Balls Per Inning
- Thread starter Steve Lipsky
- Start date
I recommend putting the abbreviations and a short multiplication table on the bottom of the score sheet. You and I will look at 3X ////10F-1 and immediately say "96" but some will have trouble with 6 racks plus some details.JoeW said:
Now all we have to do is convince the next 14.1 tournament to use these sheets.
Good idea for the multiplication table. The next revison I will include a small table at the bottem of the score sheet similar to the one in the instructions only in table format with slashes in column two and Xs in column three. I had a neat one but it got lost in the upload process. Looked something like this
1 / = 14 X////=84
2 / / = 28 XX///= 98
etc
There will only be room for 25 or so innings and it may be necessary to use two sheet for some games.
I will wait a day or so to make the revisions as there may be more edits that are worthwhile.
I think this thing should be called the "AZbilliards 14.1 Score Sheet". It was designed and edited by many AZB members.
1 / = 14 X////=84
2 / / = 28 XX///= 98
etc
There will only be room for 25 or so innings and it may be necessary to use two sheet for some games.
I will wait a day or so to make the revisions as there may be more edits that are worthwhile.
I think this thing should be called the "AZbilliards 14.1 Score Sheet". It was designed and edited by many AZB members.
I found a small thing in the chart I posted earlier:
At the 6th inning for Player 1 he made an intentional foul (IF -1) and we deducted his score by 1 pt (from 63 to 62).
However, this really means he has ran 101 pts, his BPI should be ( 101/(9-3)=16.83 )
So, we should add all the penalty pts back when calculating the offensive BPI...
Joe's idea is quite clever. However, I believe we need a simpler idea for phase one. " +14+14+14+5 " might appear longer than " ///5 ", but it is more universal and easier to explain to new users, Besides it indicates "4 new racks played".
Think of the general meaning of plus sign "+"
1, to add/attach something new. for example: 1+2=3, "ADD 2 to 1 and we get 3"
2, to merge/connect its neighboring elements into a whole. for example: you+me = we, "you AND me form we"
As Joe has pointed out that this really is a public effort and we share similar visions. I am just happy to be "plus-ed" to this discussion.
At the 6th inning for Player 1 he made an intentional foul (IF -1) and we deducted his score by 1 pt (from 63 to 62).
However, this really means he has ran 101 pts, his BPI should be ( 101/(9-3)=16.83 )
So, we should add all the penalty pts back when calculating the offensive BPI...
Joe's idea is quite clever. However, I believe we need a simpler idea for phase one. " +14+14+14+5 " might appear longer than " ///5 ", but it is more universal and easier to explain to new users, Besides it indicates "4 new racks played".
Think of the general meaning of plus sign "+"
1, to add/attach something new. for example: 1+2=3, "ADD 2 to 1 and we get 3"
2, to merge/connect its neighboring elements into a whole. for example: you+me = we, "you AND me form we"
As Joe has pointed out that this really is a public effort and we share similar visions. I am just happy to be "plus-ed" to this discussion.
Attachments
Last edited:
One of the ways we could use the 14+ notation would be to place the score sheet in landscape mode. The sheet would be 11.5" wide and this would allow for several rows of "14" The problem here is that one still has to add up all of the "14s" on a long run to get the score. with X//// it is easy to see that six racks have been run. Bob's idea for a table the states that X//// = 84 is efficient and easy if it is located on the bottom of the sheet.
I do think that listing things in different columns keeps the sheet clean and easier to read and evaluate at some later time. I think that I can make the sheet so that it will accept either type of scoring notation and will try that.
I think I agree with the idea that "all the balls made" should be included in the calculation of BPI. OTOH if the player is penalized for a shot then in one sense, he did not make the ball. So there is an alternate point of view if we define BPI as all balls legitimately made. Of course we now have the problem of "15" point penalties and that sort of thing.
Any ideas on how to define BPI so everyone agrees?
I do think that listing things in different columns keeps the sheet clean and easier to read and evaluate at some later time. I think that I can make the sheet so that it will accept either type of scoring notation and will try that.
I think I agree with the idea that "all the balls made" should be included in the calculation of BPI. OTOH if the player is penalized for a shot then in one sense, he did not make the ball. So there is an alternate point of view if we define BPI as all balls legitimately made. Of course we now have the problem of "15" point penalties and that sort of thing.
Any ideas on how to define BPI so everyone agrees?
Last edited:
If the text string gets too long we can bring in the multiply sign to help. Imo it will be better to have something that's intuitive for people to understand and then adapt.
Here are some examples.
In example 1
Inning 1, P1 broke a new rack (note the plus "+" sign), P2 played an intentional foul. Score: 0: -1
Inning 2, P1 went for a shot and miss, P2 ran the remain 14 balls PLUS 9 more racks PLUS 11 more balls
If we count the plus "+" signs, we find out Player 1 made total of 10 break shots during this run
In example 2
Same story as example 1, however we replaced the long string of texts with the introduction of multiply sign "X"
In example 3
Inning 1, P1 broke a new rack (note the plus "+" sign), P2 played an intentional foul. Score: 0: -1
Inning 2, P1 went for a shot, ran 14, rack and foul on the breakshot, P2 ran 10 racks PLUS 11 more balls
By looking at the equation, we learned this is 151 balls run, 10 of them are breakshots
In example 4
Inning 1, P1 broke a new rack (note the plus "+" sign), P2 played an intentional foul. Score: 0: -1
Inning 2, P1 went for a shot, ran 13 and miss, P2 ran the remain 1 ball, PLUS 10 more racks PLUS 10 more balls
By looking at the equation, we learned this is also 151 balls run, 11 of them are breakshots
In all four examples P2 has a BPI of 151/1 ...
Here are some examples.
In example 1
Inning 1, P1 broke a new rack (note the plus "+" sign), P2 played an intentional foul. Score: 0: -1
Inning 2, P1 went for a shot and miss, P2 ran the remain 14 balls PLUS 9 more racks PLUS 11 more balls
If we count the plus "+" signs, we find out Player 1 made total of 10 break shots during this run
In example 2
Same story as example 1, however we replaced the long string of texts with the introduction of multiply sign "X"
In example 3
Inning 1, P1 broke a new rack (note the plus "+" sign), P2 played an intentional foul. Score: 0: -1
Inning 2, P1 went for a shot, ran 14, rack and foul on the breakshot, P2 ran 10 racks PLUS 11 more balls
By looking at the equation, we learned this is 151 balls run, 10 of them are breakshots
In example 4
Inning 1, P1 broke a new rack (note the plus "+" sign), P2 played an intentional foul. Score: 0: -1
Inning 2, P1 went for a shot, ran 13 and miss, P2 ran the remain 1 ball, PLUS 10 more racks PLUS 10 more balls
By looking at the equation, we learned this is also 151 balls run, 11 of them are breakshots
In all four examples P2 has a BPI of 151/1 ...
Attachments
I think that the whole point of this exercise is to have a score sheet design that allows all marks and notations to appear on the score sheet. A multiplication sign is only useful if you know what number goes in front of the multiplication sign. You don't know what that number is until the end of the run. In the mean time you have to mark the racks down somewhere. That place may as well be right by the inning score and total score.cuetable said:
Back in the days when 14.1 tournaments had a scorekeeper and a referee at each table, it was easy. The referee counted the run ball by ball, with the scorekeeper following on scratch paper. At the end of the run, the referee would reiterate the count and it would be verified by the scorekeeper, and just the run and total would be written in two small boxes on the score sheet. At the same time the scorekeeper would update the score display which was typically some kind of projector.
Bob Jewett said:
Hi :
What you mentioned is true, one probably have to keep track the racks somewhere else when using a multiplication sign. This indeed can be problematic
I have adapted Joe's system in example 2 below. I think we should underline it to be clear...
Here is the scenario for the attached picture:
Inning 1, P1 broke a new rack (note the plus "+" sign), P2 played an intentional foul. Score: 0: -1
Inning 2, P1 went for a shot, ran 13 and miss, P2 ran the remain 1 ball, PLUS 10 more racks PLUS 10 more balls
There are 9 breakshots in XXXXX (140)
There are 10 breakshots in XXXXX+2 (142)
There are 10 breakshots in 3+XXXXX (143)
There are 11 breakshots in 3+XXXXX+2 (145)
Attachments
Last edited:
To some extent I think you guys are losing the forest for the trees. As far as I can tell, the newest scoresheets being shown don't resemble either the American or the European system too closely. An analogy would be if these two cultures were trying to communicate, your answer is inventing a whole new language, rather than to just choose one of the existing ones and have one side learn it.
Both original styles work pretty well; it's only a matter of a few small tweaks, isn't it?
If these new versions are intended for the serious AZB member to keep track of his practice runs, I can see their value. Many of the AZB members would like to see as many possible statistics of their play as they can, and (most importantly) will take the time to learn a new system. I am also tempted to say the average IQ on this board is probably somewhat higher than that of the average poolroom.
I do not think these new systems are going to be adopted by the pro players in tournament conditions, because all they want is a system that lets them keep their minds on the game. In the last 14.1 championship, I had such problems reconciling my scores with Gilliano Schmidt's that, after much exasperation, we just got someone else to score the match for us. It was taking too much energy trying to deal with the scoresheet. And that was with each of us scoring the matches as we each knew how - can you imagine the difficulty we would have had if neither of us knew how to use the scoresheet?
This is only my opinion, and I have been trying to hold my tongue because I know that several of you are working very hard on this. But it seems with each new iteration, the sheets are becoming more and more foreign from anything we've ever seen before. Even if the new versions worked better than anything we've had previously, there's an "adoption" problem with things so different. If they're so different that they border on intimidating, my prediction is no one will use it.
- Steve
Both original styles work pretty well; it's only a matter of a few small tweaks, isn't it?
If these new versions are intended for the serious AZB member to keep track of his practice runs, I can see their value. Many of the AZB members would like to see as many possible statistics of their play as they can, and (most importantly) will take the time to learn a new system. I am also tempted to say the average IQ on this board is probably somewhat higher than that of the average poolroom
.I do not think these new systems are going to be adopted by the pro players in tournament conditions, because all they want is a system that lets them keep their minds on the game. In the last 14.1 championship, I had such problems reconciling my scores with Gilliano Schmidt's that, after much exasperation, we just got someone else to score the match for us. It was taking too much energy trying to deal with the scoresheet. And that was with each of us scoring the matches as we each knew how - can you imagine the difficulty we would have had if neither of us knew how to use the scoresheet?
This is only my opinion, and I have been trying to hold my tongue because I know that several of you are working very hard on this. But it seems with each new iteration, the sheets are becoming more and more foreign from anything we've ever seen before. Even if the new versions worked better than anything we've had previously, there's an "adoption" problem with things so different. If they're so different that they border on intimidating, my prediction is no one will use it.
- Steve
Last edited:
Hi Steve:
I am moving back to my first 14+ system now (see example 1 in prev posts) and created a simple PDF file for the sheet. It can be found here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=699767&postcount=6
I believe it is simple enough and does what you asked for in the original thread: to keep track of the innings easily and id the offensive/safety innings. At the same time it's not too difficult to understand. Please feel free to offer any comments or suggestions.
I am moving back to my first 14+ system now (see example 1 in prev posts) and created a simple PDF file for the sheet. It can be found here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=699767&postcount=6
I believe it is simple enough and does what you asked for in the original thread: to keep track of the innings easily and id the offensive/safety innings. At the same time it's not too difficult to understand. Please feel free to offer any comments or suggestions.
Just as an exercise I am working on a computerized straight pool scoring system. I should have it ready in a day or so for people to try out if interested.
Here are a couple of screenshots. It has changed a little since I made these. It will work with 2 players or 1 player for practicing. When it is ready I will post it in a new thread if there is interest.
Here are a couple of screenshots. It has changed a little since I made these. It will work with 2 players or 1 player for practicing. When it is ready I will post it in a new thread if there is interest.
Attachments
Bob Jewett said:
Hi Bob:
I found this as I went through everyone's posts and it is an interesting question.
IMO as long as the player has made the called shot, we add 4 more pts to the inning and conlude his final score to 153. The game stops there.
Bob Jewett said:
Wow, good memory!
I served as scorekeeper in the late 70's and early 80's at the World Straight Pool Championships on several occasions. I really miss the easels onto which the score, kept manually, was projected. Here's what it looked like:
Crane----------------Rempe
Score----------------Score
117 --------------- 139
Run ------------------ Run
59
Fouls --------------- Fouls
-------------------- 1
The meaning is as follows: At the beginning of the current inning, the running score was 139 - 58. Crane's run through the beginning of the current rack is 59, so the score at the beginning of this rack is 139-117. This information will remain unchanged until either Crane's inning ends or the rack is completed. Rempe fouled to end his last inning.
I always thought this a nice way to display the score.
Last edited: