Short Races And Alternate Breaks

HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was watching this podcast and both players prefer long sets and winner break.

I find it funny that many of the people on here prefer short sets and alternate breaks.

It leads me to believe that may be the only way they can win because they have never had the ability to consistently run packages or hold the table more than a rack or two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8KsVm9ePlk&feature=youtu.be
 
sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
HawaiianEye said:
I was watching this podcast and both players prefer long sets and winner break.

I find it funny that many of the people on here prefer short sets and alternate breaks.

It leads me to believe that may be the only way they can win because they have never had the ability to consistently run packages or hold the table more than a rack or two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8KsVm9ePlk&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...

Pro pool players are meant to be entertainers.

It is always the shorter races that give the fans the greatest drama, and if pool is to have any mass appeal at all, it must stick to short races. As we see every year at the Mosconi, the race to five matches get us more worked up than any other matches of the year.

What the players want to play, unless they are gambling, in which case they can do whatever they please, is of no importance at all.

In a race of any length, the better player usually wins, but long races are far too often snoozefests in the later stages, like SVB vs Orcullo or Morra vs Olinger. On the other hand, best two out of three races to 25 is watchable because a comeback always seems possible.

I don't object to really long races, only to watching them.
 
HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
sjm said:
Pro pool players are meant to be entertainers.

It is always the shorter races that give the fans the greatest drama, and if pool is to have any mass appeal at all, it must stick to short races. As we see every year at the Mosconi, the race to five matches get us more worked up than any other matches of the year.

What the players want to play, unless they are gambling, in which case they can do whatever they please, is of no importance at all.

In a race of any length, the better player usually wins, but long races are far too often snoozefests in the later stages, like SVB vs Orcullo or Morra vs Olinger. On the other hand, best two out of three races to 25 is watchable because a comeback always seems possible.

I don't object to really long races, only to watching them.
Click to expand...

Why were they snoozefests?

Because the "better" player eventually won?

Is the "better" player supposed to give up "weight" by playing shorter races and alternate break so that the opponent has a "chance"?

Corey says in the podcast that "I'm not going to travel all over the world to play in a race to 5 or 7".

The Mosconi Cup is a circus or the WWE of pool. I don't consider it a tournament of any sort. Just a "SHOW".
 
A

asbani

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
HawaiianEye said:
I was watching this podcast and both players prefer long sets and winner break.

I find it funny that many of the people on here prefer short sets and alternate breaks.

It leads me to believe that may be the only way they can win because they have never had the ability to consistently run packages or hold the table more than a rack or two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8KsVm9ePlk&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...

It's very simple, long races favors the stronger player, while on the other hand, short races favors the weaker player between the two.

I'll add to this, if I am playing a weaker player than me in the pool hall, lets say he's a C player and I am a B player, I am better, but not by much, i'd like a race to 21 of nine ball with winner break, that way I am sure to beat him.

On the other hand, he prefers to play me a set of 9ball race to 5, because with race to 5 he has higher chance of beating me.

It's actually very very simple, both of these pro's are confident with their ability and almost at the same level, so they prefer longer race.

If I play either of these pro's, and since I am a B player, I would want to play corey a race to 3, and I got a very good chance of actually beating him, I might luck in the 9ball one time, then break a nine ball, then maybe take another game somehow.

But lets say I play corey race to 21, I got zero chance of winning, absolute zero, how many times I need to luck a game, maybe he misses the 6 ball and I run from the 6 to the 9 but how many times thats gonna happen? It's not going to happen 21 times, thats for sure.
 
Black-Balled

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There's more evidence of global warming, than for your claim.

If I want to watch a competition, of prefer to see the more competitive format.

If I want to win money, I'd seek to hedge my bet.

Really, not that complicated.

HawaiianEye said:
I was watching this podcast and both players prefer long sets and winner break.

I find it funny that many of the people on here prefer short sets and alternate breaks.

It leads me to believe that may be the only way they can win because they have never had the ability to consistently run packages or hold the table more than a rack or two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8KsVm9ePlk&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...
 
sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
HawaiianEye said:
Why were they snoozefests?

Because the "better" player eventually won?

Is the "better" player supposed to give up "weight" by playing shorter races and alternate break so that the opponent has a "chance"?

Corey says in the podcast that "I'm not going to travel all over the world to play in a race to 5 or 7".

The Mosconi Cup is a circus or the WWE of pool. I don't consider it a tournament of any sort. Just a "SHOW".
Click to expand...

They were snoozefests because they reached the point far too early in which there was no reason to continue watching. As this means that I'll go to bed once the score becomes too lopsided, they are snoozefest even in the literal sense. On the other hand, I've seen dozens of comebacks form 8-3 behind in a race to 11, so I keep watching.

Your presumption that he only purpose of a match is to determine the better player is the real problem here. All it's meant to determine is who is the better player on that day.
 
E

evergruven

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
the issue of match length is threatening my (other) favorite sport..tennis
best of five set matches usually take two hours or so to play
but sometimes they take longer, and go for four and five hours (and sometimes, longer)
this format only applies to grand slams..the rest of the year matches are best 2 out of 3
but is it any coincidence that the most exciting and memorable matches
are the epic, long wars of mental and physical stamina, that ebb and flow throughout?
I'm no accountant, but tennis has clearly never been more successful money-wise
part of the issue is player health..long matches can be grueling
three out of the four slams have instituted a final set tiebreak in matches
otherwise matches could theoretically go on and on (isner v. mahut '10 wimby-11 hrs.)
personally, I think the tiebreak is ok, except in the championship match
of course tennis is a business, and the sport couldn't thrive without fans and sponsors
but why threaten to change the very format that has made tennis great to begin with?

oh yeah, pool
again, I get the business
and pool needs that
so short races ok
keep doing the long ones
the better player prevails
but only some will watch
different animals
 
D

DecentShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
HawaiianEye said:
The Mosconi Cup is a circus or the WWE of pool. I don't consider it a tournament of any sort. Just a "SHOW".
Click to expand...

The Mosconi cup being the most entertaining and ruckus event of year. The WWE is a global entertainment company. I know it sounds strange for pool spectators, but people want to have FUN. The WWE is FUN (and profitable) the Mosconi cup is FUN (profitable?). I've used this example many times here, but the WM Open in Golf...how is the attendance doing?
People want to pool expand? Really? Lol. Stop making pool spectators follow the same rules as library goers.
 
Buckzapper

Buckzapper

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Playing with luck and hope, we have to have alternate breaks.....just face it, you're a ball-banger. Get off your tiny ball banger bar boxes, step up to a 9 footer and learn how to play pool. If you can't play with the winner breaks format, stay home and ask Mom to make you some hot chocolate.
Don't come to the poolroom, we're tired of hearing your whining.
 
Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Buckzapper said:
... If you can't play with the winner breaks format, stay home ...
Click to expand...
An interesting aspect of this is that for two given players and psychological factors aside, the better player has the same chance to win in either format. The main difference is that alternate breaks will cause a slightly longer match, on average.
 
G

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
evergruven said:
the issue of match length is threatening my (other) favorite sport..tennis
best of five set matches usually take two hours or so to play
but sometimes they take longer, and go for four and five hours (and sometimes, longer)
this format only applies to grand slams..the rest of the year matches are best 2 out of 3
but is it any coincidence that the most exciting and memorable matches
are the epic, long wars of mental and physical stamina, that ebb and flow throughout?
I'm no accountant, but tennis has clearly never been more successful money-wise
part of the issue is player health..long matches can be grueling
three out of the four slams have instituted a final set tiebreak in matches
otherwise matches could theoretically go on and on (isner v. mahut '10 wimby-11 hrs.)
personally, I think the tiebreak is ok, except in the championship match
of course tennis is a business, and the sport couldn't thrive without fans and sponsors
but why threaten to change the very format that has made tennis great to begin with?

oh yeah, pool
again, I get the business
and pool needs that
so short races ok
keep doing the long ones
the better player prevails
but only some will watch
different animals
Click to expand...
Punctuation. Your posts are basically unreadable.
 
U

us820

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You are not getting anyone but a diehard to watch a 11-2 whitewashing with no shot clocks on tv.Checkers sells better than chess.If you want tv money tou make sacrifices.
 
HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Bob Jewett said:
An interesting aspect of this is that for two given players and psychological factors aside, the better player has the same chance to win in either format. The main difference is that alternate breaks will cause a slightly longer match, on average.
Click to expand...

I'll take the breaks all the time then, if people are saying it doesn't really matter.

I'm thinking of the game in the mindset of a "player", not a "spectator".

Most people who I've ever played, who advocated for alternate breaks and short sets, were players who usually had more time on the sidelines than the table when it came to winner break and longer sets.
 
Last edited:
G

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
HawaiianEye said:
I'll take the breaks all the time then, if people are saying it doesn't really matter.

I'm thinking of the game in the mindset of a "player", not a "spectator".

Most people who I've ever played, who advocated for alternate breaks and short sets, were players who usually had more time on the sidelines than the table when it came to winner break and longer sets.
Click to expand...
I think longer winner-break sets are fine for pro events but at the local/regional level alternate breaks is way to go. People won't go to tournaments if they feel they may not shoot. The Midwest 9ball Tour, which has been going for over 20yrs, has used AB format forever. Their events at Olathe,Ks. have fields of 120+ every time.
 
sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
HawaiianEye said:
I'm thinking of the game in the mindset of a "player", not a "spectator".
Click to expand...

I did not understand this. From the standpoint of a player, if you have the advantage, you'll favor the longer race. I, personally, have always favored winner breaks, but the rack mechanics have made it near impossible to have winner breaks and winner racks. With a neutral racker, I'm always in favor of winner breaks. On the bright side, we are getting neutral racker more and more in the world of pro pool.
 
Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
HawaiianEye said:
I'll take the breaks all the time then, if people are saying it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

Well, no, that's not what I said. I said that winner breaks and alternate breaks (in a match without handicaps) give the same match-winning probabilities for any two given players. That is the result from probability theory and it assumes that there isn't some kind of special, unknown, psychological factor at work when a player gets to break twice in a row. The result also says that if you're playing a race to 9, for example, you get the same match-win probabilities if the first player breaks 9 times in a row followed by the second player breaking up to 8 times in a row. It's a rather amazing result.

Of course lots of people don't believe in probability and statistics which is most excellent for the casinos.
 
Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Better to simply play honest nine ball which eliminates all the racking crap: Breaker has to play a push out. Both player have a chance to shoot in every rack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top