Why Pool Leagues Should Embrace “ALL BALL FOULS”

[gregcantrall]

and a clueless bartender presiding

Please excuse my off topic rant.
The bracket board kept behind the bar had in small print at the top. 1st 70% 2nd 20% 3rd 10%.
Then a hand drawn bracket for up to 12 players. The field was 9 at 10 bucks each.
Since in anchient times my experience was that the house added money which was often dependent on the number of entrants, I enquired as to the payout. The barmaid replied with, "You do the math!" Wow! Well okay my next question of how much does the house add was met with an incredulous look. Almost like I had a thumb growing out of my forehead. Well that did make the math simple. I had a brief interaction regarding "doing the math" and working for tips. How her flippant response was uh......well a scene from the movie Pretty Woman comes to mind.. [

]
Well the math said my 2nd place finish was 18. She handed me 15. I guess math ain't her strong suit. Shrug. I held my ground until the pot was made right and left. I had tipped a dollar for each of my 2 beers. I quit drinking after the first unpleasant interactions. Would have drank several more . Had the experience been pleasant I would return next week with the wife. She tips liberally and spends copiously. We both worked for tips at one time.
Oh well.

 

[Rocket354]

This is an area people don't understand very well. Let's say we were not the "commercial product" you imagine but were instead contracted by Matchroom specifically just to rate players worldwide at 9-Ball on 9-foot tables. That is our only goal, and we have no incentive to do anything else. What data would be include? We absolutely would include all the data we now include. Without it, we would be a lousy job rating those 9-Ball players. Understanding this is not about understanding pool in the different conditions. Those differences that people obsess about are all averaged out in the ways that matter to the 9-Ball ratings.It is about understanding WHY the FargoRate approach works, and that is far more a mathematical/optimization question than a pool question.

In fact, if we did add all available data for english 8-Ball on small tables, and chinese 8-ball on big tight rounded-pocket tables, that would actually IMPROVE FargoRate's ability to assess how Oscar and Lukas compare playing 9-Ball on a 9-foot table. That is hard for people to understand. But it's true.

Maybe clarifying your belief on the utility of one all-encompassing rating across all pool disciplines would be helpful.

Let's take two players. Say, Tony C with a 777 Fargo, and Skyler W with an 812. Do you believe the relative win frequency between these two folks would be exactly the same whether they are playing 9b or 1p?

 

[Bavafongoul]

lol

Imagine a narrow raised sidewalk with a six-foot dropoff on either side. Playing on a 9-foot table is like walking on that one-foot wide sidewalk.

It is harder than walking on the 1.5 foot wide sidewalk (7-foot table). But here's the deal. When you move to the wider sidewalk, the fall increases from 6 feet to 12 feet. So you are less likely to falter, but the price is higher when you do.

It is an incomplete picture to look at the width of the sidewalk in isolation.

i do not fully appreciate your analogy as you likely intended but I will concede that shots become harder further apart.

 

[poolscholar]

There is zero chance that 7 ft skill is equal to 9 ft skill in all cases. Id challenge pretty much anyone in bar table 8 ball but I'd get crushed playing pros big table 9 ball. Fargo rate is not perfect. It's good but not perfect.

Maybe on average they are very similar. You can manipulate stats and data to support pretty much anything. Saying they are equivalent is denying reality. Same with assuming all data is good data. Or that win loss is the only way to measure skill in pool

 

[boogieman]

There is zero chance that 7 ft skill is equal to 9 ft skill in all cases. Id challenge pretty much anyone in bar table 8 ball but I'd get crushed playing pros big table 9 ball. Fargo rate is not perfect. It's good but not perfect.

Maybe on average they are very similar. You can manipulate stats and data to support pretty much anything. Saying they are equivalent is denying reality. Same with assuming all data is good data. Or that win loss is the only way to measure skill in pool

I'm guessing if someone became a 650 playing on ONLY 9' and someone became a 650 playing on only a 7' the 9' guy would have an advantage on the 9' and the 7' guy would have an advantage on the 7'.

In reality most 9' players have competed in something on a 7' but much fewer 7' players have competed in a 9' only event. So I'm going to give the 9' guy a slighter edge if they played a set on each.

 

[poolscholar]

I'm guessing if someone became a 650 playing on ONLY 9' and someone became a 650 playing on only a 7' the 9' guy would have an advantage on the 9' and the 7' guy would have an advantage on the 7'.

In reality most 9' players have competed in something on a 7' but much fewer 7' players have competed in a 9' only event. So I'm going to give the 9' guy a slighter edge if they played a set on each.

I've beaten a few good pros on bar tables but no way I would have won the matches on 9 fts. I've also watched a few pros struggle on 7 ft. But sometimes smart people would rather be right than face reality

 

[mikepage]

Maybe clarifying your belief on the utility of one all-encompassing rating across all pool disciplines would be helpful.

Let's take two players. Say, Tony C with a 777 Fargo, and Skyler W with an 812. Do you believe the relative win frequency between these two folks would be exactly the same whether they are playing 9b or 1p?

No, they'd I believe be pretty close in one pocket and Skyler a clear favorite in 9b

 

[mikepage]

I've beaten a few good pros on bar tables but no way I would have won the matches on 9 fts. [...]

This makes sense, right? It is easier for you to beat a pro on a 7-foot table

 

[mikepage]

i do not fully appreciate your analogy as you likely intended but I will concede that shots become harder further apart.

My point is when most people compare "easy" to "hard" tables (the 1.0 foot wide raised walkway to the 1.5 foot wide raised walkway), they are just thinking of PLAYER and TABLE. But there is a triangle here, PLAYER, TABLE, and OPPONENT. And when the TABLE gets easier, the OPPONENT gets better.

Let's say you're playing poolscholar. Yes it is harder to run out on a 9-foot table. But if you miss, you have a decent chance of getting back to the table. Missing on the barbox against him is a sellout. Poolscholar effectively becomes a stronger opponent on an easier table, complicating calling the table "easier." That is the longer dropoff with the wider walkway.

Mistakes are more likely forgiven on harder equipment

 

[The_JV]

I think any competent player would embrace all ball fouls. All it would accomplish is further increasing the divide between the wheat vs the chaff.

Typical league rules aren't about making the game easier. It's just another layer to the handicapping onion weak players enjoy. Of course this example works both ways. However how often does a schooled and practiced student of the game make the normal haphazard fouls the chaff do..?

IMO, no real value gained in altering the rules in the NA amateur game. Once some level of proficiency is gained. The change to all ball fouls is nearly inconsequential

 

[The_JV]

On a separate note... does anyone know if AZB either has or the website os contains the ability to ignore posts that contains user specific words. This thread would be 1/3rd the read if we could ignore all the useless comparisons and discussion with golf.

 

[straightline]

Implement complex handicaps. Say a 3 is able to stack 'em like a 9. ("a three is able to stack'em like a nine") Then he becomes a level 9, 3. He now matches up giving as a 9 but gets whatever a 3 gets. Say he plays a level 7, 4. (***************) They average 9 meets 7 and 3 meets 4.
Any questions?

 

[gregcantrall]

Just awakening to the off topic of table size.
Well in my experience as a barbox warrior that ventured into the 211 for lessons.
My observations leads to the big table /small table conclusion. The big table favors pocketing with larger landing zones for whitey. The mall table has closer pockets but tighter landing zones. Especially play 8 ball on a 7 foot table. 8 ball on a 9 footer was so easy, if you can make a shot.
"Be A Shoemaker" was the golden wisdom that Backward Jan preached. I took it to ♥.
No no no Shotmaker! Grrrr spiel correct.
It does start with the feet. The foundation you know. So The Pool Gawds are.....uh messing with me.
Build it from the ground up. Inspect and examine daily.
Oh Yeah The Basics.

 

[joelpope]

Will watch the video later but hard pass for me. Arguing over whether my shirt touched a ball or not doesn’t sound like a good time and leagues are about fun. Without referees, just forget all ball fouls imo.

absolutely agree, arguing about "you fouled" would add an hour to every league night

OK w/ref but not in typical league setting

 

[gregcantrall]

Ambassador to the Game is the title I now seek to be. I have already earned a few titles. Asshole is first in votes. Master was awarded once.
Asshole does all the dirty work. Right??? The degrees of purgatory might......uh ooops it's not Sunday. I'll be quiet.

And if you believe that.

as he knocks the ash from his cigar.

 

[dr_dave]

absolutely agree, arguing about "you fouled" would add an hour to every league night

OK w/ref but not in typical league setting

It is no different than with any of the other fouls in the long list presented in the video.

Another new WPA rule also helps lessen the chances for arguments with all foul calls: The benefit of the doubt always goes to the shooter.

If the opponent did not ask to have somebody observe a shot (or game) and did not ask to video record the shot (or game), and if the shooter did not see or feel the foul and does not agree they fouled, the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt (no foul). There is no reason to argue because this is the rule. Now, if a dishonest player develops a reputation of not admitting to any fouls, even those blatantly obvious, it is the opponent”s responsibility to ask for an observer more, especially if there is any suspected chance for a foul resulting from a double hit, wrong ball hit first, ball touch, etc. And if a dishonest player attempts to call “phantom fouls” that obviously did not occur, there is again no reason for an argument since the shooter gets the final say (if no observer was asked to watch). The dishonest players should also be reported to their team captain and league operator so an attempt can be made to change their unsportsmanlike behavior.

 

[The_JV]

It is no different than with any of the other fouls in the long list presented in the video.

Another new WPA rule also helps lessen the chances for arguments with all foul calls: The benefit of the doubt always goes to the shooter.

If the opponent did not ask to have somebody observe a shot (or game) and did not ask to video record the shot (or game), and if the shooter did not see or feel the foul and does not agree they fouled, the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt (no foul). There is no reason to argue because this is the rule. Now, if a dishonest player develops a reputation of not admitting to any fouls, even those blatantly obvious, it is the opponent”s responsibility to ask for an observer more, especially if there is any suspected chance for a foul resulting from a double hit, wrong ball hit first, ball touch, etc. And if a dishonest player attempts to call “phantom fouls” that obviously did not occur, there is again no reason for an argument since the shooter gets the final say (if no observer was asked to watch). The dishonest players should also be reported to their team captain and league operator so an attempt can be made to change their unsportsmanlike behavior.

You're implying an honour system. Which then of course falls flat on its face once you consider we're talking about pool players. Let alone league level pool players.

What's the point in ramping up the rules to all ball if the only way to have it enforceable is to have a impartial ref watch the shot. No one would agree to a player from either team watching for the foul. So now you have to hunt the room for a player who is both competent and not playing, to potentially watch the bulk of a rack. An all ball foul could happen at any moment.

The premise is great but the practical application while keeping the night fun and short is near impossible.

 

[dr_dave]

No one would agree to a player from either team watching for the foul.

I disagree. Players in my league often ask people from opposing teams to watch a shot.

So now you have to hunt the room for a player who is both competent and not playing, to potentially watch the bulk of a rack. An all ball foul could happen at any moment.

Team members from both teams often watch entire games or matches, so it is not too much to ask for one of them to observe for fouls, assuming both players agree to this. But I don't think it is necessary, except for shots that are suspect.

Concerning ball touch fouls (CB or OB), most of them are obvious to both the shooter and opponent. In the case where this is not the case, the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt.

The premise is great

Agreed.

but the practical application while keeping the night fun and short is near impossible.

Obviously, for all the reasons in the video, I disagree.

 

[poolscholar]

This makes sense, right? It is easier for you to beat a pro on a 7-foot table

You miss the point but you know that. You won't acknowledge any flaw in your system. There is no perfect system and some people have specific knowledge that depends on the table size and or game. And you control the data so of course nobody can check your assumptions

 

[poolscholar]

I disagree. Players in my league often ask people from opposing teams to watch a shot.




Team members from both teams often watch entire games or matches, so it is not too much to ask for one of them to observe for fouls, assuming both players agree to this. But I don't think it is necessary, except for shots that are suspect.

Concerning ball touch fouls (CB or OB), most of them are obvious to both the shooter and opponent. In the case where this is not the case, the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt.




Agreed.




Obviously, for all the reasons in the video, I disagree.

If you want the answer for pool in general then you need to talk to a bunch of experienced tournament directors. It might work for your league and maybe you just haven't experienced problems in your pool life that others have