2 Points to Win? (1st player, alt. break)
- Thread starter Mr. Dogg
- Start date
I think there is a video of Mario He doing that. His opponent got no shot except the lag. Then Mario ran out from the opening break.
So, the first guy is forced to stop, but the second guy gets to keep going? Yeah, that's fair
Originally Posted by jimmyg View Post
Winning the lag does not eliminate alternate break, it just gives you first break, which is what you probably meant.
I think a fair rule would be "winner breaks" and each player is guaranteed to get to the table at least once. The only time this rule would take effect is if the lag winner breaks and runs the entire match, in that event, the opponent still gets one opportunity, after the first player misses, to break and surpass the original breaker's run. If he does, he wins the set.
The first guy stops when he misses.
Winning the lag does not eliminate alternate break, it just gives you first break, which is what you probably meant.
I think a fair rule would be "winner breaks" and each player is guaranteed to get to the table at least once. The only time this rule would take effect is if the lag winner breaks and runs the entire match, in that event, the opponent still gets one opportunity, after the first player misses, to break and surpass the original breaker's run. If he does, he wins the set.
So, the first guy is forced to stop, but the second guy gets to keep going? Yeah, that's fair
The first guy stops when he misses.
So, the first guy is forced to stop, but the second guy gets to keep going? Yeah, that's fair
Yes, this inherent problem with winner breaks can't be fixed by giving the second player the opportunity to do exactly the same thing.
Alternate breaks is fine, works fine, and is fair.
For those who are married to the winner breaks format (and that's fine, I understand why you like it and why it's exciting, and it doesn't take away my enjoyment of the game - please don't fire back with some comment about how good you are and other players not being good enough to play winner breaks, because that is 100% irrelevant to the discussion about which format is better), why not start with alternate break and when you "steal the break" by winning two racks in a row you keep it. Everyone has at least one opportunity to get to the table and break. if it goes hill-hill without a "steal" then it's either win by two, win by two for a bit then sudden death, or straight sudden death. Sudden death - the break is determined by a lag (this works in professional darts where first to throw is determined by nearest to the bull with a single dart).
Or just play alternate breaks.
Win by two was used in the Asian 9 Ball Tour from 2003-2007. They got rid of that rule in 2008 (which happened to be the last year of the tournament) but not because it wasn't working. It worked just fine. Win by two has been used in many sports, sometimes extending the race and then going to sudden death if the race still can't split the players or teams. It works fine and adds to the tension in an extended race followed by sudden death format. Of course it's simpler just to have a race to a particular number where the initial lag determines first breaker.
Last edited:
It makes the first lag less meaningful but it doesn't make it mean nothing. Everyone wants to break. It's a psychological boost to win the lag.
Also (and I know you are not arguing this), the fact that one of the players in the alternate breaks format potentially gets one more break does not become an argument for winner breaks where one player potentially doesn't get a break at all. They are two different formats, each with their own intrinsic problems.
But what if he doesn't miss? How does that "guarantee" that both players get to the table?
That's not fair. The first guy had to stop after running 7 in a row (or whatever the race was to). But you're going to let the second guy win by running 8 straight?
[this could easily be fixed in any of several ways]
Edit -- oops; I now see this was already mentioned.
Last edited:
No, the first shooter continues shooting until he misses, even after he wins the set, whether he runs 7 racks, or 10 racks, then the opponent has one chance to exceed his runs. It wouldn't be fair if the first shooter has to stop at 7. Come on guys, read what was posted.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, we all read what we want to read sometimes.
One disadvantage I see with this is that if the first shooter runs more racks than the race (eg. 7) then he or she is playing in some weird zone where the original concept of the race no longer exists and it becomes an exhibition to see who can run the most racks. It is certainly fair though.
I understand, I also do it...
Overtime in any sport is beyond the norm, whether extra innings in baseball (Dodgers, Braves played record 26 innings in 1920), overtime periods in basketball (6 OT 1950 Indianapolis Olympians vs Rochester Royals), or an endless tiebreaker in tennis (John Isner and Nicolas Mahut played the longest ever tennis match in history. The match went on for three days and took place over 11 hours and 5 minutes with Isner coming out victorious 70-68 in the final set.) these situations are fairly rare and while all go beyond the original concept of a regulation game, some extend into the Twilight Zone.
It's just an idea, but it's the best I've go for a winner break format.
Yes I agree. There is one sport or game that I vaguely recall seeing somewhere (maybe channel hopping) where the opponent has an opportunity to fire back and then it resets - which would translate to a pool race to 7 as:
If player one breaks and runs 7, player 2 then gets an opportunity to run 7. If player 2 runs 7 then player 1 breaks and runs as many racks as he or she can, player 2 then breaks and aims to beat player 1s score. If they are equal they start again.
You're right, I missed your "after the first player misses..." But letting the first player keep going until he misses after running the 7 in a row is just one of several ways to make it fair.
JC
Coos Cues
Most decent length matches even between pros don't end up hill hill because both players held serve every single game.
Sure breaking at hill hill is an advantage but rarely did a nonstop string of break and runs get it there. It happens but it's the exception not the rule.
Much ado about nothing.
I assume you are saying that they don't hold serve all the time. The top players are only about 60% to win on their breaks. Here are the "breaker wins" stats from the recent Styer/Robinson match (thanks to AtLarge):
Breaker won game:
Styer -- 65 of 100 (65%)
Robinson -- 40 of 75 (53%)
Total -- 105 of 175 (60%)
JC
Coos Cues
Yes that's it. Mistakes are always creeping in and if they are equal then it's a close match.
Even in the Mosconi cup race to 5 you're lucky to see a flawless match every couple to three years.
Surmising that who wins the lag is going to decide the contest is silly. Someone will always be breaking. That's how racks start.