Do you think?

pdcue said:

Back in the 70s a Lou Thayer(?) straight pooler with runs in the
300s and 400s used to wite letters to the National Billiard News,
in an open letter to Mosconi, HE said he was sure Willie could
run 1000 if he had ever cared to.

So what's the source of your opinion?

Click to expand...

players played with tougher equipment back then,,,i think they were BETTER back then.

but unless some does it at an appointed time and place, saying he could means nothing. if i ran two racks with ease and ended it there, saying "see how easy,,,,i can run three more racks",,,well you know as well as i that simply doesn't happen(*snap*) just like that.

the actual running of 1000 balls is within everyone's grasp, and there probably isn't a pro out there who doesn't think he can....but all it takes is ONE ball to roll 1/8" too far and you're screwed. if it was that easy, then willie should have run 150 every time he came to the table........but he didn't - so what stopped him,,,probably that ball rolling 1/8" too far.

Bob Jewett said:

The fact that he had reached 150 (or whatever). .

Click to expand...

so you're implying willie ran out EVERY chance he had,,,that game's end was THE ONLY THING that ended his runs.....never got hooked, never got stuck, never missed.

bruin70 said:

players played with tougher equipment back then,,,i think they were BETTER back then.

but unless some does it at an appointed time and place, saying he could means nothing. if i ran two racks with ease and ended it there, saying "see how easy,,,,i can run three more racks",,,well you know as well as i that simply doesn't happen(*snap*) just like that.

the actual running of 1000 balls is within everyone's grasp, and there probably isn't a pro out there who doesn't think he can....but all it takes is ONE ball to roll 1/8" too far and you're screwed. if it was that easy, then willie should have run 150 every time he came to the table........but he didn't - so what stopped him,,,probably that ball rolling 1/8" too far.

Click to expand...

Apointed time and place? I assume you understand the VAST diference
between being capable of running X number of balls, and being
able to do it on demand<no living human>

The word was, when Willie was on the exhibition trail<1930s - 1950s?>
he had a standing offer to bet even money on running 100 from a
setup break shot. This on tables, in rooms that may have been complely
new and strange to him.
And that's running 100 on ONE try, not one day.

I'm no Bob Jewet, but if my memory key to Stat is still functioning:
Given a 90% prob of running 1 rack, the conditional prob of
running 7racks is 43%, 8 racks 38%.

Considering how famous Mosconi was for avoiding bad bets like
the plague, he would need to severely misjudge his own
abilities<probability of 0.1%> to offer this wager.

Plus the part about the publicly stated opinion of a ball running machine,
who was there.

Dale

Bob Jewett said:

You offered lots of possible mechanisms that could conceiveably negate the statistics at pool. Unless you actually demonstrate some of those, it is perfectly reasonable to lump all of it into "random chance." As quickly as you can come up with mechanisms that might make the player do worse on long runs, I can come up with mechanisms that make him play better. Neither sort of idle speculation has much value.

Click to expand...

I don't need to demonstrate anything, you completely misunderstand my point. I am saying that your inference is unjustified because there are too many unknown factors in a 1000 ball run for you to ever be able to know that "person x could run 1000 balls". Statistics are based on past events, and you use induction from that to predict the future. It's easier to do that in simpler things (like making a single ball), but very difficult in something like a 1000 ball run where there is so much complexity to it both on the table and with the person playing, and the event has never occurred. You simply don't know how the conditions, physical stamina and mental focus are going to hold up approaching a 1000 ball run, which is why we really cannot know. And even if you could know there was a very high probability of running 1000 for some player, it still might never occur because he might be unlucky. In any case you can't know any player was 'capable' of a 1000 ball run. I think you might be reasonable in thinking this person capable, but you don't know. If you disagree, explain how you know this. I take it that you think you know because earlier you just asserted it as fact that a few of these guys could have run 1000.

I also maintain my point that it's unclear what it means to say somebody is 'capable of' or 'could' run 1000 balls when they never have and likely never will. I'd like anyone to actually define what this means clearly as applied to a massive pool run. This is probably the source of unclarity in this topic.

I think it is possible under certain conditions.

1. It would have to be on a very forgiving table. Wide, shallow cut pockets and spanking new 760 with a heated slate bed.

2. It would take months for a player using the same set of equipment to pull it off.

However, under regular conditions it is impossible.

Takumi4G63 said:

I don't need to demonstrate anything, you completely misunderstand my point. I am saying that your inference is unjustified because there are too many unknown factors in a 1000 ball run for you to ever be able to know that "person x could run 1000 balls". Statistics are based on past events, and you use induction from that to predict the future. It's easier to do that in simpler things (like making a single ball), but very difficult in something like a 1000 ball run where there is so much complexity to it both on the table and with the person playing, and the event has never occurred. You simply don't know how the conditions, physical stamina and mental focus are going to hold up approaching a 1000 ball run, which is why we really cannot know. And even if you could know there was a very high probability of running 1000 for some player, it still might never occur because he might be unlucky. In any case you can't know any player was 'capable' of a 1000 ball run. I think you might be reasonable in thinking this person capable, but you don't know. If you disagree, explain how you know this. I take it that you think you know because earlier you just asserted it as fact that a few of these guys could have run 1000.

I also maintain my point that it's unclear what it means to say somebody is 'capable of' or 'could' run 1000 balls when they never have and likely never will. I'd like anyone to actually define what this means clearly as applied to a massive pool run. This is probably the source of unclarity in this topic.

Click to expand...

A bit surprised you are arguing with Bob Jewett about this. In Bob's original post, he stated:

"If fatigue is not a factor, and you accept the simple probability argument,..."

Then you make an effort to impeach what he says by referring to possible unkown fatigue factors. That is an assumption he already gave. Emperical evidence is used in prediction models all the time. Predictions/extrapolations outside of the range of your data used to build the equations always requires assumptions. Bob assumed those were a given, and was using emperical evidence that suggested 1000 was in reach given x players had x probability of getting from one break ball to the next.

Kelly

Kelly_Guy said:

Predictions/extrapolations outside of the range of your data used to build the equations always requires assumptions. Bob assumed those were a given, and was using emperical evidence that suggested 1000 was in reach given x players had x probability of getting from one break ball to the next.

Kelly

Click to expand...

Hell, there's a finite probability that a monkey hitting typewriter keys will accidentally type out War and Peace. I think it's a given that if the calculation needs to account for the times when a banana falls out of the sky and hits the monkey on the head, then the probability calculation would have to change.

dwhite

Kelly_Guy said:

A bit surprised you are arguing with Bob Jewett about this. In Bob's original post, he stated:

"If fatigue is not a factor, and you accept the simple probability argument,..."

Then you make an effort to impeach what he says by referring to possible unkown fatigue factors. That is an assumption he already gave. Emperical evidence is used in prediction models all the time. Predictions/extrapolations outside of the range of your data used to build the equations always requires assumptions. Bob assumed those were a given, and was using emperical evidence that suggested 1000 was in reach given x players had x probability of getting from one break ball to the next.

Kelly

Click to expand...

Well clearly the fact that he stated his assumtions does not mean they actually hold. I stated that my disagreement indicated that whatever assumptions were made would not be jointly acceptable. I just do not see how you could be confident in this case in an inductive argument, except maybe if you admit that you have an unhelpfully rough estimate of the probability. I already layed out why I think you can't know a player is/was capable of a 1000 ball run, and I stated that this is partly because induction is less justified in this case than other things (like the sun rising tomorrow or plenty of other scientific information).

As for Bob's reply, I suppose my point would be directed more towards any one of those people (not you) who has just asserted that some player is/was capable of 1000 as if they know that. A big problem is that it's unclear what this means, as I've said. You might say "A player is capable of running 1000 balls if and only if they have the mental and physical ability to run 1000 balls under normal playing conditions and rolls." The problem is that unlike a similar definition for 1 rack of 9 ball which seems easy to meet, 'normal' playing conditions in a 1000 ball sequence offer so many opportunities for bad rolls or tiny errors that it simply might never happen. So in what sense then could we say this person is capable if they've tried so long and never succeeded? And of course there's the problem with even knowing if someone satisfies a definition like this. And I think similar problems would plague other attempts at defining what it means to be capable of a 1000 ball run. I suppose a sufficient condition would be actually running 1000 recently, but that's not too helpful.

I hope this is interesting to more people than just myself.

Here's a variation. I think the 1 mil for 1000 balls is unrealistic. We have only a handful who are even a threat to get halfway there. It's so unrealistic I can cheerfully say "sure I'll put up the mil!" because I know nobody's gonna do it.

A more realistic proposition (note - I'm not actually putting up money for this):

1,000 dollars per ball to anyone who passes mosconi's official 526 record.

So ...529 balls, $529,000 bucks. It's proportionate to the million dollars for 1,000 balls, but you get credit if you fall short (but no credit if you don't at least pass 526). Since there are several top players living who have run 400+, 527 is within spitting distance. Once a new world record is set, the proposition can stand, but replace the 526 with whatever the new record is... so if thorsty runs 615, then 616 is now the new minimum for the prize.

The practical concerns make this really tricky, as it has to be gotten on tape, and it has to be very secure, and the players should be allowed rest between runs. In an ideal situation you have a hotel with a big room set up with 10 video cameras on 10 tables, and all the top pros gather in that room and try their hardest for as long as they care to, sleeping in their hotel room as needed... something like 2006 world straight pool championships shooting environment. The upside is that all those fantastic high run tapes could be sold to straight pool fans to offset a little of the cost. I'd pay to see even failed attempts in the 3 or 400s caught on tape.

edit: I know I know Eufemia and others supposedly beat 526 already. Let's get it on tape plz

Takumi4G63 said:

The problem is that unlike a similar definition for 1 rack of 9 ball which seems easy to meet, 'normal' playing conditions in a 1000 ball sequence offer so many opportunities for bad rolls or tiny errors that it simply might never happen. So in what sense then could we say this person is capable if they've tried so long and never succeeded? And of course there's the problem with even knowing if someone satisfies a definition like this. And I think similar problems would plague other attempts at defining what it means to be capable of a 1000 ball run. I suppose a sufficient condition would be actually running 1000 recently, but that's not too helpful.

I hope this is interesting to more people than just myself.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. OK, maybe you'd be more comfortable with another way to look at it. There are a few people who have run 500, right? What's the probability they can run 500 twice in a row?

dwhite