Breaking Solution

BeiberLvr · Jul 23, 2015

I like alternate break, because I think it does have the tendency to keep the matches close. However, once a player gets up by quite a bit, you will rarely see a comeback.

So what if we did alternate break, but if Player A gets to the hill first, then Player B gets every break from that point.

If it gets to hill-hill, they re-lag for the final break.

poolguy4u · Jul 23, 2015

:thumbup:

I like to play----looser breaks. To me, that seems the most fair.

victorl · Jul 23, 2015

Interesting, but why punish the better player for getting to the hill first? Alternate break already takes away the better player's advantage of being able to put packages together... now they have to give up all the breaks to the other player at the most crucial point of the match?

Imagine in tennis if the player who's behind got to keep serving until he caught up to the other player... it'd be a joke.

poolguy4u · Jul 23, 2015

victorl said:
Interesting, but why punish the better player for getting to the hill first? Alternate break already takes away the better player's advantage of being able to put packages together... now they have to give up all the breaks to the other player at the most crucial point of the match?

Imagine in tennis if the player who's behind got to keep serving until he caught up to the other player... it'd be a joke.

Certainly not punishment. I never even have to get out a break cue that way.

:lol:

RiverCity · Jul 23, 2015

BeiberLvr said:
I like alternate break, because I think it does have the tendency to keep the matches close. However, once a player gets up by quite a bit, you will rarely see a comeback.

So what if we did alternate break, but if Player A gets to the hill first, then Player B gets every break from that point.

If it gets to hill-hill, they re-lag for the final break.

Its another solution in a long line of solutions, that sounds similar to a little league baseball "mercy limit" to me.

Nothing wrong with winner breaks IMO, it worked fine for a lot of DECADES. That is up until the tournament directors shortened the races and started frequent rule changes etc.

Go back to races to 11,13,15 etc. The best player usually wins, and the matches are usually closer, unless you have a player run out a set or come close to it. And lets be honest, thats a very rare occurance akin to a pitcher throwing a perfect game etc. that should be not only a possibility, but celebrated if it happens.

I really do think it has to do with societal changes to stuff like every kid gets a trophy. I know it gets joked about often, but thats how I see it. The game should be about playing your best and winning, not looking for ways to equalize everyones skill levels in the name of "fairness". Because IMO, creating rules to make it fair , usually equates to "mercy limits" because the weaker players cant, dont, or wont want to step up the plate unless theres a T ball tee sticking out of the ground.

Sounds harsh, but thats how I see it.

HawaiianEye · Jul 23, 2015

Chuck Fields said:
Its another solution in a long line of solutions, that sounds similar to a little league baseball "mercy limit" to me.

Nothing wrong with winner breaks IMO, it worked fine for a lot of DECADES. That is up until the tournament directors shortened the races and started frequent rule changes etc.

Go back to races to 11,13,15 etc. The best player usually wins, and the matches are usually closer, unless you have a player run out a set or come close to it. And lets be honest, thats a very rare occurance akin to a pitcher throwing a perfect game etc. that should be not only a possibility, but celebrated if it happens.

I really do think it has to do with societal changes to stuff like every kid gets a trophy. I know it gets joked about often, but thats how I see it. The game should be about playing your best and winning, not looking for ways to equalize everyones skill levels in the name of "fairness". Because IMO, creating rules to make it fair , usually equates to "mercy limits" because the weaker players cant, dont, or wont want to step up the plate unless theres a T ball tee sticking out of the ground.

Sounds harsh, but thats how I see it.

That's the same way I see it.

macguy · Jul 23, 2015

poolguy4u said:
:thumbup:

I like to play----looser breaks. To me, that seems the most fair.

Have you ever actually played loser breaks? It is far and away the worst way to play. I once played in a tournament that had that as the rule and half way through the first day they changed it to winner breaks once they saw what it actually does.

macguy · Jul 23, 2015

victorl said:
Interesting, but why punish the better player for getting to the hill first? Alternate break already takes away the better player's advantage of being able to put packages together... now they have to give up all the breaks to the other player at the most crucial point of the match?

Imagine in tennis if the player who's behind got to keep serving until he caught up to the other player... it'd be a joke.

If you are referring to the loser breaks, he is not being punished. In fact the first player to the hill except for the first game, is now being spotted all the breaks the rest of the match.

buckshotshoey · Jul 23, 2015

Depends on how you look at it....and the game you are playing.
In 8 ball, its roughly 50 chance that your opposition will scratch on break, or break dry.
Thats pretty good odds for the winner when loser breaks. Of course, Im not talking about
Professionals here.

And in a game like 10 ball, and a magic rack is NOT used, the break can be a disadvantage.

macguy · Jul 23, 2015

buckshotshoey said:
Depends on how you look at it....and the game you are playing.
In 8 ball, its roughly 50 chance that your opposition will scratch on break, or break dry.
Thats pretty good odds for the winner when loser breaks. Of course, Im not talking about
Professionals here.

And in a game like 10 ball, and a magic rack is NOT used, the break can be a disadvantage.

I am pretty sure there is no rule that if you win the game you have to break, I think it is your choice. If you think the break is a disadvantage give up the break.

I was at a tournament and Pat Fleming was playing Nick Varner. Pat had decided the table broke so bad he gave Nick the break every time Pat won the game. It almost worked as it went to hill hill with Nick winning.

Bambu · Jul 24, 2015

macguy said:
Have you ever actually played loser breaks? It is far and away the worst way to play. I once played in a tournament that had that as the rule and half way through the first day they changed it to winner breaks once they saw what it actually does.

So, what does it actually do? I've played loser breaks many times, and I have no problem with it. To me, loser breaks just means underdog rules. Its not a spot, but it gives a chance to the guy who isn't supposed to win.

macguy · Jul 24, 2015

Bambu said:
So, what does it actually do? I've played loser breaks many times, and I have no problem with it. To me, loser breaks just means underdog rules. Its not a spot, but it gives a chance to the guy who isn't supposed to win.

It does the opposite and it becomes a spot. If two players play, one of the two is most likely the better player. Whoever gets to the hill first, probably the better player, with the score say 10 to 6 race to 11.

The weaker player now behind has about zero chance to come back and win. He can't even get lucky and put a few racks together. The guy on the hill gets spotted the rest of the breaks to win the last game and the set.

In other words, the player that is losing as he tries to claw his way back to win a game, has to now give the break to the guy on the hill and hope he doesn't break and run out.

Winner breaks is the best way to play in tournament play. Although the obvious choice of the better player It also benefits the weaker player. In fact the only chance the weaker player may have is winner breaks.

If they play a little over their head, get a few rolls and they may beat a champion in tournament play. I have never seen a weaker beat a much better player playing "Tit for Tat", it almost can't happen.

If the weaker is expected to enter a tournament, and without them you have no tournament, he has to have the opportunity to do something explosive, get lucky, play over his head or the tournament is a waste of his entry fee. Winner break is his only real hope.

I don't think winner breaks is perfect, there are ways to augment it that maybe can improve the game. I don't like hill hill. It should be win by 2. No 9's on the break for a win. That makes no sense. Spot the 9 and the player keeps shooting. Possibly move the rack forward maybe an inch, thats a thought. Use a break box, that may be an improvement. There are probably lots of ways to make the game better. You just try them and see what works. I personally don't like BIH but that is another story.

jsp · Jul 24, 2015

BeiberLvr said:
I like alternate break, because I think it does have the tendency to keep the matches close. However, once a player gets up by quite a bit, you will rarely see a comeback.

But the pendulum swings both ways. Yes, it may be 'rare' to see a comeback from a large deficit, but it is equally 'rare' for the winner to build up that lead in the first place. Same can be said for winner's break.

BeiberLvr said:
So what if we did alternate break, but if Player A gets to the hill first, then Player B gets every break from that point.

Given the premise that the break is an advantage, then that essentially gives an unfair spot to Player B that Player A never receives throughout the match.

hang-the-9 · Jul 24, 2015

Every option has drawbacks, no matter what or how people try to fix.

Look at the "fix" they tried for soft breaks, 3 balls past the string. Now you have people making a ball on the break with a hard break, getting a bad roll due to something hitting the side point or a kick off another ball and having to watch the other guy run out your rack.

Alternate break or winner break are the best ones. I do like the one where each person gets so many breaks in a row before he has to give up the break but do you do that in a straight fashion even if you lose the rack or only if you keep winning. 3 breaks no matter what, or 3 breaks but only if you win those 3 games?

Keeping it simple to alternate or winner break could be best. That's also why we don't play called shot where you call every single time the ball may hit a rail or another ball, it makes it way too complex and silly.

michael4 · Jul 24, 2015

BeiberLvr said:
If it gets to hill-hill, they re-lag for the final break.

if it gets to hill hill, the guy who got there first should be rewarded with the break.

macguy · Jul 24, 2015

michael4 said:
if it gets to hill hill, the guy who got there first should be rewarded with the break.

There is no first, the players are even. In fact, supposed player 1 got to the hill first and now leads the other player by 5 games. Then player 2 wins 4 in a row and it is now hill hill. Why should his good play be punished by having to give up the break.

Like I said in my other post hill hill should not even exist. At hill hill both players are winners and should have the opportunity to play out the set to a final winner not now base it all on one game.

I am just saying. I know in like golf four days of play can be decided by one putt. Seems unfair but that is how golf is played. We have the luxury in pool that we don't need anybodies permission of how we choose to play.

Any promoter can put on a tournament and play by any rules they want. Pool can be improved in the blink of an eye. It does not take long to see what works and what doesn't.

Bambu · Jul 25, 2015

macguy said:
It does the opposite and it becomes a spot. If two players play, one of the two is most likely the better player. Whoever gets to the hill first, probably the better player, with the score say 10 to 6 race to 11.

The weaker player now behind has about zero chance to come back and win. He can't even get lucky and put a few racks together. The guy on the hill gets spotted the rest of the breaks to win the last game and the set.

In other words, the player that is losing as he tries to claw his way back to win a game, has to now give the break to the guy on the hill and hope he doesn't break and run out. ("I really meant for amateurs, not in terms of running multiple racks.)

Winner breaks is the best way to play in tournament play. Although the obvious choice of the better player It also benefits the weaker player. In fact the only chance the weaker player may have is winner breaks.

If they play a little over their head, get a few rolls and they may beat a champion in tournament play. I have never seen a weaker beat a much better player playing "Tit for Tat", it almost can't happen.

If the weaker is expected to enter a tournament, and without them you have no tournament, he has to have the opportunity to do something explosive, get lucky, play over his head or the tournament is a waste of his entry fee. Winner break is his only real hope.

I don't think winner breaks is perfect, there are ways to augment it that maybe can improve the game. I don't like hill hill. It should be win by 2. No 9's on the break for a win. That makes no sense. Spot the 9 and the player keeps shooting. Possibly move the rack forward maybe an inch, thats a thought. Use a break box, that may be an improvement. There are probably lots of ways to make the game better. You just try them and see what works. I personally don't like BIH but that is another story.

"At pro level, I could see what youre saying....racking with the 9 on the spot works pretty good too. Otherwise, I see loser breaks benefitting the underdog because the format itself is designed to keep the game closer.

ceebee · Jul 25, 2015

I suppose the Winner Break format quickly limits the tournament participation, because that format says bring your A game & if a player doesn't have an A game, they have no chance. But Alternating Breaks will in fact give the B player a chance to play, but not necessarily a chance to win. The C player will also get at chance to play, but has no chance to win.

The Break Shot is important in each game played. A good Break Shot allows even the C Player a chance to be in the game, although the C player may only run 2 balls, then play a good safety. That only slows down the inevitable.

In the upper skill levels, the Break Shot may well may be the difference between winning & losing. Maybe the Break Shot will become a bucket of balls rolled out on the table... but sure nuff, shortly thereafter, the first shooter will not be allowed to make the 1-ball straight in, they will be required to hit 3 rails before a make is counted.

Regulating competition so everybody has fun is for Little League Baseball , not Pool N Billiards.

JMHO

macguy · Jul 25, 2015

Bambu said:
"At pro level, I could see what youre saying....racking with the 9 on the spot works pretty good too. Otherwise, I see loser breaks benefitting the underdog because the format itself is designed to keep the game closer.

What happens when the weaker player is sitting at a 5 game deficit and the other guy is on the hill. How does loser break help? He doesn't get to break any more. The next lose is lose of the match.

Bambu · Jul 25, 2015

macguy said:
What happens when the weaker player is sitting at a 5 game deficit and the other guy is on the hill. How does loser break help? He doesn't get to break any more. The next lose is lose of the match.

If the other guy is on the hill, weaker player had 10 breaks to his 5..... so that means the break isn't helping the weaker player enough. Weaker player did have his chances though, breaking 10 times. Had the weaker player given up 10 breaks to 5 (as in winner breaks) he may not have reached 5 games at all.

I'm not thinking in terms of packages so much, more like preventing the winner from running off with the match.

Breaking Solution

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Where'd my stroke go?

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Dave Manasseri

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Dave Manasseri

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Dave Manasseri