Icant play anything well so whats my skill level got to do with anything?
Alternate Break is a disease upon the game
- Thread starter Grilled Cheese
- Start date
This is quickly off the top of my head so I am probably missing things, but here are a few of the pros and cons and other relevant facts regarding the formats
Pros of winner breaks:
-Many find this format more exciting to watch, at least for the matches that aren’t blow outs. A large part of this is very likely due to the fact that this is simply what we are used to, the way we grew up watching and playing the game, and “the way it has always been done". Many also like seeing uninterrupted packages, rather that that same package with interruptions.
Pros of alternate breaks:
-A player cannot lose without ever even getting to play
-It is consistent with the format that essentially every other sport on earth uses
-More of the matches are seemingly competitive, with the scores tending to be much closer, and this makes more of the matches more exciting to watch
-There is a lot more pressure under the alternate breaks format. Added pressure adds to the excitement. The added pressure also better helps determine who the better player is. Players feel like every game is so much more important.
-Neither player gets cold from sitting and as a result both are more likely to play closer to their potential
-Has a perception of being a more fair way of determining who the better is because it is pretty hard to argue the winning player didn’t/doesn’t actually play better if they both got the same amount of opportunities
-Allows the fans to get to see a good amount of both of the players playing
-It can be argued that winner breaks is essentially a form of weight because of the repeated breaking advantage that the winner of the previous rack gets
Other relevant facts:
-Neither format is a handicap. There is no difference between them in who wins or even in how often they win.
-The exact same packages happen under either format, with the only difference being whether your opponent was playing in between the games in your package or not.
Pros of winner breaks:
-Many find this format more exciting to watch, at least for the matches that aren’t blow outs. A large part of this is very likely due to the fact that this is simply what we are used to, the way we grew up watching and playing the game, and “the way it has always been done". Many also like seeing uninterrupted packages, rather that that same package with interruptions.
Pros of alternate breaks:
-A player cannot lose without ever even getting to play
-It is consistent with the format that essentially every other sport on earth uses
-More of the matches are seemingly competitive, with the scores tending to be much closer, and this makes more of the matches more exciting to watch
-There is a lot more pressure under the alternate breaks format. Added pressure adds to the excitement. The added pressure also better helps determine who the better player is. Players feel like every game is so much more important.
-Neither player gets cold from sitting and as a result both are more likely to play closer to their potential
-Has a perception of being a more fair way of determining who the better is because it is pretty hard to argue the winning player didn’t/doesn’t actually play better if they both got the same amount of opportunities
-Allows the fans to get to see a good amount of both of the players playing
-It can be argued that winner breaks is essentially a form of weight because of the repeated breaking advantage that the winner of the previous rack gets
Other relevant facts:
-Neither format is a handicap. There is no difference between them in who wins or even in how often they win.
-The exact same packages happen under either format, with the only difference being whether your opponent was playing in between the games in your package or not.
At the top level i love seeing winner break but at the regional/local levels it just doesn't work. People will NOT go to an event, spend $$ on gas/food/room etc and then possibly not get to play. The MidwestTour in my area(Kan,Ok., Mo., Ia.,Ill.) has been AB for years and gets great fields.
The issue with the modern game and winner breaks with races under 11 or 13 is that the racking is a lot more studied and payed attention to now, along with a bunch of ways to really freeze the balls together and make balls off the break as an aimed shot. In a lot of the older events, making a ball on the break was not as easy aside from just using power to send balls flying, and the 9 ball went in a lot off the break. I actually have watched a few AccuStats matches with you racking where the 9 ball shot into the corner pocket a few times in a set :wink:
So winner break is OK, but has issues, alternate break is OK but has different issues. Alternate breaks is the more fair of the two to both players but lowers the chance to catch up if you fall behind.
Last edited:
That is really the opposite, the lower level players the less likely they are to break and run several games in a row. Winner break on the lower levels is not as big of a deal as with the pros or open players. As a B player I'd play an A winner break if the race was say to 7, no issues there.
It's not an issue with what is good for the tournament, but an issue of what the player wants. If you are playing against good players that can run out often, you would pick to play alternate breaks. If you are playing vs someone crappy that can't make a ball on the break or leaves you a table to run because they messed up, winner break is good there. If you take away any personal feelings, selfish reasons or anything aside from just logic, alternate break is the most fair, taking everything else out of the picture like player ability or ability to come back from being down.
Last edited:
Never seen or played in a loser break format in 40yrs of playing. I have seen the difference in turnouts for WB vs. AB and more show-up for AB every time. It very well could be just a mental thing that AB helps lower-speed players but turnout #'s are always bigger at events i've attended. There's always a few players capable of stringing racks and i think this gets in the head(and wallet) of other players and they won't play WB. Seen it happen a lot over the years.
I meant alternate break, not sure why I kept typing loser breaks.
Alternate breaks in One Pocket are the accepted norm.. it's how it's
always been done, matches or gambling. The breaks also figure in
spots.
Alternate breaks in 9 or 10 ball? IMO, horrible... don't care for it at all.
If the intention is to make it exciting for fans, it's misguided.. exciting
is seeing a guy put racks together when he's behind.. that's POOL.
Now, if you're talking regional or league, I don't think you're gonna
see a guy break and run a set out.
I watched an old match between Archer and Kimmer, Archer is running
racks, gets to 10 to 3... Kimmer gets to the table looking fierce, and
runs out the set.. I mean he just breaks and runs out. The fans there
went absolutely mental ! Again, that's POOL, proper.
always been done, matches or gambling. The breaks also figure in
spots.
Alternate breaks in 9 or 10 ball? IMO, horrible... don't care for it at all.
If the intention is to make it exciting for fans, it's misguided.. exciting
is seeing a guy put racks together when he's behind.. that's POOL.
Now, if you're talking regional or league, I don't think you're gonna
see a guy break and run a set out.
I watched an old match between Archer and Kimmer, Archer is running
racks, gets to 10 to 3... Kimmer gets to the table looking fierce, and
runs out the set.. I mean he just breaks and runs out. The fans there
went absolutely mental ! Again, that's POOL, proper.
Last edited:
It's in peoples nature to complain. Also, it's easier to blame than work on a solution.
Very true!
I'm not really sure there's a problem in all honesty, some tournaments work well as Alternate Break, some as Winner Breaks, both are good!
Even combinations work, when Matchroom used to run the World 9-Ball Championships in the UK (if my memory serves me correctly) the group stages were short races and alternate break, the knockout stages were longer races and winner breaks.
I thought that worked really well, but it depends on the tournament (e.g. the Mosconi Cup works really well as Alternate Break due to the format).
Since the choice of winner/alternate makes no difference to the better player's chance of winning (ignoring psychological stuff), the choice is for other reasons.
With good players alternate break will give slightly longer matches. For players who can't remember who won the flip, winner breaks is better.
To those not familiar with the game, alternate break seems fairer although it is not. Imagine tennis with winner serves. Surprisingly, it makes no difference at tennis either except winner serves would produce shorter matches.
With good players alternate break will give slightly longer matches. For players who can't remember who won the flip, winner breaks is better.
To those not familiar with the game, alternate break seems fairer although it is not. Imagine tennis with winner serves. Surprisingly, it makes no difference at tennis either except winner serves would produce shorter matches.
Wish they'd come up with that deal for the NFL. If a team scores they get to keep the ball. First to 70points wins the game. THAT i would sweat.
Wish they'd come up with that deal for the NFL. If a team scores they get to keep the ball. First to 70points wins the game. THAT i would sweat.
And baseball used to be the first team to 21 runs.
hi bob, I easily concede you know wayy more about billiards than I do, but with good players, wouldn't the alternate break format give the other guy more of a chance, since in "winner break," technically whoever wins the lag could go x and out? and I'm surely not sure, but it *seems* like the pressure would be higher on the player having to respond to a package vs. having to respond to "holding serve" once. there are always exceptions, but either way, I think the guy playing from behind is going to feel pressure more- the more the player's down, the more the pressure.
re: tennis, I can tell you that almost all guys (not ladies as much), win most of their service games, including several players who win 90+% of their service games. if tennis were winner break, the player who wins the flip would almost certainly have an advantage in the match, especially if the match's only going to (6). even now the way tennis is set up, whoever serves first, especially in a deciding set (frequently one, deciding set in pool) is considered to be at an advantage because that player has the chance to be ahead and stay ahead, whereas the other guy is always playing catch up.
thoughts?
I definitely prefer winner break. In fact, when I watch pool -- sure, it's nice to see an exciting match where someone digs down deep and makes a big comeback -- but my primary reason for watching pool -- is to see excellent pool.
For that reason, more and more if I buy a live stream, if the tournament doesn't include a large amount of really good players -- I will only buy the last day of the tournament when only the cream of the crop and the most skilled players are playing.
For someone that is approaching being an A player, I really have NO interest at all in watching someone as skilled as me. I would rather hit balls myself than watch someone play at my own skill level. I want to watch guys like SVB and others that play at or near his skill level. (And yes, I think that someone's Fargo Rating is the best way to judge how much skill that a player has).
I want to see someone run as many games in a row as possible = excellent play. Period.
For that reason, more and more if I buy a live stream, if the tournament doesn't include a large amount of really good players -- I will only buy the last day of the tournament when only the cream of the crop and the most skilled players are playing.
For someone that is approaching being an A player, I really have NO interest at all in watching someone as skilled as me. I would rather hit balls myself than watch someone play at my own skill level. I want to watch guys like SVB and others that play at or near his skill level. (And yes, I think that someone's Fargo Rating is the best way to judge how much skill that a player has).
I want to see someone run as many games in a row as possible = excellent play. Period.
It is quite impressive that the perspective "break format makes no difference" has dominated in modern Pool organizations.
Breaking format does make a difference, it allows the player who is able to run a few frames in a row to do so, while showing the difference against the player who is simply not able to do so.
Alternate break by fact favors the player with lesser skills, it is also impressive that we have a different perspective dominating as well here, driven by the false conclusions from examining individual break percentages. It is a common basic scientific principle to compare data under the same conditions, winner break is by definition a different situation than alternate break. If you examine 1000 trees one at the time you come up with 1000 "equal" entities, but when looking at them all together you have a little forest in front of you.
Just imagine: Willie Mosconi having had to stop his Straight Pool runs at 50 points, Ronnie O'Sullivan having to stop his Snooker breaks at 50 points, and Frederick Caudron having to stop his 3 cushion runs at 5 points....
Why? "In order to provide equal chances"..... (???)
Finally, it's impressive as well that those who favor alternate break format do not provide an adequate answer to the following elementary question: If it "doesn't make any difference" (as they claim) then why was there any need to change it at all in the first place?".....
They also pass by another major factor: alternate break is simply boring to watch, most of the times at least.
We all know why the break format was changed: in order to increase participations by narrowing the gap between the best and the rest. This approach may have served Pool through a specific period, but it is time to consider what is the long term effect of applying it to the sport aspect of the game.
By the overuse of this format we have come to a situation where "it is everyone and no one", with less appealing presentation to the Pool fans and the absence of really "big stars" which are essential to promoting every sport.
I seriously doubt we would have ever seen Efren Reyes or Earl Strickland arising (and their impact to Pool) if alternate format was used back in their prime.
The game has changed, a lot. The general level is much better, but the direction is not 100% "upwards" like it used to be. And this may become irreversible after a few years, so we need to always think about it seriously, unless we feel satisfied with the current situation..
Breaking format does make a difference, it allows the player who is able to run a few frames in a row to do so, while showing the difference against the player who is simply not able to do so.
Alternate break by fact favors the player with lesser skills, it is also impressive that we have a different perspective dominating as well here, driven by the false conclusions from examining individual break percentages. It is a common basic scientific principle to compare data under the same conditions, winner break is by definition a different situation than alternate break. If you examine 1000 trees one at the time you come up with 1000 "equal" entities, but when looking at them all together you have a little forest in front of you.
Just imagine: Willie Mosconi having had to stop his Straight Pool runs at 50 points, Ronnie O'Sullivan having to stop his Snooker breaks at 50 points, and Frederick Caudron having to stop his 3 cushion runs at 5 points....
Why? "In order to provide equal chances"..... (???)
Finally, it's impressive as well that those who favor alternate break format do not provide an adequate answer to the following elementary question: If it "doesn't make any difference" (as they claim) then why was there any need to change it at all in the first place?".....
They also pass by another major factor: alternate break is simply boring to watch, most of the times at least.
We all know why the break format was changed: in order to increase participations by narrowing the gap between the best and the rest. This approach may have served Pool through a specific period, but it is time to consider what is the long term effect of applying it to the sport aspect of the game.
By the overuse of this format we have come to a situation where "it is everyone and no one", with less appealing presentation to the Pool fans and the absence of really "big stars" which are essential to promoting every sport.
I seriously doubt we would have ever seen Efren Reyes or Earl Strickland arising (and their impact to Pool) if alternate format was used back in their prime.
The game has changed, a lot. The general level is much better, but the direction is not 100% "upwards" like it used to be. And this may become irreversible after a few years, so we need to always think about it seriously, unless we feel satisfied with the current situation..
Last edited:
The amazing result is that the format does not matter. All of the following are equivalent as far as the match odds go:
Winner of the lag breaks the first N games in a race to N and the opponent breaks the rest until there is a winner.
Winner of the lag chooses who will break each game but cannot give either player more than N breaks.
Loser breaks.
Winner breaks.
Alternate breaks.
I didn't believe they could all be the same until I looked at it carefully. The reason for this is that you can recast each of those formats into simply playing 2N-1 games with one player breaking N times and then rearranging the order of the games to fit any of the formats. That rearrangement doesn't change who got N games or more so it doesn't affect the odds of who won. The match odds in all of the formats above can be calculated from the odds of each player winning N games out of 2N-1 with appropriate break apportioning.
I should be clear that if your only concern is the odds of how likely the better player is to win the match, then the formats are equivalent. There may be other reasons why one format is preferable to another, such as perceived fairness, or possibilities of 10-packs or increasing/decreasing the average match length.
Every effort to consider winner and alternate break formats as "identical" conditions (thus drawing safe conclusions by comparing individual data) bypasses the "qualitative" characteristics of these two situations. It is impossible to fully predict the outcome of any given match situation based solely on break percentages, winner format allows for more possibilities which do affect the psychological part of the game.
Any player up 10-8 in race to 11 is able to risk a shot in order to "close the door" on the opponent in alternate break, while he would feel a lot more pressure knowing that a mistake at that point could cost him the match.
Any player up 10-8 in race to 11 is able to risk a shot in order to "close the door" on the opponent in alternate break, while he would feel a lot more pressure knowing that a mistake at that point could cost him the match.