5 SVB US open titles - 5 points

[Bob Jewett]

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. ....

If in a match between A and B you know the percentage of time that A is likely to win from his break and the percentage of time that B is likely to win from his break (and the lagging percentages), you have all the information needed to predict how likely each possible match score is for either break format.

Would you agree with that?

 

[Petros Andrikop]

If in a match between A and B you know the percentage of time that A is likely to win from his break and the percentage of time that B is likely to win from his break (and the lagging percentages), you have all the information needed to predict how likely each possible match score is for either break format.

Would you agree with that?

Absolutely not, we can't consider data under different conditions as absolutely "equal".
In one format one of the players (the better one) gets to perform his maximum, which compared to the opponent's (the weaker one or performing less one on that match) maximum is significantly different.
One player is able to run for e.g. five racks, while the other has never ran more than one, or does not play as good on that day.
So if the weaker player (or less playing good) gets to perform his maximum (much easier) he has chances of winning against a better player (or better playing) only because of the format.
It's simply not the same.

 

[Matt]

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 objective.

The only assumption that is needed to prove the equality of the formats is that the odds of player A beating player B in a particular rack only varies depending on who breaks. If you are suggesting that something about the match format changes those odds, I'm just curious to know what it is. Everything I can think of points to players' psychology and stamina: the number of games played so far, the winner of the previous rack, the current score of the match, etc.

If a player A is more likely to beat player B in a particular format, it is because player A actually plays better and/or player B plays worse, not because of any "equalizing" effect of that format. It may seem like the format has an effect because they will produce different match scores, but the overall odds of a particular player winning do not change.

For a simple example, both players playing perfectly (all BnRs) results in the lag winner winning 7-0 in the winner breaks format and winning 7-6 in alternate breaks. If the lag winner misses 1 ball during the match, the lag loser will win 7-6 in alternate breaks and 7-<# of racks run before the miss> in winner breaks. In both cases, the winner of the match is consistent, but the final score differs.

The reason I find all this so interesting is not so much because of the statistical equality of the formats, but because of the psychological effects of the format on the players.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

The only assumption that is needed to prove the equality of the formats is that the odds of player A beating player B in a particular rack only varies depending on who breaks. If you are suggesting that something about the match format changes those odds, I'm just curious to know what it is. Everything I can think of points to players' psychology and stamina: the number of games played so far, the winner of the previous rack, the current score of the match, etc.

If a player A is more likely to beat player B in a particular format, it is because player A actually plays better and/or player B plays worse, not because of any "equalizing" effect of that format. It may seem like the format has an effect because they will produce different match scores, but the overall odds of a particular player winning do not change.

For a simple example, both players playing perfectly (all BnRs) results in the lag winner winning 7-0 in the winner breaks format and winning 7-6 in alternate breaks. If the lag winner misses 1 ball during the match, the lag loser will win 7-6 in alternate breaks and 7-<# of racks run before the miss> in winner breaks. In both cases, the winner of the match is consistent, but the final score differs.

The reason I find all this so interesting is not so much because of the statistical equality of the formats, but because of the psychological effects of the format on the players.

I kindly disagree with the basis of this "side" on the issue.
For me, limiting runs does equalize things, and isolating data does not "equalize" conditions, especially not taking into consideration the synergistic effects taking place in one of the formats and not in the other.
Besides that, winning a whole set from the lag is rare, and in today's racking limitation almost impossible.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Absolutely not, we can't consider data under different conditions as absolutely "equal".
...

So you're saying that if a player approaches the table to break under one format his chance of winning that single game is different from when he approaches the table under the other format.

That's a very, very remarkable idea. I think it is unsupported by data.

 

[Matt]

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 numbers are a slightly off, but your logic is correct: the different formats will yield different expected match scores. What Bob and I are saying is that the probability of winning the match is the same between the two formats.

When we are talking about a players odds of winning a particular rack, that includes the possibility of a break and run. For example, on my break, if I break and run half the time and win half the games where I don't, my chances of winning on my break are 50% BnR + (50% non-BnR * 50%) = 75%.

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.

Sure, but those are elite players playing 9-ball under ideal conditions. The break matters less and less as you go down through the ranks and even less if you switch to 10-ball or modify the break rules. In any case, Bob's spreadsheet accounts for a break advantage/disadvantage.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

So you're saying that if a player approaches the table to break under one format his chance of winning that single game is different from when he approaches the table under the other format.

That's a very, very remarkable idea. I think it is unsupported by data.

I never implied that. When a player approaches the table in one format he is able to approach the table again, unlike in the other format. This leads to synergy effects which are not covered by individual data. Some players are better than others, able to run packs, while other's can't or can't on that day.
Individual data are not all that matters in any analysis in order to have an overall interpretation.

 

[Matt]

I never implied that. When a player approaches the table in one format he is able to approach the table again, unlike in the other format. This leads to synergy effects which are not covered by individual data. Some players are better than others, able to run packs, while other's can't or can't on that day.
Individual data are not all that matters in any analysis in order to have an overall interpretation.

I don't understand what you mean by "synergy" in this context. If you're talking about players getting "in stroke" or "going cold", those are the kind of psychological effects that could cause the outcome of a previous rack to affect the current one. If you're talking about the fact that a winner breaks format tends to result in more lopsided match scores (assuming breaking is an advantage), that's also true. The only point here is that there is nothing inherent to the format that changes the odds of a player winning the match.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

I don't understand what you mean by "synergy" in this context. If you're talking about players getting "in stroke" or "going cold", those are the kind of psychological effects that could cause the outcome of a previous rack to affect the current one. If you're talking about the fact that a winner breaks format tends to result in more lopsided match scores (assuming breaking is an advantage), that's also true. The only point here is that there is nothing inherent to the format that changes the odds of a player winning the match.

I apologize for my language limitations, certainly doesn't help me forwarding my point of view. Synergy effects arrive from individual factors combined. When a player is given the opportunity to run packs, he is doing something that the opponent is not able to do, either in general or on that day. So he does something that the format allows him to do, thus the format does play a part for a number of reasons.
By altering the conditions, those extra factors are taken out and the differences in performance capacity of each player is covered, at least in terms of being able to run packs.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... This leads to synergy effects which are not covered by individual data. ...

Surely there are possible psychological effects. I wasn't talking about them. For more information on streaky play in sports, see this Wikipedia article about the "Hot Hands Effect."

If such an effect is real in pool, I suppose it can be measured, but as the back-and-forth results in basketball have shown, it is not easy to measure it.

 

[Matt]

I apologize for my language limitations, certainly doesn't help me forwarding my point of view. Synergy effects arrive from individual factors combined. When a player is given the opportunity to run packs, he is doing something that the opponent is not able to do, either in general or on that day. So he does something that the format allows him to do, thus the format does play a part for a number of reasons.
By altering the conditions, those extra factors are taken out and the differences in performance capacity of each player is covered, at least in terms of being able to run packs.

No worries about the language limitations. I appreciate you sticking to the discussion as we try to understand what each other is saying.

Any player that is capable of running a rack is capable of running a package, especially if you disregard nerves. Likewise, any player that is capable of running a rack is capable of running non-consecutive racks and playing (or sitting) through an intermediate rack that their opponent breaks. Running out an entire set in the winner breaks format and running all of the racks you break in alternate break format are equally probably feats and both are equally effective in winning the match. The final scores may differ depending on what happens on those intermediate racks, but the win percentage is identical.

Which one of those matches is more enjoyable to watch? Seeing someone run a package is impressive, but trading racks to go hill-hill can also be enticing. Personally, I prefer to watch winner breaks matches, but would be happy to play either format knowing that my odds of winning are the same.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

No worries about the language limitations. I appreciate you sticking to the discussion as we try to understand what each other is saying.

Any player that is capable of running a rack is capable of running a package, especially if you disregard nerves. Likewise, any player that is capable of running a rack is capable of running non-consecutive racks and playing (or sitting) through an intermediate rack that their opponent breaks. Running out an entire set in the winner breaks format and running all of the racks you break in alternate break format are equally probably feats and both are equally effective in winning the match. The final scores may differ depending on what happens on those intermediate racks, but the win percentage is identical.

Which one of those matches is more enjoyable to watch? Seeing someone run a package is impressive, but trading racks to go hill-hill can also be enticing. Personally, I prefer to watch winner breaks matches, but would be happy to play either format knowing that my odds of winning are the same.

The thing is there are players capable of running 5 consecutive racks quite consistently and players capable of running max. 2 consecutive racks every now and then. Alternate break clearly favors the second, giving them a chance to compete equally with less power while they should be covering the distance instead. Running a pack is not just a matter of breaking, and by not giving this chance to the ones who can do it you bring them down to the ones that can't.

 

[Matt]

The thing is there are players capable of running 5 consecutive racks quite consistently and players capable of running max. 2 consecutive racks every now and then. Alternate break clearly favors the second, giving them a chance to compete equally with less power while they should be covering the distance instead. Running a pack is not just a matter of breaking, and by not giving this chance to the ones who can do it you bring them down to the ones that can't.

Any player that can run 5 consecutive racks in winner breaks should have the same probability to run the 5 alternate racks they break in alternate break. The two feats are exactly equal in determining the winner of of the match. 5 points is 5 points regardless of whether there are other racks played in between.

I really don't know how else to put this...I guess you could look at Bob's spreadsheet again and tell me which calculation you disagree with.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Any player that can run 5 consecutive racks in winner breaks should have the same probability to run the 5 alternate racks they break in alternate break. The two feats are exactly equal in determining the winner of of the match. 5 points is 5 points regardless of whether there are other racks played in between.

I really don't know how else to put this...I guess you could look at Bob's spreadsheet again and tell me which calculation you disagree with.

If we are looking at individual data all looks fine, but as I stated that's only part of the picture. If you reverse your argument, the opponent which can't run five racks would have no problem playing the player who can in continuous break, would he?
But of course he would, because he simply won't be able to keep up with his opponent's higher pace, something which is not covered in that analysis.
That's why the alternate break was brought up, to equalize things downwards.
Otherwise, if "it's all the same" why was the format changed in the first place? That's a question I already placed with no answer so far, among others like what would happen if similar limitations were applied in Straight Pool?..

 

[Matt]

If we are looking at individual data all looks fine, but as I stated that's only part of the picture. If you reverse your argument, the opponent which can't run five racks would have no problem playing the player who can in continuous break, would he?

Statistically, a player who occasionally strings together 2 racks is going to have just as much trouble beating a player that is expected to break and run a 5 pack in either format. They may have closer match scores, but they will lose just as often.

But of course he would, because he simply won't be able to keep up with his opponent's higher pace, something which is not covered in that analysis.
That's why the alternate break was brought up, to equalize things downwards.
Otherwise, if "it's all the same" why was the format changed in the first place? That's a question I already placed with no answer so far, among others like what would happen if similar limitations were applied in Straight Pool?..

I don't know why the format was changed, but I would speculate that it has something to do with creating matches that seem closer even if the loser never really has a chance. Part of the game of straight pool is setting up the break ball for the next rack, so I don't know of any way you could preserve that and make each rack independent. For other games, the table resets to the same state between racks, so they can be easily isolated. Also, scoring in straight pool is by the ball, not by the rack, so it's not really a "winner break" format anyhow. In any case, I prefer winner breaks in 9 and 10 ball, so the point of showing that the formats are equivalent for me is to get rid of alternate breaks in those pro events.

I do think that the alternate break is necessary for American Rotation since it's scored by the ball. For one pocket, the alternate break is technically unnecessary (if you lose the lag, you have to break your opponent's serve at least once to win a set in either format), but I think the game is more interesting if the players alternate turns getting out of the break.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Statistically, a player who occasionally strings together 2 racks is going to have just as much trouble beating a player that is expected to break and run a 5 pack in either format. They may have closer match scores, but they will lose just as often.

I don't know why the format was changed, but I would speculate that it has something to do with creating matches that seem closer even if the loser never really has a chance. Part of the game of straight pool is setting up the break ball for the next rack, so I don't know of any way you could preserve that and make each rack independent. For other games, the table resets to the same state between racks, so they can be easily isolated. Also, scoring in straight pool is by the ball, not by the rack, so it's not really a "winner break" format anyhow. In any case, I prefer winner breaks in 9 and 10 ball, so the point of showing that the formats are equivalent for me is to get rid of alternate breaks in those pro events.

I do think that the alternate break is necessary for American Rotation since it's scored by the ball. For one pocket, the alternate break is technically unnecessary (if you lose the lag, you have to break your opponent's serve at least once to win a set in either format), but I think the game is more interesting if the players alternate turns getting out of the break.

It was changed to narrow the gap between the best and the rest, simple as that.
It started in Europe after years of the "usual suspects" winning most of the tournaments, and decline of participations due to that (together with too uneven distribution of prize money).
Participations were increased again, because results changed, because the format changed.
That was necessary for the game back then, and it is good in today's fictitious reality where it's "everybody's game" now.
I may be wrong, but I predict that in long terms the damage to the sport will eventually become irreversible due to lack of protection for the best players, meaning the most talented and hard working.
You had to build the capacity of running packs under real pressure against a better player, you had to earn every chance, now you make an unforced error and you are still at the table breaking the next frame, you do not have to be as good and hard working in today's game.
Alternate break may be convenient, but any sport lacking enough distinction between "boys" and "men" is merely surviving than advancing.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I may be wrong

you are.

you've been shown that you are.

yet, we're still here.

 

[justaplayer]

It was changed to narrow the gap between the best and the rest, simple as that.
It started in Europe after years of the "usual suspects" winning most of the tournaments, and decline of participations due to that (together with too uneven distribution of prize money).
Participations were increased again, because results changed, because the format changed.
That was necessary for the game back then, and it is good in today's fictitious reality where it's "everybody's game" now.
I may be wrong, but I predict that in long terms the damage to the sport will eventually become irreversible due to lack of protection for the best players, meaning the most talented and hard working.
You had to build the capacity of running packs under real pressure against a better player, you had to earn every chance, now you make an unforced error and you are still at the table breaking the next frame, you do not have to be as good and hard working in today's game.
Alternate break may be convenient, but any sport lacking enough distinction between "boys" and "men" is merely surviving than advancing.

I gotta agree with this. Only a few players win the majority of the cash. Always will be that way.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

you are.

you've been shown that you are.

yet, we're still here.

Please don't be so absolute, I only offered a prediction about the future, and nobody knows the future.

For me, the future of the game with the talented and hard working unprotected is not very promising, unless the goal is to eliminate the sport side of it and leave it with a casino type of form where "everybody gets to win"...

Besides, alternate break is so boring that finding anyone these days watching a whole match - even among players - is kind of looking for a needle in a haystack. That's not promising for the fans department too.

But why should there be any fans, when a fan is able to beat even a world champion from time to time, due to a format which should be accepted as "the same" (by focus on individual data only), without a clear explanation of why was a format change done in the first place since "it's the same-it's the same-it's the same"...

We all know the truth, but few want to accept it.

"You don't have the talent, and you don't want to put up the hard work to reach in performance players like SVB? No worries, we'll arrange the format so you get a chance"...

This may be good for survival of Pool in short terms, but what about what's coming after that...

 

[BeiberLvr]

Please don't be so absolute, I only offered a prediction about the future, and nobody knows the future.

For me, the future of the game with the talented and hard working unprotected is not very promising, unless the goal is to eliminate the sport side of it and leave it with a casino type of form where "everybody gets to win"...

Besides, alternate break is so boring that finding anyone these days watching a whole match - even among players - is kind of looking for a needle in a haystack. That's not promising for the fans department too.

But why should there be any fans, when a fan is able to beat even a world champion from time to time, due to a format which should be accepted as "the same" (by focus on individual data only), without a clear explanation of why was a format change done in the first place since "it's the same-it's the same-it's the same"...

We all know the truth, but few want to accept it.

"You don't have the talent, and you don't want to put up the hard work to reach in performance players like SVB? No worries, we'll arrange the format so you get a chance"...

This may be good for survival of Pool in short terms, but what about what's coming after that...

In real sports, the team that scores doesn't get to keep the ball after scoring. This is to promote back and forth between the teams. But like pool, the weaker team doesn't always score when it has the ball, and the better team still wins more often. Now sometimes the better team doesn't score as often as usual, and the weaker team can squeak out a win.

Alternate break was designed to give each player an equal opportunity. But what you are not understanding, and the math proves, is that equal opportunity doesn't necessarily equate to equal chance.