Like Bob suggested it's likely a psychological issue.
We all know Shane prefers winner breaks
5 SVB US open titles - 5 points
- Thread starter Petros Andrikop
- Start date
Like Bob suggested it's likely a psychological issue.
We all know Shane prefers winner breaks
Winner/Alternate breaks is not the only variable differentiating the US Open from other tournaments, however. There's also playing in his home country, winning something he's already won, etc. Not major things, but a little extra comfort might make as much difference as the break format.
I would say that he is more likely to win winner break formats because his break is so good, but that doesn't mean he is worse in alternate break--alternate break is just more chance-y on the whole, and even the elite players need luck to succeed.
Oh no, you said the word that is not to be mentioned on AzBilliards.
I don't think it's a matter of preference, nor one of SVB's psychology.
He's one of the best in the world, knowing how to handle pressure as good as any top player.
No matter how good someone is though, he can't handle the chances offered by breaking format. Being either #1 ranked or #500 you get the same max. run in a match, 1 frame..
And when #500 gets a lead in alternate break format, even #1 has a hard time coming back due to the momentum build, a fictitious one considering the real difference between the two players.
That's not good for the game, and if it wasn't for the US open Pool whould lack one of its current idols, necessary for its overall image, contrary to world champions getting beaten all the time in tournaments by guys they wouldn't have trouble beating in winner break format.
The picture is right there in front of our eyes: it's time to go back to winner break format in most major international events, every sport needs their best protected in order to provide constant motivation to the young, like it used to be. Otherwise it won't be long before the current "euphoria" reverses to less and less young players trying to reach top goals, only to get beaten all the time by inferior players.
Unless they are phenomenal besides world champions...
This is exactly what Bob disproved in his analysis. In determining the odds of a player winning the match, alternate vs. winner breaks is irrelevant so long as they play the "same" under each format (i.e. the same odds of winning a rack they break and the same odds of winning a rack their opponent breaks). In alternate break formats, the matches will be longer and scores will be closer, but the win percentages would be the same.
However, I believe the break format does have a significant psychological effect on the players. Stringing together racks does help you get "in stroke", and sitting while your opponent runs out is disheartening. Ironically, once your opponent gets ahead in an alternate break format, getting back into the match may actually be impossible (if they run out on their breaks). The winner breaks format is just more efficient; if your opponent is running out left and right, you might as well get it over with.
Ultimately, I think it's just a personal preference. Take it to the extreme and ask yourself this: If my opponent wins the lag and is going to run out every rack he breaks (meaning I don't have a chance to win in either format), would I rather sit and watch them run out the set or have the opportunity to play every other rack just so I can try to make the score close?
Hi Bob, this made me think of another interesting scenario that you could plug into your spreadsheet (if you haven't already): Player A is favored to win on either player's break, but less favored on their own break (the break is a disadvantage). In that case, I think the alternate break format should actually be more efficient, in terms of games played.
I think there's a mathematical case for winner breaks favoring the better player,
that doesn't have anything to do with momentum or other intangibles.
In winner breaks, one player will get more opportunities to break and run,
if he has any kind of skill edge. In other words, if he's a 10% favorite over the other guy,
he will get to attempt (not succeed but at least attempt) a break and run
10% more often than the other guy will.
Break and runs can't be treated with the same odds as normal games.
The are completely unaffected by the skill level of the seated player.
That player's skill level only matters in contested racks where both players
get to the table.
So first, you have your break and run odds (whatever those might be... 20%ish),
then after a failed break and run, the outcome of that game reverts to the usual 55-45 odds.
In alt. breaks, both players get an equal number of chances to break and run.
In winner breaks, the better players gets a handful of extra "free rolls" at break and run,
in addition to his 10% edge when both players come to the table to shoot.
I'll take Bob's word for it that it washes out. But even if that is true, I still think I prefer winner breaks (with harder break rules like at the US Open this year). I think you'll get more blow-outs and come-backs which is more interesting to watch. If you're down 10-4 in alternate break, it's hard to have a any hope. But if it's winner break, it's pretty exciting to watch the package and the come-back.
Exactly. Winner break format gives the better player the chance of performing, while alternate break format gives the weaker player the chance to keep up.
Speaking of "psychology" issues, which do play a major role, how does any good player feel before a match with SVB knowing it's alternate break, compared to what he would feel knowing it's winner break?.. Certainly not the same, and that is not connected only to "psychology" issues, but also -mainly- to the real overall chances one gets in each format, something which doesn't seem to be covered by any analysis up to now.
The possibility of a break and run is already accounted for in a player's probability of winning a rack on their break. For example, if a player has a break and run average of 20%, and they win 50% of the racks the break but don't run out, their odds of winning a rack on their break would be .2 + (.8 * .5) = 60%. For the purpose of calculating the probability of a player winning the set, how a they win each game is irrelevant, whether it's a break and run, 3-foul, getting BIH on the 9, etc.
The difference that you note, the winner breaks format allowing the winner more chances to BnR, is part of the reason that winner breaks can result in more one-sided match scores than alternate break. That all just depends on whether the break is actually an advantage for a player (including the BnR possibility); going back to some of the stats Bob mentioned earlier, it sounds like there is some evidence that isn't always the case.
No question about that. Winner breaks is way more exciting, and I think that getting people to understand that the two formats are equivalent if all you care about is who wins should be enough to convince everyone that pro tournaments should all be winner breaks.
There is no other game where the better player gets punished for performing better, at least not to such an extent like in Pool nowadays. Of course better players (or best performing on a specific match) may turn matches into "one sided", the Pool world should stop feeling guilty about it.
Having done the math, I think there is not. The spreadsheet is available if you want to try it.
The fact remains: put a dominating player like SVB on continuous break international events, he mostly wins. Put him on alternate break similar events, he mostly doesn't.
Numbers is only one part of any analysis. Direction of data used and overall interpretation is another.
Change of break format is an objective factor. Focus on specific data and bypassing this objective factor, in order to estimate things for e.g. by using a non objective factor such as "psychology" is a totally different story.
Numbers is only one part of any analysis. Direction of data used and overall interpretation is another.
Change of break format is an objective factor. Focus on specific data and bypassing this objective factor, in order to estimate things for e.g. by using a non objective factor such as "psychology" is a totally different story.
Last edited:
If the races are the same length (non-handicapped) and SVB is losing matches in alternate breaks that he would win in winner breaks, the only objective conclusion you can really draw is that Shane is playing worse and/or his opponents are playing better.
Interpret that however you like: psychology, stamina, whatever...
My interpretation is in alternate breaks things are equalized downwards, that's it.
Imagine Mosconi having to play ball in hand maximum runs of 1 rack of Straight Pool, then his opponents getting the same chance. Today, instead of having a Mosconi cup we would probably have "Nobody's cup", if any cup at all..
Well, why don't we split frames too then? Maximum runs of two balls, then it's the other guy's turn, cause "it's not fair a player gets to run a whole frame without the opponent having a chance to play" isn't it?..
Then statistical analysis will determine "chances are equal with either "continuous frame" or "alternate frame" and we keep going, see where that leads, if not boring Pool fans to death...
It sounds like you didn't read my previous posts, so let me restate:
- Mathematically, alternate breaks and winner breaks formats will produce the same match win percentages if the players play equally well in either format.
- Since the winner breaks format is more exciting for spectators, pro events should be played using winner breaks.
- Alternate breaks might be okay for amateur tournaments if they encourage participation, but can be frustrating if your opponent gets ahead since a comeback depends on winning racks that your opponent breaks.
Based on your replies, I think you agree with my second point. However, you also imply that alternate breaks give the lesser player a better chance of winning a match, which is mathematically false. If the outcome of a match is different under the two formats, it is because the players are playing differently, i.e. their probabilities of winning a particular rack are being influenced by the break format.
I just don't agree with the interpretation of "mathematically equal" chances because breaking down data to singular ones and comparing them between them does not necessarily lead to an absolute overall estimation.
Different format=different possibilities, so it's not that easy to compare.
Individual % may be the same, but assuming that nothing else is to be considered is subjective. Data interconnection requires multiple calculations and long term study of samples.
Up to now what we do see (and not assume) is: individual data %, and at the same time a dominating player like SVB winning international events in one format. Then we gave subjective factors trying to explain why this happens (like "psychology"), while the picture is in front of us: it's the format, and all pinpoint analysis does not cover the whole subject.
In the end, if we insist that "format doesn't matter", then why was it changed in first place?... To make fans bored?... We all know why it was changed: to increase participations by bringing down the better players to the ones that can't perform as well. That was good when it was applied, but in long term it damages severely the sport since even if you win world championships you go on unprotected in tournaments, something which eventually will decrease interest in the youth about Pool.
Last edited:
If player A better than player B, that (in part) means he runs out more frequently. But the unique thing about a break and run is that the seated player's skill level is irrelevant. That's what wrecks the math for expected win rate when you change the format from alt. break to winner breaks.
Let's say the skill level difference is 99% vs. 1% - one guy has a 99% chance to run out,
the other has a 1% chance, and in games where both player get to shoot, the better player is still a 99-1 favorite to win that rack.
If they play alternate breaks the expected score is 99-1, with each player getting 50 attempts to make their expected win rate a reality.
In winner breaks, the 99% guy DENIES the worse player 49 out of his 50 break attempts. So he doesn't get 50 shots at running out 1% of the time. He only gets one shot to get his miracle runout. Meanwhile the better player gets an extra 49 shots at running out 99% of the time.
This means the expected score is no longer 99-1, it's 99.something to 0.something.
The old statistic of the breaker only winning 49% of the time came from many years ago before everyone mastered the 9b break and we got racking templates. Now, it's unquestionably an advantage, and gives a 4-5% edge for good pros, and maybe 15% edge for world class pros.
I think that only the top five players that AtLarge listed in the 2016 US Open 9-Ball had "win-from-break" percentages higher than 50%. The overall average of the matches scored was 55%, pulled up by the top five.
So, for most pro players it is not yet much -- if any -- advantage.