No, he's still amazing. See my example of free throws vs 3 pointers. Steps Curry is still the best shooter. You've just got a much better shot going toe to toe at the free throw line. Not that he will do worse but you will do better.
7ft vs 9ft Stats
- Thread starter BeiberLvr
- Start date
No, he's still amazing. See my example of free throws vs 3 pointers. Steps Curry is still the best shooter. You've just got a much better shot going toe to toe at the free throw line. Not that he will do worse but you will do better.
If you accept the OP'er proposition, then Snooker is the King of all games, because of the size of the table. Personally, I like all games regardless of the table size. Your opponent is playing on the same size table as you, but it's just that smaller tables are less forgiving.
There were a lot of very good players competing in both these events and we saw some excellent pool being played. I enjoy watching good Pool wherever its played, 9-Ball, Ten Ball, Eight Ball, One Pocket, Banks, even Chinese Eight Ball. 7', 8', 9', 10', 12', Billiards or Snooker, different skills are required. Shane proved once again why he is one of the worlds best players and he won $21,000 in the process, not too shabby imo. He is a complete player, a notch above the rest in the U.S.
Maybe the problem is really that races on bar tables should be longer, 2 more games or something. Can we agree that the better player will usually win the longer race, regardless of equipment? I like 7' tables for the sheer fact that it's what 90+% of people in the US play pool on. League players and causal fans (the 90+%) can relate to the same size table, and can really relate to the game of 8 ball. As long as we find a way that the winner still consistently reflects the better player, we're good, no?
I see what you're saying, but again, take Golf by way of analogy.
The average golfer has no idea how difficult the courses played by the pros are compared to their local course. At least another 1000 yards of distance, tight fairways, brutally punitive rough, water and bunkers near every landing zone, etc.
I'm not sure I want to see pro's play the white tees at a local club and everybody shoot 61 every round. Yes we'd be able to relate to it more, maybe even have a better appreciation for the difference between us and them, but they're pros for a reason. They should be playing on the most difficult courses available.
I really think that at the professional level, barbox events should clearly be named as such, and treated a little separately (ex. giving mosconi cup points for an 8 ball barbox event is questionable). When it comes to rotation games at least, I think they should always be on bigger tables.
And I agree with you that barbox events should have longer races. If you watch the USBTC, a guy can play flawless 8 ball and still lose the match just because he lost the lag. That is not fair at the professional level.
Because he's that good. How did he lose his first round match to a relative unknown? Same game and race length...would it happen on a 9 footer? I suspect not.
I think there is not
There are more runouts on the 7' table, but I don't think the concept of a horizon that a player reaches is a useful one here
gotcha
still with you
The closer Shane gets to 100%, the more advantage he realizes from smaller changes in his his runout percentage. This concept of a "horizon" goes away if instead of looking at this percentage directly, you look at the impact of this percentage on the run length. So a player who runs out 90% of the time has a 50% chance of running 6 (.9 * .9 * .9 * .9 * .9). This expected run length, [log(.5)/log(.9)] here, does not rise linearly with the runout percentage. Shane and Corey will maintain the same ratio of expected run lengths.
For the record, I agree with you. I almost jumped on a champion the other day and I would have wanted to play him on the barbox because I feel like I have a better chance to beat him there. I just miss too many shots on the big table that he doesn't and I make almost as many shots on the bar table that he does... So even though my odds of beating him are poor on either table, I felt it would be closer and more fun on a barbox.
It's not fun when you rattle open shots etc...
However, it is really odd to me that bar table, big table, 10' table, 9-ball, 10-ball - the better players still win and their win % are about the same.
Shane lost first game to someone he wouldn't have lost to on a big table. Maybe. I saw Jason Williams beat a bunch of people on a big table that he wasn't "supposed" to a few weeks ago.
And then Shane won 9 or 10 matches in a row to win the tournament. If it was easier for those players to beat him on a barbox, how did he win 10 in a row?
The other side of the 'easy' thing is this: When I watch the pros play on tight pocket 9' tables. They miss a lot of shots that *I* would make on a bar table. And they would never miss on a BB. Even the Pagulayan/Orcullo matches at Hard Times and California Billiards Club. In rotation pool, a lot of good things can happen when a player gets to the table after an unforced error, even if the table is tight.
I like the Fargo system and I'm willing to wait and see where this shakes out. I'm willing to be shown that my perception is incorrect and that I have the same chance to beat a player 100 points better than I am on either table.
It's true (and unfortunately so) that the majority of amateur pool in the US is played on 7' tables. But this move from professional tables was borne out of a money and space issue, not due to a skill issue.
Imagine other pro sports went broke and decided to downsize. If football fields shrunk from 100 yards to 75 yards. If basepaths moved from 90 feet to 70 feet. If basketball hoops lowered from 10' to 8'.
All of these standards have been historically set because they are the delineative line that separates the wheat from the chaff. Like the professional 9' table, anything less is not an elite test of ability deserving of the most skillful practitioners of our game.
Here is what makes it challenging for the naysayers and people on the fence.
You are unable to see all the data. Mike is able to pull games and matches out to prove what he says is true. He has done this many times and posted it for various things.
The only time we are able to see every game a person has played is with ourselves.
We only get to see part of the whole story.
Are you a soldier or a scout
https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_gal...t_even_if_you_re_wrong/transcript?language=en
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are unable to see all the data. Mike is able to pull games and matches out to prove what he says is true. He has done this many times and posted it for various things.
The only time we are able to see every game a person has played is with ourselves.
We only get to see part of the whole story.
Are you a soldier or a scout
https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_gal...t_even_if_you_re_wrong/transcript?language=en
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Absolutely. Thing is, Fargo isn't about winning a match, it's about how many games in that match did you win. So yes, in a perfect world that would mean longer races but pool is a total shit show and all tournaments have different formats... because we all know, if you don't like it, you gotta create your own tournament!
Relative unkown? He's #55 player in the country according to Fargorate. Just because YOU don't know him doesn't make him an unknown. People rated below Taylor Anderson on that list are -
Jeremy Jones
Ike Runnels
Jesse Bowman
Toby Robles
...and a bunch of other "unknowns"
No one wins them all. Shane can and will get beat by other good players...reagardless of table size.
Thanks for that, Robert -- soldier mindset (motivated reasoning) vs. scout mindset.
The interesting thing I find is that 'harder' doesn't necessarily result in better competition. 10 ball on a very tight and difficult table can lend itself to a few more upsets because it forces more misses on the 5, 6 or 7 balls leaving an opponent an easy out. I've watched a lot of matches on tight tables where the match was decided by late rack mistakes and not nearly as much by the opponents performance.
But at the same time, a top player can tear through that same field if they get in the zone while the rest are struggling to find their stride. I remember a tournament where Dennis Orcullo was playing the tight tables like they had buckets, but everyone else was struggling. It might have been a hardtimes event I think.
Where the 7-foot table can have an advantage is the ease of the table results in fewer late rack misses. But you will still see upsets since I believe the percentage of runouts for 700-730 level players (I'm guessing at the ratings) increases such that they hold their serve more than they might on a 9 foot table (higher BNR, higher run out percentage). I wonder what effect a winner breaks race to 11 format would have? I can see Shane and other top players stringing a lot more racks together. And although players under 700 may be able to put together some packages, I can't imagine they'd be able to keep up with the fire power of top players.
In my opinion, you see more consistent results in 8 ball, 9 ball and 10 ball when the games have a higher run out percentage. The bane of consistency for these games seems to be the late to mid rack mistakes which gifts free games to their opponents. But if it's too easy then boosts lower players, and I'm not certain it's necessarily an equal boost for top players and lower rated players. My reasoning is simply top players don't miss much on 9 foot tables, so they aren't getting the same kind of benefit as slightly lower rated players. Top players will mostly get stopped by positional errors. I'm not sure if that makes sense and I don't have any data to support that.
Just some thoughts I've been considering recently. I prefer 9 foot tables, but this is my attempt at explaining Shane's performance and consistency.
Last edited:
Why do you assume I don't know who he is? Note my original comment of relative unknown. I don't want to disrespect the man but he finished 25th in a 50 man field. I bet you SVB would like that one back and Taylor beating Shane is on his bucket list. I suspect on a 9 footer his chances would have been 3x of that on a BB.
Every tournament has upsets. On a BB it's just easier to do. Just like if all events were race to 3.
For the record--and this is the subtlety I've been trying to explain--I DO NOT SAY you have the same chance of beating someone 100 points ahead of you on either size table. If you are are run-out-level players, then you likely will have a higher chance to win a set of a given length on the easier table.
What I DO SAY is your ratio of wins will be about 2 to 1 in the long haul on either table. So in a race to 100, you will lose about 100 to 50 on either table.
To many, these sound like a contradiction. But they are not. And this is what we call the "run length" issue.
This is not an easy issue for people to understand. So let me try another example. Suppose we find a pro that SVB beats at a 2-to-1 ratio playing rotation on a 9' table. Hunter Lombardo is an example.
Hunter has a pretty small chance of beating Shane in a race to 15 on a tough table, even though in the long haul he will average 7 or 8 in each match.
Now we are interested in what happens when we switch to a situation where they both run out more. Instead of switching to a smaller table or a table with bigger pockets, let's do an extreme version of this switch. let's switch to straight pool, where we consider each point to be a game. Now even an average league player is capable of running a "6-pack." What happens?
In the long haul, Shane still beats Hunter at a 2-to-1 ratio, as in 1000 to 500, etc. But in a race to 15, Hunter has a WAY higher chance of winning a "set." I even have a chance of beating Shane in a race to 15 in straight pool.
This can be true even though in the long haul I'm going to get to 200 when he gets to 1000 whether we're playing straight pool, rotation on a 9' table, or 8-ball on a 7' table.