Derby City Straight Pool 2017

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here is a summary of the 14.1 Challenge

View attachment 448140

Nice summary, Rich; thank you.

Thank you's go to Bob Jewett, Dennis Walsh, and Bill Maropoulos (and any others who helped -- Rich, that probably includes you) for their efforts in producing and running this event, and I congratulate them on its success. In the small world of 14.1 events, this one matters. If my arithmetic is correct, the top 5 14.1 events in the USA (world-wide? don't know) over the past 13 months had payouts as follows:

1. 2016 American 14.1 Championship -- $40,200
2. 2016 World 14.1 Tournament -- $34,000
3. 2017 DCC 14.1 Challenge -- $22,650
4. 2016 US Open Straight Pool Championship -- $20,700
5. 2016 DCC 14.1 Challenge -- $18,800

[There may also have been some small high-run bonuses in 1, 2, and 4.]
 

dmgwalsh

Straight Pool Fanatic
Silver Member
Here is a summary of the 14.1 Challenge

View attachment 448140

and a jpeg of the same data and a list of the runs.

The run data only has the high run per day of the individual. For example on the last day, Orcollo had 2 100 ball runs and a 210 back to back to back.

I will get that other data so we can know how many total 100+ runs we had.
 

Attachments

  • 2017 Final Summary-ilovepdf-compressed.jpg
    2017 Final Summary-ilovepdf-compressed.jpg
    128.3 KB · Views: 944
  • 2017 DCC Run Data2.jpg
    2017 DCC Run Data2.jpg
    197.3 KB · Views: 823
Last edited:

dmgwalsh

Straight Pool Fanatic
Silver Member
Dennis. I had run of 56 on my highest... ofc it does not matter but.. just saying :)


You are right, Matti. I have the sheets right here. Marop must have been asleep at the wheel. Rich 93 will correct.

I hope you had a good time up in the player's lounge. :)


We had about 36 runs over a hundred. Bunch of 99s. Should get some good video.
 
Last edited:

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Dennis -- I think it would be interesting to know the percentage of attempts that resulted in runs of 100 or more.

It looks like you might have had somewhere around 70 entries or buy-ins, which would mean about 840 attempts. You mentioned about 36 runs of 100 or more. That would mean something like 4% of the attempts, or 1 per 25 tries, resulted in a run of 100 or more. Can you give the actual numbers rather than these approximations?

It would also be interesting if this calculation could be done for two groups of players -- those who are professional pool players (somewhat subjective, I know) and the others.

We sometimes hear statements about certain players being able to run 100's almost at will. I think the reality is quite different from that.
 

Island Drive

Otto/Dads College Roommate/Cleveland Browns
Silver Member
In the 60's and 70's

Dennis -- I think it would be interesting to know the percentage of attempts that resulted in runs of 100 or more.

It looks like you might have had somewhere around 70 entries or buy-ins, which would mean about 840 attempts. You mentioned about 36 runs of 100 or more. That would mean something like 4% of the attempts, or 1 per 25 tries, resulted in a run of 100 or more. Can you give the actual numbers rather than these approximations?

It would also be interesting if this calculation could be done for two groups of players -- those who are professional pool players (somewhat subjective, I know) and the others.

We sometimes hear statements about certain players being able to run 100's almost at will. I think the reality is quite different from that.

Top players, and then thee top players, runs in the 80's were common in one outta three tries.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Top players, and then thee top players, runs in the 80's were common in one outta three tries.

Please say more if you have the data. Who are "thee top players" you are counting? How many attempts? How many runs of 80 or more?
 

Poolmanis

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Dennis -- I think it would be interesting to know the percentage of attempts that resulted in runs of 100 or more.

It looks like you might have had somewhere around 70 entries or buy-ins, which would mean about 840 attempts. You mentioned about 36 runs of 100 or more. That would mean something like 4% of the attempts, or 1 per 25 tries, resulted in a run of 100 or more. Can you give the actual numbers rather than these approximations?

It would also be interesting if this calculation could be done for two groups of players -- those who are professional pool players (somewhat subjective, I know) and the others.

We sometimes hear statements about certain players being able to run 100's almost at will. I think the reality is quite different from that.

Alex said to me that he tried 58 times before he hit big run...
I tried 3 sheets. So 36/tries.

Dennis;
14.1 lounge was sure place to be.. all best players were there constantly. One could watch 14.1 runs. Turn head and see TV-Table big screen matches. Watch down to see 12+ tables... especially one-pocket was good to watch upstairs.
A lot of jokes and fun too.
I enjoyed a lot! :)
 

dmgwalsh

Straight Pool Fanatic
Silver Member
Dennis -- I think it would be interesting to know the percentage of attempts that resulted in runs of 100 or more.

It looks like you might have had somewhere around 70 entries or buy-ins, which would mean about 840 attempts. You mentioned about 36 runs of 100 or more. That would mean something like 4% of the attempts, or 1 per 25 tries, resulted in a run of 100 or more. Can you give the actual numbers rather than these approximations?

It would also be interesting if this calculation could be done for two groups of players -- those who are professional pool players (somewhat subjective, I know) and the others.

We sometimes hear statements about certain players being able to run 100's almost at will. I think the reality is quite different from that.

At Large: I know you love to crunch the numbers. I have all 75 sheets purchased which shows all of the attempts. I probably have the same for last two years at home.

The scanned copy exceeds the size limit. Give me your email and I'll send it.
 

8BallWonderland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've heard on the main forum why Shaw forfeited, but why did Appleton forfeit?
Did the final 4 guys split the money or have a saver?
I just don't see two guys forfeiting with so much money and the title on the line.
 

benny-the-blade

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've heard on the main forum why Shaw forfeited, but why did Appleton forfeit?
Did the final 4 guys split the money or have a saver?
I just don't see two guys forfeiting with so much money and the title on the line.

Evidently, Darren was playing 9 ball and chose to forfeit, so that the finals could commence on schedule.
 

dmgwalsh

Straight Pool Fanatic
Silver Member
Evidently, Darren was playing 9 ball and chose to forfeit, so that the finals could commence on schedule.

That is exactly right. Had he gone deep into 9 ball, say, to the finals, we would never have been able to do his semis or the finals. Accustats had an opening right then, if we were ready to move forward. He helped the event get a good match on the tv table.

Next year, as Bob said, we are going to change the format. Too tough to schedule matches around the nine ball flights.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Miscellany from the data for the 2017 DCC George Fels Straight Pool Challenge:

[Thanks to Dennis Walsh for giving me a look at the score sheets for the qualifying attempts. This post relates only to the qualifying runs, not the matches in the ensuing tournament.]

• 37 players participated in the event, for a total of 75 entries or buy-ins at $100 each (good for 12 run attempts). Fifteen players bought in just once, 13 players twice, 3 players three times, 5 players (Hunter, Lo, Schmidt, Immonen, and Shaw) four times, and 1 player (Pagulayan) five times.

• With the prize money totaling $22,650 (shown in an earlier post in this thread), the added money was $15,150.

• Several players did not use all 12 of their allowable attempts on a buy-in. [Possible reasons include event conflicts, time issues, fatigue, or satisfaction with what they had already done.] This reduced the total number of attempts by 43, from 900 (12 x 75) to 857.

Distribution of the 857 runs:
0 balls pocketed -- 29 times (3.4%)
1-14 -- 321 (37.5%)
15-28 -- 192 (22.4%)
29-49 -- 162 (18.9%)
50-99 -- 116 (13.5%)
100+ -- 37 (4.3%)​

So the player failed to get beyond the first rack 41% of the time and didn't get beyond two racks 63% of the time. About 18% of the tries resulted in a run of at least 50.​

Average runs
Arithmetic mean -- 30.1 balls for the 857 tries
Median -- 18 balls (half the runs lower than or equal to 18, half the runs higher or equal)​

The top three players for mean runs were Orcollo at 56.2, Shaw at 46.3, and Boyes at 45.1. Orcollo was also tops for the median at 44, followed by Boyes at 42 and Hohmann at 34.5.​

100-ball runs -- 17 players accounted for the 37 runs of 100 or more balls. These players made 515 attempts, so their percentage of 100-ball runs was 7.2% (37 of 515).

Orcollo and Archer tied for highest percentage of 100-ball runs. They both had 4 on 24 attempts for 17%. Two of Archer's were on successive attempts, for 216 balls with 1 miss or foul. Three of Orcollo's were on successive attempts, for 424 balls with 2 misses or fouls.

The "almost 100" runs included 4 99's (Chua, Boyes, and Lo Li-Wen twice) and 5 98's (Kiamco, Shaw, Schmidt, and Biado twice -- on successive tries.).

Runs of 80 or more -- Runs in the 80's or 90's numbered 33, so the total number of runs of 80 or more was 70. The 21 players who accomplished those runs did so on 582 attempts. So about 12% of those players' tries resulted in runs of 80 or more. The highest was Lo Li-Wen with 10 runs of 80 or more on 42 tries, for 24%. Next best was Shaw -- 9 of 48 for 19%. Ten other players ranged from 10% to 17% on this measure. [This item responds to post #47 in this thread and the mistaken impression that the top guys were running at least 80 one-third of the time.]

Unsuccessful break shots -- Failed break shots (defined here simply as ending the run) numbered 29 on the first rack of the 857 run attempts (3.4%, as shown above) and 175 of 1,588 (11.0%) on the 2nd or later rack of a run. So, in total, 8.3% (204 of 2,445) of break shots on new racks were unsuccessful. Far and away the most outstanding performances on this measure were Melling's 2.5% (2 failures on 81 break shots) and Immonen's 2.9% (4 failures on 137 break shots). [Two players had no failures, but the number of racks they faced was quite low.]

Runs ended on next shot after successful break shots -- In 158 racks, the player made the break ball but was unable to score any more points after that. This represented 7.1% of the 2,241 successfully broken racks. [Note -- this counts only the runs that ended with 1 point in a new rack. In some cases the player probably made more than one ball on the break shot and the run then ended on the next shot, but the score sheets do not reveal those occasions.]

Full-rack clearances -- The players faced 2,445 new, full racks and made full clearances (except for the next break ball) 1,588 times -- 65% successful clearances.
 
Last edited:

Island Drive

Otto/Dads College Roommate/Cleveland Browns
Silver Member
Theres NO simple answer to your question

Please say more if you have the data. Who are "thee top players" you are counting? How many attempts? How many runs of 80 or more?

Having grown up in the 60's with Gordon Hart Peddling Viking cues in our pool room, to playing Varner in the collegiate Midwestern Finals 14.1, there were three levels of play so ta speak from my point of view. First getting past two racks was very difficult. Once you got to forty your game was coming together, but still getting past fifty was very difficult, but once you started tapping into that 50-60 area the next big step was running 80, which very few players reached. In college my main competitors my age were Tommy Spencer and Joey Gold, but they never really got past 50 and I was in the 80's and that made me always the favorite when we matched up in my early college years, I soon after was able to get into 100 but by then the match was always done and I never really cared to see what my limit was. The pockets were bigger back then, the cloth was generally very slow and it was non directional, and few rooms cleaned their ball sets. Very few rooms back then had a/c to dry the air. I out gambled Varner, and my 9 ball game was better till he got taught by Hubert Cokes and Hal Mix? Then Nickys game took off, me no one back then EVER gave up any info on how to play better, ya had to go too Sailor of Racine or Breisath. There were many really good players that got into the 100's allot, I always knew who they were and didn't go there ever, no chance and they bet too high for a college student. Also, I most always worked/traveled/bartended to settle in different areas of the country to then figure out the proper pecking order. Also back then the BIG BALL bar game I never understood, won a few but generally never did well, till I understood ball collisions etc.

Top tier, Rempe, Liscotti, Lassiter, Amadeo, Crane, Balsis, Marino, Jack Brett, Massey, Sigel, Hubbard and so many old timers that could beat any of em at any time in match play. Not sure how Ronnie Allen played 14.1 but with his creative one hole game, I'm sure he'd be difficult. Also Richie Florence, and Ervalino and the huge herd of E. Coast players, they generally were the best at that game, compared to other parts of the country.
 
Top