7ft vs 9ft Stats

MuchoBurrito · Jul 24, 2016

AtLarge said:
You beat me to it. I was going to do some comparisons after both US Open events are over.

But one key factor distorts the comparisons you have made here. That is the fact that a wooden triangle was used to rack the balls at the SBE, whereas the Magic Rack was used in the US Open 10-Ball.

When the Magic Rack (or another racking template) is used, the percentage of successful breaks (making at least one ball and not fouling) goes up, sometimes substantially. That raises the opportunities for break-and-run games, which raises the actual percentage of B&R games and several of the other percentages.

Here's a comparison for the streamed matches of 10-Ball events that all used racking templates. To get higher counts, I combined two events on 7-footers and 2 events on 9-footers. The field strength (streamed matches only) was high for all 4 events.

A = 2015 and 2016 US Open 10-Ball Championships, combined (7-footers)
B = 2015 Accu-Stats "Make It Happen" Invitational 10-Ball event and 2014 CSI Invitational 10-Ball Championship, combined (9-footers)

Made at least one ball on the break and did not foul:
A -- 75% (392 of 523)
B -- 71% (394 of 553)

Breaker won the game:
A -- 58% (305 of 523)
B -- 56% (311 of 553)

Break-and-run games:
A -- 34% (178 of 523)
B -- 28% (154 of 553)

Break-and-run games on successful breaks:
A -- 45% (178 of 392)
B -- 39% (154 of 394)

Run-outs by non-breaker after fouled or dry breaks:
A -- 41% (54 of 131)
B -- 38% (60 of 159)

Total run-outs by player at table after the break;
A -- 44% (232 of 523)
B -- 39% (214 of 553)

And here's a similar comparison of results I did last year for 8-Ball matches played on 7-footers versus 9-footers: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5255675&postcount=3

So when the conditions are quite similar other than table size, the results may be a bit closer than many people would expect.

These stats are actually pretty close, although clearly the 7' play a little easier, a difference in break and runs of 34% to 28% is not really that big. If you consider the effects of the magic rack, this shrinks a little more.

So in a race to 10 say, where the match goes hill-hill, the difference would translate into at most, one extra break and run on the 7'? That's not so much. Same goes for run outs by player at table after the break, there's a difference, but it's very small.

And actually, the 8 ball stats are interesting, it seems that the pro's play 8 ball better on the 9' table according to these stats.

Personally I like to play/watch rotation games on the 9', and play/watch 8 ball on the 7'.

gxman · Jul 24, 2016

I think only a small handful of elite world class players will have a BNR rate of 28% on a big table. Most tournaments, 10b BNR rate is around 18-20% on the big table.

fastone371 · Jul 24, 2016

cleary said:
According to Fargo Rate, 9' tables and 7' tables are the same.

No, I think what Fargo says is that when 2 players face each other they both play on the same table and play each other, not the table. I have yet to see a match were 2 players play each other and one shoots on a 7' table while the other shoots on a 9' table. Unless Mike has changed Fargo it is still based on how players play against each other, not how players play against the table. If that was the case you would need a FargoRate number for each person on a 7', 8', & 9' tables, Valleys, Diamonds, Olhausen, Brunswick, or other tables and also Pro-Cut or League Cut pockets in each size and brand. Each person would have at least 4 different ratings, maybe as many as 30 ratings even according to your view.

calcwby4u · Jul 24, 2016

Get over it .......

mikepage · Jul 24, 2016

cleary said:
According to Fargo Rate, 9' tables and 7' tables are the same.

I believe you are being less than sincere here, cleary.

AtLarge · Jul 24, 2016

gxman said:
I think only a small handful of elite world class players will have a BNR rate of 28% on a big table. Most tournaments, 10b BNR rate is around 18-20% on the big table.

A breaking template makes a difference. I just looked at 14 past 10-Ball events on 9-foot tables (8 events using a template, 6 using a triangle), and the aggregate B&R percentages were 25% with a template, 16% without a template, and 22% in total.

cleary · Jul 24, 2016

GideonF said:
Mike hasn't said that. In fact, he's said the opposite.

His point is that both players are playing on the same table - they both get the same benefits.

You either aren't really listening to his responses or you are deliberately misstating in order to try to prove your point. IMHO doing so doesn't aid your case.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No it seems he doesn't understand that while yes, both are playing on the same table, the lesser player has a better chance to win or even make it closer. The table is much easier to play on.

I don't care about my case. I'm just calling em as I'm seeing em. I don't have a horse in the race.

cleary · Jul 24, 2016

mikepage said:
I believe you are being less than sincere here, cleary.

Am I though? I've been pretty vocal about table size mattering. Look at these stats. Yes, both players take advantage of the easier table but that doesn't mean the boost is necessarily equal. If both players players are even, and both pro level players, the match could be 7-7 or 7-0 and neither of those scores reflects the difference in ability. However if the two players are different levels, like a 600 vs 700, the 600 has a much better chance of winning on the little table vs big table. A 600 can still run the set out on a little table. 700 vs 500, on a big table... the 500 might win a game if they're lucky. Little table, just needs an opportunity and could put together a few games or even make the set close. Hell, in a short race can even win. Sorry bud but that's just how it is.

mikepage · Jul 25, 2016

cleary said:
Am I though? I've been pretty vocal about table size mattering. Look at these stats. Yes, both players take advantage of the easier table but that doesn't mean the boost is necessarily equal. If both players players are even, and both pro level players, the match could be 7-7 or 7-0 and neither of those scores reflects the difference in ability. However if the two players are different levels, like a 600 vs 700, the 600 has a much better chance of winning on the little table vs big table. A 600 can still run the set out on a little table. 700 vs 500, on a big table... the 500 might win a game if they're lucky. Little table, just needs an opportunity and could put together a few games or even make the set close. Hell, in a short race can even win. Sorry bud but that's just how it is.

You are conflating two issues Cleary. I've tried to explain this subtlety before.

Here are two statements that SEEM to be saying the same thing, and so it seems they are either both true or both untrue. But that is an illusion; they actually express independent ideas

(1) A 600 is more likely to win a particular race against a 700 on a small table than on a big table

(2) The lower-rated player is given a boost on the small table

How can (1) be true without (2) being true? This is what we call a run-length issue. If the players run more racks on an easier table, then then the
race-to-7 acts statistically more like a race-to-5, and everybody knows the weaker player is more likely to pull one out in a shorter race.

This can all be true WITHOUT the weaker player getting a boost on the easier table.

For instance, Corey Deuel is more likely to beat SVB in a race to 13 on a small easy table than on a big hard table. I think we both believe this.

What I am saying is this can be true WITHOUT Corey getting a boost relative to Shane on the small table. That is they are still 50 points apart.

If they played 1200 games on the small table it would be about SVB 700 Corey 500.
If they played 1200 games on the big table it would be about SVB 700 Corey 500.

But because of the run length issue, Corey is more likely to win a race on the small table. In other words the fluctuations converge to the long-haul 700/500 ratio more quickly on the big table.

Here is one more way to look at it. If I play a races to 30 9-ball against SVB, I will never win a set. But if I play races to 30 straight pool I will occasionally win a set. I may still only win 20% of the games/points in the long haul for either one. But that straight-pool race to 30 is effectively a shorter race than is the 9-ball race to 30.

Does this make sense?

cleary · Jul 25, 2016

mikepage said:
You are conflating two issues Cleary. I've tried to explain this subtlety before.

Here are two statements that SEEM to be saying the same thing, and so it seems they are either both true or both untrue. But that is an illusion; they actually express independent ideas

(1) A 600 is more likely to win a particular race against a 700 on a small table than on a big table

(2) The lower-rated player is given a boost on the small table

How can (1) be true without (2) being true? This is what we call a run-length issue. If the players run more racks on an easier table, then then the
race-to-7 acts statistically more like a race-to-5, and everybody knows the weaker player is more likely to pull one out in a shorter race.

This can all be true WITHOUT the weaker player getting a boost on the easier table.

For instance, Corey Deuel is more likely to beat SVB in a race to 13 on a small easy table than on a big hard table. I think we both believe this.

What I am saying is this can be true WITHOUT Corey getting a boost relative to Shane on the small table. That is they are still 50 points apart.

If they played 1200 games on the small table it would be about SVB 700 Corey 500.
If they played 1200 games on the big table it would be about SVB 700 Corey 500.

But because of the run length issue, Corey is more likely to win a race on the small table. In other words the fluctuations converge to the long-haul 700/500 ratio more quickly on the big table.

Here is one more way to look at it. If I play a races to 30 9-ball against SVB, I will never win a set. But if I play races to 30 straight pool I will occasionally win a set. I may still only win 20% of the games/points in the long haul for either one. But that straight-pool race to 30 is effectively a shorter race than is the 9-ball race to 30.

Does this make sense?

It's not that I don't understand what you're trying to say, it seems like you're not understanding me. Your system isn't about who wins a set, it's winning games. I used a race to 7 in my example because it's a situation that frequently happens.

Yes, both 1&2 are correct. Just like I said. What I said is that the boost between two players may not be equal. Each player has a ceiling for how good they're even capable of playing. A basketball player is more likely to make more free throws than 3 pointers. Few can hang around with S Curry from the 3 line but they start to have a better chance at the free throw line. Why? It's easier, like a bar box. Still, their mechanics won't match his from the free throw line and he will win in the long run... But they come closer. The same principles apply to a bar box vs big table. Yes the better player is still better but I have a better chance to win more games on the easier table... YES, so does he. I get that. But on a larger table I'll make many more mistakes than him while on a little table I might only make a few more mistakes. If you want, I can draw you pictures or graphs or whatever it takes to help you get this.

billiardthought · Jul 25, 2016

Where is the link to Cleary-Rate? Or is it just easier to knock progress than to come up with it yourself?

Nick B · Jul 25, 2016

billiardthought said:
Where is the link to Cleary-Rate? Or is it just easier to knock progress than to come up with it yourself?

I don't think Cleary is talking down the value or accuracy of Fargo-rate system. This bar box thing has been discussed to death but I have to admit I as well am firmly in the 9 Foot camp. I have huge respect for Mark G but the BB only thing I believe more about validation than dollars (I could be wrong).

You have thousands of league players there and the inevitable thinking would be that we must be playing on less than real equipment because the big kids are playing on full sized tables. Simple solution...lets all play on BB and prove that BB pool is real pool. Well it is except not quite. Take myself. I buy almost anything that is a real match of quality. EVERY TAR event in person or bought stream. Two cock roaches mating on a 9 or 10 footer and I will drop the cash. BB not so much. The challenge matches that are coming up I would buy in a heart beat. World class champs in long races regardless of discipline. On current equipment....No. Mark says that they get bigger viewership on BB and I believe him. It doesn't make financial sense to bring in 10 - 9 footers and the extra space. OK. His gold. His rules. The man does and will do more for pool than I will ever achieve. Who am I to argue. The only vote I get is whether to buy or not. Unfortunately I will not. Why because it's too easy for even a short stop. Top tier professionals just tear it up. To steal from Cleary's example.

What would the NBA be like if they played on a miniature court c/w 5 Foot tall hoops? White man don't need to jump. Same game. Same rules. Just not the same.

Again thank you Mark for all you do for pool. Please bring back 9 footers for pros. Joe Public wont care. Nick B will.

gxman · Jul 25, 2016

I'd imagine if guys like Wu and Ko would play a bunch of 7ft table matches vs some of the barbox "superstars" like Skylar Woodward, Shane Winters, etc, their(Wu/Ko) fargo rating would drop a significant number.

Where Wu and Ko might win 75/25 on the big table, they might play 50/50 on a 7ft verses the barbox specialty players.

BeiberLvr · Jul 25, 2016

gxman said:
I'd imagine if guys like Wu and Ko would play a bunch of 7ft table matches vs some of the barbox "superstars" like Skylar Woodward, Shane Winters, etc, their(Wu/Ko) fargo rating would drop a significant number.

Where Wu and Ko might win 75/25 on the big table, they might play 50/50 on a 7ft verses the barbox specialty players.

No

No

No

Wrong

DoubleA · Jul 25, 2016

Don't like 7 ft'ers, don't play on them. Don't like to watch play on 7 ft'ers, don't watch. Want tourneys to be played only on 9 ft'ers, open a place large enough and add good money, the players don't care if it is 9 or 7 ft'er, they will go where the money is.

bad_hit · Jul 25, 2016

My favorite pool game is Honolulu. No straight in shots...just banks, carom, billiards, combos. No casual pool player wants to watch me play that, they don't understand it and fans can't relate because it's not the same game they play.

Casual pool players in the US play on 7' tables ONLY. They play call shot 8-ball.

I like Honolulu though, and I'm gonna keep on playing it, but because I like it, not because it's good for pool.

Same goes for 10 ball, 9 ball, banks, one-pocket, etc. Casual players/fans (a hundred million of them) don't know what that is and can't relate.

Bottom line: all of us pool nerds (the 1%) can play whatever game we want on any size table we like....and I'll even argue that pool is a more beautiful, pure game on larger tables, I even like it better...but pros playing on 7', which are same tables as the casual players (the other 99%), CAN'T be a bad thing.

cleary · Jul 25, 2016

billiardthought said:
Where is the link to Cleary-Rate? Or is it just easier to knock progress than to come up with it yourself?

lol the age old pool saying "if you don't like it, make your own". Which is why pool is so damned watered down to the point that nobody really makes any money.. Just spread so thin. Because of thinking like yours. A true visionary you are.

I've given my input to improve his system. Fargo has holes in it. He doesn't have to agree and I don't have to shut up.

barrymuch90 · Jul 25, 2016

I'm not a statistician but I'm pretty sure in the Shane vs Roberts match on 7ft tables Shane's break n run percentage was 8-8 or 100%

yelvis111 · Jul 25, 2016

mikepage said:
Here are two statements that SEEM to be saying the same thing, and so it seems they are either both true or both untrue. But that is an illusion; they actually express independent ideas

(1) A 600 is more likely to win a particular race against a 700 on a small table than on a big table

(2) The lower-rated player is given a boost on the small table

How can (1) be true without (2) being true? This is what we call a run-length issue. If the players run more racks on an easier table, then then the
race-to-7 acts statistically more like a race-to-5, and everybody knows the weaker player is more likely to pull one out in a shorter race.

Isn't there a performance threshold in 8-ball, above which your benefit from being a better player gets exponentially smaller?

In other words, in a single game of 8 ball you can't perform better than running 8-and-out.

Wouldn't this "runout horizon" be (much) lower on a 7-ft table than a 9-ft table?

I'm making up the following numbers to make a point:

Let's say Shane was 98% likely to run 8-and-out on a random 8-ball layout on a 9-foot table. Let's say Corey Deuel was 95% likely to run 8-and-out on that same layout on that same 9-foot table. In n games, this represents a given advantage.

However, let's say Shane was now 99% likely to run 8-and-out on that same layout on a 7-foot table. However, let's also say that Corey was now 97% likely to run 8-and-out on that same layout on that same 7-foot table. In the same n games, Shane's advantage can't be the same as it was on the 9-footer.

Shane's performance advantage can't be carried over and represented as being 101% likely to run 8-and-out on the 7-footer, nor can his advantage be represented as his being more likely than Corey to run 10 balls in that game of 8-ball.

I realize that Fargo rating only represents Player A's likelihood of winning x games against Player B's winning y games, but given that Shane and Corey's ability levels remain unchanged, doesn't the lower necessary performance threshold to win a game of 8-ball on a 7-footer have to result in a smaller advantage for Shane over Corey?

Once again, I'm a HUGE supporter of the Fargo rating system, and believe it will only bring benefit to the game. However, criticism of Fargo Rate should not be assumed to be criticism of Mike Page.

Pax,

Taek

sixpack · Jul 25, 2016

Then how come Shane keeps winning bar table events? If that thinking is true, shouldn't he win less on a barbox?

7ft vs 9ft Stats

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Certifiable

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Gold Member

Honestly, I'm a liar.

Honestly, I'm a liar.

AzB Silver Member

Honestly, I'm a liar.

Anti-intellectualism

This is gonna hurt

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Honestly, I'm a liar.

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member