5 SVB US open titles - 5 points

Petros Andrikop said:

Every match starting at 0-0 offers equal opportunity regardless of format, it was fine equal opportunity times with continuous break too.
Comparing to different sports mostly doesn't offer anything for evaluation, they are just different.
Alternate break was designed after the usual suspects in Europe earned so much distance from the rest and tournament participation numbers declined, if "equal opportunity" was the goal it would have been applied much earlier.
Isolating math data gives valuable information, but not necessarily a complete overall estimation, and usually that's the case in every scientific analysis, with a basis of "identical conditions".
Those "identical conditions" are gone when you change the breaking format, simply because in continuous break you get to break again and in alternate you don't. That leads to many other factors involved in the match which should be considered and combined during the analytical process. It's a completely different story.

Click to expand...

Equal opportunity can't be defined as a single point in the match. It must be throughout, and really only applies to the break itself.

The math guys have shown their evidence on why the winner is usually the same whether they play alternate or winner breaks.

It would be nice if you could provide something tangible to dispute them.

Bob Jewett said:

If in a match between A and B you know the percentage of time that A is likely to win from his break and the percentage of time that B is likely to win from his break (and the lagging percentages), you have all the information needed to predict how likely each possible match score is for either break format.

Would you agree with that?

Click to expand...

Not quite, because the percentage of winning from the break
may be different from the percentage of winning without breaking.

We could for example have two guys who are great at running balls and breaking well,
but one of them is better at safeties, kicking, etc.

They both might be able to run out 25% from the break, but in games where there's no runout,
the more well-rounded player has a better chance of winning.

So you need odds of winning from the break, and odds of winning not-from-the-break
to calculate odds of winning overall.

Matt said:

The numbers are a slightly off, but your logic is correct: the different formats will yield different expected match scores. What Bob and I are saying is that the probability of winning the match is the same between the two formats.

Click to expand...

If it changes the expected score, it changes the odds of winning,
because it might tip a 10-11 expected score into an 11-10 expected score.

When we are talking about a players odds of winning a particular rack, that includes the possibility of a break and run. For example, on my break, if I break and run half the time and win half the games where I don't, my chances of winning on my break are 50% BnR + (50% non-BnR * 50%) = 75%.

Click to expand...

And what if you break and run half the time, but only win 20% of the games where you don't
due to a weak defensive game? That's where winner break changes the expected outcome.
It helps the guy who breaks-and-runs more often, regardless of how he performs in games
where both players get to shoot.

If you had figured out the odds of player A vs player B based on longtime statistics
that were generated in BOTH formats, then you would have an accurate idea of who's going to win and by how much.
So if they played 1000 races in winner breaks, and 1000 races in alt breaks,
you have all the info you need to get an expected score.

But if they played 1000 races only in alt. breaks, I don't think you have all the info needed
to get an expected score if they suddenly switched to winner breaks.

I'm going to refer to two sports that made a simple rule change, and changed both games dramatically. The sports are hockey and curling. For those of you that want to roll your eyes about curling, just listen to the example, as it is relevant.

Curling is a game played with 8 stones. There are 4 players per team, each throwing two stones. The way to score is to count the stones closest to the "button", the centre spot in the rings at the other end, known as the house. There used to be a strategy that was employed by a multiple time world champion. Peel and score in the last end. One team will have the "hammer", or last stone of the end. If there is no score at the end, the team who had last rock keeps the "hammer". What you had, years ago, were teams just peeling rocks, and leaving the score 0-0, until the final end, and last stone. They would just hit and stick, or draw to the house, and would win the match 1-0. And it was absolutely a snooze fest to watch.

Hockey became boring in the later 90s into the mid 2000s with a technique called the neutral zone trap. The NJ Devils were famous for it, and won cups with it. And other teams followed suit. It employed a strategy that all but eliminated any sort of breakaway opportunity, as they clogged up the middle of the ice. It was a way for a team to win, when playing a more offensively talented team.

Here were the two rule changes to the games that radically changed how both games were played, and also made the games better to watch, as well as more exciting to play. Curling instituted a "free guard zone" rule. The first three stones of each end cannot be peeled off, provided they are not thrown into the house. This completely changed the game. Now, shotmaking came to the forefront. Also, you ended up with opportunities to "steal" ends, meaning you ended up scoring when the other team had the last stone. Scores went up, and there was some phenomenal shotmaking as the rule continued. Curling has permanently adopted the free guard zone rule. The best teams still win, and the talent in the game has increased tremendously, as the game has a lot more strategy now.

Hockey changed two rules. They introduced an "obstruction" penalty. They also got rid of the two line pass being called offside. This opened the game up, and allowed teams to start beating the "neutral zone trap". And the game was changed.

So....what to do with pool? Make the break "just another shot", and not the offensive weapon it is. How about a mandatory pushout after the break? This way, the opponent is guaranteed a chance at the table? Could also make for some interesting battles. Just an idea. Or, the first two shots cannot pocket a ball? These are some ideas that could introduce some "back and forth" in a match. Snooker has them all the time. And I find snooker a more fun game to watch than 9 ball.

Well anyone that thinks the matches at the US Open replete with packages & exciting comebacks in the winner break format wasn't exciting & could be more exciting with the whole "everybody gets a turn" alternate break format is IMO not a real pool fan & perhaps should find another sport.

There's nothing MORE boring than watching a slow starter drop behind 3-0 in an alternating break format & the most likely outcome being a foregone conclusion as he can't catch a gear & come from behind by putting a package down.

Petros Andrikop said:

I already have. Results compared to the past. Pool did not start over the last years. The game used to have icons (and TV coverage), now it has a few streaming viewers and anybody beating anybody...
And as far as results nowadays, dominating player like SVB in international event with continuous break: usually winner like in US open. Playing in alternate break similar events: usually not winning...
But still there are analytical conclusions based solely to individual break results that imply: "break format doesn't matter-break format doesn't matter"...
I wonder how many more tournaments like the US open does a dominating player like SVB has to win, compared to much fewer big tournaments won with alternate break, in order for people to realize the obvious: break format does matter.
If you always observe single trees, sure one tree equals to one tree.
But if you stand a bit further, you can see that 10 trees is a group and 10000 is a forest...

Click to expand...

Petros, this is not a matter of opinion: For an even race, playing winner breaks vs. alternate breaks has NO mathematical effect on the probabilities of each player winning the match, IF the only difference you take into account for each individual game in determining the probable outcome is who breaks.

Stating the (provably true statement) above isn't the same thing as saying that the break format doesn't matter. It's also not the same thing as advocating a particular format. All I'm saying is that ANY differences in a player's chances of winning in a particular format must be because of a change in how well (statistically) they or their opponent plays. If only people understood this, it would be easy to make an argument to do away with alternate breaks, but as long as there is a perception that one format gives the weaker player a better chance to win, that format will not be going away.

I am trying to help you make an argument for winner breaks, but you won't let me. Instead, you keep bringing up anecdotal evidence of SVB losing overseas in alternate break tournaments as if that is a controlled experiment and he is losing out to some schmuck that should have no chance of beating him. The players he is losing out to in those tournaments are also elite players, you just may not know of them if you don't keep up with the Asian pool scene.

I wouldn't completely rule it out that some players thrive more on winner breaks. SVB has a long stroke and likes aggressive play - maybe that suits getting into stroke and running packages over a player who likes to play tighter and more defensively and maybe has a physically shorter stroke. That's one of the reasons that people say SVB may do so poorly at the Mosconi Cup. His skill set requires making 20-30 shots in a row, and declines when making 8-9 shots, sitting for 5 minutes, making a few more shots, etc.

It sounds like the Hot Hand fallacy, but who knows, it sure does seem like he does better with winner breaks.

CreeDo said:

So you need odds of winning from the break, and odds of winning not-from-the-break to calculate odds of winning overall.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what Bob did in his analysis. The probability of a player winning on their break is separate from the probability of winning on their opponent's break.

CreeDo said:

If it changes the expected score, it changes the odds of winning, because it might tip a 10-11 expected score into an 11-10 expected score.

Click to expand...

It does not. It compresses or expands the expected score (depending on whether the break is an advantage or disadvantage), but it does not change the odds of the overall winner. You can see this effect in Bob's spreadsheet.

CreeDo said:

And what if you break and run half the time, but only win 20% of the games where you don't due to a weak defensive game? That's where winner break changes the expected outcome.
It helps the guy who breaks-and-runs more often, regardless of how he performs in games where both players get to shoot.

Click to expand...

In your example, the probability of that player winning on their break would be 50% + (50% * 20%) = 60%. If you had the same information (BnR% and non-BnR%) for the opponent, you would have everything you need to calculate the odds of each player winning in either format, and the result would be the same.

CreeDo said:

If you had figured out the odds of player A vs player B based on longtime statistics that were generated in BOTH formats, then you would have an accurate idea of who's going to win and by how much. So if they played 1000 races in winner breaks, and 1000 races in alt breaks, you have all the info you need to get an expected score.

But if they played 1000 races only in alt. breaks, I don't think you have all the info needed to get an expected score if they suddenly switched to winner breaks.

Click to expand...

It depends on what information you collect. You need to know the odds of each player winning on their break and on their opponent's break. Unless those odds change depending on the format (and why should they?), the odds of victory are the same.

BRussell said:

I wouldn't completely rule it out that some players thrive more on winner breaks. SVB has a long stroke and likes aggressive play - maybe that suits getting into stroke and running packages over a player who likes to play tighter and more defensively and maybe has a physically shorter stroke. That's one of the reasons that people say SVB may do so poorly at the Mosconi Cup. His skill set requires making 20-30 shots in a row, and declines when making 8-9 shots, sitting for 5 minutes, making a few more shots, etc.

It sounds like the Hot Hand fallacy, but who knows, it sure does seem like he does better with winner breaks.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't rule that out either, and I don't think it's the same thing as the hot hand fallacy. I also wouldn't rule out the effects of playing more racks in one format vs. the other. Players are human, so they are subject to psychological swings and fatigue. However, I would suggest that knowing there is no mathematical difference in your chances of winning a match between the two formats could help alleviate some of the psychological effects.

Petros Andrikop said:

I'm not bringing SVB only as an example, I've been around long enough to remember the usual suspects in Europe winning most tournaments in one format, not winning most tournaments after format change.
Only factor changed: breaking format. No travels.
But even in SVB's case it's obvious: the main objective difference is breaking format, not travel. He is helpless in alternate break against players who are not even close in winning just one of US opens, not 5...
He was in Athens not too long ago, played phenomenal 10ball on winning break format, the format which allows rhythm players and in general better players to reach performance levels where others won't even come close.
You have two players: one is able to run high numbers, one is not.
By not allowing the one who is able to perform, you certainly favor the other one.
That's "common sense", and contradicts the conclusion of "No effect".
Different format=different conditions=not absolutely comparable individual data.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt SVB was "helpless", but I'll have to take your word for it. You are speaking directly to the psychological effects of one rack on the next when you are talking about "rhythm" players, and I would challenge the notion that being a "rhythm" player necessarily makes someone a better player. In fact, it sounds like the inability of the players that you idolize to play at a high level despite their rhythm being broken would qualify as a weakness.

Proving the mathematical equivalence of the two formats without the psychological effects gives some insight into just how significant those effects can be.

Petros Andrikop said:

You make very good points, as most of the points made from the "other side" compared to where I'm standing on the issue, never doubted that.
Still, a player's high run in any game is not mainly a matter of "psychology", it's a matter of overall ability (talent-knowledge-amount of work, plus psychological stamina).
What would happen if the US open breaking format would be alternate?...
Are we sure things would be the exact same?...

Click to expand...

No, things would not be the same. Alternate breaks favors the player that consistently performs the best regardless of the result of the previous rack whereas winner breaks favors the player that plays the best when they can get into stroke and feed off their successes in previous racks.

From your previous comments, it's pretty obvious that you have more admiration for the second type of player, and I can understand why. Those players tend to have higher highs and lowers lows, and watching them when the are on a roll is very impressive and reminds us of the times where we've been "in stroke" and all the pockets seemed like they were a foot wide and we had the cue ball on a string.

Matt said:

No, things would not be the same. Alternate breaks favors the player that consistently performs the best regardless of the result of the previous rack whereas winner breaks favors the player that plays the best when they can get into stroke and feed off their successes in previous racks.

From your previous comments, it's pretty obvious that you have more admiration for the second type of player, and I can understand why. Those players tend to have higher highs and lowers lows, and watching them when the are on a roll is very impressive and reminds us of the times where we've been "in stroke" and all the pockets seemed like they were a foot wide and we had the cue ball on a string.

Click to expand...

I know people like to think that, but it just is not true. As you are well aware, the break does have a lot of luck to it. There is also a lot of skill in it, but you cannot discount the luck factor. Which means, you can be down 3 games and not have made a mistake in alt. break.

Then, you break and get kicked into a scratch. Now you are down 6-0 in alt. break. That means, instead of him having to make just one mistake for you to win. He has to make a number of mistakes for you to win.

It's real simple, ask yourself this- Which format would you rather be down 6-0 in a race to 9 in? That alone shows the formats are not equal at all.

Neil said:

I know people like to think that, but it just is not true. As you are well aware, the break does have a lot of luck to it. There is also a lot of skill in it, but you cannot discount the luck factor. Which means, you can be down 3 games and not have made a mistake in alt. break.

Then, you break and get kicked into a scratch. Now you are down 6-0 in alt. break. That means, instead of him having to make just one mistake for you to win. He has to make a number of mistakes for you to win.

It's real simple, ask yourself this- Which format would you rather be down 6-0 in a race to 9 in? That alone shows the formats are not equal at all.

Click to expand...

The probability of someone winning a game, match, etc. is just a probability. The scenario you describe is accounted for by those probabilities. If you are saying that a scratch on a break does not count as a mistake, you can lose in either format and "not have made a mistake" by getting unlucky and scratching on one break.

Of course being down 6-0 in alternate breaks is a worse situation than being down 6-0 in winner breaks, but you need more mistakes or bad luck to get there in alternate breaks.