-green-brown-blue-pink-black.

It would actually add another element to the game.

That would artificially level the playing field. The big difference between the top players and the middle to lower ranked pros is the frequency of 50+ breaks and more importantly, 70+ breaks (along with quality of safety play of course). Limit them to 30 breaks and you get contrived upsets. Top players would still be favored but not as heavily. Same issue as alternate breaks in pool IMO.

 

[pt109]

Pool/snooker are the only sports or games I can think of which can be won outright without both participants getting an opportunity to actually play.

/QUOTE]

I wouldn't watch a boxing if they had to trade punches.......
....Tyson might not have won so many fights.

Pool is more like boxing, you fight your opponent....you don't have to feel guilty about
playing well, it's not like you're taking his turn or something.

I guess you don't approve of Willie's 526....his opponent did a lot of sitting....

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

Pool/snooker are the only sports or games I can think of which can be won outright without both participants getting an opportunity to actually play.

/QUOTE]

I wouldn't watch a boxing if they had to trade punches.......
....Tyson might not have won so many fights.

Soooooo not the same thing. Every person who got in the ring with Tyson had full use of their hands.

If you really think they are equivalent, I can't debate with you. Argue it on it's own merits instead of trying to compare it to things that are not relevant.

I never said what I did or didn't approve of. I think Earl's million dollar performance was an incredible feat. Mosconi's was also.

I find it funny that I started a thread which was obviously about races in short rotation games and people start bringing straight pool and snooker into it.

I also didn't say that I think it was the best idea ever, I said it was an idea. I laid out why I thought it would make it interesting to me...someone who finds break-and-run fests boring.

So many people here say that long races are the way to show the better player. I agree, but it is only because I've never heard of anyone running out a race much longer than 10. If two of the best play a race to 20, each of them will get at least one turn at the table. I believe this format would emulate that on a shorter race format.

 

[gerard soriano]

I agree with this post.
Alternate breaks cater to "everyone wins a prize" thinking.....
...the elite tournaments should not cater to mediocrity.

Can you imagine Ronnie the Rocket having a 30 cap put on his snooker runs?

I agree with both
The reason they came up with alternate break is to get more dead money in to tournaments so everyone thinks they have a fighting chance
Did you ever think you would see the day that your reward for winning a game would be to see your appone racking for HIMSELF ?

 

[macguy]

All of the formats for breaking have problems.

Winner break leaves a potential for very large packages being put up, effectively freezing out an opponent.

Loser break is so messed up that I don't think it is used outside of small bar tourneys.

Alternating break doesn't allow for any packages. Is relatively fair, but doesn't allow people to get on a roll and have chances to create larger leads.

So, a thought came to me...and it would only work for longer races (probably to 7, minimum).

Why not have the breaks be set up like the serve in tennis? Have the break alternate in groups of a few breaks (or several, depending on the race). It doesn't allow for huge packages, but will allow for larger leads and a bit of putting your opponent on the cooler.

Say in a race-to-seven, the winner of the lag beaks games 1-3, 7-9, and 13, his opponent would break 4-6 and 10-12.

This way there would be a definite knowledge that each person will see the table, even in relatively short races. There is also the pressure of making one's breaks count and of trying to steal a rack.

I haven't heard of this ever happening, maybe it has...if so, did it work well? Any negatives I haven't thought of?

There really is no reason to play other then winner breaks. You can add rules like you can't win on the break making the 9 ball it just spots and you shoot. You can play win by two so there are no hill hill games but winner breaks is best.

Loser breaks is maybe the worst.

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

There really is no reason to play other then winner breaks. You can add rules like you can't win on the break making the 9 ball it just spots and you shoot. You can play win by two so there are no hill hill games but winner breaks is best.

Loser breaks is maybe the worst.

To say there is no reason is absolutely false. You may disagree with the reason, but I have told the reason, and I'll lay it out clearly:

In short races of 9 or 10 ball it is feasible that one opponent will never see the table after the lag. If you have two people who are capable of running out the entire set, that means that the best player may have come down to the lag. I think that is a pretty poor decider for a short match.

In order to combat that while still allowing for some packages I've offered one solution.

So I'll offer another possible solution. Say in a race to 7 each opponent is guaranteed one turn at the table. Maybe a better way for this to happen is to not allow a full run-out of the match. So, if the first player breaks and runs 6, his opponent will break the seventh game. Then, if the opponent breaks and runs 6, the final game will be broken by the original breaker. This still gives the original breaker a chance at having a perfect match (i.e. breaking and running 7 games in a race to 7) while also including his opponent in the match.

I think I actually like this one better. I can foresee situations where two great players are matched up and the first player puts down a 5-pack and on the sixth game deliberately plays a safe instead of running out as this would protect his lead while fulfilling the requirement that his opponent gets to play.

The idea behind this isn't to level the playing field, it is to make a more competitive playing field. I don't actually see this as being anything more than every other game on the planet has--a single chance for both players to be in the game. I wouldn't advocate this for very short races, either, five probably being the fewest.

I know it would make watching more interesting for me to know that each person will get to the table.

 

[Dockter]

All I know is I hate alternate break so to me anything is better but I still think winner breaks is the way to go. If someone goes on a streak and runs out a set so be it. But I also prefer longer races..

If you are racing to 5 or 7 I get why you need the alternate break but I still don't like it.

 

[Cameron Smith]

To say there is no reason is absolutely false. You may disagree with the reason, but I have told the reason, and I'll lay it out clearly:

In short races of 9 or 10 ball it is feasible that one opponent will never see the table after the lag. If you have two people who are capable of running out the entire set, that means that the best player may have come down to the lag. I think that is a pretty poor decider for a short match.

In order to combat that while still allowing for some packages I've offered one solution.

So I'll offer another possible solution. Say in a race to 7 each opponent is guaranteed one turn at the table. Maybe a better way for this to happen is to not allow a full run-out of the match. So, if the first player breaks and runs 6, his opponent will break the seventh game. Then, if the opponent breaks and runs 6, the final game will be broken by the original breaker. This still gives the original breaker a chance at having a perfect match (i.e. breaking and running 7 games in a race to 7) while also including his opponent in the match.

I think I actually like this one better. I can foresee situations where two great players are matched up and the first player puts down a 5-pack and on the sixth game deliberately plays a safe instead of running out as this would protect his lead while fulfilling the requirement that his opponent gets to play.

The idea behind this isn't to level the playing field, it is to make a more competitive playing field. I don't actually see this as being anything more than every other game on the planet has--a single chance for both players to be in the game. I wouldn't advocate this for very short races, either, five probably being the fewest.

I know it would make watching more interesting for me to know that each person will get to the table.

I like this better. Still, I've been watching pro pool for 10 years now and I have never seen a set run out live. I've come across two videos on YouTube of a set run out, one was an 8 ball match by Marcus Chamat and a 9 ball match sometime ago. I've heard of Mike Dechaine running 8 racks of 10 ball once and Shane running 7 and out at the Derby.

My point is that it's such a rare occurance but there is such concern over it. But I think your solution would likely satisfy most parties.

 

[Dockter]

How about if you get a set ran out on you then you get 1/2 your entry fee back and the player that ran the sets autograph?

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

All I know is I hate alternate break so to me anything is better but I still think winner breaks is the way to go. If someone goes on a streak and runs out a set so be it. But I also prefer longer races..

If you are racing to 5 or 7 I get why you need the alternate break but I still don't like it.

I don't like alternating break, either, even in a short race.

I don't know if you read my second idea, but I think it would work well to satisfy most problems with alternating break while allowing for basically all of the benefits of winner breaks...because as I wrote it, it is feasible that one player breaks and runs every one of his games in the match.

This would have no effect on most matches. If the first breaker doesn't run racks all the way to hill, his opponent can run the match out, as both players have been to the table. It would only affect a match if the first person runs to hill and even then it would be unlikely that it would keep him from winning.

As I said, if I were playing and I broke and ran five in a race to 7, I would very likely play a safe on the sixth rack because this would keep me solidly in control of the match. So, basically, this would be a big incentive to have some defense in the match. As a viewer, I would find this much more interesting than a 7-pack. Maybe I'm the only one who likes to see defense in 9-ball.

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

I like this better. Still, I've been watching pro pool for 10 years now and I have never seen a set run out live. I've come across two videos on YouTube of a set run out, one was an 8 ball match by Marcus Chamat and a 9 ball match sometime ago. I've heard of Mike Dechaine running 8 racks of 10 ball once and Shane running 7 and out at the Derby.

My point is that it's such a rare occurance but there is such concern over it. But I think your solution would likely satisfy most parties.

Probably a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, then. Thanks for reading and commenting.