Break Stats -- 2026 Derby City Classic 9-Ball, January 2026

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are some aggregate break statistics from the 2026 Derby City Classic 9-Ball event played January 28 - February 1, 2026 at Caesars Southern Indiana Hotel & Casino in Elizabeth, Indiana with pay-per-view streaming by Accu-Stats. Joshua Filler won the event, a three-peat, defeating Vitaliy Patsura in the final match.

This event had 504 entrants, but 33 forfeits in Round 1. The event operated under the standard DCC format of redrawing match pairings for every round, with one buy-back permitted for each player. All races were to 9 except for the Final to 11.

Conditions -- The conditions for the streamed matches included:
• Diamond 9-foot table with 4½" corner pockets and blue Simonis 860 or 860 HR cloth;​
• Aramith Tournament balls with an Aramith "Diamond" cue ball with blue spots;​
• racking template;​
• rack your own, with the 9-ball on the foot spot and the 2-ball not in the back location;​
• winner breaks from the break box -- about 8" to each side of the long string;​
• no 3-point illegal-break rule;​
• jump cues allowed;​
• no shot clock except in the Final (30 sec. + 30-sec. extension); and​
• all slop counts.​

The 17 matches (243 games) streamed by xpool on the feature table were as follows, shown in the order in which they were played. The stream was down in a large part of two games in Match 5 below, so the statistics are for 241 games instead of 243.

Wed., Jan. 28
1. Daniel Sardoncillo defeated Shane Winters 9-8​
2. Lee Vann Corteza d. Alex Montpellier 9-5​
3. Roberto Gomez d. Payne McBride 9-6​

Thurs., Jan. 29
4. Devin Poteet d. Ashley Benoit 9-2​
5. Vitaliy Patsura d. Billy Thorpe 9-4​

Fri., Jan. 30
6. Oscar Dominguez d. Kristina Tkach 9-8​
7. Manuel Perez d. Gerson Martinez 9-7​
8. Fedor Gorst d. Corteza 9-4​
9. Lukas Fracasso-Verner d. Demetrius Jelatis 9-5​

Sat., Jan. 31
10. Gomez d. Pia Filler 9-6​
11. John Morra d. Ralf Souquet 9-7​
12. Anthony Meglino d. Patsura 9-3​
13. Skyler Woodward d. Nathan Childress 9-8​
14. Joshua Filler d. Shane Van Boening 9-2​
15. Filler d. Gorst 9-2​

Sun., Jan 26
16. Van Boening d. Jonathan Pinegar 9-4​
17. Filler d. Patsura 11-7 (Final)​

Overall results

Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Match winners -- 64% (94 of 148)​
Match losers -- 55% (51 of 93)​
Total -- 60% (145 of 241)

Breaker won the game:
Match winners -- 61% (91 of 148)​
Match losers -- 32% (30 of 93)​
Total -- 50% (121 of 241)

Break-and-run games on all breaks:
Match winners -- 31% (46 of 148)​
Match losers -- 15% (14 of 93)​
Total -- 25% (60 of 241)

Break-and-run games on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Match winners -- 49% (46 of 94)​
Match losers -- 27% (14 of 51)​
Total -- 41% (60 of 145)

Here's a breakdown of the 241 games (for match winners and losers combined).

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:​
Breaker won the game: 90 (37% of the 241 games)​
Breaker lost the game: 55 (23%)​
Breaker fouled on the break:​
Breaker won the game: 5 (2%)​
Breaker lost the game: 25 (10%)​
Breaker broke dry (without fouling):​
Breaker won the game: 26 (11%)​
Breaker lost the game: 40 (17%)​
Therefore, whereas the breaker won 50% (121 of 241) of all games,​
He won 62% (90 of 145) of the games in which the break was successful (made at least one ball and did not foul).​
He won 32% (31 of 96) of the games in which the break was unsuccessful (fouled or dry).​

Break-and-run games -- The 60 break-and-run games represented 25% of all 241 games, 50% of the 121 games won by the breaker, and 41% of the 145 games in which the break was successful (made a ball, legal, no foul).

The 60 break-and-run games consisted of one 5-pack (by Filler), one 4-pack (by Poteet), three 3-packs (one each by Martinez, Morra, and Filler), four 2-packs and 34 singles.

9-balls on the break -- The 60 break-and-run games included 4 9-balls on the break (1.7% of the 241 breaks).
 
Miscellany from the data for the 2026 DCC 9-Ball event
[This relates only to the 17 matches streamed by xpool in the main arena, not to all matches in the event.]

▪︎ The most balls made on a single break was 3. It was done in 9 games, 7 of which (6 by B&R) were won by the breaker.

▪︎ The average number of balls made on all breaks was 1.0. On successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul), the average was 1.4 and the distribution was 68% 1 ball, 26% 2 balls, and 6% 3 balls.

▪︎ Number of innings:
• 49% (119 of 241) of the games ended in one inning – 60 games on the breaker's first inning (B&Rs) and 59 games on the non-breaker's first inning.​
• 27% (64 of 241) of the games ended in the second inning.​
• 24% (58 of 241) of the games went beyond the non-breaker's second visit to the table. The two games with the most innings ended on the breaker's 9th visit to the table.​

▪︎ 43% (103 of 241) of the games were run out by the player who was at the table following the break. These run-outs were:
• By the breaker after successful breaks (B&R games) – 41% (60 of 145)​
• By the non-breaker after fouls on the break – 70% (21 of 30)​
• By the non-breaker after dry breaks – 33% (22 of 66)​

▪︎ The player who made the first ball after the break:
• Won the game in that same inning 65% of the time (155 of 237)​
• Won the game in a later inning 10% of the time (24 of 237)​
• Lost the game 24% of the time (58 of 237)​
[Note -- total games used here are 237 rather than 241 to eliminate the games in which no ball was made after the break.]​

▪︎ The match loser won an average of 5.1 games in the 16 races to 9. Three matches went to hill/hill; the most lopsided matches were three at a score of 9-2.

▪︎ The average elapsed time for these races to 9 was 82 1/2 minutes. The average minutes per game for all 243 games was 5.8. The elapsed time was measured from the lag until the winning ball was made (or conceded), so it includes time for racking and timeouts.

▪︎ The match that was longest in elapsed time, at about 121 minutes, was Sardoncillo d. Winters 9-8. The match that was highest in average minutes per game, at 7.7, was Gorst d. Corteza 9-4.

▪︎ The match that was shortest in elapsed time, at about 30 minutes, and lowest in average minutes per game, at 2.7, was Filler d. Van Boening 9-2.

▪︎ Breaking fouls averaged 1 for every 8.0 games, other fouls 1 for every 3.7 games, and missed shots about 1 for every 3.0 games.

▪︎ One or more safeties were played in about 44% of all games and in 58% of games that were not B&Rs.
 
Awesome! Thanks!

To me, one of the most impressive stats is that Filler got food poisoning, forfeited an early match (having to use his re-buy for medical reasons!) and then still won the tourney. He spotted the field his buyback and still won. His wins in 7 rounds before the finals were outstanding. 3 or 4 of those matches took around 30 minutes. He was on fire and nobody ever really threatened him.

Well, except Jason Davis who smoked Filler in round 2!

9-4 Schickling
FF
9-3 Keeton
9-3 Stevens
9-1 Keeton [again]
9-4 Harris
9-2 Poteet
9-2 Sanchez
9-3 Garcia
9-2 SVB
9-2 Gorst
9-4 Teutscher
9-0 SVB [again]
11-7 Patsura [finals]

-td
 
I'm intrigued with this stat. I've been noticing it for a few years now. I always thought the break in 9 ball was a significant spot. I also would have thought the significance of that spot would grow with skill level. Looks like not so much.
1770039895172.png
 
Awesome! Thanks!

To me, one of the most impressive stats is that Filler got food poisoning, forfeited an early match (having to use his re-buy for medical reasons!) and then still won the tourney. He spotted the field his buyback and still won. His wins in 7 rounds before the finals were outstanding. 3 or 4 of those matches took around 30 minutes. He was on fire and nobody ever really threatened him.

Well, except Jason Davis who smoked Filler in round 2!

9-4 Schickling
FF
9-3 Keeton
9-3 Stevens
9-1 Keeton [again]
9-4 Harris
9-2 Poteet
9-2 Sanchez
9-3 Garcia
9-2 SVB
9-2 Gorst
9-4 Teutscher
9-0 SVB [again]
11-7 Patsura [finals]

-td
Yeah, that's a bulldozing of historic proportion. Beating SVB and Gorst a combined 27-4 is mind blowing.
 
I'm intrigued with this stat. I've been noticing it for a few years now. I always thought the break in 9 ball was a significant spot. ...
Pat Fleming showed a long time ago -- 1987? -- that for most pro players, the break was a disadvantage. That is, the breaker won less than 50% of the time. He was known to remark to his opponent, "My arm's not working right -- you can have the breaks." That's one of those enticing, negative spots. Like me taking three of your balls off the table at eight ball.

The break is an advantage only for the top players who have worked on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fjk
Pat Fleming showed a long time ago -- 1987? -- that for most pro players, the break was a disadvantage. That is, the breaker won less than 50% of the time. He was known to remark to his opponent, "My arm's not working right -- you can have the breaks." That's one of those enticing, negative spots. Like me taking three of your balls off the table at eight ball.

The break is an advantage only for the top players who have worked on it.
It looks like it's about 50/50 now. Seems surprising to me...I never would have guessed that.

I wonder if the same holds true with all levels of play. Seems like it would.
 
Awesome! Thanks!

To me, one of the most impressive stats is that Filler got food poisoning, forfeited an early match (having to use his re-buy for medical reasons!) and then still won the tourney. He spotted the field his buyback and still won. His wins in 7 rounds before the finals were outstanding. 3 or 4 of those matches took around 30 minutes. He was on fire and nobody ever really threatened him.

Well, except Jason Davis who smoked Filler in round 2!

9-4 Schickling
FF
9-3 Keeton
9-3 Stevens
9-1 Keeton [again]
9-4 Harris
9-2 Poteet
9-2 Sanchez
9-3 Garcia
9-2 SVB
9-2 Gorst
9-4 Teutscher
9-0 SVB [again]
11-7 Patsura [finals]

-td
For the 13 matches he played, he won 119 games and lost 37, a winning percentage of 76%. On the lengthy Saturday, he played 7 matches with a record of 63-16 (80%). Just remarkable!
 
most all players, even the pro players do not know how to capitalize on the break or use it to their advantage.
so as pat said, it is not an advantage for those players that have not perfected it or cannot run out for starting in a tough spot often enough.

there is a huge jump from the top players to the very top players as can been seen from most results in the tournaments. it is far from lineal.
 
most all players, even the pro players do not know how to capitalize on the break or use it to their advantage.
so as pat said, it is not an advantage for those players that have not perfected it or cannot run out for starting in a tough spot often enough.

there is a huge jump from the top players to the very top players as can been seen from most results in the tournaments. it is far from lineal.
Losing control over the table from not potting a ball, scratching, or getting hooked, must outweigh the times they run out or take control with a good safety play.

I could see the break being a disadvantage for any top pro that plays methodical, strategic, smart pool. On the other hand, someone with a good break and lots of firepower, like SVB or a prime Earl would love getting the break. Overall though, for the rest / on average, I'm guessing the break is a non-factor one way or the other.
 
It looks like it's about 50/50 now. Seems surprising to me...I never would have guessed that. ...
The breaker-won-game percentage for the vast majority of 9-Ball events I have tracked is in the 50s or 60s, not less than half. Of course, most of the matches that are streamed have at least one high-level player. Dr. Dave has tabulated 3 stats from many of my stats threads, and you can get a good, quick look at how the breaker-won stat has gone from his table: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/break/stats/
 
  • Like
Reactions: fjk
It looks like it's about 50/50 now. Seems surprising to me...I never would have guessed that.

I wonder if the same holds true with all levels of play. Seems like it would.

the stats are for the tv table, no matter who plays there, so the sample will always include non-pro players.. especially the first days
 
  • Like
Reactions: fjk
The breaker-won-game percentage for the vast majority of 9-Ball events I have tracked is in the 50s or 60s, not less than half. Of course, most of the matches that are streamed have at least one high-level player. Dr. Dave has tabulated 3 stats from many of my stats threads, and you can get a good, quick look at how the breaker-won stat has gone from his table: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/break/stats/
Thanks!

One factor Dr. Dave didn't consider that would throw a wrench in his hypothesis: Is it possible we see that edge because, on average, the breaker is the better player? To some extent, that must be true because the winner (i.e. better player) is breaking more often. In other words - of course the breaker wins more racks, but it doesn't have to be because the break is an advantage.

With this miss, I propose Dr. Dave is demoted to just "Dave" and I'm promoted to "Dr. fjk".

1770062475221.png
 
Last edited:
Breaking successfully is a key. The breaker generally wins a much higher percentage of his games on successful breaks than on unsuccessful breaks. For example, repeating from post #1 for this event:

Therefore, whereas the breaker won 50% (121 of 241) of all games,​
He won 62% (90 of 145) of the games in which the break was successful (made at least one ball and did not foul).​
He won 32% (31 of 96) of the games in which the break was unsuccessful (fouled or dry).​
 
the stats would be accurate for alternate breaks. as each would get equal chances.

the better player is going to win more games than his opponent so will break more often when playing winner breaks.
so % of games won by breaker does not tell the whole story.

you need to combine it with the number of times the loser won while breaking.

only real way to determine the value of a break is to have the same player play himself and do it all.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fjk
the stats would be accurate for alternate breaks. as each would get equal chances.

the better player is going to win more games than his opponent so will break more often when playing winner breaks.
so % of games won by breaker does not tell the whole story.

you need to combine it with the number of times the loser won while breaking.

only real way to determine the value of a break is to have the same player play himself and do it all.
Yep, for example, if I played SVB and he beat me 9-1. The breaker would have won the rack 90% of the time. That data is skewed.
 
Yep, for example, if I played SVB and he beat me 9-1. The breaker would have won the rack 90% of the time. That data is skewed.
In winner breaks, I think it is skewed to make the break look better when there is a large mismatch. That makes it all the more remarkable when it calculates out to be close to 50%, If two FargoRate 300s play, I think it will be real close to 50% and six or ten turns per game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fjk
In winner breaks, I think it is skewed to make the break look better when there is a large mismatch. That makes it all the more remarkable when it calculates out to be close to 50%, If two FargoRate 300s play, I think it will be real close to 50% and six or ten turns per game.
Agreed. My point was to show that to some extent, that metric (% of the time the breaker wins the rack) can be and is a skewed metric trying to assess the value of the break.
 
... you need to combine it with the number of times the loser won while breaking. ...
Repeating from post #1:

Breaker won the game:
Match winners -- 61% (91 of 148)​
Match losers -- 32% (30 of 93)​
Total -- 50% (121 of 241)
 
Back
Top