Honest Expectations of a Good Break

F

FeelDaShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
We’ve all heard the endless racking and breaking debates associated with 9-Ball. Surprisingly, I rarely hear any discussion on what a fair outcome should be.

If you hit the break with the perfect speed, spin, and aim, what outcome do you deserve? Should you always make a ball? Should you have a similar layout every time? Should you always have a shot? Should the outcome be totally random? Should only some parts of the break be random and others controlled?

It seems the direction profession pool is headed is to make the break results random or as close to it as possible. The players continue to find ways to control the outcome and the tournaments continue to change the rules to encourage randomness and luck.

Is randomness and luck really what we want? Is the luck factor of pool not high enough? If 15% of a match outcome is controlled by luck, that leaves only 85% of the game to be decided by skill. The higher the luck factor, the higher the chance of an upset.

Take a look at the below list of sports and try to think about how much luck is involved in the outcome:

Soccer Basketball Tennis Baseball Football Skiing
Boxing Golf Hockey Volleyball Cycling Skating
Rugby Swimming MMA Table Tennis Cornhole Shooting
Darts Gymnastics Track & Field Racing Wrestling Bowling

From what I can see, there’s almost no luck at all involved in any of these sports. You may have a few rare lucky catches, deflections, wind interference, equipment malfunctions, etc., but nothing comparable to pool.

In pool every single pool game starts off with a random break and random layout. Plus all of the luck involved with rolls after the break. I can’t think of any other sport out there that has a luck factor that’s even half as big as pool...Unless of course you consider poker a sport?

So I ask again, is this really what we want? Do we want to make the game more skillful and let the best man win or make the game luckier and let the luckiest man win?

These professional players have it hard enough. They dedicate their lives to the sport and pay a lot of money travelling to tournaments which usually have terrible payouts. Then they have to overcome short races and a lot of luck. It has to be discouraging to say the least.

Hypothetically, you can go to the US Open, hit the break absolutely perfect, make no balls, and lose 11-0 twice in a row. Is there any other sport in the world where you can play 100% perfect and never have a winning chance?

No more break rules should be changed until we all collectively decide on a fair expectation from a well hit break. Once we determine that, we can modify the break accordingly to make it happen. In my opinion, randomness and luck is not the answer.
 
" Soccer Basketball Tennis Baseball Football Skiing
Boxing Golf Hockey Volleyball Cycling Skating
Rugby Swimming MMA Table Tennis Cornhole Shooting
Darts Gymnastics Track & Field Racing Wrestling Bowling

From what I can see, there’s almost no luck at all involved in any of these sports. You may have a few rare lucky catches, deflections, wind interference, equipment malfunctions, etc., but nothing comparable to pool. "

Is this a joke?

There is literally a term in golf - the rub of the green - that is written into the rules about how bad luck is part of the game.

Bad bounces happen all the time in baseball. Footballs are shaped so kicks sputter this way and that randomly. Balls and players in all outdoor sports can be blown in the wind. Darts can hit the spider and clatter out. Bowling lanes have unevenly applied oil. Cyclists can be taken out by crashes ahead of them. Hockey pucks can be deflected randomly into the goal. The list goes on.
 
skip100 said:
" Soccer Basketball Tennis Baseball Football Skiing
Boxing Golf Hockey Volleyball Cycling Skating
Rugby Swimming MMA Table Tennis Cornhole Shooting
Darts Gymnastics Track & Field Racing Wrestling Bowling

From what I can see, there’s almost no luck at all involved in any of these sports. You may have a few rare lucky catches, deflections, wind interference, equipment malfunctions, etc., but nothing comparable to pool. "

Is this a joke?

There is literally a term in golf - the rub of the green - that is written into the rules about how bad luck is part of the game.

Bad bounces happen all the time in baseball. Footballs are shaped so kicks sputter this way and that randomly. Balls and players in all outdoor sports can be blown in the wind. Darts can hit the spider and clatter out. Bowling lanes have unevenly applied oil. Cyclists can be taken out by crashes ahead of them. Hockey pucks can be deflected randomly into the goal. The list goes on.
Click to expand...

You bring up some interesting luck factors which are good to note. However, these are rare things, like a ball rolling off or skidding in pool. There’s no comparison between that kind of rare luck and the randomness of a new rack every single game.
 
Last edited:
FeelDaShot said:
We’ve all heard the endless racking and breaking debates associated with 9-Ball. Surprisingly, I rarely hear any discussion on what a fair outcome should be.

If you hit the break with the perfect speed, spin, and aim, what outcome do you deserve? Should you always make a ball? Should you have a similar layout every time? Should you always have a shot? Should the outcome be totally random? Should only some parts of the break be random and others controlled?

It seems the direction profession pool is headed is to make the break results random or as close to it as possible. The players continue to find ways to control the outcome and the tournaments continue to change the rules to encourage randomness and luck.

Is randomness and luck really what we want? Is the luck factor of pool not high enough? If 15% of a match outcome is controlled by luck, that leaves only 85% of the game to be decided by skill. The higher the luck factor, the higher the chance of an upset.

Take a look at the below list of sports and try to think about how much luck is involved in the outcome:

Soccer Basketball Tennis Baseball Football Skiing
Boxing Golf Hockey Volleyball Cycling Skating
Rugby Swimming MMA Table Tennis Cornhole Shooting
Darts Gymnastics Track & Field Racing Wrestling Bowling

From what I can see, there’s almost no luck at all involved in any of these sports. You may have a few rare lucky catches, deflections, wind interference, equipment malfunctions, etc., but nothing comparable to pool.

In pool every single pool game starts off with a random break and random layout. Plus all of the luck involved with rolls after the break. I can’t think of any other sport out there that has a luck factor that’s even half as big as pool...Unless of course you consider poker a sport?

So I ask again, is this really what we want? Do we want to make the game more skillful and let the best man win or make the game luckier and let the luckiest man win?

These professional players have it hard enough. They dedicate their lives to the sport and pay a lot of money travelling to tournaments which usually have terrible payouts. Then they have to overcome short races and a lot of luck. It has to be discouraging to say the least.

Hypothetically, you can go to the US Open, hit the break absolutely perfect, make no balls, and lose 11-0 twice in a row. Is there any other sport in the world where you can play 100% perfect and never have a winning chance?

No more break rules should be changed until we all collectively decide on a fair expectation from a well hit break. Once we determine that, we can modify the break accordingly to make it happen. In my opinion, randomness and luck is not the answer.
Click to expand...

When a mid-level shortstop.....-.......... pro is breaking with a template, there is not much luck in the long-run.

With amateurs, well, there is/will be luck involved on a very high percentage of shots.

There is a LOT of ground between average amateur ........and.......pro. again, with pro pool, snooker, 3C etc...etc... luck has very little to do with the outcome on the breaks....very little.
 
jrctherake said:
When a mid-level shortstop.....-.......... pro is breaking with a template, there is not much luck in the long-run.

With amateurs, well, there is/will be luck involved on a very high percentage of shots.

There is a LOT of ground between average amateur ........and.......pro. again, with pro pool, snooker, 3C etc...etc... luck has very little to do with the outcome on the breaks....very little.
Click to expand...

The amount of control totally depends on the break rules. If you let a pro use a template, rack the one on the spot, check the rack, and pattern rack the outcome is very controlled.

However, we are headed in the opposite direction. For example, at the US Open, a referee racks the balls, doesn't let the players look at the rack, and they must use a forceful break. They are trying their best to make it random. Most try to pocket the one with a cut break but they are largely at the mercy of the racker.

My point is that the rules keep changing to make it harder for a breaker to have control of the outcome which introduces more luck to the game. Is this really what we want?
 
FeelDaShot said:
Should only some parts of the break be random and others controlled?

It seems the direction profession pool is headed is to make the break results random or as close to it as possible. The players continue to find ways to control the outcome and the tournaments continue to change the rules to encourage randomness and luck.

Is randomness and luck really what we want?
Click to expand...

Interesting post,and you ask a fair question.

Yes, only some parts of the break should be random and others controlled.

Controlled
Hitting the one ball square and controlling the cue ball so that it a) doesn't scratch, and b) settles toward the center of the table, are skills, and a player should have a lot of control in these respects.

Somewhat Controlled
A well struck break should maximize the chance, but not ensure, that a ball is pocketed.

Random
The more random the resulting layout is, the better. The more variety in the layouts, the more a player's skills are tested with respect to a) pocketing, b) pattern play, c) defense, d) kicking, and e) general tactical decision making. To me, there's nothing more boring than watching a player run out very similar racks over and over. More than anybody in our sport, Matchroom has figured out how to deliver the random layouts that best ensure interesting play.

Who among us forgets the days when the soft break was in vogue? Anyone who suggests that the soft break, especially as mastered by Corey Deuel and Karen Corr, didn't require great skill, is mistaken. And yet, anyone who suggests it didn't lead to boring, repetitious matches with insufficient variety is equally mistaken. At the time, some said that players that had worked hard to master the soft break deserved to have the edge that resulted, but common sense prevailed. Nearly 20 years ago, the soft break was outlawed in virtually all pro pool events worldwide, as it was understood that variety after the break is one of the things that keeps pool exciting. Keeping it random, therefore, is neither a new idea nor a new objective.

What has changed is that players keep finding new ways to de-randomize the results of breaking, and it is both advisable and necessary that event organizers do what they have to to keep the break skillful but the layouts as random as possible. Few have gone far enough, as "winner breaks, rack your own" events, which sometimes compromise our game's integrity and leave us with matches that are a little too repetitious, are still far too common.

Conclusion
When it comes to the break, randomness and luck are what we want. Good breakers will prevail in the long run anyway, but random racks keep pool exciting.
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
Interesting post,and you ask a fair question.

Yes, only some parts of the break should be random and others controlled.

Controlled
Hitting the one ball square and controlling the cue ball so that it a) doesn't scratch, and b) settles toward the center of the table, are skills, and a player should have a lot of control in these respects.

Somewhat Controlled
A well struck break should maximize the chance, but not ensure, that a ball is pocketed.

Random
The more random the resulting layout is, the better. The more variety in the layouts, the more a player's skills are tested with respect to a) pocketing, b) pattern play, c) defense, d) kicking, and e) general tactical decision making. To me, there's nothing more boring than watching a player run out very similar racks over and over. More than anybody in our sport, Matchroom has figured out how to deliver the random layouts that best ensure interesting play.

Who among us forget the days when the soft break was in vogue? Anyone who suggests that the soft break, especially as mastered by Corey Deuel and Karen Corr, didn't require great skill, is mistaken. And yet, anyone who suggests it didn't lead to boring, repetitious matches with insufficient variety is equally mistaken. At the time, some said that players that had worked hard to master the soft break deserved to have the edge that resulted, but common sense prevailed. Nearly 20 years ago, the soft break was outlawed in virtually all pro pool events worldwide, as it was understood that variety after the break is one of the things that keeps pool exciting. Keeping it random, therefore, is neither a new idea nor a new objective.

What has changed is that players keep finding new ways to de-randomize the results of breaking, and it is both advisable and necessary that event organizers do what they have to to keep the break skillful but the layouts as random as possible. Few have gone far enough, as "winner breaks, rack your own" events, which sometimes compromise our game's integrity and leave us with matches that are a little too repetitious, are still far too common.

Conclusion
When it comes to the break, randomness and luck are what we want. Good breakers will prevail in the long run anyway, but random racks keep pool exciting.
Click to expand...

Good analysis here, thanks! I feel that with a hard square break into the headball you deserve to make a ball and at least have a chance at a pushout. The randomness of the layout is important too.

Nothing is more frustrating than playing great and having a table that breaks dry everytime.
 
There’s luck involved in all sports. There’s even luck involved in chess - if this appears initially to be counter-intuitive then think about how and why players decide on which move to make at any given time.

Pool where good play is rewarded with an advantage beyond the favourable outcome that the good play produces will kill pool as a spectator sport. Robotic breaks with near identical layouts are uninteresting. Winner breaks is uninteresting. It’s a contest not an exhibition. To be fair, the US Open is working well with winner breaks because and only because the break has, for now, been neutralised to a sufficient extent to make the game exciting and unpredictable.
 
Swighey said:
There’s luck involved in all sports. There’s even luck involved in chess - if this appears initially to be counter-intuitive then think about how and why players decide on which move to make at any given time.

Pool where good play is rewarded with an advantage beyond the favourable outcome that the good play produces will kill pool as a spectator sport. Robotic breaks with near identical layouts are uninteresting. Winner breaks is uninteresting. It’s a contest not an exhibition. To be fair, the US Open is working well with winner breaks because and only because the break has, for now, been neutralised to a sufficient extent to make the game exciting and unpredictable.
Click to expand...

Take a deep bow for a superb post!
 
FeelDaShot...You appear to be quite the prolific poster...and certainly not shy about why your opinion should be heralded by everyone else as "truth", right or wrong. Here's reality...there's no such thing as "a table that breaks dry every time"! The break is a skill that needs to be developed. Amateur players could possibly break dry on a given table, in a given match, on a given day, because of poor technique. Pro players...highly unlikely to impossible. Again, the reality is that every pro on Earth has broken dry...sometimes more than once in a given match. Here's another reality...NOBODY, even the pros, makes a ball on the break every time (more often in 9ball, but it happens there too). It's part of the random nature of pool. You should probably stop using terms like "always" and "never". NOTHING is always or never! :boring2:

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

FeelDaShot said:
Nothing is more frustrating than playing great and having a table that breaks dry everytime.
Click to expand...
 
FeelDaShot said:
Is randomness and luck really what we want? Is the luck factor of pool not high enough? If 15% of a match outcome is controlled by luck, that leaves only 85% of the game to be decided by skill. The higher the luck factor, the higher the chance of an upset.
Click to expand...

I think your definition of luck needs better framing. Luck is more appropriately called variance, or standard deviation. I used to be a successful professional video poker player (using promotional offerings to make up the small negative EV I was playing at while playing very high stakes at many different casinos). I did this for years before the casinos realized how much money I was making and one by one sent me notarized letters saying they've identified me as a skilled player and didn't want my business anymore. Anyway, video poker, much like poker, has a lot of variance and volatility. I actually studied the concept of luck quite a bit just to be able to comprehend and cope with some of the mega losses and swings you experience in video poker. The basic gist of it is, you just have to believe in the math. Some days you just get drilled, but rest assured at the end of the year and over the course of millions of hands I would hit the exact EV of the game, as long as I was playing accurately. So my point is, over millions of racks, the best player will still always win, as is evidenced somewhat by fargorate. But if you take the variance completely out, you would essentially never have an upset. The better, or higher rated player would literally win EVERY set he played. Do you really think that would be better?
 
Luck is just an abstract concept that we throw good and bad occurrences at that we cannot explain any other way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top