Alternate break is ruining pool

Alternative theme song................

realkingcobra said:

Don't know me very well do you...LOL i also dreamed about building the best coin operated pool tables in the world, then started building them in 1995-2000 when met up with Diamond, and merged my design with them to create the Smart table....hows that dream coming along? I also dreamed about building and selling the best ball polisher in the world, so i designed it, built it, got bored with it....so, i gave Diamond production rights.....hows that dream coming along? I'm approving another one of my dreams this week, and when that one comes along....the world will get in line to get it. LOL i don't have dreams first, then go buy a lottery ticket wondering what's my chances of pursuing my dreams.....i leave that to you people

Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bAoq7k3tZ0 Maybe have all these"pro"s vote on it.

garczar said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bAoq7k3tZ0 Maybe have all these"pro"s vote on it.

Click to expand...

Why on Earth would I ask the pros to vote on it when it's my money, my house, my events. All they have to do is pass the skill level test, get picked, play and get paid. That right there is their vote!!

garczar said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bAoq7k3tZ0 Maybe have all these"pro"s vote on it.

Click to expand...

Why don't you ask every Pro you know, including your snooker player buddies when was the las time THEY got paid after their first round loss???

realkingcobra said:

Why don't you ask every Pro you know, including your snooker player buddies when was the las time THEY got paid after their first round loss???

Click to expand...

First off, i have zero "snooker playing buddies" and secondly, IF, i did why would i ask them this question? Wait, you're trying to compare this "mystery" pool tour to professional snooker? Now that is funny.

garczar said:

First off, i have zero "snooker playing buddies" and secondly, IF, i did why would i ask them this question? Wait, you're trying to compare this "mystery" pool tour to professional snooker? Now that is funny.

Click to expand...

Really? What says Professional pool players can't earn more income than snooker players as that seems to be a comparison a lot of people like to make?

alternate break

I think if you win you should break. Period. Why should you give your opponent the opportunity to break if you run out. Isn't right.

Reddick. Michael Reddick.

Bob Jewett said:

Actually, probably not. I know Michael Reddick. Saw him Monday. I think you've made a wrong connection.

Click to expand...

Then I stand corrected, damn.

Sawwie, Mikey.

buckshotshoey said:

In shorter races, to 5 or so, I can see the merit of alternate breaks.

Winner breaks has its problems too. You will never make everyone happy. Somebody will always have a bi**h. I think it give a little variety to the game. There might be a tournament come along that has loser breaks.

We have local tournaments that has loser of rack breaks and it works well. But we only have races to 3 in that one. Nothing wrong with it. Just something a little different. A little spice added.

Click to expand...

"Second place is just another way of saying FIRST PLACE LOSER"

Guess who are usually the ones saying that?

Those that didn't cash at all or don't even have the talent to compete!!

Bob Jewett said:

I'm not sure it was mentioned above, but as noted in a previous thread, the choice of break format -- winner, loser, alternate -- has no effect on the chance of the better player winning the match. Unless you believe in "momentum" or some such.

Click to expand...

I was just wondering to myself, if there's no effect, then why has pool tried so hard to change away from the winner breaks format?

Just speaking from a midwest-USA bar-table point of view, turnouts are FAR bigger with alt.brk. The break may not be as big a deal on big tables but its HUGE on a bar table. And RKC, i'm not talking about some hypothetical "pro only" fantasy tournament. I'm talking about events where people have jobs and often take a day of vacation to play. If its winner break a lot of them WON'T show. BTW, the Midwest 9ball Tour's Olathe,Ks. event last weekend(alt.brk, btw) drew 137 players. This event happens twice a year and is always full if not over-full. Quite a few locals play and i've had them tell me that if it was winner break they'd save their $$ and just watch. Who wants to pay 65bux plus quarters to watch somebody run a set on you?

garczar said:

Just speaking from a midwest-USA bar-table point of view, turnouts are FAR bigger with alt.brk. The break may not be as big a deal on big tables but its HUGE on a bar table. And RKC, i'm not talking about some hypothetical "pro only" fantasy tournament. I'm talking about events where people have jobs and often take a day of vacation to play. If its winner break a lot of them WON'T show. BTW, the Midwest 9ball Tour's Olathe,Ks. event last weekend(alt.brk, btw) drew 137 players. This event happens twice a year and is always full if not over-full. Quite a few locals play and i've had them tell me that if it was winner break they'd save their $$ and just watch. Who wants to pay 65bux plus quarters to watch somebody run a set on you?

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just simply pointing out that pool today favors a handicapping system in order to involve the players that can't win, into paying entry fees to play against better players in the hopes of having a chance to be them because the bottom line is, it's a leach system of building the payouts for those that do earn money from the events as there is NO real added money to all those events, or at least nothing when compared to the entry fee totals paid in as the REAL added money.

garczar said:

Pick one you like and i'll stake 'em against you. Seriously, do you expect guys to put 5's and 6's together on pro-cut Diamonds??

Click to expand...

I Agree
If its Pro-Cut Diamonds with used cloth, then that severely limits how much you can cheat pockets to create angles to get to your next shot. Good shape is harder to come by making the next pot more difficult, on tables that are already tough to pot on. Net result fewer ROs. Even with new rail cloth Pro-Cuts are plenty tight.

I was never any where near a top player, but on 4.5 - 4.6" pockets, I managed twice in tourneys run out a turnover, and put a 6 pack on the guy to close out a match.

If these guys (and I played a few of them, and I won the very occasional match and I was very happy to do so) aren't putting 4+ packs together - tables must be very tough.

realkingcobra said:

I was just wondering to myself, if there's no effect, then why has pool tried so hard to change away from the winner breaks format?

Click to expand...

I forget which Tourney, but last year watch Corey D soft break and play shape 1 to side and another ball then make combo on 9 the was set up on the break. He did that a bunch in a row. In theory he could close out a match on a table breaking like that. Especially a shorter race like 7 or even 9

So if a match is supposed to show who the best player is at that particular moment, how does a format that does not allow the other player to the table demonstrate who was best at that particular time?

For top level competition, I like the format where you limit the number of breaks in a row eg race to 9 max 3 breaks in a row, excluding the 1st break if that was decided by lag. Reward for skill on the lag. If its a coin toss then 3 is the limit

Race to 5, two breaks in a row; excluding the 1st break if that was decided by lag. If its a coin toss then 3 is the limit

Race to 11, 4 breaks in a row; excluding the 1st break if that was decided by lag. If its a coin toss then 3 is the limit

FOR REGIONAL TOUNEYS
If you want to get more players out, you need to have formats that encourage the lessor players to compete to compare their game, gain competitive experience learn from playing better players.

Best way to expand the base of players and grow the game.

There are reasons why Snooker has sponsors putting up millions a year for pro tourneys and pool has sponsors putting up thousands.

A lot is to do with player attitude and public perception. Many in the public view pool a vehicle for shady cheap rounders and hustlers. What sponsor wants to step up with their $$, with that perception in the minds of the public.

I was watching D O on you tube clearly cheating by racking the balls with what I guess was a 1 " tilt on the rack. He only stopped because the other player called the ref over to make him stop. Imagine a potential sponsor looking for some exposure tuning into see that lack of professionalism.

Compare that with many top Snooker tourneys - guys playing for tens of thousands of pounds (prize money is not predominately derived from player entry fees), a player knows he fouls by touching a ball - ref misses it, other player doesn't see it, but the player stands up and calls a foul on himself. Public perception - Snooker is a gentleman's game - Sponsors get good exposure and put up big $$

realkingcobra said:

I was just wondering to myself, if there's no effect, then why has pool tried so hard to change away from the winner breaks format?

Click to expand...

I think it's really important to qualify "no effect". When Bob said there's no effect, he only means that there will be no difference in the probability of a particular overall outcome (win or lose) of an even race if both players' probability of winning a particular game can be determined entirely by who is breaking. The final match score may be different, but the winner should be the same.

However, pool players defy mathematical modeling by such a simple formula as a single probability based on who's breaking. Most players do play differently depending on the outcome of previous racks, although it can go either way (carelessness or increased focus). Even at a professional level, it's pretty well known that some players do better in tournaments where it's winner break and they can get "in stroke", and others don't seem to mind either way.

Personally, I can see benefits to either format. Winner breaks is usually more exciting for an audience and helps out players that respond poorly to having their momentum broken up by their opponent's breaks. It also means that you never feel like the match is out of your control as long as you can get to the table at least once. Alternate breaks is good for creating tighter match scores, which can create more tension in later racks and lets each player feel like they had a chance, even if they didn't.

The funny thing is that whenever this subject comes up and someone points out that the two formats are statistically equivalent under certain conditions, it seems like they are assumed to favor alternate breaks, even if they don't take a side.

alt break

alternate break produces, (just my guess) many more hill/hill games than winner break. or at least closer matches.

that favors the poolroom/tournament organizer, if you have to pay entry plus plug quarters per game.

I recently played in a tourney where you had entry/ Plus .75 per game, race to 9 both sides, alternate break. I'm sure the room wouldn't make near the same as if it was winner break.