1000 Ball Run

[trob]

Had Mosconi played on Diamond pockets, he'd barely be able to run 100 balls. Keep in mind he broke the record on an 8 ft table with 5 inch pockets

Look that’s just the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long time. You can say he played on an easier table for that record which I completely agree..but to say he couldn’t even run 100 balls Is just silly. lol go watch him play. Go watch how he broke down a rack like no one else could. he also played on tables with a lot slower cloth that you couldn’t just spin and finesse balls around all day.

 

[iusedtoberich]

By that logic anyone who could run 3 balls could run 10. And a 10 ball runner could run 30. And a 100 ball runner could run 300.

Life doesn’t work that way!

 

[iusedtoberich]

In one of the accustats tapes Danny dileberto said anyone who could run a rack could run 100. That’s hogwash.

 

[skogstokig]

i think a lot of the top boys have the stamina and concentration, and if it was just potting 700 balls in a row, then jayson's record would be broken. but to have 47+ breaks go right you need luck and that lowers the probability a lawt

 

[iusedtoberich]

Here is another one. Under the "all ball fouls" ruleset, Shaw ran 669. This is the ruleset going forward set by the BCA for all future attempts. If Shaw was a 100 ball average runner, it is predicted to take him 750 innings to do it one time. Does anyone know how many innings he played? I think he was there for two sessions.

We could also probably count all of Shane's, Ruslans, and Earls sessions in the tally. As all 4 players are roughly equal.

I don't think anyone kept track of "all innings and all balls pocketed each inning" for either Bobby's events or when Schmidt did it. Only the higher runs were kept track of. If we knew all those numbers, we'd be able to figure out the ball pocketing probability of the top straight pool pros. This spreadsheet is assuming its 100 balls avg each inning.

 

[sjm]

Show me 200 on sub 4" pockets first.

I've never seen pockets tighter than 4" used in competition in my life. Dennis Orcullo ran 260 on 4 1/4" pockets during the Derby City 14.1.

 

[pt109]

View attachment 751620

Here is another one. Under the "all ball fouls" ruleset, Shaw ran 669. This is the ruleset going forward set by the BCA for all future attempts. If Shaw was a 100 ball average runner, it is predicted to take him 750 innings to do it one time. Does anyone know how many innings he played? I think he was there for two sessions.

We could also probably count all of Shane's, Ruslans, and Earls sessions in the tally. As all 4 players are roughly equal.

I don't think anyone kept track of "all innings and all balls pocketed each inning" for either Bobby's events or when Schmidt did it. Only the higher runs were kept track of. If we knew all those numbers, we'd be able to figure out the ball pocketing probability of the top straight pool pros. This spreadsheet is assuming its 100 balls avg each inning.

Bob Jewett might have some input on this…he did a lot of scoring in the DCC straight pool.

 

[straightline]

I've never seen pockets tighter than 4" used in competition in my life. Dennis Orcullo ran 260 on 4 1/4" pockets during the Derby City 14.1.

Yes but a record run is a one off event. I look at the big number as more than an icon to get drunk over. The specs and requirements should be "special" as well.

 

[sjm]

Yes but a record run is a one off event. I look at the big number as more than an icon to get drunk over. The specs and requirements should be "special" as well.

Agreed. Well said.

 

[easy-e]

In one of the accustats tapes Danny dileberto said anyone who could run a rack could run 100. That’s hogwash.

He says a lot of funny things.

 

[jsp]

I was going to post pretty much the same thing. Except I think 150 balls is low. I'm not sure where to draw the line exactly but I would guess it would be around 300ish. If you have the skills to run 300+ several times, it's just a matter of putting in the time and having the right amount of concentration to break the current record.

I agree. Along with a lot of time and great concentration, a 300-ball runner would also need the proper amount of LUCK in order to break the record. It becomes a game of statistics after a certain point, in which you're trying to hit that 6-sigma event. Personally, I find chasing such a record uninteresting and a big waste of time.

 

[jsp]

For me, the baseball analog to the high run in straight pool is the hitting streak (the number of consecutive games in which you get a base hit). The MLB record is 56 by Joe DiMaggio, probably a record that will never be broken.

Tony Gwynn's longest streak was 'only' 20 games.
Ted Williams' longest streak was 'only' 23 games.

Although DiMaggio was a great player and a deserved Hall of Famer, he is nowhere in the conversation of being one of the greatest hitters of all time. Gwynn and Williams are in that conversation, and neither of them even reached half of Joe's streak. Not because they were inferior hitters, but rather Tony and Ted didn't have an extended period of luck that is required to maintain such a long hitting streak.

And one more clarification. In this context "having luck" not only means getting good luck, but it equally means not experiencing bad luck.

 

[kanzzo]

I was going to post pretty much the same thing. Except I think 150 balls is low. I'm not sure where to draw the line exactly but I would guess it would be around 300ish. If you have the skills to run 300+ several times, it's just a matter of putting in the time and having the right amount of concentration to break the current record.

It's important for the math to know how many tries it took you to run 300.

Some players practice almost exclusively Straight pool and may put in 1000 tries a year. With a 1 in 10 chance of running 100 they will run 300 about every 1000 tries.

So they may put in a few 300+ in the 10-15 years of their peak performance

but they would need 1000x1000x1000 tries to get 3 consecutive 300 (900 ball run) and needing a year on average for 1000 tries it would take them 1 million years.

(Since most players who can run 150 will have worse chance in running 100 than one in 10, they would need more than 40 Million years to achieve 1000+. Say Ralph Eckert practices exclusively Straight pool and has 40 100+ runs a year (having put in 1000 tries). His chance for running 100 is 1 in 25 (still top 10 in his country probably). He would run 150+ every 125 tries (or 8 in a year). Putting in 1000 tries a year he would need 95 Billion years to run 1000. So a definite No. Running 150 doesnt make it ever possible to run 1000.)

So the important stat is your average for running 100 and then you can calculate your chance of running 10 consecutive 100s

Best straight pool players in the world would have an average of 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 for a 100+ run

Say John Schmidt is 1 in 4 to run 100. His chance to run 526 is 1 in 4^5.25 or 1448 tries. Averaging 20 tries a day or 100 tries a week he can expect to beat Mosconis record in 15 weeks playing full time.

He would need 1 million tries or 10.000 weeks (around 200 years) to run 1000 and we are talking about one of the best Straight Pool runners.

If players get better and improve their chance of running 100 closer to 1 in 3, 1 in 2.5 or 1 in 2 running 1000 would become realistc.

Guess Shaw was shooting 100s with 1 in 2.5 which is crazy. Still I think he got "lucky" to run 700+ so fast and is expected to run 1000+ about 1 in 10,000 tries (or 2 years going full time for the record).

So for a very few high caliber players (who run balls way way better, than John Schmidt) running 1000 may be possible but I doubt very much it will happen any time soon.

 

[skogstokig]

It's important for the math to know how many tries it took you to run 300.

Some players practice almost exclusively Straight pool and may put in 1000 tries a year. With a 1 in 10 chance of running 100 they will run 300 about every 1000 tries.

So they may put in a few 300+ in the 10-15 years of their peak performance

but they would need 1000x1000x1000 tries to get 3 consecutive 300 (900 ball run) and needing a year on average for 1000 tries it would take them 1 million years.

So the important stat is your average for running 100 and then you can calculate your chance of running 10 consecutive 100s

Best straight pool players in the world would have an average of 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 for a 100+ run

Say John Schmidt is 1 in 4 to run 100. His chance to run 526 is 1 in 4^5.25 or 1448 tries. Averaging 20 tries a day or 100 tries a week he can expect to beat Mosconis record in 15 weeks playing full time.

He would need 1 million tries or 10.000 weeks (around 200 years) to run 1000 and we are talking about one of the best Straight Pool runners.

If players get better and improve their chance of running 100 closer to 1 in 3, 1 in 2.5 or 1 in 2 running 1000 would become realistc.

Guess Shaw was shooting 100s with 1 in 2.5 which is crazy. Still I think he got "lucky" to run 700+ so fast and is expected to run 1000+ about 1 in 10,000 tries (or 2 years going full time for the record).

So for a very few high caliber players (who run balls way way better, than John Schmidt) running 1000 may be possible but I doubt very much it will happen any time soon.

wiktor, filler, shaw i would say have the best chance, because they play fast and know the game good enough. if all of them tried, the chance of the record being broken obviously isnt as low.

 

[kanzzo]

wiktor, filler, shaw i would say have the best chance, because they play fast and know the game good enough. if all of them tried, the chance of the record being broken obviously isnt as low.

it's possible theoretically. Like if they would put in 2 years full time combined between them. It's more realistic than million of years for any player weaker than Immonen, Hohmann, Ortmann and Feijen in their prime.

But with the 9-Ball tournament schedule and better things to do with their time (no incentive) they might go for it for a week a two (on some high run challenge with a lot of money on the line). And trying it for 3 weeks (combined) instead of 100 weeks it puts their chance of running 1000 in about 3 in 100 (3%, some realistic chance but still very low probability).

 

[L.S. Dennis]

For me, the baseball analog to the high run in straight pool is the hitting streak (the number of consecutive games in which you get a base hit). The MLB record is 56 by Joe DiMaggio, probably a record that will never be broken.

Tony Gwynn's longest streak was 'only' 20 games.
Ted Williams' longest streak was 'only' 23 games.

Although DiMaggio was a great player and a deserved Hall of Famer, he is nowhere in the conversation of being one of the greatest hitters of all time. Gwynn and Williams are in that conversation, and neither of them even reached half of Joe's streak. Not because they were inferior hitters, but rather Tony and Ted didn't have an extended period of luck that is required to maintain such a long hitting streak.

And one more clarification. In this context "having luck" not only means getting good luck, but it equally means not experiencing bad luck.

I think if you'll go back and check the records, Pete Rose came the closest to DiMaggio's record with a 44 game hitting streak back in the 70's. Some people will say that pictures in DiMaggio's era didn't have the good 'slider' that they have now but there's always someone who will have something negative to say of the great past hitters. And no, I don't think DiMaggio's record will ever be beaten but who knows.

 

[sjm]

For me, the baseball analog to the high run in straight pool is the hitting streak (the number of consecutive games in which you get a base hit).

I think a high run is such a one off that the baseball equivalent is when Rennie Stennet, a Pittsburgh Pirate, went 7-7 in a nine-inning baseball game. It is still the record for a nine-inning game some 49 years after the fact and it may well be the record 49 years from now.

Anyone can shine very brightly in a single day, but if we are to use that as a measuring stick for greatness, we must proclaim Rennie Stennet, a fairly average pro baseball player, an all-time great baseball player.

In truth, only the most die-hard baseball fan even knows who Rennie Stennet is.

 

[FeelDaShot]

It's important for the math to know how many tries it took you to run 300.

Some players practice almost exclusively Straight pool and may put in 1000 tries a year. With a 1 in 10 chance of running 100 they will run 300 about every 1000 tries.

So they may put in a few 300+ in the 10-15 years of their peak performance

but they would need 1000x1000x1000 tries to get 3 consecutive 300 (900 ball run) and needing a year on average for 1000 tries it would take them 1 million years.

(Since most players who can run 150 will have worse chance in running 100 than one in 10, they would need more than 40 Million years to achieve 1000+. Say Ralph Eckert practices exclusively Straight pool and has 40 100+ runs a year (having put in 1000 tries). His chance for running 100 is 1 in 25 (still top 10 in his country probably). He would run 150+ every 125 tries (or 8 in a year). Putting in 1000 tries a year he would need 95 Billion years to run 1000. So a definite No. Running 150 doesnt make it ever possible to run 1000.)

So the important stat is your average for running 100 and then you can calculate your chance of running 10 consecutive 100s

Best straight pool players in the world would have an average of 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 for a 100+ run

Say John Schmidt is 1 in 4 to run 100. His chance to run 526 is 1 in 4^5.25 or 1448 tries. Averaging 20 tries a day or 100 tries a week he can expect to beat Mosconis record in 15 weeks playing full time.

He would need 1 million tries or 10.000 weeks (around 200 years) to run 1000 and we are talking about one of the best Straight Pool runners.

If players get better and improve their chance of running 100 closer to 1 in 3, 1 in 2.5 or 1 in 2 running 1000 would become realistc.

Guess Shaw was shooting 100s with 1 in 2.5 which is crazy. Still I think he got "lucky" to run 700+ so fast and is expected to run 1000+ about 1 in 10,000 tries (or 2 years going full time for the record).

So for a very few high caliber players (who run balls way way better, than John Schmidt) running 1000 may be possible but I doubt very much it will happen any time soon.

I really like your take on this. Very interesting stuff. From a strictly statistical perspective, you're 100% right. But I think the statistics overlook a few key elements like getting on a hot streak or being in a unique state of mind on a particular day.

When I was watching John Schmidt's attempts to break his own record, he would have off days where he couldn't run many balls. Then he would start fresh the next day and put up a few 300+ ball runs. Then he would start building momentum and confidence and he cracked 400 a few times soon after. Then that momentum continued to build until he eventually broke the record. So momentum played a huge factor and skewed the stats.

If he were to just have a single attempt every morning, alone in his basement, your statistics would probably be right. But when he is on camera, knowing he only has a certain amount of time to break the record. And continuing to push himself each day, it creates a statistical anomaly.

Also, I don't think it's accurate to assume that the odds of running 600 balls is the same as the odds to complete two consecutive 300 ball runs. For one, once you complete a run of 300 you're going to be in stroke so the odds of doing it again will be more likely. But also, the stress of being on a big run plays a major factor and makes it harder. It's just not as simple as the statistics suggest.

 

[eg9327]

1,000 is nothing, really. I'm well on my way. I'm up to 28 already.

 

[Taxi]

For me, the baseball analog to the high run in straight pool is the hitting streak (the number of consecutive games in which you get a base hit). The MLB record is 56 by Joe DiMaggio, probably a record that will never be broken.

Tony Gwynn's longest streak was 'only' 20 games.
Ted Williams' longest streak was 'only' 23 games.

Although DiMaggio was a great player and a deserved Hall of Famer, he is nowhere in the conversation of being one of the greatest hitters of all time. Gwynn and Williams are in that conversation, and neither of them even reached half of Joe's streak. Not because they were inferior hitters, but rather Tony and Ted didn't have an extended period of luck that is required to maintain such a long hitting streak.

And one more clarification. In this context "having luck" not only means getting good luck, but it equally means not experiencing bad luck.

I completely agree with your point about the luck factor in straight pool runs, but to put Tony Gwynn above Joe Dimaggio as a hitter is a joke, unless you're simply referring to batting average and nothing else. The generally agreed upon overall gauge for batters is the OPS+ metric, which adds On Base Percentage + Slugging Average, and adjusts the resulting number for era. By that measure, Dimaggio's OPS+ was 155, while Gwynn's was 132.

Of course Williams' 191 OPS+ is off the charts, topped only by Babe Ruth's 208.