which favors the higher-rated player, winner break or alt. break?

[tomatoshooter]

Which is why the psychological stuff might be interesting, but it's more or less impossible to make any rational conclusions from the musings.

That's why it's so interesting! Someone said sports are popular because it give the average person a chance to have theories. Of course if I had been practicing instead of reading this thread, I could have improved enough to negate any difference from break format.

So far as I know, there is no sound theory that includes the human variables. It can be fun to speculate, though.

I would guess that the human variables would be different for the humans, and individual enough that, unlike game format, studying them on a population level would eliminate any useful knowledge. Take four mediocre players and match them up against someone 200 Fargos higher. Player A gets intimidated and plays poorly, getting blown off the table. Player B decides he's going to be ultra focused and is too tight, losing badly. Player C decides to summon all his strength and focus and plays a very strong game, possibly even getting a couple of good rolls and winning. Player D realizes he's outclassed and has no chance, freeing his mind of all thought and stress, staying loose and playing a very competitive game. Or finding himself on the hill, tightens up and loses.

We have different outcomes for different reasons and different paths for our players to improve. For that matter most of us have been all of these players at one point or another. I feel like these need to be studied as individual events. When studying tournament format, a tournament is, almost by definition, a population study, and studying on too close of a level will yield less useful information.

 

[SBC]

Winner breaks does favor comebacks, but it also favors building a larger lead in the first place. So you can't simply conclude without calculation or modeling which player (or neither) gets the better of it.

I am inclined to model this, but I just got to work. Maybe I'll get a chance to do so later.

Nobody can win from the chair. There's plenty of 650 level guys who break and run 2 to 3 racks with regularity. So if it's winner break and they are down 8 to 6 breaking...the better player might never get out if the chair.

I'm a bum....and I've broke and ran 7 racks.

 

[tomatoshooter]

I'm a bum....and I've broke and ran 7 racks.

In a row?!?

 

[SBC]

Against guys who don't run out....they can get all breaks, 2 on the wire and the 7 out. Comparing a pro vs a 500 who has run out 1 rack in their life, breaking or not, the 500 is getting slaughtered.

 

[SBC]

In a row?!?

For $10....no lie

 

[SBC]

I know for sure if I'm playing a pro or much stronger short stop....I'm getting games on wire or balls....plus I break or at least alternating. You cannot give up the break and expect chances. They runout better, pushout better and safe better.

 

[tomatoshooter]

For $10....no lie

Some of your best playing and you bet too low!

 

[SBC]

Some of your best playing and you bet too low!

Playing old man Ronnie giving the 7 out.
Wouldn't happen with alternating break.

 

[mikepage]

[...]

That’s all more granular than we really need to see. I guess all I’m getting at is my original point that I would like to compare outcomes across specific skill differences (25 points, 50 points, 100 points etc.) and different categories (830 vs. different skill gaps, 700 vs. different gaps etc.). I may not be correct, but my hunch is that format has a bigger or lesser influence depending on the gap and skill level of the player.

The more you break it down, the less data you have. That means the effect has to be larger for you to see it. There are 33 million games in FargoRate, and as you might imagine I examine them in some way nearly every day.

Breaking it down is like zooming in on your camera. You feel like you can tell whether that bird has a broken wing if you can just get closer or zoom in. But when you zoom in everything is fuzzy and you can barely tell it's a bird.

If there is a common theme that runs through the data it is that whatever nuanced effect you're looking for is probably at best smaller than the detection limit.

 

[23DenaliBDE]

Which is why the psychological stuff might be interesting, but it's more or less impossible to make any rational conclusions from the musings.

It’s funny this should come up, after I found it amusing last night. I played in my third tournament ever and again found what I find playing against my parents. I play down to my opponentt. I had assumed this was just me, however, All three tournaments I have observed higher skill players play each other. It’s incredible. The one then plays me. They look as bad as I do (not literally lol. It’s clear my . I have balls in the way everywhere and I’m taking reasonable safeties instead of hard shots. I still lose, but it’s generally very close. Last night I made a table length 90 degree cut on the 8 to win the match, and scratched . Playing a player completely out of my league. Does anyone else see this(if it makes sense while I try not to fall asleep)

 

[FranCrimi]

Except in bowling the other player has a chance to match that 300. Pool is the only sport where people want the offense to stay on the field after they score. Personally I don’t get it? In tennis the same player doesn’t get to serve every game if he wins.

Except for bowling, you're saying. Why discount bowling like it's some kind of exception? How about golf? The player who hits first on the next hole is the one who shot the best score on the previous hole. It's a courtesy given to the winner of the previous segment. Instead in pool, some organizers prefer to punish the winner of the previous game instead of give them the courtesy of the break. When did pool become a socialist game? Does everyone get a participation trophy at the end too?

 

[nicksaint26]

Except for bowling, you're saying. Why discount bowling like it's some kind of exception? How about golf? The player who hits first on the next hole is the one who shot the best score on the previous hole. It's a courtesy given to the winner of the previous segment. Instead in pool, some organizers prefer to punish the winner of the previous game instead of give them the courtesy of the break. When did pool become a socialist game? Does everyone get a participation trophy at the end too?

I believe your reading comprehension failed you. I said except in bowling you have a chance to match that 300. Why don’t tennis players keep serving if they win? Because it’s not fair to their opponent that’s why!

And the golf example is a terrible one because the other player still has a chance to match that birdie or par. Shooting first means squat in golf.

In football and basketball why don’t we let the team that scored keep the ball?

 

[evergruven]

Why don’t tennis players keep serving if they win? Because it’s not fair to their opponent that’s why!

yea, I've thought of this re: alt. break
in tennis, the server is expected to hold serve in nearly all cases, percentage-wise
that said, it's not usually a shock when a server gets broken-
but usually when one does, they've made some mistake, or- the other player steps up, or both
not sure this translates to pool *so* well, as the "randomness" of the rack can impact these results
but, I agree that at the highest level, the break is often enough, a significant enough advantage
to consider playing matches alternate break, rather than winner break

by the same rack "randomness" tho, putting packages together in pool is impressive in its own right
often an individual player has to play above their average level/make good shots, to string racks
and regardless of the opponent..that's a thing pretty unique to pool
I can't really think of another sport where "the rack" plays such a part

that's part of what inspired me to post in the first place- the question definitely seemed debatable
thanks again all for the convo

 

[Bob Jewett]

Are you aware of the Accu-stats analysis of breaker-wins percentages from the pro tour in the 1980s?

Since no one bit....

In the mid 1980s Pat Fleming (Accu-Stats) tracked player performance in every match on the pro tour. That included rating every shot. Before he had VCRs to record every match, he trained people to do the scoring. We see the main result of his system today in the TPA numbers in matches (Total Performance Average).

Anyway, one of things he tracked was break-and-win percentage. The result was at that time and under those conditions for pro players, the average break-and-win percentage was under 50%. The break was a disadvantage to most pro players.

The VCRs turned into Accu-Stats video and the print publication of the stats stopped. Here are all the issues of the printed stats:

Goldmine Magazine - Accu-Stats Magazine - AZBILLIARDS.COM

The A to Z of Pool and Billiards Online

www.azbilliards.com

 

[justnum]

Since no one bit....

In the mid 1980s Pat Fleming (Accu-Stats) tracked player performance in every match on the pro tour. That included rating every shot. Before he had VCRs to record every match, he trained people to do the scoring. We see the main result of his system today in the TPA numbers in matches (Total Performance Average).

Anyway, one of things he tracked was break-and-win percentage. The result was at that time and under those conditions for pro players, the average break-and-win percentage was under 50%. The break was a disadvantage to most pro players.

The VCRs turned into Accu-Stats video and the print publication of the stats stopped. Here are all the issues of the printed stats:

Goldmine Magazine - Accu-Stats Magazine - AZBILLIARDS.COM

The A to Z of Pool and Billiards Online

www.azbilliards.com

View attachment 706487

This can be misleading if the reader is unfamiliar with the fact that back then the rack was not a template rack.

Racking may be a simple task with a triangle, but evidence is showing triangle racks performed differently than template racks.

When Pat Fleming was analyzing pool there was a lot more sleight of hand than people noticed at the rack.

Despite the data groups of break and run with template versus break and run without template show a win threshold.

This inference does not translate to lower tiers of play.

 

[Cezar Morales]

the better player is going to have more break and run outs
the better player is going to win more games if he gets a chance at the table with a decent shot or safety to make
so to me
all formats favor the better player
jmho
icbw

Totally agree
Doesnt matter, think about it…
Winner break, the better player is more likely to run packs n longer packages than the weaker player.

Alternate break is actually worst for d weaker player as its gonna punish the player with the lower break n run percentage and cant keep up w d better player.

 

[FranCrimi]

I believe your reading comprehension failed you. I said except in bowling you have a chance to match that 300. Why don’t tennis players keep serving if they win? Because it’s not fair to their opponent that’s why!

And the golf example is a terrible one because the other player still has a chance to match that birdie or par. Shooting first means squat in golf.

In football and basketball why don’t we let the team that scored keep the ball?

I know exactly what you meant. My response was just over your head. Anyway, yes, they do it in bowling and they do it in golf. The winner of the previous hole hits first. It's a courtesy that's awarded by the person who performed the best from beginning to end of the previous hole.

 

[Cameron Smith]

W

Since no one bit....

In the mid 1980s Pat Fleming (Accu-Stats) tracked player performance in every match on the pro tour. That included rating every shot. Before he had VCRs to record every match, he trained people to do the scoring. We see the main result of his system today in the TPA numbers in matches (Total Performance Average).

Anyway, one of things he tracked was break-and-win percentage. The result was at that time and under those conditions for pro players, the average break-and-win percentage was under 50%. The break was a disadvantage to most pro players.

The VCRs turned into Accu-Stats video and the print publication of the stats stopped. Here are all the issues of the printed stats:

Goldmine Magazine - Accu-Stats Magazine - AZBILLIARDS.COM

The A to Z of Pool and Billiards Online

www.azbilliards.com

View attachment 706487

What do you think was driving that statistic? Were players slugging each other? Different rules about the break in play? Equipment differences? Or less knowledge about the rack or the break?

 

[Bob Jewett]

W

What do you think was driving that statistic? Were players slugging each other? Different rules about the break in play? Equipment differences? Or less knowledge about the rack or the break?

They didn't have many rules about the break. I don't think the equipment was all that different. I think the pockets were easier than Diamonds today.

I think many people think the break is far more important than it really is, especially for anyone under 700 Fargo. I get lots of students who want to break like Shane or David Howard when they rarely run six balls in rotation. For such players I think the best advice is to control the cue ball and not scratch.

 

[nicksaint26]

I know exactly what you meant. My response was just over your head. Anyway, yes, they do it in bowling and they do it in golf. The winner of the previous hole hits first. It's a courtesy that's awarded by the person who performed the best from beginning to end of the previous hole.

And how does this relate to pool? Who cares who shoots first in golf and bowling when you at least still get a chance to match what your opponent does!

In pool you can’t get out of your chair if the player breaks and runs. Then he gets the chance to do it all over again without any participation from the other player!