smart words from Billy Incardona, any opinions?

dedstroke38 · May 18, 2010

I was just watching the live streaming of the 10 ball US Open and Billy brought up a good point that I fell like has always been misjudged. Bartram had a one rail kick on the one in the corner and Scott Frost mentioned that he should shoot to make it because you should play agressively when you are down. Billy responded firmly with a no and I totally agree with Billy. In roation games, no matter what the score is you can only win one game at a time and you shoot the shot that gives you the best chance of winning. If that means ducking when you are down 8-1 then so be it. I understand in one pocket where there are times you need to be a little more aggressive but there is no reason your strategy should change in 9 ball depending on the score! It seems like its a common cliche amongst commentators to say they better shoot because they are far behind. It was refreshing to hear what actually makes sense!... IMO anyway haha. Any thoughts?

iusedtoberich · May 18, 2010

I agree. I've always tried to play the same way. Doesn't matter if you are winning 10-0, or losing 0-10. You should take the shot that gives you the best chance of winning the set. I've personally been on the winning end, and went for a risky shot figuring I'm way ahead and if I miss it, he still has to win a bunch of games. Well, I've been burned by that too many times.

A great example of this on video, is the first TAR match between Corey and SVB. SVB was killing Corey, and instead of going for a shot, he went for a jam up safety. Billy and Grady were commentating, and one of them said that if Bentivegna was watching, he would have been impressed how SVB was not relenting, and continuing to put the screws in Corey by always playing the right shot, no matter the lead.

Luxury · May 18, 2010

Totally agree. They like to mention the strategy based on the score because it gives them something to talk about. Jeanette Lee was the first commentator I ever heard bust that theory and say shoot the right shot always.

Also Mitch likes to say, "both players really just sort of feeling each other out right now in the early stages of the match..."

No, they are playing safeties because this layout came up and they are just playing the right shot.

ironman · May 18, 2010

dedstroke38 said:
I was just watching the live streaming of the 10 ball US Open and Billy brought up a good point that I fell like has always been misjudged. Bartram had a one rail kick on the one in the corner and Scott Frost mentioned that he should shoot to make it because you should play agressively when you are down. Billy responded firmly with a no and I totally agree with Billy. In roation games, no matter what the score is you can only win one game at a time and you shoot the shot that gives you the best chance of winning. If that means ducking when you are down 8-1 then so be it. I understand in one pocket where there are times you need to be a little more aggressive but there is no reason your strategy should change in 9 ball depending on the score! It seems like its a common cliche amongst commentators to say they better shoot because they are far behind. It was refreshing to hear what actually makes sense!... IMO anyway haha. Any thoughts?

i guess my take on this is that if Billy say's it, I buy it. many forget just what a great 9 ball player Billy was in his day. he beat many and most of them. i belive now Billy would be a real force it he game even in his 60"S if his back were alittle better. But even nnow when playing well, the mental part of the game and the decison making a'int his problem at all!

jay helfert · May 18, 2010

Playing "smart" pool is second nature to Billy. He has somehow managed to outsmart the entire pool world for over thirty years!

CreeDo · May 18, 2010

agree - the theory of "if you're down, play more aggressively" is kind of a staple of one pocket, scott's specialty. But it doesn't translate to rotation games. Might translate to straight pool?

Ratta · May 18, 2010

Hussa,

no matter what discipline you re playing- just choosing the ball which is giving you the highest percentage to continue or just to win the game...no matter if it would be a safety or by making the ball.

mullyman · May 19, 2010

I think it depends on the player. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Billy, but I've heard Buddy Hall say things like "if I'm going down I'm going down shooting" etc... Hard to argue against Buddy's advice too. I have no problem ducking though.
MULLY

markgw · May 19, 2010

dedstroke38 said:
I was just watching the live streaming of the 10 ball US Open and Billy brought up a good point that I fell like has always been misjudged. Bartram had a one rail kick on the one in the corner and Scott Frost mentioned that he should shoot to make it because you should play agressively when you are down. Billy responded firmly with a no and I totally agree with Billy. In roation games, no matter what the score is you can only win one game at a time and you shoot the shot that gives you the best chance of winning. If that means ducking when you are down 8-1 then so be it. I understand in one pocket where there are times you need to be a little more aggressive but there is no reason your strategy should change in 9 ball depending on the score! It seems like its a common cliche amongst commentators to say they better shoot because they are far behind. It was refreshing to hear what actually makes sense!... IMO anyway haha. Any thoughts?

First of all I have learned a ton from Billy Incardona over the years with all his accu-stats commentary. The way he describes what's happening at the table is a great learning tool for any player. I am in total agreement that playing the score and playing the right shot are two different things. You should always play the right shot and I am in total agreement with his statement there. Why do something low percentage just because of the score. That would be something an impatient player would do wanting to get the games back quicker but not the right way. When I hear people say derogatory remarks toward Billy's commentating it's really confusing because my game improved just by listening to him over the years and applying some of his knowledge to my game. Great thread!

Marvel · May 19, 2010

Two sides of the story

I'm not disagreeing here, but I want to bring into consideration also the "momentum factor".

If you're thinking it rationally, what Billy said is completely true. That's the same school as the idea: "You're playing alone there, against the balls and the table and the situation in it. Forget the opponent".

I'm sure many pros think like this, but I'd guess there must be about as many who think differently.

The other "school" think it more as a fight, and the psychological part plays a big part in it. If you're down and steal couple of racks with some aggressive shots, you might gain the momentum, the confidence needed to steal the match. At the same time you shake your opponent, as we are all humans after all.
These things in this category affect more of those who play more with their emotions and intuition. For example Earl and Mika would probably in most of their games think a bit like this.
Then those more methodical and rational players, the patient ones like Ralf for example, can be put into the first category, where keeping composure and staying as "the master of the situation" are what they wish to be when they perform their best.

So I'm not disagreeing with Billy, just wanted to bring the other side of the story into picture.
I recall reading several years back a BD article from Mike Sigel, where he said just like Scott had said before Billy had disapproved.
Mike pictured a shot (iirc, 4 ball in head rail, whitey somewhere in the other end) and wrote that if he'd be 0-4 down, without hesitating he'd go for a long bank and try to get the momentum and the rush needed for the haunt. On the other hand, if he'd be 4-0 up, he'd go for the safety not to give any easy chances.

Myself, I tend to be mostly in the first category with Billy, but have experienced both styles various times. Both in the winning and in the losing end

Lastly; this idea is not to play against the highest percentage shot, but we have to realize, that the highest percentage shot varies as we are emotional human beings.
If we are full of adrenaline and confidence, that long bank might feel better than the safety. I.e. Mika and Earl might go for it even if they'd be up, if they feel it better than the safety, which some other, as good of a player, might choose in that situation.
What Mike (and Scott) probably meant, was that by going for the aggressive instead of the safety when you're down, you give yourself an order to trust yourself and by taking some risks see it as "the highest percentage way" of winning the match. Even though as a single shot the safety might be bit higher percentage, in long run, for winning the match and gaining what is needed for that, you might have to choose the aggressive option.

Especially, if you're that emotional player who needs that rush.

freddy the beard · May 19, 2010

Right shot, wrong shot

iusedtoberich said:
I agree. I've always tried to play the same way. Doesn't matter if you are winning 10-0, or losing 0-10. You should take the shot that gives you the best chance of winning the set. I've personally been on the winning end, and went for a risky shot figuring I'm way ahead and if I miss it, he still has to win a bunch of games. Well, I've been burned by that too many times.

A great example of this on video, is the first TAR match between Corey and SVB. SVB was killing Corey, and instead of going for a shot, he went for a jam up safety. Billy and Grady were commentating, and one of them said that if Bentivegna was watching, he would have been impressed how SVB was not relenting, and continuing to put the screws in Corey by always playing the right shot, no matter the lead.

Firstly, I would definitely agree with SVB's choice of playing conservatively with the big lead. When you have your fingers on someones throat, why give him a chance to take a breath? Secondly, I would like to define my views of the "right" shot -- in 9 ball.
To me, the right shot is the one that you believe you can execute properly, within the limits of your own skill level --- at the particular time of the shot's inception. Being human, what we can do often depends on the situational concerns. If a situation arises where I am forced to shoot at a difficult shot; if I am well ahead my chances of making the shot are greater than they would be for a player of a similar skill level, but who is well behind and struggling. It's the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer theory.
Another way of determining the right shot in a situation is how you yourself feel when your opponent is deciding whether to shoot or play a safety.
If you want him to shoot then you know that that is the wrong shot. Keep that in mind when it is your turn and you have to make a similar decision.

Beard

Kickin' Chicken · May 19, 2010

an example from just last night...

I was in a 9 ball match last night where I was on the 5 ball and it was a 90-95% shot for me and the rest of the table was a breeze to complete. But instead of shooting the 5, I saw that I had an easy play to pin my opponent real tight on a side cushion behind the 7 and 9 balls with a simple slow roller, giving him virtually no chance to make a good hit.

I slow rolled him into jail, got ball in hand, and as a result my percentage to make the 5 ball went from 90 - 95 up to 99.9999%.

This was the smart play, putting even this small percentage in my favor. Don't need any more break and run accolades, just want to win.

I do, however, want to say that there are an awful lot of variables that can weigh on our shot decisions, chief amongst them for me is, what are my opponents capabilities. When Billy Incardona opines, his perspective is from that of a pro who knows if you trip, your opponent may well be out in a hurry. And giving your opponent back the table can, and oftentimes does, mean doom. It's a bit different for us mere mortal players.

I am proficient, for instance, at kicking and banking not just for making a good hit but to actually make the ball. Jumping, not my best skill, I'm just maybe okay at this. So, in making my shot decisions I do consider everything, my capabilities and likleyhood for success, and always, who I'm playing and what is their realistic chances if I fail. I do place stock in playing some fancy shots against certain opponents in an attempt to not only make the ball, but also for the demoralizing factor.

I do try to keep those shots as 2-way as possible.

But again I want to emphasize, I believe in what Billy Incardona said, and especially in the context of high caliber players, it's always best to play the percentages wherever they lead. Turn your 95s into 99s when you can. And way down here on mortal level, well, we can get a little more flashy (risky) now and then without suffering the same consequences.

Best,
Brian kc

frankwhite · May 19, 2010

I Agree

I seen a match between Efren & Hopkins, Hopkins up hill to 0, gainst the worlds best. Hopkins made a bad judgement shot, the next thing you know Efren wins 11-10......Sick

Black-Balled · May 19, 2010

Guaranteed: shooter has both won and lost both ways from this situation in the past. Comes down to the shooter's feelings at the moment.

Either could be right or wrong. Depends on what happens!:wink:

So what happened?

Tramp Steamer · May 19, 2010

mullyman said:
I think it depends on the player. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Billy, but I've heard Buddy Hall say things like "if I'm going down I'm going down shooting" etc... Hard to argue against Buddy's advice too. I have no problem ducking though.
MULLY

You're absolutely right. I wouldn't want to second guess either one of them.

ShootingArts · May 19, 2010

good posts!

freddy the beard said:
Firstly, I would definitely agree with SVB's choice of playing conservatively with the big lead. When you have your fingers on someones throat, why give him a chance to take a breath? Secondly, I would like to define my views of the "right" shot -- in 9 ball.
To me, the right shot is the one that you believe you can execute properly, within the limits of your own skill level --- at the particular time of the shot's inception. Being human, what we can do often depends on the situational concerns. If a situation arises where I am forced to shoot at a difficult shot; if I am well ahead my chances of making the shot are greater than they would be for a player of a similar skill level, but who is well behind and struggling. It's the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer theory.
Another way of determining the right shot in a situation is how you yourself feel when your opponent is deciding whether to shoot or play a safety.
If you want him to shoot then you know that that is the wrong shot. Keep that in mind when it is your turn and you have to make a similar decision.

Beard

Good posts by Freddy and the kicking chicken!

One thing, sometimes pool is like dancing. One player is leading, one is following. One player is initiating new action, the other is only reacting. More common in games like One Pocket but even in rotation games you see one player play a strong safety and the other survives it with a weak safety. This may happen several times in succession but the person reacting almost always comes out on the short end of the stick.

Regardless of any other rules of thumb, if I find myself on the defensive all the time reacting to the other player's shots instead of deciding my own I'm going to risk a shot to turn things around on the other player and put them on the defensive. It won't be a stupid shot or a sure sell out but it might be a shot with more risk than another available choice. It will be a shot that feels right to me at the time though. Like Freddy says, only the person over the shot knows the right one for him at the moment.

Hu

mikeyfrost · May 19, 2010

frankwhite said:
I seen a match between Efren & Hopkins, Hopkins up hill to 0, gainst the worlds best. Hopkins made a bad judgement shot, the next thing you know Efren wins 11-10......Sick

There's a time to swing it though.

My take on it, if you are getting blitzed sometimes its better to throw deep than a screen pass. You don't want to lose a safety battle to lose your lunch. I'd rather go out swinging. I saw Jesse Bowman stuck 10-2 playing 10-Ball with Gabe Owen, Jess wins 11-10. You think he got there one safe at a time or by going for broke?

You gotta go for the gusto in pool. Some people try to win. Some try not to lose. There's a big difference in those two players.

SCCues · May 19, 2010

dedstroke38 said:
I was just watching the live streaming of the 10 ball US Open and Billy brought up a good point that I fell like has always been misjudged. Bartram had a one rail kick on the one in the corner and Scott Frost mentioned that he should shoot to make it because you should play agressively when you are down. Billy responded firmly with a no and I totally agree with Billy. In roation games, no matter what the score is you can only win one game at a time and you shoot the shot that gives you the best chance of winning. If that means ducking when you are down 8-1 then so be it. I understand in one pocket where there are times you need to be a little more aggressive but there is no reason your strategy should change in 9 ball depending on the score! It seems like its a common cliche amongst commentators to say they better shoot because they are far behind. It was refreshing to hear what actually makes sense!... IMO anyway haha. Any thoughts?

I don't think you should change your game based on the score as you stated. You should play one game at a time and if your going to win you will win. Being overly aggressive because your down will usually lead to a quicker loss.

James

A.J. DeAngelo · May 19, 2010

Marvel said:
I'm not disagreeing here, but I want to bring into consideration also the "momentum factor".

If you're thinking it rationally, what Billy said is completely true. That's the same school as the idea: "You're playing alone there, against the balls and the table and the situation in it. Forget the opponent".

I'm sure many pros think like this, but I'd guess there must be about as many who think differently.

The other "school" think it more as a fight, and the psychological part plays a big part in it. If you're down and steal couple of racks with some aggressive shots, you might gain the momentum, the confidence needed to steal the match. At the same time you shake your opponent, as we are all humans after all.
These things in this category affect more of those who play more with their emotions and intuition. For example Earl and Mika would probably in most of their games think a bit like this.
Then those more methodical and rational players, the patient ones like Ralf for example, can be put into the first category, where keeping composure and staying as "the master of the situation" are what they wish to be when they perform their best.

So I'm not disagreeing with Billy, just wanted to bring the other side of the story into picture.
I recall reading several years back a BD article from Mike Sigel, where he said just like Scott had said before Billy had disapproved.
Mike pictured a shot (iirc, 4 ball in head rail, whitey somewhere in the other end) and wrote that if he'd be 0-4 down, without hesitating he'd go for a long bank and try to get the momentum and the rush needed for the haunt. On the other hand, if he'd be 4-0 up, he'd go for the safety not to give any easy chances.

Myself, I tend to be mostly in the first category with Billy, but have experienced both styles various times. Both in the winning and in the losing end

Lastly; this idea is not to play against the highest percentage shot, but we have to realize, that the highest percentage shot varies as we are emotional human beings.
If we are full of adrenaline and confidence, that long bank might feel better than the safety. I.e. Mika and Earl might go for it even if they'd be up, if they feel it better than the safety, which some other, as good of a player, might choose in that situation.
What Mike (and Scott) probably meant, was that by going for the aggressive instead of the safety when you're down, you give yourself an order to trust yourself and by taking some risks see it as "the highest percentage way" of winning the match. Even though as a single shot the safety might be bit higher percentage, in long run, for winning the match and gaining what is needed for that, you might have to choose the aggressive option.

Especially, if you're that emotional player who needs that rush.

Agreed. Sometimes the "right" shot depends on the score. This is true in all of sport and is most obvious (to me, anyway) in boxing. Look at it this way: if it's fairly late in a contest and you are way behind, obviously whatever you had been doing isn't working. It's time to change it up. By doing so you may throw a hitch into your opponent as well. Momentum is a huge factor in contests such as pool, tennis, basketball, etc. and works at many levels. Remember the Red Sox coming back after being down 0-3 vs. the Yankees?
Just as obvious is that there are many exceptions. Sometimes you have just been incredibly unlucky and if you continue to grind things will go your way. The longer the contest though, the less likely this is. Sometimes you are a player whose game is not conducive to freestyling. Still, how many times have you seen an athlete or team come from behind after saying "the heck with it, I'm going for it" and making a few stellar plays?

rackmsuckr · May 19, 2010

mullyman said:
I think it depends on the player. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Billy, but I've heard Buddy Hall say things like "if I'm going down I'm going down shooting" etc... Hard to argue against Buddy's advice too. I have no problem ducking though.
MULLY

It depends on the percentages and the lay of the table. Percentages not only of you making it and getting out, but their chances of running out if you play safe. Are they good kickers/jumpers/bankers? Is it a bank on a big table or a little table? Is the ball you are playing safe on a hanger?

All percentages being equal for you to make the ball (and get good position for the runout or a better safe), against being able to execute a good safe, I might duck, because A: the more balls left on the table, especially in 8 ball, gives you a better chance to play safe or run out with ball in hand. And B: if I leave them a tough out, then at least they had to earn the win...I didn't hand it to them by taking a hero shot.

smart words from Billy Incardona, any opinions?

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Shoot Pool, not people

Fargo Rating 597

Hearing the balls.....

Hung Like a Gnat!

AzB Silver Member

Marvel - The Yogi Bear

Freddy Bentivegna

Kick Shot Aficionado

www.superiorbilliardtech.

AzB Silver Member

One Pocket enthusiast.

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!

Socially Aware

< Searing Twins

Registered

Linda Carter - The QUEEN!