AzBilliards.com

AzBilliards.com (https://forums.azbilliards.com/index.php)
-   14.1 Pool (https://forums.azbilliards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   Most impressive aspect of Schmitís Record Run (https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=504301)

ChrisinNC 12-19-2019 09:33 AM

Most impressive aspect of Schmitís Record Run
 
As a player who has played 14.1 for nearly 50 years, with a personal high run of 7 racks
accomplished 20 years ago and still not giving up trying to break that century mark despite my advancing years, Iíd like to offer my opinion as to the most impressive aspect of Johnís 626 - 45 consecutive rack run.

To me, it is unquestionably how unlikely it is for anyone to successfully set up and execute 45 consecutive beginning of the rack break shots - managing to not only avoid scratching but leaving himself a high percentage shot after that to continue his run. That is, for myself, without a doubt, the one most common cause of ending my attempts to be able to successfully string 14.1 racks together.

More impressive than the obvious unworldly skills needed to run 45 consecutive racks, those 45 out of 45 successful break shots, leaving himself at least a reasonable shot every single time, in my opinion is not only incredible and extremely unlikely to occur for anyone, but I would venture to say lucky and extremely unlikely to ever be surpassed, even for the very best players in the world! Opinions?

sjm 12-19-2019 10:34 AM

I'm inclined to agree.

In a typical rack, it is the break shot that entails the greatest risk (and, as you correctly point out, sometimes some luck) to the player, as the shot tends to be missable and the final cue ball position is harder to predict than on other shots. To have made that many break shots in a row and to have found at least some shape onto the next ball every time is, as you suggest, truly remarkable.

DynoDan 12-19-2019 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisinNC (Post 6541612)
As a player who has played 14.1 for nearly 50 years, with a personal high run of 7 racks
accomplished 20 years ago and still not giving up trying to break that century mark despite my advancing years, I’d like to offer my opinion as to the most impressive aspect of John’s 626 - 45 consecutive rack run.

To me, it is unquestionably how unlikely it is for anyone to successfully set up and execute 45 consecutive beginning of the rack break shots - managing to not only avoid scratching but leaving himself a high percentage shot after that to continue his run. That is, for myself, without a doubt, the one most common cause of ending my attempts to be able to successfully string 14.1 racks together.

More impressive than the obvious unworldly skills needed to run 45 consecutive racks, those 45 out of 45 successful break shots, leaving himself at least a reasonable shot every single time, in my opinion is not only incredible and extremely unlikely to occur for anyone, but I would venture to say lucky and extremely unlikely to ever be surpassed, even for the very best players in the world! Opinions?

Chris,
BTW: Your bio sounds exactly like mine (still chasing the ‘100 ball runner’ label in my 70s).
I agree his run is a ‘one-in-a-million’ example of incredible luck, which is why I’m anxiously waiting (bated breath) for the DVD.
My (frustrating) experience with 14.1 suggests that breaking 45 racks without ending up hopelessly hooked, would be like going over Niagara Falls in an Iron Maiden and coming out without a scratch, or maybe shooting a hundred straight passes with honest dice!

AtLarge 12-19-2019 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisinNC (Post 6541612)
... Opinions?

My opinion is full agreement. I used to think (and say, in discussions) the same thing about Mosconi's 526 (or any other extremely long run). Mosconi's run had 37 beginning-of-rack break shots. Surviving that many break shots in a row, let alone 45, is just astonishing.

AtLarge 12-19-2019 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisinNC (Post 6541612)
,,, still not giving up trying to break that century mark despite my advancing years ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DynoDan (Post 6541785)
... (still chasing the ‘100 ball runner’ label in my 70s) ...

I've often wondered who ran 100 or more for the first time in his life at the oldest age.

ChrisinNC 12-20-2019 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtLarge (Post 6541831)
My opinion is full agreement. I used to think (and say, in discussions) the same thing about Mosconi's 526 (or any other extremely long run). Mosconi's run had 37 beginning-of-rack break shots. Surviving that many break shots in a row, let alone 45, is just astonishing.

I like math and stats, so just for kicks, I punched in some numbers to see what kind of odds weíre talking about this 626 ball run by John having happened. For this analysis, we have to make 2 assumptions which I feel are fairly accurate. Firstly, for a top experienced pro level 14.1 player, their chances even with a perfectly set up break shot are roughly 90% that they will successfully make the break shot and leave themself with a high percentage shot after the break shot. The second assumption is that once assumption 1 is accomplished, that player will then have roughly a 90% chance to completely run out that rack out and leave themselves with a high percentage break shot in to the next rack.

The mathematical chance of accomplishing both of these for 45 consecutive racks is reached by multiplying 90% to the 90th power or 81% (90% x 90%) to the 45th power. What you come up with is it likely happening one time in every roughly one quarter million (250,000) attempts! Thatís the kind of odds Schmidy was up against of running 626 balls, and the odds anyone else will be up against if they are attempting to break that record, and that is only if they already possess the elite professional 14.1 skill set!

Bob Jewett 12-20-2019 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisinNC (Post 6542321)
I like math and stats, so just for kicks, I punched in some numbers to see what kind of odds we’re talking about this 626 ball run by John having happened. For this analysis, we have to make 2 assumptions which I feel are fairly accurate. Firstly, for a top experienced pro level 14.1 player, their chances even with a perfectly set up break shot are roughly 90% that they will successfully make the break shot and leave themself with a high percentage shot after the break shot. The second assumption is that once assumption 1 is accomplished, that player will then have roughly a 90% chance to completely run out that rack out and leave themselves with a high percentage break shot in to the next rack.

The mathematical chance of accomplishing both of these for 45 consecutive racks is reached by multiplying 90% to the 90th power or 81% (90% x 90%) to the 45th power. What you come up with is it likely happening one time in every roughly one quarter million (250,000) attempts! That’s the kind of odds Schmidy was up against of running 626 balls, and the odds anyone else will be up against if they are attempting to break that record, and that is only if they already possess the elite professional 14.1 skill set!

John was close to 25% to run another 100 starting from a typical position according to actual statistics on his runs. That's close to the odds for a single rack you quote. He was odds-on to run 527 for as many tries as he had. He had about a one-in-four chance of getting to 626 in as many tries as he took. Our results are different because a small change in the percentage per rack makes a large change in the long-run chances.

I think that players like Mosconi and Cranfield actually had even higher single-rack percentages.

ChrisinNC 12-20-2019 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett (Post 6542337)
John was close to 25% to run another 100 starting from a typical position according to actual statistics on his runs. That's close to the odds for a single rack you quote. He was odds-on to run 527 for as many tries as he had. He had about a one-in-four chance of getting to 626 in as many tries as he took. Our results are different because a small change in the percentage per rack makes a large change in the long-run chances.

I think that players like Mosconi and Cranfield actually had even higher single-rack percentages.

Bob, so you disagree with my 90% chance estimate to execute a successful break shot with position on another ball to be able to continue the run, as well as my 90% chance estimate of running out that rack and getting to the next ideal break ball for the next rack? Just curious, just much higher than 90% chance for each of those two requirements necessary for a long run do you really think he had?

AtLarge 12-20-2019 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisinNC (Post 6542321)
... 90% to the 90th power or 81% (90% x 90%) to the 45th power. What you come up with is it likely happening one time in every roughly one quarter million (250,000) attempts! ...

Check your math.

ChrisinNC 12-20-2019 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett (Post 6542337)
John was close to 25% to run another 100 starting from a typical position according to actual statistics on his runs. That's close to the odds for a single rack you quote. He was odds-on to run 527 for as many tries as he had. He had about a one-in-four chance of getting to 626 in as many tries as he took. Our results are different because a small change in the percentage per rack makes a large change in the long-run chances.

I think that players like Mosconi and Cranfield actually had even higher single-rack percentages.

Iím not far off Ė based on my percentile estimates, heíd have a 23% chance of a 100 ball run starting with an ideal break shot. The difference between 100 and 626 obviously is no comparison!

ChrisinNC 12-20-2019 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtLarge (Post 6542362)
Check your math.

I stand by my numbers. Just curious, what do you have it coming out to?

ChrisinNC 12-20-2019 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett (Post 6542337)
John was close to 25% to run another 100 starting from a typical position according to actual statistics on his runs. That's close to the odds for a single rack you quote. He was odds-on to run 527 for as many tries as he had. He had about a one-in-four chance of getting to 626 in as many tries as he took. Our results are different because a small change in the percentage per rack makes a large change in the long-run chances.

I think that players like Mosconi and Cranfield actually had even higher single-rack percentages.

Bob, I think you misread my percentages. Iíd have him at an 81% chance starting with an ideal break ball to get to the next rackís ideal break ball, or following the break shot, assuming he makes it and has a reasonable shot, a 90% chance of making it to the next rackís ideal break ball. Based on those odds, heíd have a 23% chance of making it to a 100 ball run, starting with an ideal break shot to start his run.

DynoDan 12-20-2019 11:41 AM

Assuming it’s a given that one of the world’s top 14.1 players on the best equipment (level, fast cloth, generous pockets, etc.) will run out from an easy first shot, the ‘record’ issue in my mind is: how many racks can you break in a row (from an ideal breakball position) and end up with a makable shot? Break-rerack-break-rerack, and on & on, even if the breakball bobbles in the pocket (though obviously then not in play), the attempt continues until whitey is stuck with no shot. I’ll bet no one would ever get close to 45 again in our lifetime (?).

AtLarge 12-20-2019 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisinNC (Post 6542404)
I stand by my numbers. Just curious, what do you have it coming out to?

(0.9) ^ 90 = .00007618

or 1 in 13,127

not 1 in 250,000

Bob Jewett 12-20-2019 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtLarge (Post 6542558)
(0.9) ^ 90 = .00007618

or 1 in 13,127

not 1 in 250,000

And 1/(0.91^90) = 1 in 4856 so the assumptions are critical.

AtLarge 12-20-2019 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett (Post 6542561)
And 1/(0.91^90) = 1 in 4856 so the assumptions are critical.

Right. Repeating what you said earlier: "... a small change in the percentage per rack makes a large change in the long-run chances." And didn't John say he tried about 4,000 times in those sessions?

AtLarge 12-20-2019 04:06 PM

Chris -- about 1 in 250,000 would result from using .871 rather than .9.

ChrisinNC 12-20-2019 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtLarge (Post 6542566)
Chris -- about 1 in 250,000 would result from using .871 rather than .9.

I regret starting this thread, as it has now made me very depressed in regards to my chances of ever running 100 balls. Now looking at these power calculator tables, assuming my chances per rack are at 25%, which is likely an optimistic percentage, puts my chances of stringing together 7+ consecutive racks / 100 balls at less than 1 in 10,000. I guess I’m going to have to come up with a more realistically attainable goal.

xradarx 12-20-2019 06:41 PM

Aw Shucks, second thoughts?
 
deleted. same as thread

AtLarge 12-20-2019 10:49 PM

:wink:
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisinNC (Post 6542607)
I regret starting this thread, as it has now made me very depressed in regards to my chances of ever running 100 balls. Now looking at these power calculator tables, assuming my chances per rack are at 25%, which is likely an optimistic percentage, puts my chances of stringing together 7+ consecutive racks / 100 balls at less than 1 in 10,000. I guess I’m going to have to come up with a more realistically attainable goal.

Yes, 1 in about 20,000. But don't give up. You're in your low 60's now, right? So 300 days a year for 20 years will give you 6,000 days to try. Just 3 or 4 attempts per day and you've got a good chance to do it! :wink:

ChrisinNC 12-21-2019 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtLarge (Post 6542728)
:wink:

Yes, 1 in about 20,000. But don't give up. You're in your low 60's now, right? So 300 days a year for 20 years will give you 6,000 days to try. Just 3 or 4 attempts per day and you've got a good chance to do it! :wink:

I appreciate your encouragement, but I would say my window is closing fast - I certainly need to get it done within the next five years. My biggest obstacle is the table I am attempting to do it on – a 10 foot table with 4-1/4 inch corner pocket openings. I know - don’t ask me why I’m torturing myself! My realistic goal on this table is 4 racks - 56 balls. I ran a 42 at the beginning of the year, but haven’t matched it since.

DynoDan 12-21-2019 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisinNC (Post 6542962)
I appreciate your encouragement, but I would say my window is closing fast - I certainly need to get it done within the next five years. My biggest obstacle is the table I am attempting to do it on – a 10 foot table with 4-1/4 inch corner pocket openings. I know - don’t ask me why I’m torturing myself! My realistic goal on this table is 4 racks - 56 balls. I ran a 42 at the beginning of the year, but haven’t matched it since.

I suggest the likelihood is low unless during serious competition (no penalty for missing). Aside from possibly losing the race between declining physical ability & continued accumulation of knowledge, my greatest barrier to accomplishing the ‘century’ goal, would seem to be the dearth of enthusiastic 14.1 opponents & suitable (quiet) rooms with appropriate equipment within a practical distance.

ChrisinNC 12-21-2019 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DynoDan (Post 6543068)
I suggest the likelihood is low unless during serious competition (no penalty for missing). Aside from possibly losing the race between declining physical ability & continued accusation of knowledge, my greatest barrier to accomplishing the Ďcenturyí goal, would seem to be the dearth of enthusiastic 14.1 opponents & suitable (quiet) rooms with appropriate equipment within a practical distance.

There are basically no 14.1 opponents around here for me to play, but having a quiet place for solitary practice sessions on tables with clean cloth, clean balls and no distractions is not a problem. Except for our Monday weekly 9-ball tournament night, our pool room is dead every other night. Pretty much the only thing keeping us going is our food operation.

For myself, the chance of a high run is much greater during my solitary practice sessions, when I can start over after each miss, than it would be during a match, when Iíd be far more inclined to play a safety when left with a tough shot.

mikemosconi 12-22-2019 01:40 PM

I would agree that the consecutive number of times coming up with a breakshot/open table shot is the most impressive aspect of a 600+ run. I think that, if they wanted to try for a high run the way John did, by just focusing on that aspect of the game, there were several past greats in 14.1 who could have done that.
But that's not taking away from what he did- just that he had a motive and none of the past greats had a motive for even trying it on an ongoing basis. There are some modern day players who impress me as possibly being capable as well- again- if they chose to devote their pool life to that end.
As per someone running 100 balls as a goal- there are a lot of people who run one rack consistently, sometimes two- but can't figure out why stringing five to seven together seems so improbable. Besides some luck or a good roll vs. a bad roll - I look at three components of 14.1 that need to be reasonably mastered to run 100, once you can pocket balls consistently: 1. the ability to FOCUS on 100 shots without a miss - not really so easy as one would think. 2. the ability to read the table in setting up consecutive break shots - most 1 or 2 rack runners don't put enough practice into this aspect of the game, or just don't have the full knowledge, and 3. watch guys like Holhmann and Immonen- you really need to have great ability to move the cue ball to ideal locations on the last four shots, one has to be fortunate to get 3 or 4 stop shot positions to the break ball, rack after rack after rack, no matter how good you are at reading the table and playing patterns- it happens; but not very often for 7 racks in row.
Normally in a 100 ball run, one or more pattern and position plays to the break ball require professional level execution, not always, but on most 100 ball runs for sure.

Danny Harriman 12-27-2019 10:28 AM

ok
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisinNC (Post 6541612)
As a player who has played 14.1 for nearly 50 years, with a personal high run of 7 racks
accomplished 20 years ago and still not giving up trying to break that century mark despite my advancing years, I’d like to offer my opinion as to the most impressive aspect of John’s 626 - 45 consecutive rack run.

To me, it is unquestionably how unlikely it is for anyone to successfully set up and execute 45 consecutive beginning of the rack break shots - managing to not only avoid scratching but leaving himself a high percentage shot after that to continue his run. That is, for myself, without a doubt, the one most common cause of ending my attempts to be able to successfully string 14.1 racks together.

More impressive than the obvious unworldly skills needed to run 45 consecutive racks, those 45 out of 45 successful break shots, leaving himself at least a reasonable shot every single time, in my opinion is not only incredible and extremely unlikely to occur for anyone, but I would venture to say lucky and extremely unlikely to ever be surpassed, even for the very best players in the world! Opinions?

ok I get that u wanted to give john a plug for his mystery tape of 626 - yer right u probly will never get past a 7 racks. Having many friends on fakebook or with the bca will not get u there I guarantee u that. it was a poor thread - also noticed u misspelled his name - is that some version of moris code? It was a weak puppet minded thread - I could not agree more.

ChrisinNC 12-27-2019 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny Harriman (Post 6546448)
ok I get that u wanted to give john a plug for his mystery tape of 626 - yer right u probly will never get past a 7 racks. Having many friends on fakebook or with the bca will not get u there I guarantee u that. it was a poor thread - also noticed u misspelled his name - is that some version of moris code? It was a weak puppet minded thread - I could not agree more.

Danny, Iím sorry I didnít get approval from you on this before starting/posting it. I greatly admired your pool skills when I used to attend the US open every year, 20 - 25 years ago. It was always puzzling to me to pinpoint what kept you from breaking through and winning any more than you did, considering your talent and skill. Just curious as to your reasons for not competing anymore?

Danny Harriman 01-03-2020 01:56 PM

polytick
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisinNC (Post 6546468)
Danny, I’m sorry I didn’t get approval from you on this before starting/posting it. I greatly admired your pool skills when I used to attend the US open every year, 20 - 25 years ago. It was always puzzling to me to pinpoint what kept you from breaking through and winning any more than you did, considering your talent and skill. Just curious as to your reasons for not competing anymore?

You do not need approval from me to make polytickly' correct posts, whats really strong is u probly have not seen the run in it's entirety either - guess u got two birds with one stone giving diamond billiards a plug and schmidty's phony mystery tape. I did not put any focus on protecting myself from the rack mechanics i.e. archer during the loser rack nine ball era. Always puzzling to me when a person who has been alive as long as u have that will believe everything they hear - without 1st seeing evidence - but I guess u just wanted to give schmidty's camp some sort of reaffirmation. I prefer Jim Henson's version of puppets - see ya in the funny papers.

The most impressive aspect of his hall of fame/mysery tape/cue sponsorship deal - is that he has been able to make this phony claim for over 8 months now and hide the tape from 'the people'. who are willing to carefully scrutinize the picture quality, There is a reason for his private viewing party - u know it - and so do i. The bca,nyslimes, and az straight pool section should all be ashamed of themselves for allowing the drive by media to taint Mosconi's 526. I will now add u to that list of corrupt puppets as well - unless u have seen un-edited video proof - u have a right to be depressed - If I were a puppet that could not or would not think for myself - maybe u have hidden political agenda. U should see if u can get in on their semi public soiree, they certainly wont release the tape to the people court - they know it could have repercussions on bca,nyslimes, and other fake news organizations after they find out the tape has been tampered with. Hall of fame is a political org that should be dismantled from the bottom of their serpents nests - that is really how I feel bout it too. I figured yer puzzle out purty quick - however - the ol he's great compared to me - never heard that one before - you will have to forgive me but I do not admire yer skeels.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.