[Danny Harriman]

Originally Posted by Marc

In my opinion Bank pool,wether it's Full Rack or 9Ball Banks, has a huge flaw: Too many banks are made with a kiss.

Some are more obvious than others of course, however, in many occasions a player makes a bank that went in with a slight kiss, and he keeps shooting, and if you did see the kiss, most times your opponent won't agree, and he'll keep shooting because the "it goes to the shooter rule"

Banks is a great pure game, so are the others mentioned here, but in my opinion it has a huge flaw

Obviously you have not ever played bank pool under the correct format. there are no kisses in banks - no combo banks either (while your learnning the real rules). That is why it's considered the pure form - look up the rules and then you can begin to play the game under the correct format Marc.

[Danny Harriman]

Originally Posted by macguy

A ball going on the break does not mean anything bad happened. Sometimes they go in. ??????????

I beg to differ - under rack your own conditions if the corner ball drops often there IS a problem. Please note that it ain't my first rodeo.

[Danny Harriman]

Originally Posted by Drop The Rock

So I'd say that One Pocket, which basically combines banks, 14.1, and chess is the "purest form" of pool by your definition. There are some aspects of 3 cushion that come into safety play as well.

You missed the point entirely if you think One Pocket (under rack your own conditions) is a real pure form of pocket billiards. I too love one pocket but all kisses count (unlike bank pool) and there is and can be a problem associated with the rack. Under the DCC straight pool challenge the rack has ZERO to do with how many racks get cleared. Maybe you understand - maybe you don't.

[Marc]

Danny, I'm aware that kisses don't count playing Banks.My point here is to say that there are always going to be kisses in Banks that most people think they are no kisses.

I've lost a few matches at DCC where my opponent made banks that kissed. Some were obvious and he just didn't want to accept it (or flat out cheated), some were not so obvious.

That's why I think it's not such a pure game.

To me the only way to avoid controversy would be all kisses count, and i wouldn't care if some banks are made by slop then, it will not be happening much anyways, and usually luck goes to the player that deserves it more times than not

[Marc]

You Danny have probably play a lot more Bank pool than I have, well I guarantee you you made hundreds of Banks where the cue ball kissed the balll you're banking, and you kept shooting as if they were good.

My point here is what's the difference wether the kiss is obvious or if it's not so obvious. A kiss is a kiss.
If the obvious ones shouldn't count why do the not so obvious count?

[pt109]

Originally Posted by Marc

You Danny have probably play a lot more Bank pool than I have, well I guarantee you you made hundreds of Banks where the cue ball kissed the balll you're banking, and you kept shooting as if they were good.

My point here is what's the difference wether the kiss is obvious or if it's not so obvious. A kiss is a kiss.
If the obvious ones shouldn't count why do the not so obvious count?

We need some slo-mo videos here.
I'm not so sure you're wrong on some on some involving frozen balls.

But it might be a situation like playing a masse shot....they are bad hits, the cue ball is
being trapped between the tip and the cloth....but we allow them.

[Cory in DC]

Originally Posted by ceebee

If the table is marked with a big T on the spot, twisting the rack will be HISTORY. The leg of the TEE goes through the center of the rack, at the back. It's easy to see any portion of the rack that is not symmetrical.

All of the tables at MaGoos in Tulsa are marked that way...

That, or a full outline of the rack, is a big part of the solution. However, the racks in a pool hall would have to be uniform or at least permanently assigned to a table.

You still have to check that the back row balls are frozen to the next row forward, but a T or Triangle outline would at least eliminate tilting problems.

Cory

[Straightpool_99]

Originally Posted by Danny Harriman

Maybe it's just me but I think I have figured out 3 disciplines that are the most pure form of pocket billiards. Banks, 3- cushion, and the straight pool challenge. These disciplines all have one thing in common and that is the rack has zero impact on who has an advantage. Under today's rules the players rack for themselves, this opens the door for treachery and or cheaters. In full rack Banks most of the top players break safe and the rack has very liitle impact on the outcome of the match. In 3- cushion billiards there is no rack period, and the 14.1 challenge at DCC is another great example of untainted and pure pool. If you watch top one pocket players rack their own in one pocket the corner ball goes often as the top players will inevitably twist the rack, I have been shown how they leave the bottom two corner balls lose to make the corner ball leaving the opposing player helpless. I now know how to protect myself from the cheats now, there out there in droves. Just a few thoughts is all.

I made a thread a long time ago about rotation. Classic 15 ball rotation is IMHO the way to go, if we insist on playing rotation games. It would probably be possible to cheat even here, but at least it would be difficult. A neutral racker can also be employed to fix racking problems in tournaments. I agree that the games you listed are less prone to cheating, but 3-c is not pocket billiards, you know.

[PlayTrey]

Originally Posted by macguy View Post
I always thought that something like bowling and golf where you play against the game and not an actual opponent is a good test of who is the best. Not that we need to get rid of anything just add to tournaments another aspect of the game. It makes tournaments a little more fun and more of a happening thing.
There was a tournament like this, maybe even a few. Was supposed to be a tour, but it was a flop instead.

Anybody remember anymore about this tournament? Any thoughts on why it ended up being a flop?

[GaryB]

Originally Posted by HawaiianEye

If you watched the Rodney Morris vs Oscar Domiguez final at the Mezz West tournament a couple weeks back, it was exactly that. It went hill-hill with Rodney winning. It was almost a perfect match with run outs by both.

I don't think it was recorded and saved anywhere, but if it was I hope somebody posts it. That was a pleasure to watch.

Aloha

That was some good pool. I don't know if it is going to be posted on YouTube as they have a new streamer. I know that Daniel of POV that used to stream for them put the good matches up on YouTube. He did a lot of promotion for them that I'm not sure that he got proper credit for. Hopefully, they will put the Rodney & Oscar match up.

Danny, it is great to see that you are back and as always you have valid points to make. Gimmick racking is just wrong in so many ways.

[Danny Harriman]

Originally Posted by Marc

You Danny have probably play a lot more Bank pool than I have, well I guarantee you you made hundreds of Banks where the cue ball kissed the balll you're banking, and you kept shooting as if they were good.

My point here is what's the difference wether the kiss is obvious or if it's not so obvious. A kiss is a kiss.
If the obvious ones shouldn't count why do the not so obvious count?

Your right, I have played more bumps than you. But your wrong about not knowing when the bank gets a kiss. You might be mixing that up some how in your mind with push shots. Many times a player will push through a ball and double hit when object ball is in close proximity to cue ball. The human eye cannot see it but a good player knows when this has happened. In this case the cue ball just has to show character - even though there may have been a double hit. This is not the case in bank pool I can assure you, when an object ball kisses another sphere (whether it be the cue ball or another object ball) you can see it first of all the bank simply does not go (kiss off the cue ball). If you really think Marc that a bank will feather another object ball and maybe sometimes it gets overlooked you would be wrong - when cue ball double kisses object ball it's very easy to see - even if they are froze to a rail.There is no such thing as a not so obvious kiss when banking a ball, I won the DCC bank pool event in 05 with a field of over four hundred players, so I have some experience in this particular field of study. Every single bank that ever got a kiss that I hit - I knew about it cause it did not go.I am sorry to tell you this but i can tell your not a good player. There is a one pocket bank that gets a double kiss playing one pocket but again it's a full hit and would be legal playing banks. You might serve yourself better to not make any guarantee's in reference to pool or banks as I can tell your not qualified to teach or guarantee me anythin pertaining to pocket billiards.

[arnaldo]

Probably way more than a smidge off-topic, Danny, but I'm curious whether you've ever tried CJ's TOI approach -- touch of inside -- (or seen other pros using their own version of it during your tournaments or wagering sessions)?

Arnaldo

[Danny Harriman]

Originally Posted by arnaldo

Probably way more than a smidge off-topic, Danny, but I'm curious whether you've ever tried CJ's TOI approach -- touch of inside -- (or seen other pros using their own version of it during your tournaments or wagering sessions)?

Arnaldo

I have seen CJ's video and his aiming system works better on wet conditions plus smaller table. The bigger the table the less need for english (side spin). Cj is a great player and a fine instructor also.

[Hungarian]

Danny,

Did you even see my avatar?

Originally Posted by Danny Harriman

I have seen CJ's video and his aiming system works better on wet conditions plus smaller table. The bigger the table the less need for english (side spin). Cj is a great player and a fine instructor also.

[Danny Harriman]

Originally Posted by Hungarian

Danny,

Did you even see my avatar?

Yep, I recognize that young fellow.