A New Way to One Hole

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I like one pocket, but it's boring to watch sometimes, and I'm a pool player. So I can only imagine how boring it would be to the general public.

Can we change that? Here's my idea.


Each player is limited to x number of moves per game. For this example, we'll say 10 moves. A move is simply defined as shot taken during a player's inning. The exception being if that player makes multiple balls in their pocket. Only the first ball made would count as a move.

So if I come to the table and make a ball then play safe. I would be -2 moves for that inning. -1 move for the first ball, and then -1 move for the safety. However, if I come to the table and run 8 and out, I would only be -1 move.

The break does not count as a move, otherwise it would be a disadvantage to break.

If both players have exhausted their moves, and no one has made 8 balls. Then the person with the highest ball count wins the game. I'm not sure how to handle a tie. I was thinking just continue play until someone makes ONE ball, or re-rack.

The two big benefits I could see would be faster games and increased aggression (more offense). Imagine a player down in the ball count and on his last move. He's forced to come with a shot. Also, players in general may be forced to play more aggressively since they are limited to a certain number of moves per game, and can't afford to just bunt balls around.
 

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Just play 9 ball if you want a fast game and like racking a lot. One pocket is perfect how it is.

One pocket could be considered perfect if you're the one playing, but as a viewer (especially someone new to the game), it's far from perfect.

Think big picture. Constructive ideas are welcome as well.
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
I like one pocket, but it's boring to watch sometimes, and I'm a pool player. So I can only imagine how boring it would be to the general public.

Can we change that? Here's my idea.


Each player is limited to x number of moves per game. For this example, we'll say 10 moves. A move is simply defined as shot taken during a player's inning. The exception being if that player makes multiple balls in their pocket. Only the first ball made would count as a move.

So if I come to the table and make a ball then play safe. I would be -2 moves for that inning. -1 move for the first ball, and then -1 move for the safety. However, if I come to the table and run 8 and out, I would only be -1 move.

The break does not count as a move, otherwise it would be a disadvantage to break.

If both players have exhausted their moves, and no one has made 8 balls. Then the person with the highest ball count wins the game. I'm not sure how to handle a tie. I was thinking just continue play until someone makes ONE ball, or re-rack.

The two big benefits I could see would be faster games and increased aggression (more offense). Imagine a player down in the ball count and on his last move. He's forced to come with a shot. Also, players in general may be forced to play more aggressively since they are limited to a certain number of moves per game, and can't afford to just bunt balls around.

I like it. It would turn one pocket into something more people would watch.

However...You'd better prepare for a sh--storm! Bunters and stallers won't like this one bit.
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
I like it. It would turn one pocket into something more people would watch.

However...You'd better prepare for a sh--storm! Bunters and stallers won't like this one bit.

Ok, here it comes.
...sounds like bar-rules one-pocket to me.
 

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
How about if you went to a certain number of points but every non-shot you take is -1 to your score. Sort of like reverse straight pool.

+2 for every ball you make, -1 for every "move". Or something like that. Maybe 3 for a shot -1 for a "move".

Has anyone noted what the average safe vs shot is in one pocket?

Only thing I really know about one pocket is that half the time the strategy is to make the game last so long the other guy gets bored and starts trying to make some balls with risky shots so the old guy that is sleeping anyway in his chair can win.
 

SJDinPHX

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I like one pocket, but it's boring to watch sometimes, and I'm a pool player. So I can only imagine how boring it would be to the general public.

Can we change that? Here's my idea.


Each player is limited to x number of moves per game. For this example, we'll say 10 moves. A move is simply defined as shot taken during a player's inning. The exception being if that player makes multiple balls in their pocket. Only the first ball made would count as a move.

So if I come to the table and make a ball then play safe. I would be -2 moves for that inning. -1 move for the first ball, and then -1 move for the safety. However, if I come to the table and run 8 and out, I would only be -1 move.

The break does not count as a move, otherwise it would be a disadvantage to break.

If both players have exhausted their moves, and no one has made 8 balls. Then the person with the highest ball count wins the game. I'm not sure how to handle a tie. I was thinking just continue play until someone makes ONE ball, or re-rack.

The two big benefits I could see would be faster games and increased aggression (more offense). Imagine a player down in the ball count and on his last move. He's forced to come with a shot. Also, players in general may be forced to play more aggressively since they are limited to a certain number of moves per game, and can't afford to just bunt balls around.

Beibs, To put it bluntly, that is the 'dead worst' set of rule change suggestions, I have ever seen for any game..ever!.. It would take more time, than I am willing to devote, to point out all the reasons why!..Your normally intelligent posts, just took a severe hit with me..I now have to wonder, if you have ever actually played a game of one pocket in your life?

One Pocket rules are just fine the way they are, and though the game may never attract a mass audience, those of us who love it could care less..The game is not boring to us!..Let the other 'fast action' games, go after the high $$$$ TV sponsors..Enacting a set of rules like you proposed, would surely end the 'boredom' factor, it would also ensure, that no one would ever watch another game of 1P., ever again! :eek:

LATE EDIT;...In going back over the posts made, while I was forming my reply, I see we have one who actually concurs with you..one diissenter, and another horrible attempt at rule changing! (although not quite as bad as yours :eek:)..Leave the damn game alone, its the only game that hasn't undergone drastic rule changes every few months!..In fact, since its inception/invention, 70-80 yrs. ago, there have been exactly ZERO changes!..They got it right the first time! :p
 
Last edited:

Bank it

Uh Huh, Sounds Legit
Silver Member
I'm sick of people wanting to change rules to pool games whether it be 1 pocket or 9 ball. If you don't like the games as they are then take up darts or invent a new game like Joe Tucker did with American Rotation.
 

philly

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Usually a long game of one pockets consist of two players playing hard and smart. I get a tremendous amount of satisfaction out of winning a one pocket game that lasts an hour or more. It means the game was a fight and neither player really sold out. If you don't like the strategy and moves that one pocket provides, you should stay away from the game. The better your opponent, the longer you take between shots because you have more to lose if you make a mistake.
 

Henry W

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Beibs, To put it bluntly, that is the 'dead worst' set of rule change suggestions, I have ever seen for any game..ever!.. It would take more time, than I am willing to devote, to point out all the reasons why!..Your normally intelligent posts, just took a severe hit with me..I now have to wonder, if you have ever actually played a game of one pocket in your life?

One Pocket rules are just fine the way they are, and though the game may never attract a mass audience, those of us who love it could care less..The game is not boring to us!..Let the other 'fast action' games, go after the high $$$$ TV sponsors..Enacting a set of rules like you proposed, would surely end the 'boredom' factor, it would also ensure, that no one would ever watch another game of 1P., ever again! :eek:

LATE EDIT;...In going back over the posts made, while I was forming my reply, I see we have one who actually concurs with you..one diissenter, and another horrible attempt at rule changing! (although not quite as bad as yours :eek:)..Leave the damn game alone, its the only game that hasn't undergone drastic rule changes every few months!..In fact, since its inception/invention, 70-80 yrs. ago, there have been exactly ZERO!..They got it right the first time! :p

I agree leave one pocket alone.
 

billiardthought

Anti-intellectualism
Silver Member
One pocket could be considered perfect if you're the one playing, but as a viewer (especially someone new to the game), it's far from perfect.

Think big picture. Constructive ideas are welcome as well.

I understand what you're saying, and I get it, one pocket isn't that great to watch when you're new to the game. But that is out of our control. That's like saying expensive wines aren't accessible to people on a budget, or cuemaking as an industry is corrupt because only the buyer of the cue gets to enjoy it.

Don't change my game because someone wants to watch it but doesn't enjoy watching it how it might be. That is the dumbest thing on earth.

If a pool player matures and finds they start to appreciate playing or even hopefully watching one pocket, that means they are worth it. If not, why would I make a change for them anyway?
 

Tramp Steamer

One Pocket enthusiast.
Silver Member
This forum is in a sad state of affairs.
Like Beibs, here, wanting to change the rules of One Pocket just because it doesn't meet his threshold of of viewing excitement.
And another poster who wanted to know who the girl seen hanging on SVB's arm was.
How about we go back to stuff like, "What do I do if my tip falls off in the middle of a tournament?" Or, "Should my new wrap be black and white, or white and black?"
The ass-kissin', facebookin', and this hear me, see me, feel me, crap has got to stop.
 

Poolshootindon

Registered Pool Offender
Silver Member
One pocket could be considered perfect if you're the one playing, but as a viewer (especially someone new to the game), it's far from perfect.

Think big picture. Constructive ideas are welcome as well.

One Pocket is usually played by players who have been playing pool for quite some time. Most players understand the difficulty of the game, and appreciate the moves that are needed to be a winner.

I say leave it as it is. Your idea may be good for those who like fast games, but most one pocket players like it as it is.

How about using a 9 ball rack and just bust them open. Who ever makes 5 balls first wins the game.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I like one pocket, but it's boring to watch sometimes, and I'm a pool player. So I can only imagine how boring it would be to the general public.

Can we change that? Here's my idea.


Each player is limited to x number of moves per game. For this example, we'll say 10 moves. A move is simply defined as shot taken during a player's inning. The exception being if that player makes multiple balls in their pocket. Only the first ball made would count as a move.

So if I come to the table and make a ball then play safe. I would be -2 moves for that inning. -1 move for the first ball, and then -1 move for the safety. However, if I come to the table and run 8 and out, I would only be -1 move.

The break does not count as a move, otherwise it would be a disadvantage to break.

If both players have exhausted their moves, and no one has made 8 balls. Then the person with the highest ball count wins the game. I'm not sure how to handle a tie. I was thinking just continue play until someone makes ONE ball, or re-rack.

The two big benefits I could see would be faster games and increased aggression (more offense). Imagine a player down in the ball count and on his last move. He's forced to come with a shot. Also, players in general may be forced to play more aggressively since they are limited to a certain number of moves per game, and can't afford to just bunt balls around.


hmmmmmm, no.

Lou Figueroa
 

bdorman

Dead money
Silver Member
While I appreciate the effort to make pool more public-friendly, I fear your idea just introduces more "rules" but doesn't change the fact that pool is not a spectator sport. If the public doesn't want to watch 9-ball, they certainly won't watch one-pocket regardless of any changes to the rules.

Sad to say, but here's a game that MIGHT capture the public's imagination:

Demolition Derby 8-ball. Regular 8-ball except there are two CBs (yours and mine) and both players are at the table at the same time. First player to pocket his group and then the 8-ball wins. Basketball-type contact fouls; just touching the other player isn't a foul, but body slamming him is a foul. No foul for woofing, trash-talking and such.

The game would be fast, exciting and involve lots of player personality -- all the things missing from today's games.

Of course, we'd hate it. That's probably a good measure of how much the public would like it.
 

SJDinPHX

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This forum is in a sad state of affairs.
Like Beibs, here, wanting to change the rules of One Pocket just because it doesn't meet his threshold of of viewing excitement.
And another poster who wanted to know who the girl seen hanging on SVB's arm was.
How about we go back to stuff like, "What do I do if my tip falls off in the middle of a tournament?" Or, "Should my new wrap be black and white, or white and black?"
The ass-kissin', facebookin', and this hear me, see me, feel me, crap has got to stop.

Agreed, and I would include the almost daily,.."Should I use a hard or a soft tip"?..Its pretty easy to guess the average age, of someone who would ask these exciting questions! ;)
 

cor

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Pretty sure I got a better way to improve one pocket. Let's just reduce the number of balls used.. to say .. nine or ten? Doesn't matter.

Next, instead of a soft break, maybe force the breaker to break them hard.

Then, maybe instead of each using one pocket, let the person approaching the table shoot in any pocket, but instead of making any ball you must shoot them in order. The person who makes the last ball in wins.
 

vacation

Living Good.
Silver Member
Nothing beats a long, drawn out one pocket match. Once the balls start going up table, I'm engaged. But I also have no qualms about ditching other priorities in life and watching a 5 hr snooker final.

As stated before, if I want fast paced action, I'll watch 9 ball. Or basketball.
 

philly

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Pretty sure I got a better way to improve one pocket. Let's just reduce the number of balls used.. to say .. nine or ten? Doesn't matter.

Next, instead of a soft break, maybe force the breaker to break them hard.

Then, maybe instead of each using one pocket, let the person approaching the table shoot in any pocket, but instead of making any ball you must shoot them in order. The person who makes the last ball in wins.

Either you are being sarcastic or you should not play one pocket. The game you have described has no resemblance to one pocket. Don't play the game if you don't want to. Every good one pocket player will tell you the same thing....They started out hating and avoiding one pocket and they came to the conclusion that you need every bit of table knowledge, imagination, and stroke to play it well. Now if they have to choose a game, any game, it's one pocket. Learn the game. It will improve your concentration in all the other games.
 
Top