I think 1 pocket could work if some big risk vs reward was figured out. Something to get players to take bigger risks by scoring more points for less innings or something along those lines.
A moment of revelation
- Thread starter jay helfert
- Start date
When I used to hear the line, "He worked his way through college playing pool," I couldn't wait to meet the guy and get him on the table.LOL. A lot of folks think they can play pool. I'm amazed how many times I get invited to a friend of a friends superbowl party or some other party, and they have a pool table. Everyone tells you to don't play the owner, he's almost a pro. It's not until you see him shoot he's an APA 3, at best, and kind of laugh inside a little. Yeah, he probably beats up his buddies and the neighbors real good though
So, there are a lot of pool tables in folks homes, and a lot of them play causally. Not leagues or tourneys, but they play and enjoy the game.
I did for two yrs in the sixties.
Every X mas break I was drove around chi town and made many scores.
I did the same over Thanksgiving and Especially Spring Break.
Every X mas break I was drove around chi town and made many scores.
I did the same over Thanksgiving and Especially Spring Break.
That is a good idea Lou. But there are two issues that have not been discussed whether it be Short Rack Banks or One Pocket.
First issue: both games will need much better TV camera techniques such as close up views of ball positions, complex ball interactions, and players techniques. Second issue: competent announcers able to simplify complex descriptions of the ball interactions, strategies, table conditions, etc., while still engaging the TV audience with light heart bantering. Take golf for example. A pre-recorded vignette of a pro's technique of a bunker shot would be educational and interesting. It would start conversations with viewers.
For pool to be successful on TV it has to be interesting, educational, spontaneous, humerous, and folks have to relate personally with the professional game.
Not sure how it'd do for spectators, but just started thinking of an 8-ball variation that could be fun to play.
Setup
- Line 7 stripes along the headstring and 7 solids along the footstring.
- Place the 8 ball in the center of the ball.
- There is no cueball
Object
- One player will be designated stripes and the other solids before the game begins.
- Winner is the first person to make all of their balls and the 8 ball.
- In order for a ball to be legally pocketed it must be played off the opponent's ball into one of the 2 opposite corner pockets, e.g. if you are stripes, your balls must be made in the corner pockets nearest the foot spot.
Setup
- Line 7 stripes along the headstring and 7 solids along the footstring.
- Place the 8 ball in the center of the ball.
- There is no cueball
Object
- One player will be designated stripes and the other solids before the game begins.
- Winner is the first person to make all of their balls and the 8 ball.
- In order for a ball to be legally pocketed it must be played off the opponent's ball into one of the 2 opposite corner pockets, e.g. if you are stripes, your balls must be made in the corner pockets nearest the foot spot.
What kind of safety equipment would be used? Head gear, chest protectors etc. How about chugging beers between shots?
Great questions! I think chainmail would definitely be a requirement.
Beers AND shots? Sounds great!
I'll admit I rarely watch poker, and I have played it just twice for money in the last twenty years. I find it dull and repetitious, but its one fascination for me is that amateurs frequently take down the top pros, and it is the amateurs that save poker from being completely unwatchable. The presence of a) big prize money and b) a significant luck factor are poker's greatest assets, and they combine to generate great interest and participation among those who play poker recreationally.
Pool is the opposite. The prize funds are small and the deck is stacked so heavily in favor of the more skillful players that no player of modest skills ever wins major events in the game. Recreational players all know that they have virtually no chance of making a big score mixing it up with the pros at pool, so most of them don't bother participating.
Poker is conducive to "at the table" chatter, but pool has a shot clock and denying an opponent a chance to fully concentrate as they plan their next shot is poor sportsmanship.
Pro pool can learn a lot from poker, but first and foremost it must embrace having a greater luck factor if it ever hopes to attract recreational players. The trend today is in the opposite direction, with the top players tending to beg for longer races and more call shot games. Poker's big advantage is the participation that it draws, and pro pool seems to do everything in its power to ensure low participation.
Pool is the opposite. The prize funds are small and the deck is stacked so heavily in favor of the more skillful players that no player of modest skills ever wins major events in the game. Recreational players all know that they have virtually no chance of making a big score mixing it up with the pros at pool, so most of them don't bother participating.
Poker is conducive to "at the table" chatter, but pool has a shot clock and denying an opponent a chance to fully concentrate as they plan their next shot is poor sportsmanship.
Pro pool can learn a lot from poker, but first and foremost it must embrace having a greater luck factor if it ever hopes to attract recreational players. The trend today is in the opposite direction, with the top players tending to beg for longer races and more call shot games. Poker's big advantage is the participation that it draws, and pro pool seems to do everything in its power to ensure low participation.
Last edited:
Whenever the discussion turns toward wide coverage TV exposure for pool, we must remember it's the prize money that draws viewers.
That applies to any sport, especially poker.
If poker were played for nothing it would get zero attention from the TV sponsors.
Of course, with someone like Fats, that equation changes because then the sport turns into real TV entertainment.
Nobody was interested in watching Mosconi on TV until Charlie Ursitti promoted the Fats/Willie TV matches with Cosell announcing.
Back to the point: Matchroom wouldn't be where it is without GAMBLING and their connection with the London bookmakers.
If One-Pocket, 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-ball, 14.1, Banks, etc., would allow Internet gambling from anywhere, then pool might succeed on TV.
That applies to any sport, especially poker.
If poker were played for nothing it would get zero attention from the TV sponsors.
Of course, with someone like Fats, that equation changes because then the sport turns into real TV entertainment.
Nobody was interested in watching Mosconi on TV until Charlie Ursitti promoted the Fats/Willie TV matches with Cosell announcing.
Back to the point: Matchroom wouldn't be where it is without GAMBLING and their connection with the London bookmakers.
If One-Pocket, 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-ball, 14.1, Banks, etc., would allow Internet gambling from anywhere, then pool might succeed on TV.
oh gee. lets save pool. that way there will be something on yesteryear's "TV" technology for its "sponsors" to fret about.
Then I can get with 5 or 6 of my most mediocre acquaintances, and we will get all covered in APA patches and do our best to mimic 'the big guys on tv' while swaggering around a 6' table like a bunch of pretentious fops drunk on a cater-to-the-lowest-denominator playing field.
wat a bright effin future
Then I can get with 5 or 6 of my most mediocre acquaintances, and we will get all covered in APA patches and do our best to mimic 'the big guys on tv' while swaggering around a 6' table like a bunch of pretentious fops drunk on a cater-to-the-lowest-denominator playing field.
wat a bright effin future
in the US Open every draw is bad for amateurs
Just kidding but as a former US Open player the skill levels present in one room are insane. I would NEVER have played if I hadn't won a $100 entry qualifier event where first prize was the $1000 entry. Sorry even if I have the money I don't see the value for me to spend it that way. That said I would easily budget up to a couple hundred to participate in qualifiers, especially if the prize included transportation and lodging along with the entry fee.
I think that this is ALSO one of the biggest draws in poker is the robust amount of feeder tournaments into the larger events. I have seen that work successfully for China with a weeks worth of mini-tournaments that place the top two into the main event until the main event board is full. To me there really isn't a better way to fill big events and insure that the interest level is sustained leading to and during the event.
I don't agree about increasing the luck factor. I think that pool should never be made such that an amateur with little experience can beat an established pro. I think that to increase participation we have to have ways to allow amateurs to compete in big events without having to spend the high amounts. The IPT taught us that $2000 qualifiers and plentiful feeder tournaments for those qualifiers worked well to fill them. I told Barry Behrman 20 years ago that he could have the open filled a month before the event if he would develop a qualifier system. Not only that it would increase attendance and online viewing. Each pool room would have "their" team that they are cheering on, WITH a kickback to the room if someone from their qualifiers won the event.