Darren Appleton's comments on 9 on spot/ cue ball fouls/ pattern racking

[Cornerman]

I read his original comment that he says has now been deleted, and I did think it sounded a bit like just complaining. But he does make some good points.

I just wonder about the 9 on the break. That seems to be the focus of his criticism. Is it really that common? Do we have stats on how common it was at the Derby 9-ball? I saw a couple, but it couldn't have been more than about 1/20 games. The fans love it when the 9-ball goes on the break. If it's only happening less than, say, 1/10 times, I don't have a problem with it, as a fan.

What I do know is that every time I saw it happen by a major player (Shane, Alex, Ko), the player apologized. Even on the stream where Alex made the 9-ball on the break, and then afterwards, made sure that Shane had an opportunity to check the rack. Or was it the other way around?

I blame Joe Tucker (just kidding, I really like Joe), but now that everyone knows the "racking secrets," then Joe has highlighted something in 9-ball that does need fixing.

Freddie <~~~ thinks 1 in 10 is huge for a race to 9

 

[Corwyn_8]

If you want to tell people to do the math, ya might wanna check it yourself before doing so.
It's easy to mix up 90 and 95%.

But glad you ran the math. Let's see it.

gr. Dave

Did the math. Can't type.

Thank you kindly.

 

[BJTyler747]

Glad you ran the math. Let's see it.

Thank you kindly.

Although you made the original claim, I have to show my work??? I believe Hitchen's razor applies here.

but...if you aren't able to prove your case, please let me know and I'll be happy to post it.

 

[spartan]

There's the "wrong ball first foul" rule which makes players want the one in front. Of course that could be suspended for the break shot. The problem with "random" is that some players assume this means "where I want them".

I tot in 9ball and 10ball, the one ball must always be at the top apex (by hook or by crook) and cannot be anywhere like the 9ball or 10 ball which always has to be in centre

 

[CreeDo]

There are many non-mathematical elements that can factor into this -including psychology. But from a strictly mathematical point of view, under most realistic assumptions (including simple models of momentum), alternate vs. winner break has no impact on the probability of the better player winning.

It does, however, impact the average winning margins. This -I think- leads people to believe it plays a bigger role than it does.

Unlike pattern racking, placement of the nine, break box, and gaps, I think alternate vs. winner break is basically a non-issue.

However, the one thing winner break does is that it allows for big leads & big comebacks....this can and does add tremendous drama to the sport.

I like stats so I asked a math forum if it's possible to calculate the effect mathematically.

It's tough because if one player is CLEARLY better then the format doesn't matter. But if they're only a little better, it's hard to even be sure who is supposed to win, therefore it's hard to say how the format affected the outcome.

I suspect that winner breaks slightly favors the underdog.

Basically, if a package happens at the end of the match, then one player can win before the other player has a fair opportunity to balance things out with his own skilled shooting. The skill is there but the opportunity was removed.

Whereas if the exact same package happened at the beginning of the match, the other player gets that opportunity.

Since it's pretty much randomness/luck that determines whether a package happens at the start or end of the match, that would indicate to me that winner breaks is a 'luckier' format, and luckier formats favor the weaker player.

 

[BeiberLvr]

It is Mathematics.

It is apparently macho to think winner breaks is better for the better player, or the game itself. I have no idea why; Football isn't played scorer receives.

Thank you kindly.

The better player will break better. The better player will create more opportunites to win and get the break.

It's really simple to follow

 

[Bill S]

And because the players can't be bothered to speak

I've decided I'm gonna be the speaker and a player rep...

i want to make the game better.

Simple.

Darren

I generally agree with you Darren for most professional tournaments. The danger with an event like DCC is that by taking luck out of 9-Ball is that you may lose a big portion of the dead money players.

 

[dynamite]

I generally agree with you Darren for most professional tournaments. The danger with an event like DCC is that by taking luck out of 9-Ball is that you may lose a big portion of the dead money players.

not taking luck out of the game.. just changing the break that favors the top players massively .. this is the better fix for the game and all the players and sportsmanship..

it will clean up the game

 

[Philthepockets]

Pool
Loads of bad sportsmanship, dirty tables, different rules, different disciplines, players treated bad for most part, different tables, no practice tables, no players lounge, cloth, balls, break rules, no referees, fouls allowed some events not allowed others. No money no TV hardly, no structure, load of promoters, nobody working together, different organizations, different races every event, temperature change every few hours.. 90% of players broke costs them thousands out of pocket each year.

No viewers no spectators = no money and no sponsors.

Bang on summary IMO, should be the Wiki definition of Pool.

 

[BJTyler747]

Did the math. Can't type.

Thank you kindly.

Gonna have to call bs on that one.

 

[BJTyler747]

simple example/question

Ok...let's assume you're the world's greatest breaker. When you break you do not lose. And when you don't break you only win 50% of the time.

Would it matter whether it was winner break or alternate break?

 

[ceebee]

Ive spoken to greg and while not set in stone .. Good chance much needed changes will be made...

racking your own balls i like.. but not when the one ball is on the spot using a regular rack and 9ball flying in the pocket or staying very close to a pocket so the games finish in no time... and then you got the pattern racking.. And the good rackers mostly Professionals are great at racking balls to guarantee the wing ball this also hurts the Amateurs.

games moved on now and better than that.. and greg agrees and all the players i Privately spoke to including the likes of shane agreed .

9ball on the spot ,2 at the back and break box is the best rules for 9ball and best for amateurs also ,At the moment they're getting blown away by the current rules. with 9ball on the spot they will get more play. and more shocks for sure.

I Watched around 3 hrs of 9ball 2nd to last day i see around 20-30 9balls go in from the break and around 50-60 games at least finish with 1-9 2-9 3-9 combo.

Anyway i Tagged around 50 players in Private and all agreed we need changes and most want call shot also,But i don't think thats good for the Amateurs.

Plus this will benefit the game and USA going forward to international events and Mosconi Cup..


Darren

I too like the 1-Ball on the spot (maybe even a second spot, 1 inch in front of the regular spot (bye, bye wing ball, maybe Hello 1-Ball & that might slow down the 9-Ball on the Break), 2-Ball at the back . A scratch on the Break & the incoming player gets Ball In Hand, behind the line. NO PATTERN RACKING I also like using a template to rack with.. lots of wood or plastic racks are JUNK.

Divots in the Spot have to be repaired before competition play. Rack area must be brushed well, too.

Good Luck

 

[Dagwoodz]

not taking luck out of the game.. just changing the break that favors the top players massively .. this is the better fix for the game and all the players and sportsmanship..

it will clean up the game

The way I'm seeing this is not a rule change, it's a FORMAT change to who breaks when and how/where the balls are racked. The rules, outside of all ball fouls vs. cue ball fouls, remain unchanged.

Darren, aside from your support of MAN U :thumbup:, I generally agree with what you have to say. I think going to 9 on the spot, alt break, would be appropriate for WPA events. Regional events that get the occasional top tier player in them should keep the 1 on the spot to get more "dead money" in them, as that is one way for them to be able to compete with the better players.

Winner break format races, tournaments aren't going to go away. But larger tournaments, tours and the like should be standardized. Think of it as going from the amateur college baseball to professional baseball. College allows the metal bats. Once they go professional (A/AA/AAA/MLB) they have to use a wooden bat. Similar changes in College Football to the NFL. Only one foot inbounds in CFL, two in the NFL...hash marks closer together, etc. You see the same thing in Golf...going from your local tournament, to regional mini tours to national tours and to the PGA, the way the course is set up and the length of the course is completely different. A 7 handicapper on his home course would have a very difficult time shooting his normal 80-82 on a course set up like a PGA event. As you rise from local to regional to national and up, the game should become exponentially harder to weed out the weaker players and show who the best truly is.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I like stats so I asked a math forum if it's possible to calculate the effect mathematically. ..

In another thread (FargoRate) I posted how to set up a Markov process to calculate things like the advantage of who breaks. In order to run the process you need to know two numbers:
When player A breaks, what is the probability he will win?
When B breaks what is the probability he will win?

If the first plus the second is 100%, then it makes no difference who breaks. That's true even if A breaks all the time.

If the break is an advantage then the sum will be greater than 100% and conversely less than 100% if the break is a disadvantage.

I haven't run any hypothetical cases but I would guess that winner vs. alternate makes very little difference in the match probabilities for most reasonable percentages.

 

[BJTyler747]

In another thread (FargoRate) I posted how to set up a Markov process to calculate things like the advantage of who breaks. In order to run the process you need to know two numbers:
When player A breaks, what is the probability he will win?
When B breaks what is the probability he will win?

If the first plus the second is 100%, then it makes no difference who breaks. That's true even if A breaks all the time.

If the break is an advantage then the sum will be greater than 100% and conversely less than 100% if the break is a disadvantage.

I haven't run any hypothetical cases but I would guess that winner vs. alternate makes very little difference in the match probabilities for most reasonable percentages.

Bob...assuming a Markov process, I believe that even when the break is an advantage, alternate vs. winner break has no impact. There may be some non Markovian processes where this is not true, but I'm having difficulty constructing a realistic example of such a process.

Corwyn, in earlier post stated (along with some others) that alternate vs. winner breaks matters in determining the probability of the better player winning. I'm having trouble constructing the assumptions under which this is true.

 

[Bob Jewett]

In another thread (FargoRate) I posted how to set up a Markov process to calculate things like the advantage of who breaks. ...

And here it is: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5449939&postcount=144

 

[BRussell]

Ok...let's assume you're the world's greatest breaker. When you break you do not lose. And when you don't break you only win 50% of the time.

Would it matter whether it was winner break or alternate break?

To BJTyler’s point, I put some simple numbers together that hopefully will be clear. You have a 60% chance of winning the game when you break, and your opponent has a 50% chance of winning when he breaks. You play 3 games. Here are probabilities under different conditions:



Winner breaks, you win the lag:
You win 3 games = .6* .6 * .6 = .216
You win 2 games = (.6 * .6 * .4) + (.6 * .4 * .5) + (.4 * .5 * .6) = .144 + .12 + .12 = .384
You win 1 game = (.6 * .4 * .5) + (.4 * .5 * .4) + (.4 * .5 * .5) = .12 + .08 + .1 = .30
You win 0 games = .4 * .5 * .5 = .1

Overall chance you win 2/3 games or better to win the match: .216 + .384 = .60


Winner breaks, you lose the lag:
You win 3 games = .5 * .6 * .6 = .18
You win 2 games = (.5 * .6 * .4) + (.5 * .4 * .5) + (.5 * .5 * .6) = .12 + .1 + .15 = .37
You win 1 game = (.5 * .4 * .5) + (.5 * .5 * .4) + (.5 * .5 * .5) = .1 + .1 + .125 = .325
You win 0 games = .5 * .5 * .5 = .125

Overall chance you win 2/3 games or better to win the match: .18 + .37 = .55


Alt breaks, you win the lag
You win 3 games = .6 * .5 * .6 = .18
You win 2 games = (.6 * .5 * .4) + (.6 * .5 * .6) + (.4 * .5 * .6) = .12 + .18 + .12 = .42
You win 1 game = (.6 * .5 * .4) + (.4 * .5 * .4) + (.4 * .5 * .6) = .12 + .08 + .12 = .32
You win 0 games = .4 * .5 * .4 = .08

Overall chance you win 2/3 games or better to win the match: .18 + .42 = .60


Alt breaks, you lose the lag
You win 3 games = .5 * .6 * .5 = .15
You win 2 games = (.5 * .6 * .5) + (.5 * .4 * .5) + (.5 * .6 * .5) = .15 + .1 + .15 = .40
You win 1 game = (.5 * .4 * .5) + (.5 * .6 * .5) + (.5 * .4 * .5) = .1 + .15 + .1 = .35
You win 0 games = .5 * .4 * .5 = .1

Overall chance you win 2/3 games or better to win the match: .15 + .40 = .55

Here’s the point: Winner breaks vs. alternate break doesn’t change the probabilities at all. What’s interesting to me is how much it matters whether you win the lag. But the lag advantage is exactly the same whether it’s winner breaks or alternate break.

That’s just for three games, and the lag would begin to have less of an effect when you extend the race, but (I think) winner breaks vs. alternate break should continue to be exactly equal for any length race.

 

[BJTyler747]

To BJTyler’s point, I put some simple numbers together that hopefully will be clear. You have a 60% chance of winning the game when you break, and your opponent has a 50% chance of winning when he breaks. You play 3 games. Here are probabilities under different conditions:



Winner breaks, you win the lag:
You win 3 games = .6* .6 * .6 = .216
You win 2 games = (.6 * .6 * .4) + (.6 * .4 * .5) + (.4 * .5 * .6) = .144 + .12 + .12 = .384
You win 1 game = (.6 * .4 * .5) + (.4 * .5 * .4) + (.4 * .5 * .5) = .12 + .08 + .1 = .30
You win 0 games = .4 * .5 * .5 = .1

Overall chance you win 2/3 games or better to win the match: .216 + .384 = .60


Winner breaks, you lose the lag:
You win 3 games = .5 * .6 * .6 = .18
You win 2 games = (.5 * .6 * .4) + (.5 * .4 * .5) + (.5 * .5 * .6) = .12 + .1 + .15 = .37
You win 1 game = (.5 * .4 * .5) + (.5 * .5 * .4) + (.5 * .5 * .5) = .1 + .1 + .125 = .325
You win 0 games = .5 * .5 * .5 = .125

Overall chance you win 2/3 games or better to win the match: .18 + .37 = .55


Alt breaks, you win the lag
You win 3 games = .6 * .5 * .6 = .18
You win 2 games = (.6 * .5 * .4) + (.6 * .5 * .6) + (.4 * .5 * .6) = .12 + .18 + .12 = .42
You win 1 game = (.6 * .5 * .4) + (.4 * .5 * .4) + (.4 * .5 * .6) = .12 + .08 + .12 = .32
You win 0 games = .4 * .5 * .4 = .08

Overall chance you win 2/3 games or better to win the match: .18 + .42 = .60


Alt breaks, you lose the lag
You win 3 games = .5 * .6 * .5 = .15
You win 2 games = (.5 * .6 * .5) + (.5 * .4 * .5) + (.5 * .6 * .5) = .15 + .1 + .15 = .40
You win 1 game = (.5 * .4 * .5) + (.5 * .6 * .5) + (.5 * .4 * .5) = .1 + .15 + .1 = .35
You win 0 games = .5 * .4 * .5 = .1

Overall chance you win 2/3 games or better to win the match: .15 + .40 = .55

Here’s the point: Winner breaks vs. alternate break doesn’t change the probabilities at all. What’s interesting to me is how much it matters whether you win the lag. But the lag advantage is exactly the same whether it’s winner breaks or alternate break.

That’s just for three games, and the lag would begin to have less of an effect when you extend the race, but (I think) winner breaks vs. alternate break should continue to be exactly equal for any length race.

You are correct, sir! and your result generalizes to longer races.

 

[sjm]

Is it really harder to make the nine with this arrangement, or is it just that we have not figured out how to yet?

Thank you kindly.

Can't say, but it was used at the 2014 US Open 9-ball, and the result was far more interesting layouts and more difficult run outs that provided a greater challenge to the players.

 

[thefonz]

I don't get why 9 ball is still being played.