Do you think?

Fatboy · Apr 16, 2007

That considering the skill level of todays modern day pro's that if $1,000,000 was put in an escrow account guaranteeing full payment if the feat of pocketing 1000 balls with out missing on a 9' table with factory pockets, and video taped, witnessed by a predetermined number of people. it could be done with in a year, thus the escrow account would be closed and the $$$ returned to who ever posted it. Not a bogus "Hole in One" insurance thing like on Earls thing years ago etc.

I'm not going to post the $$ this is just a hypothetical question and I thought it would make a cool conversation.

I think that if the pro's knew 100% the money would be solid and for this discussion it is a one time payment of a million not some 20 payment thing that 1000 in one inning would happen within the year. I dont know who would do it but I'm sure we would see alot more straight pool and it would bring out the best in alot of top players leading to a winner, I think it wouldnt happen with in the first 6 months because there isnt alot of attention on straight pool by all the players but the million would fix that in a hurry and with a few months practice it would happen, there would be some 400's within a month and it just keep going.

what do you think?

selftaut · Apr 16, 2007

1000 is a lot , I don't think it could be done in a year or maybe even never , but would be interesting.

Steve Lipsky · Apr 16, 2007

Put me in the camp of "never". That is about 72 racks. It's not easy to do anything 72 times in a row, let alone this.

Maybe if the participant was allowed to rest whenever he wanted during the inning, it might change things a tad.

Just my opinion,
Steve

RobertR · Apr 16, 2007

Steve Lipsky said:
Put me in the camp of "never". That is about 72 racks. It's not easy to do anything 72 times in a row, let alone this.

Maybe if the participant was allowed to rest whenever he wanted during the inning, it might change things a tad.

Just my opinion,
Steve

72 racks and 71 break shots. The odds of hitting 71 break shots and getting a shot 71 times are about the same as hitting the lottery (which would pay more than $1M).

Bob Jewett · Apr 16, 2007

I_Need_D_8 said:
72 racks and 71 break shots. The odds of hitting 71 break shots and getting a shot 71 times are about the same as hitting the lottery (which would pay more than $1M).

It's not that bad, maybe. Depending on how you do the analysis, both Mosconi and Cranfield were something like 90% to get through a rack starting from a break ball. If fatigue is not a factor, and you accept the simple probability argument, then for one of those guys to run 1000 from any particular start is about a 1-in-2000 shot. If you happened to have 10 Mosconis and 10 Cranfields who each tried 100 times, you would very likely see a 1000 run. You would also expect to see something like 37 runs over 526.

There are two problems here: we don't have 20 players who are 90% to get from one break ball to the next, and if any such player does exist these days, he's not trying to run 1000. At Derby City this year, Mika Immonen had the best average and he was only about 80% to get through a rack. There is a huge difference between 80% and 90%. If Mika could hold the 80%, he would be a 1-in-10 million shot to get to 1000 on any particular try.

bruin70 · Apr 16, 2007

..............no way...............

besides the difficulty of actually doing it, add to that the restrictions of time and place AND in front of a crowd AND the nerves required. engert said he was nervous and sweating bullets as he approached 500 when he fell short....and he was nowhere close to being in the same enviroment.

3andstop · Apr 16, 2007

While I also agree that running a thousand balls is a lottery hit at best, I do believe that some organized format for high run records and weekly high payouts would give the game of straight pool just the kick in the pants it needs to start it on its way to becoming a popular and mainstream game again.

If the payout was high enough pro players may start devoting more time to the effort of winning either a weekly or overall high run payday. The more they play the game I think the more every day players would follow suit. I know I would enjoy watching those efforts.

Bob Jewett · Apr 16, 2007

bruin70 said:
... engert said he was nervous and sweating bullets as he approached 500 when he fell short....and he was nowhere close to being in the same enviroment.

Some people play better in front of an audience. And I think that Thomas won't be so nervous once he has a few 550s under his belt.

The current competition record is 182. I think a 200 under the conditions at Derby City is quite reasonable, but 300 would be a major stretch unless there are more 80%/rack players in the future. Unfortunately, there is no longer anyone officially keeping records, so far as I know.

bruin70 · Apr 16, 2007

3andstop said:
While I also agree that running a thousand balls is a lottery hit at best, I do believe that some organized format for high run records and weekly high payouts would give the game of straight pool just the kick in the pants it needs to start it on its way to becoming a popular and mainstream game again.

If the payout was high enough pro players may start devoting more time to the effort of winning either a weekly or overall high run payday. The more they play the game I think the more every day players would follow suit. I know I would enjoy watching those efforts.

i dunno, man. while i agree that pool can always do with a shot in the arm(don't think it would ever really help, though),,,,this is more akin to "homerun derby" - nice on occasion, but after a few events the glow wears thin.

3andstop · Apr 16, 2007

I see your point, but I'm saying a running purse on a weekly and total basis, maybe regional, where anyone could take a shot. Something with a small entry fee. Homerun derby gets dull cause we aren't invited.

pdcue · Apr 16, 2007

Fatboy said:
That considering the skill level of todays modern day pro's that if $1,000,000 was put in an escrow account guaranteeing full payment if the feat of pocketing 1000 balls with out missing on a 9' table with factory pockets, and video taped, witnessed by a predetermined number of people. it could be done with in a year, thus the escrow account would be closed and the $$$ returned to who ever posted it. Not a bogus "Hole in One" insurance thing like on Earls thing years ago etc.

I'm not going to post the $$ this is just a hypothetical question and I thought it would make a cool conversation.

I think that if the pro's knew 100% the money would be solid and for this discussion it is a one time payment of a million not some 20 payment thing that 1000 in one inning would happen within the year. I dont know who would do it but I'm sure we would see alot more straight pool and it would bring out the best in alot of top players leading to a winner, I think it wouldnt happen with in the first 6 months because there isnt alot of attention on straight pool by all the players but the million would fix that in a hurry and with a few months practice it would happen, there would be some 400's within a month and it just keep going.

what do you think?

Under your proposed conditions, Mosconi in his prime, could have done
it for sure. Today's pros don't come close to that level. So,
Maybe, but no lock

Dale

bruin70 · Apr 17, 2007

concomitant to the original question, if not made obviously clear, is the assumption that pool players are more skilled today. i don't believe this is necessarily so, and there's nothing to indicate that they are. today they play on better equipment with better instruments. if anything there may have been a dumbing down(if you listen to the "old timers"

) in pool.

what you DO have, though, is MORE skillfull players. it is a quantitative, not necessarily a qualitative thing.

Takumi4G63 · Apr 17, 2007

pdcue said:
Under your proposed conditions, Mosconi in his prime, could have done
it for sure. Today's pros don't come close to that level. So,
Maybe, but no lock

Dale

This is an immense assumption. How do you know he could have done it for sure? Like I've said before, all we have to go off of is how he played running a few hundred and once 526. He never ran even close to 1000. We don't have any idea how he'd hold up approaching 1000 physically or mentally.

And Bob I have to disagree that the 90% probability of running a rack is applicable to any particular rack. I guess that means I disagree with the assumptions you mentioned. That statistic is really only a rough idea, because it would seem that the probability of running through any particular rack will change depending on how high the run is and other factors. For example, the probability of running through a rack when you are at 900 physically tired and mentally thinking about hitting 1000 has to be different than running through a rack when you are starting out. The probability is conditional not only on the rolls of the table but everything else going on in the mind and environment of the shooter, which is very difficult to estimate when nobody has been that far.

Gerry · Apr 17, 2007

I think it would be an attainable goal, and the high ball runner would invariably come from the Philippines IMO. Dangle a giant bet out there and those guys will find a way to win it!

1000 is a crazy notion in these day of 9ball, but like I think you are hinting to, the talent is out there if the payday is large enough. Yes, it will get people playing more 14.1, but they might start to not like 9ball so we better not have any of that!

Also, I don't think it would take $1mil, I think the top players would wholeheartedly go after it for $100,000. I'd offer $100k and I own the rights to the video.

Gerry

Danny Harriman · Apr 17, 2007

There is an outside chance

I do believe that you would see some runs in the 700's, lets face it they can make tables play as easy as they want. Take the brunswick Metro for an example, can you imagine that table with a bevelled slate in the pocket (drop pockets.) The reason they call this table the Metro is obvious, the facings on the pockets are dead which helps the object ball to slow way down which in turn makes the pocket play larger than any metropollitan city. For myself I can't bring my A game to the table on this equipment, trick shots along and bank pool is still fun cause you can hit everything at warp speed and it still goes. To answer the question I think yes it could be done only if the player had phony equipment (modified drop pockets) and was in great physical condition, as for me being able to do it probably never - I prefer to keep the equipment respectable enough where a two hundred ball run is doing something.

JoeW · Apr 17, 2007

Given the time factor, witnesses, fatigue, etc why not try something like the highest continuous run in one hour. That is speed and accuracy. TV might even like it.

Fatboy · Apr 18, 2007

i'm leaving for Germany in a few hours and will be off the net for a couple days, I wanted to wait for more input before I would give my 2 cents,

thinking about it i'm gonna wait, but for the sake of discussion, yes the player could take as many rest periods as he wanted for what ever time he wanted, there is no rush,

The equipment would be ANY 9' commercial table with what ever the factory specs are, the player could chose his cue, balls, bridges, talk glove etc. and cloth, but no modifing the rails or pockets or slate-has to be just a factory spec table, and any cloth,

the table would have to be in a public venue not in a home,

and were keeping the stake at one million, i agree there would almost the same effort for less $$$, but since were just discussing the limitations, playing conditions etc. were gonna keep it at one mil.

SpiderWebComm · Apr 18, 2007

I don't think anyone's running 1000, either with rests or not. The odds are so far out of whack - it's a pretty safe assumption. Even if someone was 90% to run a rack (such as straight pool wizard Willie Mosconi), there are far too many variables against you. At 90%, there's 7 - possibly 8 racks that you're statistically not supposed to get there (i.e. break shot and no shot, straight in break shot w/ no break, unbreakable cluster, miscue, miss, anything). That's huge to overcome.

I bet if you were banking the bet, you could make a living w/ "attempt fees" collected. Meaning, charge someone $100 / try and have $500k in escrow. Not to mention, playing "towards" a number is TOTALLY different than running that number during regular play. Bet a 0-handicap golfer $500 he can't shoot par on his course. See if he likes it.

Just my humble opinion

pdcue · Apr 19, 2007

that may be all you know...

Takumi4G63 said:
This is an immense assumption. How do you know he could have done it for sure? Like I've said before, all we have to go off of is how he played running a few hundred and once 526. He never ran even close to 1000. We don't have any idea how he'd hold up approaching 1000 physically or mentally.

And Bob I have to disagree that the 90% probability of running a rack is applicable to any particular rack. I guess that means I disagree with the assumptions you mentioned. That statistic is really only a rough idea, because it would seem that the probability of running through any particular rack will change depending on how high the run is and other factors. For example, the probability of running through a rack when you are at 900 physically tired and mentally thinking about hitting 1000 has to be different than running through a rack when you are starting out. The probability is conditional not only on the rolls of the table but everything else going on in the mind and environment of the shooter, which is very difficult to estimate when nobody has been that far.

if you want to look it up Charlie Ursetti(sp?) tells the story of Mosconi
practicing for his "match" with Fats.
Charlie racked the balls. Willie had a run of something like 685 with a perfect break shot and quit because it was time for dinner. He left the
table with the remark "See Charlie, it's not that hard to run 700 balls".

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?

Bob Jewett · Apr 19, 2007

Takumi4G63 said:
... And Bob I have to disagree that the 90% probability of running a rack is applicable to any particular rack. ... .

Sure, in the same way that a 50% probability of flipping heads is not applicable to any particular coin flip once it has been flipped. There is a standard way of talking about probabilities and statistics and chances and such. There is no guarantee that any of that applies in any way at all at pool. I used to think I could roll 6-6 whenever I needed to at Monopoly. Statistics did not apply to me. Fortunately I mostly got over that idea before I was old enough to go to casinos, but look at all the (increasingly) poor people in casinos who feel the laws of probability don't apply to them.

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.

Do you think?

AzB Silver Member

straight pool nut

On quest for perfect 14.1

WWSLD

AZB Osmium Member

don't wannabe M0DERATOR

Focus

AZB Osmium Member

don't wannabe M0DERATOR

Focus

AzB Silver Member

don't wannabe M0DERATOR

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Danny Harriman

Guest

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

HelpImBeingOppressed

AzB Silver Member

AZB Osmium Member