The smaller pockets are helping the weak players, its very deep and people don't see it.

sjm said:
Yeah, I'm looking forward to watching Krause tomorrow. Saw him play at Derby City, and it was clear that he was in the process of becoming an elite cueist.

If you read my post, I also disagreed with this suggestion, noting possible exceptions. Still, if you don't think underdogs are getting a lot more looks at the table in the Matchroom majors than in the past against the elite, you need to watch more closely. It has been true for about two years now.
Click to expand...
They (underdogs) are, you are right. I do watch very closely. But the data or evidence is limited for now. What my eyes tell me is that some players have simply got hot at the right time, while better players have had their struggles. Why, I am not sure yet. Pocket size can’t be totally ruled out.

You have pointed out repeatedly that there are more good players now than ever and that changes in the break rules have taken away a big advantage. There is far more parity In the game.

The only player I see now with a chance for dominance is Gorst. I thought Filler would have a chance, but he’s plateaued (at a very high level) and has been surprisingly inconsistent the past few years.

Even Gorst … up 9-5 vs. Woodward and misses a key shot. Skyler didn’t give Fedor another good look in an impressive comeback win.

The margin for error is thin, especially with winner break rules.
 
jbart65 said:
They (underdogs) are, you are right. I do watch very closely. But the data or evidence is limited for now. What my eyes tell me is that some players have simply got hot at the right time, while better players have had their struggles. Why, I am not sure yet. Pocket size can’t be totally ruled out.

You have pointed out repeatedly that there are more good players now than ever and that changes in the break rules have taken away a big advantage. There is far more parity In the game.

The only player I see now with a chance for dominance is Gorst. I thought Filler would have a chance, but he’s plateaued (at a very high level) and has been surprisingly inconsistent the past few years.

Even Gorst … up 9-5 vs. Woodward and misses a key shot. Skyler didn’t give Fedor another good look in an impressive comeback win.

The margin for error is thin, especially with winner break rules.
Click to expand...
Yes. Well said.
 
spliced said:
The only way I could see tighter pockets helping the weaker player, would be that in high pressure situations with very tight pockets, a player who would consistently run out on loose pockets has a greater chance of rattling the last couple balls, leaving the weaker player easy outs.
Click to expand...
I think this is the main argument of the original post. Although there is truth that there is a greater chance of the better player rattling the last few balls, the weaker player isn’t immune to the same thing.

As contradictory as it may sound, smaller pockets could give a weaker player a higher chance of ever beating a stronger player, while at the same time still favor the stronger player on average.

Same type of logic applies to shortening the races (all else being equal). If you go from race to 3 instead of race to 9, the weaker player has a much better chance of defeating a stronger player given the much shorter race. But on average, the stronger player will still win the same percentage of racks as before.
 
i mean the age old saying everyones been thru or thought..."if i get a big spot i wanna play on the tightest table"gotta be some truth in there somewhere
 
jbart65 said:
They (underdogs) are, you are right. I do watch very closely. But the data or evidence is limited for now. What my eyes tell me is that some players have simply got hot at the right time, while better players have had their struggles. Why, I am not sure yet. Pocket size can’t be totally ruled out.

You have pointed out repeatedly that there are more good players now than ever and that changes in the break rules have taken away a big advantage. There is far more parity In the game.

The only player I see now with a chance for dominance is Gorst. I thought Filler would have a chance, but he’s plateaued (at a very high level) and has been surprisingly inconsistent the past few years.

Even Gorst … up 9-5 vs. Woodward and misses a key shot. Skyler didn’t give Fedor another good look in an impressive comeback win.

The margin for error is thin, especially with winner break rules.
Click to expand...

You dont think Anton Raga coud dominate? Or Chua or Filler if he starts getting dialed in again?
 
Yeah that’s why the top players in the world are still dominating. Because it helps the weaker players. 😂 thanks for the laugh though
 
King T said:
You dont think Anton Raga coud dominate? Or Chua or Filler if he starts getting dialed in again?
Click to expand...

too many good players.. it's the same in snooker. noone is dominating like stephen hendry did. i don't see it happening anytime soon. FSR had a crazy year, but that was just that - a year, and it was an incredibly rare occurrence..
 
rivercitysledge said:
i mean the age old saying everyones been thru or thought..."if i get a big spot i wanna play on the tightest table"gotta be some truth in there somewhere
Click to expand...
a gambling match where a big spot is involved is something different altogether. better player still wins the vast majority of these.
 
jbart65 said:
They (underdogs) are, you are right. I do watch very closely. But the data or evidence is limited for now. What my eyes tell me is that some players have simply got hot at the right time, while better players have had their struggles. Why, I am not sure yet. Pocket size can’t be totally ruled out.

You have pointed out repeatedly that there are more good players now than ever and that changes in the break rules have taken away a big advantage. There is far more parity In the game.

The only player I see now with a chance for dominance is Gorst. I thought Filler would have a chance, but he’s plateaued (at a very high level) and has been surprisingly inconsistent the past few years.

Even Gorst … up 9-5 vs. Woodward and misses a key shot. Skyler didn’t give Fedor another good look in an impressive comeback win.

The margin for error is thin, especially with winner break rules.
Click to expand...
One huge advantage with small pockets is this.
The younger pro players have much better eyesight.
 
Read Icarus.

Nothing's been mentioned about the gap being discussed. How much weaker? One game to 10? 20? A ball under? Whatever that last one's supposed to mean. The tighter pockets can bring out better judgement in the non dominant touring heavy. I said that a ways back; new wordage...

:)
 
the only part of the op's rambling hypothesy i might agree with is there are no real dominant players anymore. BUT, having just said i also think that pocket size has nothing to do with it. Today's talent pool is SO deep compared to say the glory days of the Camel Tour. Unless pool's version of Tiger Woods shows up i think it will be tough for any player to really distance himself from the field.
 
I’d have to agree with OP’s premise.

I would NEVER gamble 9 ball on the tightest table in the room against a guy 50 fargo points lower than me.

Why would I???

I run out better…why take away my advantage by allowing him to take seize upon my newly found misses on routine runouts? I’d never miss or get out of line on a normal table…and on the off chance i do…i can also play recovery shots that actually go in instead of hang!

The same guy i can crush 9-2 on a normal table now is a coin flip on these gaffy tight tables.

The tighter the table, the more even the playing field.

It’s not good for the game.
 
sjm said:
I feel there is some validity in the initial post. I'll consider what I believe to be the two major assertions separately:

1. The Super-tight Pockets Make it Almost Impossible for Anybody to Dominate the Sport
I believe this to be largely true. The formula for winning has changed and those that tended to dominate with their break are no longer doing it. The 4" pocket, nine on the spot with a break box version of 9ball has been in use in the "field of 256 Matchroom majors" since August 2022. This equipment and rule set tend to bring more tactical play into the mix, and those unable to grind are not enjoying as much success as in the past. At Large stats show time and again that the break is less of an advantage than it ever has been. Even the three pack has become a very rare commodity and everybody is getting to shoot. Underdogs no longer have to sit in the chair for several racks at a time.

2. Super-Tight Pockets Favor the Weaker Player
With this suggestion, I disagree, but I would agree that a slightly less skilled cueist with very solid tactical skills has a better chance than in the past and, as the original post suggests, Cinderella stories are more likely than in the past because of it. Hence, these super-tight pockets CAN favor the weaker player, if the weaker player has a skill set that befits these conditions.

I short, while I can't accept the strong blanket statements made by Smoochie, I find some wisdom in the original post.
Click to expand...

garczar said:
i meant the game itself, 14.1 was not intended to be played on tight tables. the op is clueless.
Click to expand...
Not clueless; rather, he is not able to state his thesis clearly ( or concisely!!!).

Stu has done a much better job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top