8 Ball poll...open after the break or you are what you make?

[Cornerman]

No. It's really very simple. After the break, it's very common to see one group be very runnable and the other group in clusters. If a ball has been pocketed, the shooter should have the right to choose the group that will give him the best opportunity to win. I don't see how a pushout will change any of this. If anything, it would only make the rules more complicated.

I'm not questioning whether or not you should have an open after the break. Personally, I favor open after tha break, but it's a huge advantage. I'm simply suggesting a way to make "take what you make" a more palatable option since it's pretty unfair to begin with.

So, my thought was that if you had to take what you made, how could you neutralize that "disadvantage" if the balls didn't lay well for the breaker? A pushout option seems like a good idea. That is, a stroke that allows you to rearrange the furniture, allows any type of shot without it being a foul, but the opponent has the right to shoot or pass. It would make the first inning a mover's game if the break didn't cooperate. It would be an interesting thing to try out to see if there's anything possitive out of it.

Fred

 

[Andrew Manning]

The rules change because of game evolution, when the majority make a conscious decision that the rules in effect need changing. That's why even 9-ball has gone through several changes, each one necessitating a further change to make things... "fair."

IMO, it's clear that "take what you make" in 8-ball is grossly unfair. That being said, open after the break may be too much of an advantage. So, further tweaking of the rules is probably necessary if we're going to give 8-ball the respect it deserves.

Without evolving the game through rule changes and such, we'd still be playing it on the lawn with mallets.

Fred

Very true.

So along that line, I agree that open after the break makes the break a REALLY big advantage. Tennis is another game where in every game, one player has a huge advantage, namely the serve. They solve this by alternating service games, and playing multiple races (sets). I kind of like this idea; what if you played 8-ball with a tennis format? A match could be best two out of three sets (a rack of 8-ball usually takes longer than a game of tennis, so you probably wouldn't want to go with a 5 set match). A set could be a race to 6, have to win by 2, with some sort of tie-break if it goes 6-6.

The only thing I really wouldn't like about this is that one player often has a lot more luck pocketing balls on the break than the other, and I'm not sure I would want my matches to be decided by whether or not I was getting good or bad rolls on the break. Perhaps you could have the breaker keep shooting after the break, with an open table, whether or not balls drop? A scratch would give the table to the non-breaker. This de-emphasizes the break shot itself, putting the focus on getting a good spread and controlling the cue ball, rather than being at the mercy of whether the balls want to drop.

So if a player failed to run out from their open table that they spread themselves, then a possible "break of serve" is in play. Matches would basically be decided by these racks, and safety play by the player who can't run out becomes extremely important, because if they give up a rack on their break, they have to win at least one back from the other player to have a chance in the set.

Any thoughts?

-Andrew

 

[SanDiegoFan]

The entire game can be determined by the choice of solids or stripes. If the breaker is forced to accept the one he makes on the break, it nullifies the advantage of the break almost entirely.

A very thoughtful post.

SDF

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I'm not questioning whether or not you should have an open after the break. Personally, I favor open after tha break, but it's a huge advantage. I'm simply suggesting a way to make "take what you make" a more palatable option since it's pretty unfair to begin with.

So, my thought was that if you had to take what you made, how could you neutralize that "disadvantage" if the balls didn't lay well for the breaker? A pushout option seems like a good idea. That is, a stroke that allows you to rearrange the furniture, allows any type of shot without it being a foul, but the opponent has the right to shoot or pass. It would make the first inning a mover's game if the break didn't cooperate. It would be an interesting thing to try out to see if there's anything possitive out of it.

Fred

What I mean is, I don't see how a push will make things much different. I slam the rack, almost always get a good spread and pocket a ball or two. If I'm forced into taking a group that's clustered, I'm screwed. The push isn't going to help. My opponent is going to have 7 solids to choose from and he's likely going to be able to see one of them. If I don't get out, he will.

The only thing you can do to minimize the problem is to allow slop to count. That way, when I break, make a stripe and I'm forced to take that group, I can take a wild whack at the cluster I can't get to. I mean, if you're going to make the game silly, might as well make it silly all around. Hey, why not just refer to APA rule book?

 

[socks]

What I mean is, I don't see how a push will make things much different. I slam the rack, almost always get a good spread and pocket a ball or two. If I'm forced into taking a group that's clustered, I'm screwed. The push isn't going to help. My opponent is going to have 7 solids to choose from and he's likely going to be able to see one of them. If I don't get out, he will.

The only thing you can do to minimize the problem is to allow slop to count. That way, when I break, make a stripe and I'm forced to take that group, I can take a wild whack at the cluster I can't get to. I mean, if you're going to make the game silly, might as well make it silly all around. Hey, why not just refer to APA rule book?

i think your still misinterpriting the point of the push shot. in that instance you would use your push shot to either hit into one of your balls or some of your opponents balls in order to lock up his balls and open up yours. while trying to play safe on his balls but leave shots on yours. push out shots are definatly not easy. they require lots of analitical skills as well as a good combination of offence and defense.

 

[Cornerman]

What I mean is, I don't see how a push will make things much different. I slam the rack, almost always get a good spread and pocket a ball or two. If I'm forced into taking a group that's clustered, I'm screwed. The push isn't going to help.

I think with a proper push, you could change the layout. I think this requires a little more thought and development, but I'm sure the movers and the last pocket 8-ball players see all kinds of possibilities with this.

My opponent is going to have 7 solids to choose from and he's likely going to be able to see one of them. If I don't get out, he will.

That's how standard "take what you make" is presently. So, I'd think that something like a pushout could at least possibly change that. It couldn't make things worse, but it could make "take what you make" more palatable.


Fred

 

[jsp]

Very true.

So along that line, I agree that open after the break makes the break a REALLY big advantage. Tennis is another game where in every game, one player has a huge advantage, namely the serve. They solve this by alternating service games, and playing multiple races (sets). I kind of like this idea; what if you played 8-ball with a tennis format? A match could be best two out of three sets (a rack of 8-ball usually takes longer than a game of tennis, so you probably wouldn't want to go with a 5 set match). A set could be a race to 6, have to win by 2, with some sort of tie-break if it goes 6-6.

The only thing I really wouldn't like about this is that one player often has a lot more luck pocketing balls on the break than the other, and I'm not sure I would want my matches to be decided by whether or not I was getting good or bad rolls on the break. Perhaps you could have the breaker keep shooting after the break, with an open table, whether or not balls drop? A scratch would give the table to the non-breaker. This de-emphasizes the break shot itself, putting the focus on getting a good spread and controlling the cue ball, rather than being at the mercy of whether the balls want to drop.

So if a player failed to run out from their open table that they spread themselves, then a possible "break of serve" is in play. Matches would basically be decided by these racks, and safety play by the player who can't run out becomes extremely important, because if they give up a rack on their break, they have to win at least one back from the other player to have a chance in the set.

Any thoughts?

-Andrew

This is a very good idea, an idea that was brought up by ineedaspot in a previous thread during the IPT days.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=40584&page=2

If the breaker gets to shoot whether or not he made a ball on the break, then the lag to determine who breaks first would be that much more important. In the previous thread I suggested a more challenging "lag" then the traditional up and down method.

Although this new rule would make "break and runs" significantly easier (since you don't have to worry about making a ball at the break), this would make the break and run statistics much more clear and more reflective of one's actual ability.

Man, I miss the IPT.

 

[a_susie_cue]

I have played in quite a few different league with both open after the break and your are what you make. I much prefer the open after the break myself especially for amateur leagues. IMHO, I feel the only shot an amateur player really has the least control over is the break and you should not be penalized by being snookered with no shot even when you made a ball. I'm stuck between whether or not it should be a loss of game when you scratch on the 8 but leave the 8 on the table. I guess that is another poll question for another time.

Thanks to everyone for voting and expressing their ideas. You are all awesome!

 

[CreeDo]

Open after the break.

But, I'm positive that for amateur leagues, 'you are what you make' favors the weaker player. It just means that occasionally the breaker gets screwed. Between the good player and the weaker player, who is going to be the breaker most often?

I've had to live with 'you are what you make' in our local APA league. When I play most players, I almost always have to race to 5, and it's winner breaks. So I will have at least 4 breaks and 4 chances to get screwed. The other guy doesn't have as many chances to get screwed so the rule helps him. Also, even if he's screwed after his break... well, he wasn't going to run out anyway. Even if he'd gotten a happy leave and a runnable rack he's gonna need another inning.

 

[FLICKit]

Open after the break.

But, I'm positive that for amateur leagues, 'you are what you make' favors the weaker player. It just means that occasionally the breaker gets screwed. Between the good player and the weaker player, who is going to be the breaker most often?

I've had to live with 'you are what you make' in our local APA league. When I play most players, I almost always have to race to 5, and it's winner breaks. So I will have at least 4 breaks and 4 chances to get screwed. The other guy doesn't have as many chances to get screwed so the rule helps him. Also, even if he's screwed after his break... well, he wasn't going to run out anyway. Even if he'd gotten a happy leave and a runnable rack he's gonna need another inning.

clap clap clap

Someone who considers both the pros and cons of both sides. Instead of just looking at it from a single-minded perspective...

Andrew et al. poses some interesting outside the box perspectives as well. Can't truly knock it til you try it...

I think it's kinda funny the ones who argue so adamantly for status quo all the time. For example, X rules define it this way, therefore it has to be the best. Then the organization later changes its rules. And now that the new status quo is in place, those same types of people argue that those rules are now the only way to play. And they never see the paradox...

Rules are not always all encompassing. Rules are created for effect (generally to make for fair, civil and better (or at least unified) competition). Sometimes people get locked in to a position without stepping back and considering alternative perspectives and all of its ramifications pro and con. Only then can you truly be alert and prepared to encounter a better alternative (if/when it happens).

 

[rackem]

clap clap clap

Someone who considers both the pros and cons of both sides. Instead of just looking at it from a single-minded perspective...

Andrew et al. poses some interesting outside the box perspectives as well. Can't truly knock it til you try it...

I think it's kinda funny the ones who argue so adamantly for status quo all the time. For example, X rules define it this way, therefore it has to be the best. Then the organization later changes its rules. And now that the new status quo is in place, those same types of people argue that those rules are now the only way to play. And they never see the paradox...

Rules are not always all encompassing. Rules are created for effect (generally to make for fair, civil and better (or at least unified) competition). Sometimes people get locked in to a position without stepping back and considering alternative perspectives and all of its ramifications pro and con. Only then can you truly be alert and prepared to encounter a better alternative (if/when it happens).

Okay what he said. But I still perfer you got what you make.

 

[a_susie_cue]

The winner is...

Open after the break is the winning decision by a landslide!