The ease of sinking a wing ball with a soft break, to start. I think it may also make it difficult to take advantage of loose racks, too.
Best Arrangement For 9-ball rack?
- Thread starter FastMikie
- Start date
Interesting, and as someone who grew up on slow cloth, I think there's some truth here.
That said, though, in my view the nine ball era only began in the late 1970's. Fast cloth was the standard by the mid-1980's, so only about 20% of the nine ball era was played on slow cloth.
The problem of the break was solved in full by Pat Fleming in what was known as the "Accu-Stats Game Show." The solution was so simple but never caught on. The first shot after the break had to be a push out, regardless of whose turn it was. Every rack was up for grabs. John Brumback, the best bank pool player of this generation, has noted that fifteen ball banks (also called full rack banks) is another game in which the break itself becomes relatively trivial. Nothing wrong with a game in which the break is trivial and in which players must battle for control of the table in most racks.
9 on the spot doesn't take pattern racking out of the equation..... not in the least. All it does is "change" the pattern.
9 on the spot AND "requiring" the CB to be on an "EXACT" spot..... not just in a certain "area" would go much further in making pattern racking less of a factor in the outcome.
As you know, there is literally no way to completely do away with pattern racking as "certain" patterns come up at random. You just have to recognize them when they do show up. But, to me..... that is not "pattern racking" since it was not on purpose.
Bottom line to me:
Knowing how to pattern rack is a HUGE asset to your game. Why? Not so you can / will pattern rack..... but because of two things:
1. Be able to spot it when opponent does it.
2. Know where "all" the balls are gonna be when a neutral racker "happens" to give you a familiar "pattern"....... that is priceless when it counts and the race is very close.
Of course, the real solution is "neutral racker" as Pat Fleming used in the International a few months ago in Virginia. We get neutral racker in Matchroom events, too. Some event producers actually get it.
There's no room in our game for "rack your own." As you correctly note, sometimes by chance a familiar pattern rack will be encountered, and knowing how the balls will react is useful information.
Another solution is to play the game on really tight pockets, making break and run racks far more special. It's what we saw this past weekend on the stream table at the World Pool Series 10-ball event, and on that table, according to AtLarge's stats, the breaker won just 82 of 157 racks, just 52% of the racks.
This is a fantastic resource.
To comment on this....when it is opponent racks, then using the various pattern racks is rarely a problem. It is highly common to at least place the 2 & 3 in the same place to create the "up and down" effect. It's well understood your opponent will rack to make it as difficult as possible for you and vice versa. How well does this work? Well, it works a little bit but it isn't a game-changer as it is so common once you get above the B level, players can move the ball around well and are skilled enough to deal with long range shots with regularity. I've never seen anyone complain about it before.
On the flip side, with the dreaded Rack-Your-Own ...
Pattern racking is a huge problem. See Dr. Dave's analysis of Deuel's various racks. Look also at Donnie Mills stuff. It becomes the same run out over and over and over.
This is nothing new. I do remember that at least a decade ago - Europe had a rule that the 2 ball had to be placed in a different position each rack, and you could not repeat the position of the 2 ball until all the other positions were used. So the 2 ball got racked "around the clock" so to speak. This breaks the pattern racking system, without being an over-burdening rule or excessively difficult to enforce. Still, such a rule requires at least an area-referee. Can be hard to remember where the 2 was placed after a series of racks, and adds another layer of something to deal with and keep an eye on in a match. Ultimately, it is more of a deterrent and most players would not try get around it.
As the current rules are written, there's no way to really enforce it. What is "random" ? No such thing as random when a human is placing the balls. Also, even if truly random, that means the same pattern could occur more than once.
That's why these 2 ball placement rules were experimented with.
In the end, 9-ball has been plagued by racking and breaking tactics. It's really all that game is at the higher level. It's a break contest. Hence all the work arounds and band-aids such as no-soft-break rules, no pattern racking, racking the 9 on the spot, break boxes of various sizes, minimum balls up-table (see anti-soft break)...and all this other nonsense which lead to the rise of 10-ball.
Sadly though, 10-ball falls victim to the same sort of things, not as bad as 9-ball....but enough to make one ask what is the point of 10 ball. Besides, 10-ball was supposed to be a no-slop game. At least way back in the day. But in modern days, it took on Texas Express type rules making it 9 ball with an extra ball....but that's another topic for another thread.
Anyway, this is why I prefer 8-ball, 14.1 and One-Pocket. These games require more thinking too.
Try this one
1
54
396
78
2
In theory 1,2, cb go up table
4,5 mid to upper table
3 on the wing to make it on the break
6,7,8,9 mid to bottom of the table
1
54
396
78
2
In theory 1,2, cb go up table
4,5 mid to upper table
3 on the wing to make it on the break
6,7,8,9 mid to bottom of the table
Today's cell phones have more computing power than computers had not too long ago.
I don't think it would be too difficult for somebody to come up with an app that had a random number generator for 7 numbers. The one ball is always in front of the rack and the 9 ball is always in the center. The other 7 balls are all that need to be programmed to be randomly selected.
At the beginning of each rack, you hit the "spin" button and you have to rack in the order that the random number generator selects.
Also, who "says" the one ball has to be the head ball? Why couldn't the one ball be in any other position in the rack, besides the center where the nine ball goes? You could have a rule that you had to hit the "head" ball on the break, but still have to shoot the one ball once the rack has been broken? The one ball could then be "randomly" placed in any of the other 8 positions in the rack.
Somebody will say it "isn't" nine ball or ten ball if you have to do all that, but the rules have been changed so many times it "isn't" what it used to be anyway.
I don't think it would be too difficult for somebody to come up with an app that had a random number generator for 7 numbers. The one ball is always in front of the rack and the 9 ball is always in the center. The other 7 balls are all that need to be programmed to be randomly selected.
At the beginning of each rack, you hit the "spin" button and you have to rack in the order that the random number generator selects.
Also, who "says" the one ball has to be the head ball? Why couldn't the one ball be in any other position in the rack, besides the center where the nine ball goes? You could have a rule that you had to hit the "head" ball on the break, but still have to shoot the one ball once the rack has been broken? The one ball could then be "randomly" placed in any of the other 8 positions in the rack.
Somebody will say it "isn't" nine ball or ten ball if you have to do all that, but the rules have been changed so many times it "isn't" what it used to be anyway.
The rules sez so! You can advocate for a rule change, but it wouldn't be nine ball as we know it now. As it is, the lowest numbered ball is always first, which is why one on the spot is the rule. Make sense?
I agree that the smart phone app would be an improvement. That's why I advocated previously in this thread (I think it was this thread) that the balls other than one and nine be pulled out of a bag and placed according to a standard rack order. Same effect. This would eliminate placement manipulation.
I don't know how long you have played, but I've played for over 50 years and the rules have "changed" along the way.
There is no "one way" today. Some tournaments rack the one on the spot. Others rack the nine on the spot. Some insist the two ball must be in the back. Others don't. Some make you break from a "box". Some make you break from an even smaller "box". Some make you have three balls up table. Others don't. Some allow jump cues. Others don't. Some allow you to jump with a full cue. Others don't allow you to jump at all.
There was no one-foul BIH years ago.
So, who says things can't be changed again?
I've often considered this idea. Provided the breaker is permitted to hit the top ball, the one can go anywhere. That would solve a lot of problems.
I agree, I was being glib. But I think it's so that the one has always been at the head of the rack, and always hot first - isn't that so? Or can one hit whatever ball they like in the rack, any ball they can "see?"
In today's rules the one is on the head spot and you have to hit the one ball. That was the same, long ago, but totally irrelevant to the game today.
If you want "random", the balls have to be "random".
To take it even further, why does the nine ball have to be in the center? You could just change the rules to where the nine ball doesn't count on the break and then make it be placed "randomly" in the rack also.
Make all the balls random and make the breaker hit them "hard", where a certain number of balls have to be pocketed or brought up table. And, no matter what ball is the head ball, you have to hit the head ball on the break.
Last edited:
Yes, and you could place all the balls spaced out and in contact with rails, but that would be a different game, too.
The rack shape one at the head and nine in the center of the rack are essential aspects of the game called nine ball, in my view. I thought the nine ball position was so that it moved least, or not at all, when the rack was properly tight.
I guess that in the history of game design, since billiards requires players to take turns, the game has to be started somehow, and the rack and arrangement of balls is designed to be as neutral as possible.
That people have learned to "game" the rack points to a weakness in the game architecture and design. This is similar to rules in other games, like offsides in football (soccer) and hockey.
But what do I know! I'm not very experienced at this.
I'll take your word for it.
If you ask just about ANY old-school player (McCready, Buddy, Earl, etc.), they will say nine-ball was broken when they made it alternate break and one-foul BIH.
The 2013 Mosconi Cup came close to that. They racked the 9-ball on the spot and used quite a narrow break box (about 6" to each side of center). Successful breaks were just 33%.