Basically Siming is expected to win 44.6% of the games and Shane is expected to win 55.4%
So after 2 days, they've played 92 games and the most likely score is 41 to 51.
The actual score is 38 to 54 --a 3-game swing from the most likely.
Siming Vs Shane: 7 sets race to 11
- Thread starter Cardigan Kid
- Start date
Basically Siming is expected to win 44.6% of the games and Shane is expected to win 55.4%
So after 2 days, they've played 92 games and the most likely score is 41 to 51.
The actual score is 38 to 54 --a 3-game swing from the most likely.
MickeyMantle
Mickey Mantle #7
Been watching, and the "potting" is unbelievable. First set, they each missed only once, but Chen's miss was on the 6, with the 8 and 9 left to win the match. Shane won the next 3 to take the match 11-10. Second match was almost the opposite, but a few more misses, but Chen came back and won that one 11-10.....I posted awhile back about her 780 Fargo being the same as a man's 780, I assumed it incorrectly.....forgive my sexism then, but this woman can shoot with anyone. It is a total 'WOW" match when you watch them move the cue ball around....check it out on YouTube, you will not want to stop watching it.....they make the game look so easy!! She actually broke more consistent then Shane, if you can believe that! Go Watch it!!
Siming actually missed twice in that first set, not including a kick shot on the 8-ball up on the head rail she tried to pocket, as the safety would likely have been as tough to execute as making the shot was.
The cue ball was directly in front of the 8-ball and she'd of had a difficult time even getting a bridge to reach it to play a safety. She ended up missing it bad enough to leave Shane a tough but very makeable bank shot (particularly for a 1-pocket player), which he attempted but left hanging in the pocket for Siming. In addition to the shot on the 6-ball she missed when leading like 10-6 and running out, she missed another long cross table cut shot in the hill-hill game after Shane had played a jump safety - that turned out to be her last trip to the table that set.
No question I agree with you that her shot making, as well as her position play and cue ball control is as good as any male pro player, and I'm guessing these sessions against Shane will give her even more confidence going forward. It's possible if she continues to improve at the pace she has been, and continues to compete in big tournaments with the men, that she could likely become enough of a threat (as a tournament competitor) that Shane may decide it's not in his best interests to keep sparring with her in practice sessions such as this was - as it clearly is a benefit to her game far more than it is to his!
Last edited:
I've been through enough years of making games, seeing games made, setting up games long term. Getting in bad games and so on, it's a ''read'' one gets when your around ''rounders'' by their actions.
The way I saw/read it....from Shanes ''body language'' he was never ''all in''.
Also,
Shane does act out a little more now, hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. At this years 2019 US Open, I did notice ''more'' body language and new mannerisms creep in to play. Those actions were not there 12 mths ago.
The way I saw/read it....from Shanes ''body language'' he was never ''all in''.
Also,
Shane does act out a little more now, hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. At this years 2019 US Open, I did notice ''more'' body language and new mannerisms creep in to play. Those actions were not there 12 mths ago.
all in
I would agree that SVB has been struggling with engagement in a way that Chang and Filler are not at this time. In exhibition matches it's easy to assume he'd play better if it was for more money, however you also noted you've seen similar behavior at the Open. I have too, and in other venues.
Being in a committed, positive, focused state of mind is extremely difficult. And once you get there, it's hard to stay there for the long haul. This is why you see things like Mika winning everything for a year or two, then fading into relative obscurity. With the magic no longer at his fingertips he falls from being the man to beat to a great player trying to win matches before being eliminated.
I don't think SVB would have necessarily played better against Siming for big money. I think he would've tried to play better. But it's probably pretty close. In my experience we remember the shots that we miss due to carelessness, "I would've made that for money". But we aren't always right, and we tend to overlook the shots we actually make that we would've dogged for the cash. This combined with his recent performance against Chang where he really struggled for the entire day 1 (more than I've seen him struggle before) tells me that his money game is far from airtight at this moment.
No criticism either. The man came out of his basement, took the world by storm, achieved #1 ranking, and was the guy to beat for 10 years, all while taking the game to another level. Not a bad resume.
I would agree that SVB has been struggling with engagement in a way that Chang and Filler are not at this time. In exhibition matches it's easy to assume he'd play better if it was for more money, however you also noted you've seen similar behavior at the Open. I have too, and in other venues.
Being in a committed, positive, focused state of mind is extremely difficult. And once you get there, it's hard to stay there for the long haul. This is why you see things like Mika winning everything for a year or two, then fading into relative obscurity. With the magic no longer at his fingertips he falls from being the man to beat to a great player trying to win matches before being eliminated.
I don't think SVB would have necessarily played better against Siming for big money. I think he would've tried to play better. But it's probably pretty close. In my experience we remember the shots that we miss due to carelessness, "I would've made that for money". But we aren't always right, and we tend to overlook the shots we actually make that we would've dogged for the cash. This combined with his recent performance against Chang where he really struggled for the entire day 1 (more than I've seen him struggle before) tells me that his money game is far from airtight at this moment.
No criticism either. The man came out of his basement, took the world by storm, achieved #1 ranking, and was the guy to beat for 10 years, all while taking the game to another level. Not a bad resume.
Well it's tough out there and the road does it's thing to each of us differently. I also saw this acting out at the 2017 US Open, but before that, never saw saw him mumble much at all.
Those who contend a little better isn't of consequence...you are wrong.
At the top level, a single digit increase is top end huge. Lots of people go 100mph, but the one who goes 103 beats em all.
At the top level, a single digit increase is top end huge. Lots of people go 100mph, but the one who goes 103 beats em all.
Ooh. I was knocking balls off the table last night and came up with another one:
For funsie pool, I might play short side shape on a ball to avoid walking around the table or just to see if I can hit my target.
Wouldn't do that for stakes of matter...
For funsie pool, I might play short side shape on a ball to avoid walking around the table or just to see if I can hit my target.
Wouldn't do that for stakes of matter...
I’m pretty sure the actual score was 39-54.
Scoreboard was off by one in the Day 2 second set. When Shane won at 8-3, scores were adjusted to 7-4 instead of 8-4. You can see the quarters verify this. The last game, Siming throws her quarter back up table because she joined him hill-hill.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Then you have not been around sports very long. Baseball, look at the great closers. Not the good ones, but the great ones. When the game is on the line, based are loaded, or it's a one run game, whatever, they dominate.
You bring that same closer in when the score is 6-1, and he does NOT pitch the same.
So, with pool players, just like any sport, it's going to come down to focus and having the ability not to let any pressure affect you.
I think folks are saying for SVB, he seems to thrive on it, and his focus changes when the "game is on the line"... which is the $10K. With a hundo, the desire and focus just might not be there for him. Same with the top closers in baseball, they need that adrenaline rush to play their best.
When I played baseball, I played better when I was pissed off. So, If I was not playing well, I'd look for a reason to get pissed off and take any action by the other team as a personal insult to myself and my teammates
Always helped my playing angry... In pool, that does NOT work at all for me, LOL
Live score update?
I don't agree with Mike on that and until I see evidence of that I'm not buying it ,, there are plenty of examples of players in other sports that just seem to play the best in the biggest moments big shot Rob Horry basketball,Angel Cabrera golf , Albin Ouschan in pool has seemed to play his best pool on the biggest stage , is that the norm I'd simply say no way but it's certainly plausible if not factual that some players simply have a light switch that turns on in the bigger moments, that's why I have said from the start a Fargo rate lacks in a information by simply having the number,, but I knew where that was going all along , now it seems you can pay to get that , shockingThen you have not been around sports very long. Baseball, look at the great closers. Not the good ones, but the great ones. When the game is on the line, based are loaded, or it's a one run game, whatever, they dominate.
You bring that same closer in when the score is 6-1, and he does NOT pitch the same.
So, with pool players, just like any sport, it's going to come down to focus and having the ability not to let any pressure affect you.
I think folks are saying for SVB, he seems to thrive on it, and his focus changes when the "game is on the line"... which is the $10K. With a hundo, the desire and focus just might not be there for him. Same with the top closers in baseball, they need that adrenaline rush to play their best.
When I played baseball, I played better when I was pissed off. So, If I was not playing well, I'd look for a reason to get pissed off and take any action by the other team as a personal insult to myself and my teammates
1
I watched them play. It was something we haven’t seen yet and it matched expectations. What more needs to be said?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Last edited:
Day 2...first set...Shane works like a machine, gets to hill first at 10-5...throws his quarter across the table to the foot rail like a boss....Siming proceeds to come back...Shane played some questionable safeties, but we've seen him do that at the world championships...Siming continues comeback...makes it hill hill...tries to super slide her quarter across the table to the foot rail, and it stops half way...she laughs it off, then breaks, and makes a shot on the 2 ball that most would miss hill hill vs Shane...completes the come back and wins the set.
Don't know what they are playing for, but this is clearly high-end play. Shane didn't want to lose that set--he shares a fist bump with her and immediately gets 2 balls out to lag for next set.
So far after 3 sets of watching...I haven't seen any signs of funsies/$100 throwaway sets by either player....if anything I've seen the opposite, concentration, 2-3 looks from different directions when deciding the shot, control cue ball.
Can anyone come up with a shot (time stamp) from these sets that shows something they would do/not do if playing for $100 K or the final of the U.S. Open?
Like another member said, even when playing for nothing we never know what shots we made because of no pressure and what shots we missed because of no pressure/lack of concentration....so all I can judge on is the score and choice of patterns (safeties instead of bank shot flyers, correct rails played, etc)....so far, and with the score close to the Fargo predictions...they appear to have played at the top end of their skill levels.
I don't know much about this area. But I seem to remember people talking about a U-shaped curve, where wanting it more, and more, and more leads to better performance to a point... And then performance starts deteriorating.
Are you confident the great closers are not merely people who don't show the deterioration most of us would, i.e., show less deterioration? have a wider U? For the sports you mention there's no great absolute measure, so we can romanticize a few pitches or a few pool shots.
There must be research on this. Are top figure skaters more likely to land the tough jump in the Olympics than in practice or a lesser competition?
When John Schmidt gets to 500, 36 racks, is he more or less likely to get through the next one than he was to get through, say, the 19th rack. My guess is less likely. But I'm just speculating
They were clearly shooting high caliber pool. I’ve seen Shane break better than he was. I know the 9 was on the spot but it seemed like his successful break percentage was closer to a hand rack than a template rack. Other than that, they both start dogging it in the last set but that might be fatigue. And that’s a far cry from shooting flyers and windys.
Shane was shooting better than we’ve seen in the Mosconi Cup, if that adds to the “pressure = better” conversation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro