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

9ballglue said:
I was going to mention that as well. That definitely is part of the tight pocket situation.
.
Last week I had a tournament where I had a tough shot full table length where I had to stun draw with the cue near the rail to get to the 8 next. I had a couple easier safe options but I like to go for it if I can. I made the shot on any other table it just didn't fall because of the cut and deep shelf of the diamond. Position was perfect. The guy I was playing would never had been able to play that shot. He was playing safes when he had pretty easy outs. I could do that but I don't like that type of pool.
.
In this way the diamonds do allow less skilled players to win some small races. I don't think it works as well in longer races. Had that shot went in my opponent would have missed alot more shots because a powerful stroke/ shot maker is intimidating to players that tap balls.
Click to expand...
I lost a game because the cue ball was too close to the rail to draw comfortably so I tried to hit the point and the object ball at the same time but it was too deep in the pocket. At home, with beat up cloth on the facings, my Olhausen spits out a lot of balls shot down the rails when you hit them firmly.
 
The one thing the OP is correct about is that the more misses there are, the more opportunities the weaker player will have to get to the table. Of course he’ll be missing more also, but it does open the possibility of the weaker player getting a couple of easy layouts and winning games that the stronger player would have otherwise won. My guess is it doesn’t change the long term outcome much, but does add a little variance to any game or very short match.
 
in extreme cases where one is getting spotted most of the balls in 9 ball then super tight pockets should help as he wont be run out on very often of the time its medium open table.

in games where one is spotted it can make a big difference depending on things like difference in abilities, the spot, the game etc.
 
smoochie said:
I've said this years ago, probably the first time they introduced the smaller pockets into pool, then I've said it again in another post here a year or months ago I can't remember.

Now I'll say it again. The introduction of smaller pockets in pool is not good for the sport, it removes SPORT DOMINANCE where you have 2-3 players who can dominate because of their skill. This is absolutely removed and lifted and now its all about who gets the better rolls, literally.

People often don't think deeply about this because they think in a simple manner which would go something like this "Smaller pocket, means player must focus to pot balls, ergo better player wins" and this is veery very far from the truth. In fact smaller pockets will often yields to the winning of the weaker player and most of the time it is randomize. A better player can win if he gets the better end of things but its mostly up to the pool gods now.

We know in all circumstances that the pool gods play a huge part in pool even with larger pockets, but imagine that now with smaller pockets you added like 10x in the hands of pool gods. This is not good cause it will result in more randomness and what I said here you can literally see it in the pool brackets & results, literally I remembeer that one filipino guy who has fargo of 700 or even lower won a major event few months ago in this same small pocket situation, it wasn't like he got really good all of a sudden, but the randomness & rolls helped it because of those small pockets.

I still haven't explained how smaller pockets will add more randomness & luck, but ill leave you think about it deeply then ill post again to elaborate & explain whats happening....cause I don't want this one post to be long.

Just look for results, here's the thing...I am not a pro but if you ever asked me to play against jushua or shane etc, I will ask them to play me in a small pocket & ask for short race i.e. race to 2 or 3 - this will give me the highest chance of beating them. Just think about this
Click to expand...
That's complete and utter nonsense. You don't make it easier for lesser players by making the game more difficult. You simply change who the dominant players are. The better players will win MORE often in more difficult conditions, not less often. You simply showcase the flaws in the formerly dominant players games.

Jaden
 
OK. tournament pool, pool in general, is not a post graduate thesis in economics.

It's improvisation. The proportions are gaseous and opportunity, fleeting. I don't think anyone said the probabilities tumble in favor of the weaker player. If this weaker player is of the lights out variety, they will certainly shift in that direction.
 
Jaden said:
That's complete and utter nonsense. You don't make it easier for lesser players by making the game more difficult. You simply change who the dominant players are. The better players will win MORE often in more difficult conditions, not less often. You simply showcase the flaws in the formerly dominant players games.
Click to expand...
This absolutist thinking (better players will always win more often in more difficult conditions) may jive in games like straight pool, one pocket, and (to a lesser extent) 8-ball, but not necessarily in 9-ball. Again in 9-ball, the winner isn't necessarily the one who pockets the most balls on the table. For the other games, you have to pocket the most total balls in order to win the match (neglecting premature 8 balls in the game of 8-ball).

I do think that once you get sub 4" pockets, the overall luck factor does increase by not an insignificant amount (sorry for the double negative). That means there probably will be a greater spread on who ends up winning these tournaments. I think that is what the OP is trying to get at.
 
jsp said:
This absolutist thinking (better players will always win more often in more difficult conditions) may jive in games like straight pool, one pocket, and (to a lesser extent) 8-ball, but not necessarily in 9-ball. Again in 9-ball, the winner isn't necessarily the one who pockets the most balls on the table. For the other games, you have to pocket the most total balls in order to win the match (neglecting premature 8 balls in the game of 8-ball).

I do think that once you get sub 4" pockets, the overall luck factor does increase by not an insignificant amount (sorry for the double negative). That means there probably will be a greater spread on who ends up winning these tournaments. I think that is what the OP is trying to get at.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about the better player being the one who pockets the most balls. It can be about knowing one's game and adjusting choices to circumstances to get the better outcome. Not going for the shots where the conditions make it less likely to make the balls and executing the proper shot. There were many times during the Shane/Fedor match where either one would've had a much better chance of winning that particular game by executing a safety instead of going for the shot, or where choosing to play a safe and executing it well, LED to their winning that game.

The better player 1. Knows their game, 2. plans according to the conditions, 3. Executes what their intentions are more successfully.

Making the conditions more difficult leads to the better player winning more often. It will never lead to lesser players who aren't capable of the above winning more often.

I've known several high level players who typically can't or rather don't try to, run more than 3 or 4 balls at a time. They know their game and then choose what to do according to their abilities.

Jaden
 
Last edited:
We need Mike Page to give us comparative break downs of performances across the different pocket sizes. Otherwise you can pull anecdotes or think up scenarios to support either position.
 
Cameron Smith said:
We need Mike Page to give us comparative break downs of performances across the different pocket sizes. Otherwise you can pull anecdotes or think up scenarios to support either position.
Click to expand...
FR doesn't track pocket size afaik. The OP's position is untenable. No way to support what he's saying. Its all a fantasy backed by nothing but guessing.
 
garczar said:
FR doesn't track pocket size afaik. The OP's position is untenable. No way to support what he's saying. Its all a fantasy backed by nothing but guessing.
Click to expand...
No, but if you were to pull data from the 2022, 2023 and 2024 of the UK Open for example, you’d know that you were getting results on 4.25”, 4” and 3.85” respectively.
 
garczar said:
FR doesn't track pocket size afaik. The OP's position is untenable. No way to support what he's saying. Its all a fantasy backed by nothing but guessing.
Click to expand...

Here are the top 8 of the last two tournaments with sub-4" pockets (2024 European Open and 2024 UK Open). Interesting that there is absolutely no overlap in the top 8 between the two tournaments.

1724169310936.png
1724169338554.png
 
maha said:
you can bet your ass that in any long race and most short ones in 9 or 10 ball the person who pockets the most balls will be the winner of the set.
Click to expand...
That's a very simplistic and non-exhaustive take, but not incorrect and while that may be true, that's not the sole or maybe even the main reason that they will be the winner of the set.

Jaden
 
maha said:
you can bet your ass that in any long race and most short ones in 9 or 10 ball the person who pockets the most balls will be the winner of the set.
Click to expand...
Define what a "long" race is? Would you consider a race to 9 long enough? If so, then no...I won't bet my ass that it's guaranteed that the winner of a race to 9 pockets the most balls.
 
betting your ass on something doesn't mean you are guaranteed to win. it means you have way the best of the bet.

ill bet on just one game with that bet. or each game whatever. and i am a huge favorite over it in a set.

what you wont bet on has nothing to do with the accuracy of my post. just your perception of what you would bet on and that is a personal choice.. i will bet on anything anywhere for most any amount i believe i have an advantage on the bet. and i am very good at that and some here call that being a nit.
  • :)
 
jsp said:
I do think that once you get sub 4" pockets, the overall luck factor does increase by not an insignificant amount (sorry for the double negative). That means there probably will be a greater spread on who ends up winning these tournaments. I think that is what the OP is trying to get at
Click to expand...
I guess luck is the best way to describe it. It seems like the top pros miss rarely enough that it's like rolling dice. You have a one in 36 chance of rolling snake eyes. If I roll snake eyes soon after you are back in the game. If it takes a while, and then you roll them quickly, you might be done.
maha said:
you can bet your ass that in any long race and most short ones in 9 or 10 ball the person who pockets the most balls will be the winner of the set.
Click to expand...
It seems like the vast majority of times I've seen balls pocketed and games won stats, they have been reasonably proportional. After the seventh or eighth rack, the ratio of balls pocketed and games won is often nearly identical. At that point, I don't think I've ever seen the leader with less balls pocketed than the loser. These are pros playing 9 ball, typically in the later rounds of a tournament, so I expect anomalous matches to be rare, compared to the early rounds.

rexus31 said:
The results are not exclusive to tight pockets. The break rules and event format are more responsible for the parity, IMO.
Click to expand...
Yes, breaks and runs and packages are much less common than in the old matches.
 
I think it was in another thread that I talked about who leads and who follows as in a dance. Might have been this thread, I am not going to look through it to see. The stronger player will lead, the weaker player follow.

Both players will have to play differently than their normal game for these miracles to happen. The stronger player has to forget how to play while the weaker one has to improve both strategy and pocketing skills. I have seen it happen, did it myself because of outside factors. Not going to happen during a pro tournament. It isn't impossible but so unlikely that I will bet on it not happening all day long as maha says, just playing the odds.

A university project created a random number generator. What this amounted to was the same as a coin flip. Out of millions or billions of coin flips the high run was twenty of one state in a row! Odd things happen but if you bet on the odd thing happening you will find yourself broke.

maha, when you only play the bets where you are betting with the odds in your favor you are a nit. When I do it I am a smart gambler!

I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody has been goaded into a bad bet by calling them a nit! One of the physically greatest players of our era could be goaded into bad bets by calling him a nit. I strongly suspect he lost over a hundred thousand lifetime, maybe a million, just by people badgering him into a bad game. They were more afraid of having a reputation as a nit than they were of losing.

Hu
 
In other parts of the space time continuum, (STC if I have to use it again lol) quantum neural communion
had already been identified, refined and deployed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top