2026 DCC 9-Ball Discussion

[Oikawa]

Since DigitalPool keeps track of the duration of matches, it's possible to get a rough estimate of the relative speeds of the players. Here are the times per rack for everyone who had played more than 120 racks. These results are watered down because both players in a match get the average time for that match. A Filler/Pinegar match will move both their averages towards the middle (assuming Pinegar shoots )

First number is average minutes per rack, second is the total number of racks played, even if they didn't get to shoot.

3.8 154 Joshua Filler
4.5 157 Shane Van Boening
4.8 125 Arseni Sevastyanov
5.0 142 Gregorio Sanchez
5.3 126 Lee Van Corteza
5.4 122 Roberto Gomez
5.5 152 Eduard Bregu
5.8 133 Nathan Childress
5.9 133 Fedor Gorst
5.9 138 Trenton White
6.1 150 Anthony Meglino
6.3 162 Marco Teutscher
6.5 187 Vitaliy Patsura
6.9 135 Oliver Ruuger
7.1 152 Jonathan Pinegar
7.5 128 Waleed Hashem

If you multiply the two numbers together, you get the total playing time for the player in minutes.

An interesting note here is that while e.g. 7.1 minutes for hennessy is a pretty typical (slow-ish, but typical) frame time for your average joe with 400 fargo playing another 400 fargo, with each miss and longer thinking time spent on routine (for pros) situations adding up time, the same 7.1 minutes in context of a 780 or w/e his exact fargo is, is extremely slow, as seen in him being at the tail end of that table.

 

[Badpenguin]

3.8 154 Joshua Filler
4.5 157 Shane Van Boening
4.8 125 Arseni Sevastyanov
5.0 142 Gregorio Sanchez
5.3 126 Lee Van Corteza
5.4 122 Roberto Gomez
5.5 152 Eduard Bregu
5.8 133 Nathan Childress
5.9 133 Fedor Gorst
5.9 138 Trenton White
6.1 150 Anthony Meglino
6.3 162 Marco Teutscher
6.5 187 Vitaliy Patsura
6.9 135 Oliver Ruuger
7.1 152 Jonathan Pinegar
7.5 128 Waleed Hashem

It was Roland Garcia that I heard the most people whining about. How do his numbers look?

 

[Bob Jewett]

It was Roland Garcia that I heard the most people whining about. How do his numbers look?

4.9 113 Roland garcia

I have no idea why DigitalPool is not capitalizing his name. Seems like the sort of thing that someone should notice. In any case, he looks faster than most, but he might have been slower than his fast opponents. A 0-9 match against Filler can do wonders for your speed stat.

 

[Badpenguin]

4.9 113 Roland garcia

I have no idea why DigitalPool is not capitalizing his name. Seems like the sort of thing that someone should notice. In any case, he looks faster than most, but he might have been slower than his fast opponents. A 0-9 match against Filler can do wonders for your speed stat.

Yeah they aren't the greatest at any kind of data normalization or input validation. I even saw players under 2 different names in the different divisions, like Josh in banks, Joshua in 1P. Can't recall who in particular, but it annoyed me.

I didn't think Roland was playing that slow really. He actually reminded me of Dennis Orcollo's game, jumping up and down looking at the same shot lines/angles multiple times. Annoying, but he was jumping up and down pretty fast.

 

[skogstokig]

Yeah they aren't the greatest at any kind of data normalization or input validation. I even saw players under 2 different names in the different divisions, like Josh in banks, Joshua in 1P. Can't recall who in particular, but it annoyed me.

I didn't think Roland was playing that slow really. He actually reminded me of Dennis Orcollo's game, jumping up and down looking at the same shot lines/angles multiple times. Annoying, but he was jumping up and down pretty fast.

the difference is that dennis has a fast gear that's not far behind filler

 

[AtLarge]

Since DigitalPool keeps track of the duration of matches, it's possible to get a rough estimate of the relative speeds of the players. Here are the times per rack for everyone who had played more than 120 racks. These results are watered down because both players in a match get the average time for that match. A Filler/Pinegar match will move both their averages towards the middle (assuming Pinegar shoots )

First number is average minutes per rack, second is the total number of racks played, even if they didn't get to shoot.

3.8 154 Joshua Filler
4.5 157 Shane Van Boening
4.8 125 Arseni Sevastyanov
5.0 142 Gregorio Sanchez
5.3 126 Lee Van Corteza
5.4 122 Roberto Gomez
5.5 152 Eduard Bregu
5.8 133 Nathan Childress
5.9 133 Fedor Gorst
5.9 138 Trenton White
6.1 150 Anthony Meglino
6.3 162 Marco Teutscher
6.5 187 Vitaliy Patsura
6.9 135 Oliver Ruuger
7.1 152 Jonathan Pinegar
7.5 128 Waleed Hashem

If you multiply the two numbers together, you get the total playing time for the player in minutes.

Bob, I must caution you that the DigitalPool "Duration" numbers are not always good. In fact, they used to be rather horrible on a lot of matches, i.e., nowhere near the actual match lengths, and I wondered what in the world they were using for their starting and ending points.

I'm glad to report that they have improved quite a bit on this. I keep track of the elapsed time from the lag to the last ball for each of the matches I track. For the 17 arena matches I tracked for this year's DCC 9-Ball, the DigitalPool (DP) duration is what I would call the same or "close" to my number for 11 of the 17 matches. Some of the others are not so good. and the errors can go both ways. Examples: SVB d. Pinegar was actually about 83 minutes, whereas DP had 68 -- 18% under. Gorst d. Corteza was 99½ minutes, whereas DP had 83 -- 17% under. In the other direction, Corteza d. Montpellier was actually about 69 minutes and DP had 75 -- 9% over.

So their "Duration" numbers are now good for many matches but still significantly off for others.

 

[TheRooster]

(Times depend on the players doing the right things with the scoring tablet.)

They also depended on the tablet doing the right thing.. I started a couple matches before the tablet showed "start match". Often someone needed to come around to manually do something to get it ready first. By the end it seemed like they'd worked the issue out.

 

[PoolPlayer4]

Same stuff was going on at the International.

 

[skogstokig]

An interesting note here is that while e.g. 7.1 minutes for hennessy is a pretty typical (slow-ish, but typical) frame time for your average joe with 400 fargo playing another 400 fargo, with each miss and longer thinking time spent on routine (for pros) situations adding up time, the same 7.1 minutes in context of a 780 or w/e his exact fargo is, is extremely slow, as seen in him being at the tail end of that table.

you have to build it away. 20 second shot clock. let the chips fall where they may

 

[Bob Jewett]

Bob, I must caution you that the DigitalPool "Duration" numbers are not always good. In fact, they used to be rather horrible on a lot of matches, i.e., nowhere near the actual match lengths, and I wondered what in the world they were using for their starting and ending points. ...

And then there are the 13 bank pool matches that are still in progress.

I think at this point the times are OK if you take an average. I think both DP and the players are gradually learning, and hope that they will get the error down to a couple of minutes. I think the tournament management also needs to help the learning process.

Apart from the sketchy data, player speed could probably be calculated better by noting the individual match scores for each player. Losing to Filler 0-9 says little about the loser's speed. Too many worms in that can for me right now. The averages do seem to align with general impressions, and I imagine they could be useful to a TD to figure out which snails to keep and eye on. Pro snooker actually tracks the time for every shot in every match, and seems to use shame rather than a shot clock to keep things moving.

I wonder if there were any slowness issues that actually had to be dealt with. No shot clock on the arena table is the only complaint I've heard.