World Pool Masters 2019

Maniac said:

This is just me, but if I'd would have had that shot on the 9 that Alex had hill-hill....I'm going down firing at the hole. Unless the shot is just plain unmakeable I'm playing to win and not give my opponent another chance at the table. IMO, that bank on that 9-ball is at least a 50-50 proposition for a top-tier professional.

Maniac (not even a second-tier amateur)

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter whether it's 50/50 (by the way, I think it's a bit less, perhaps 40%), all that matters is if it's the most likely path to victory. After the safety, I'd guess Alex's win percent was in the 70 to 75 percent range. Beats the hell out of betting the match on a chancy shot.

Your comment "unless the shot is just plain unmakeable I'm playing to win and not give my opponent another chance at the table" shows that you're not very interested in the percentages, that you'd shoot it even if you were presented with a 25% shot when a very good safety was available.

sjm said:

Doesn't matter whether it's 50/50 (by the way, I think it's a bit less, perhaps 40%), all that matters is if it's the most likely path to victory. After the safety, I'd guess Alex's win percent was in the 70 to 75 percent range. Beats the hell out of betting the match on a chancy shot.

Your comment "unless the shot is just plain unmakeable I'm playing to win and not give my opponent another chance at the table" shows that you're not very interested in the percentages, that you'd shoot it even if you were presented with a 25% shot when a very good safety was available.

Click to expand...

You must have missed his screen name.
Jason

Did Chris smelling play one and out?

Did you guys see the prize fund? Yeeeesh it’s bad

PRIZE FUND

Preliminary round
$1,750
(x8)
Last 16
$2,250
(x8)
Quarter-Finals
$3,750
(x4)
Semi-Finalists
$7,500
(x2)
Runner-up
$13,000
(x1)
Winner
$25,000
(x1)
Total
$100,000
(x1)

spartan said:

9 ball that Kazakis ducked

https://youtu.be/Ue6UKx2rbKc?t=6543


View attachment 516822

Click to expand...

I had just set up the same shot. Made the cross bank into the side pocket on my 3rd attempt. First time shooting a ball in a week
.
Looks like a fairly easy bank and I'm a C player.

I would say a 75% made bank by a pro.

gxman said:

I had just set up the same shot. Made the cross bank into the side pocket on my 3rd attempt. First time shooting a ball in a week
.
Looks like a fairly easy bank and I'm a C player.

I would say a 75% made bank by a pro.

Click to expand...

In your basement with no pressure. Huge difference
Jason

gxman said:

I would say a 75% made bank by a pro.

Click to expand...

... and you'd be wrong. It's a back cut and the object ball is well off the rail. It's far from a routine bank.

I doubt it's more than 65% for Billy Thorpe or Skyler Woodward, the two best American bank pool players. Having watched four days of bank pool at each of ten different Derby City Classics and all the bank pool ring games, I have much to draw on in making my judgment.

Any pro that wants to lay three to one odds against missing that shot, which is what 75% would imply, has action all day long with me and I sure hope they bet high. Eddie Taylor and Bugs Rucker, should they happen to unexpectedly return from the grave, also have action.

How about 2 way shot ?

Actually, that final rack is quite similar to rack 8 of World Cup of Pool final last year (China A v Austria) when Austria messed up position on the 9 https://youtu.be/qqepk5FboqM?t=3119
In that rack, Mario He went for the bank but played a 2 way shot so when he missed left the 9 on the short rail

Shouldn't Kazakis have done the same thing? Alcaide will probably still have nailed it if Kazakis missed but at least Kazakis tried.
This is final rack from yesterday's final
https://www.facebook.com/kingarauk/videos/434365274005889/

I thoroughly enjoy all of the analysis and opinions shared here on the final and especially that monumental last rack.

Without offering specific analysis or opinions on any particular shot, I just wanted to chime in to say how very entertaining this final was. These two warriors dragged us viewers through a minefield of emotions along with them. It was intense!!!

Making it even better for me was that both of these guys are so likeable.

Raw emotion and high drama like what we saw here can only be good for pool.

Congrats to them for a heck of a tourney and for such entertainment. :thumbup:

best,
brian kc

spartan said:

Actually, that final rack is quite similar to rack 8 of World Cup of Pool final last year (China A v Austria) when Austria messed up position on the 9 https://youtu.be/qqepk5FboqM?t=3119
In that rack, Mario He went for the bank but played a 2 way shot so when he missed left the 9 on the short rail

Shouldn't Kazakis have done the same thing? Alcaide will probably still have nailed it if Kazakis missed but at least Kazakis tried.
This is final rack from yesterday's final
https://www.facebook.com/kingarauk/videos/434365274005889/

Click to expand...

Nice post and, yes, I considered this option. It is certainly a shot with merit. Banking it cross corner makes it a two way shot but it's a very tough bank, the cue ball control isn't certain and an overcut of this bank is an instant loss. Nonetheless, it's a rock solid option in this situation for those accustomed to playing it.

The Kazakis position does not really offer the same shot shot played by Mario He, though, as the angle is very difficult and the bank is also far more difficult. In my opinion, if Kazakis faced the bank Mario He shot, he'd definitely have played it. A top pro can make seven out of ten from there.

I just saw the last rack of yesterdays final and concerning the discusion about the final 9 ball, I think it all comes down to something Alex Lely said early in the tournament: you have to specialize to have some weapons in your arsenal, your opponent doesn't have.

I think Alex played a great safety under pressure and David played an even better shot on the final bank.
It was a great final and overall a good tournament. I'm looking forward to next year, because I really enjoy this Matchroom tournaments.

Oze147 said:

I just saw the last rack of yesterdays final and concerning the discusion about the final 9 ball, I think it all comes down to something Alex Lely said early in the tournament: you have to specialize to have some weapons in your arsenal, your opponent doesn't have.

I think Alex played a great safety under pressure and David played an even better shot on the final bank.
It was a great final and overall a good tournament. I'm looking forward to next year, because I really enjoy this Matchroom tournaments.

Click to expand...

Well said. It's best to celebrate the stellar play that we saw. That last rack was one for the ages, a fitting climax to a great event.

I just watched the final rack. Alex played a great safety and had to be feeling pretty decent about his chances once the balls started rolling - definitely greater than 50-50.

That said, I'm surprised he didn't attempt to pocket the 9, especially since he had just drilled the 7-ball bank two shots earlier. The 9-ball was a harder shot but definitely makeable. You have to think most pros would have gone for it in that situation.

I think Alex played one of the winning options by playing safe on that 9-ball...
...getting whitey tight to the end rail is important, though.

What hasn’t been mentioned is his terrible shot on the 8-ball...
...he had no left spin coming off the rail...therefore, ran into the 9-ball.
That’s what I admired about Efren, he could slow-spin a ball under heat.

kazakis actually played a good safety, the best result of course would be to get both balls frozen. i guess he figured that alcaide, having shown nerves, would miss the bank. imo alcaide won the final, more than kazakis lost it

overall great tourney. table was a bit slow and the location is not optimal (90% spanish fans), but other than that it was very enjoyable

How many times would you bet that at 3-1 ? Once? Twice? Fifty times?

sjm said:

... and you'd be wrong. It's a back cut and the object ball is well off the rail. It's far from a routine bank.

I doubt it's more than 65% for Billy Thorpe or Skyler Woodward, the two best American bank pool players. Having watched four days of bank pool at each of ten different Derby City Classics and all the bank pool ring games, I have much to draw on in making my judgment.

Any pro that wants to lay three to one odds against missing that shot, which is what 75% would imply, has action all day long with me and I sure hope they bet high. Eddie Taylor and Bugs Rucker, should they happen to unexpectedly return from the grave, also have action.

Click to expand...

pvc lou said:

How many times would you bet that at 3-1 ? Once? Twice? Fifty times?

Click to expand...

1000 times

Just getting around to watching some of these matches. Few things...

Did the table seem slower then previous matchroom events?

I liked the ball cleaning having to occur during the players shot clock. Players seem to really take advantage of it happening the other way in other events.

The rails appeared and sounded a bit dead. Maybe they looked that way because the table looked to play slower but they had that dead thud sound to them.

Congrats to Alcaide!!!

ALMOST ALWAYS GO FOR THE SHOT.

Both Ray Martin and Buddy Hall, people whom I respect their opinion, and who are authorities on the subject (along with others like Varner, Strickland) - told me that in these situations, always, always, always go for it.

Summary:

A chance is better than NO chance.

Winners win by winning, they don't win by depending on opponents missing.



Long version:


First, let's talk the sole exception. Only play safe if the bank is so off angle or froze at a bad angle where making it is just very low percentage. I mean low. In other words, attempting the bank would be a sure loss. Like a frozen ball that will double-kiss and won't bank. Something awful like that. A near no-win attempt.


Let's break down why ducking is wrong:

1. You give yourself 0% chance to win on your first shot.
2. You still have to execute a safe, the quality of which is not a sure thing.
3. You give your opponent a chance to win.
4. You've backed your opponent into a position where they will go for it.
5. You probably have far less than 40% chance of getting a shot IF they miss, because these guys miss "to the pro side" ...

Do all that and bet on that so that you can come BACK to the table again and face another situation like a bank or difficult safe.

Since that is the case, just shoot the first shot and try for the win. Rather than go through that whole exercise to give the other guy a chance and get burned like Kazakis did.


The big failure in this ducking philosophy is that people ONLY factor in the percentages of the shot for their opponent. Ignoring the rest, and not looking at the entire sequence. The cumulative effect. Safety percentage + opponent chance to make it + what kind of leave.


Did they factor in the percentage of chance they will get a reasonable shot assuming the opponent misses? Did they factor in the percentage it will take to execute the safety to perfection so that the resulting shape is so bad for them?

On a safe which gives up to a bank, that is VERY HARD to do....you'd have to have super-human speed control to leave both balls at an unreasonable aka unbankable angle....We've seen from trick shots, bank pool, one-pocket and the such that a LOT of banks are makeable by high level players. Doesn't mean they always try them, because there's no need. But when their back is to the wall....you don't want to test a world-class player on any bank!!!!



If Kazakis went for it and missed and lost at least he lost trying to win. Not lost handing the table over.


He has learned a painful lesson the hard way. If this ever comes up again, he will never play the so-called "percentages" and hand over the table and be at the mercy of his opponent. An opponent who at that point had probably realized defeat was a certainty. Giving up the table like that is energizing. Players jump at the chance, they get super-focused and shoot without fear as all was lost. They have NOTHING TO LOSE, and EVERYTHING TO GAIN.


As I said, you DON'T hand over the end-game table to a pro level player ever, unless you have zero chance of winning from your position. Since zero is rare, that means you should go for it.

Kazakis did not have 0% chance on his bank. He had a chance. It might have been tough, it might have been ugly. But it wasn't impossible. At his level, he should have a reasonable chance to make it.

Grilled Cheese said:

If Kazakis went for it and missed and lost at least he lost trying to win. Not lost handing the table over.

Click to expand...

That’s irrelevant. The only question is: what shot maximizes your chance of winning the game.

BRussell said:

That’s irrelevant. The only question is: what shot maximizes your chance of winning the game.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Obviously you missed the lesson in my previous post, which was direct advice from world champions. Your statement is at best a misapplication of this idea, and at worst a chump's mentality.


Kazakis' position on the 9 was bankable. It was a reasonable shot given the situation. Especially for a player of his level.

Handing over the table to Alcaide, giving him a bank is a bad idea and that is exactly what happened.


People, maybe like you, take this "play the shot that maximizes the chance for winning the game" theory wrong. That applies more to early or mid-game safety play. NOT TO END GAME LAST BALL.


A safe that hooks a player is a better percentage for the guy playing the safe. Because there is not a direct hit to the OB, and thus not a reasonable shot.

Alcaide had a direct line to the 9-ball, thus he had a shot. It might not be a direct shot to a pocket, as it was a bank - but it's a shot.

How is that any worse than what Kazakis had? He had a bank too.


If you're going to challenge an opponent to a banking contest, where the person who makes the bank first wins - it's better to be the one who shoots the first bank. That's precisely what happened here, except Kazakis forfeited his bank.

The folly is in thinking that it won't be banking contest, that the other guy will bank, miss and give up the table preferably to an open shot. But this fails to realize that the bank began on Kazakis' turn. Just because he played safe, doesn't mean the bank opportunity does not count.


To be perfectly clear, had Kazakis missed on a bank attempt I would still say that is the correct shot to take. Most people in here will criticize either way. If he takes the bank and misses, they'd all be screaming for the safe. If he botches the safe, they'll scream he should have taken the bank.


The bank was the shot.


Winners make it happen. Losers pin their hopes on opponents failing.