Yup, agreed. When the entertainment value of the pro pool product is not the priority, as is typically the case in action matches, any version of the rules will do.
9-Ball needs to be fixed
- Thread starter wrldpro
- Start date
InsertCleverNameHere
Well-known member
Ten Ball last doesn’t add anything aside from 1 additional shot to the run out. It’s a completely moronic rule if we’re being honest. The moneyball should win the game when made, it’s not complicated.
Should 8 ball be like this too?
See post 13.... rent is always a concern.
InsertCleverNameHere
Well-known member
Too ridiculous to even begin to reply to.
Ten ball does break differently and that is often a drastic difference. The most prevalent effect I notice in 10 ball is the balls tend to be evenly distributed; at least geographically. This often leaves outs that are easier than straight pool. (no break ball concerns)
Strategically there might be less breathing room if defense is required.
the break should be a random shot, not and easy shot with the argument of how getting to the 2 is.
its really just a pro problem as the amateur cannot profit from the break very often. so the very top pros want what they want and usually get it.
its up to the spectators who pay the bills ultimately to decide what they want to see.
they have been quiet for far too long.
its really just a pro problem as the amateur cannot profit from the break very often. so the very top pros want what they want and usually get it.
its up to the spectators who pay the bills ultimately to decide what they want to see.
they have been quiet for far too long.
jax_joe
Well-known member
Of course it does. Yes, 10 ball last is dumb, but there is no comparing 9 ball to call shot 10 Ball. 10 is a better game. And no, the 10 ball shouldn't count on the break either just for the few childish fans that get giddy when they hear "golden break".
Watch the matches. How are they anything similar. Call shot 10 Ball matches last longer with more safety play. A lot more than just "1 additional shot to the run out".
But different strokes and all that. Watch whatever the hell you want to watch.
I looked at the results from the matches I tracked in 11 events produced by Matchroom in 2025 and 2026. They were all using the Matchroom break box and 4" corner pockets. The aggregate successful break rate in about 2,200 games was 78%. In some of those successful breaks the 1-ball was not made in the side pocket.
[This excludes the relatively small number of times the 1 was made in the side but the breaker fouled.]
Very helpful.
Do you have stats for the later stages of the events? I’m thinking that some of early TV table matches would include some less than elite players. Plus by the last 16, say, the players would have a feel for the tables.
Maybe the break can be worked into the 90s - it's a trick shot after all. The discrepancy could be attributed to competitive competence and/or competitive incompetence.
Gorst had 47 of 50 (94%) successful breaks against Van Boening this past weekend. But the pockets were larger than Matchroom's standard. Also, on 3 of those successful breaks the 1-ball was not made anywhere. And on 2 others he made the 1-ball on the break, but not in the side pocket. So that knocks it way down to just 42 of 50 (84%) for making the 1 in the side.
Last edited:
I haven't been tracking the early matches of these tournaments, except for the events where all (or nearly all) of the players are top notch (Premier League, Mosconi Cup, Reyes Cup). Generally, of late I have just watched matches from the single-elimination stage (Stage 2) played on the feature table. And the matches chosen for the feature table generally have good, well-known players.
Yes, I could whittle the stat down to include just Last 16 matches. But not tonight.
InsertCleverNameHere
Well-known member
It's exactly 1 additional shot. Meaning when you make like a 5-10combo now you have to make the ten again to complete the runout. Obviously that's what I was refering to.
Blurted over that part but I've played that in 9 as well as 10 ball (money riders). It's not really an issue.
DieselPete
Well-known member
While I am in the camp that nine ball is not "broken" per se, that is a staggering statistic.Gorst had 47 of 50 (94%) successful breaks against Van Boening this past weekend. But the pockets were larger than Matchroom's standard. Also, on 3 of those successful breaks the 1-ball was not made anywhere. And on 2 others he made the 1-ball on the break, but not in the side pocket. So that knocks it way down to just 42 of 50 (84%) for making the 1 in the side.
Essentially, in this match, Fedor's "break" is a really a "shot." He is shooting the one in the side, via a carom, and he makes it 84% of the time.
While I have no objection to the break box, or to using a standard rack and not a template, I think that alternating the break is an equally good approach (perhaps coupled with the break box and standard rack).
Instead of winner breaking, look at it like tennis in which "holding serve" is essential to winning and you get equal chances to initiate play.
One alternative that comes up in these discussions of fixing the break at nine ball: the first shot after a legal break must be a push out.
With that fix, loose or patterned racks have very little effect on the game. And, you wouldn't need a break cue.
With that fix, loose or patterned racks have very little effect on the game. And, you wouldn't need a break cue.
atlarge. the best in the biz.