9-Ball needs to be fixed

wrldpro

wrldpro

H.RUN 311/Diamond W.R.
Gold Member
Silver Member
I gave an interview concerning this along with Billy Incardona in November at the International and we both agreed.
Why was the break changed to putting the 9- ball on the spot for breaking? Simple answer is the wing ball or 3rd ball in the rack was going in on the break shot 90% of the time. So now most tournaments the correction is to put the 9 ball on the spot instead of the 1 ball. The problem is the 1 ball goes in the side pocket over 90% of the time and players are almost able to play position on the 2 ball and if they don’t have a pocket for the 2 ball then most of the time they have a very good safety to play.
Next issue is a template rack. If the 9 ball is gonna be on the spot for the break get rid of the template and use a rack or if there has to be a template use an Outsville template that gives variance to how the balls separate from the rack area. I see Predator events using a rack instead of a template and the 1 ball only goes in the side pocket on the break about 30%.
Last option which I like the best is ban the cut break and make players hit the rack square from a break box. This is what me and Billy agreed upon.
The game shouldn’t be decided by a dead ball on the break or the break itself.
 
RANDOMLY place EVERY ball except the 9 in a RACK... NOT a template.

The 9 is placed in the center of the rack.

Place the HEAD ball on the SPOT.

The HEAD ball is the front ball which does NOT have to be the 9.

The HEAD ball has to be the first ball contacted by the cue ball on the break.

The cue ball is confined to a break box in the center behind the head string.

At least three balls must contact a rail on the break and at least two balls must come up table past the side pockets.

Everything is played using the normal 9-ball rules after the break.
 
wrldpro said:
I gave an interview concerning this along with Billy Incardona in November at the International and we both agreed.
Why was the break changed to putting the 9- ball on the spot for breaking? Simple answer is the wing ball or 3rd ball in the rack was going in on the break shot 90% of the time. So now most tournaments the correction is to put the 9 ball on the spot instead of the 1 ball. The problem is the 1 ball goes in the side pocket over 90% of the time and players are almost able to play position on the 2 ball and if they don’t have a pocket for the 2 ball then most of the time they have a very good safety to play.
Next issue is a template rack. If the 9 ball is gonna be on the spot for the break get rid of the template and use a rack or if there has to be a template use an Outsville template that gives variance to how the balls separate from the rack area. I see Predator events using a rack instead of a template and the 1 ball only goes in the side pocket on the break about 30%.
Last option which I like the best is ban the cut break and make players hit the rack square from a break box. This is what me and Billy agreed upon.
The game shouldn’t be decided by a dead ball on the break or the break itself.
Click to expand...

The first question to me is “broken to who?” A bunch of old former top level players isn’t the market WNT is going for. Nor is it the obsessed amateur players who populate AZ. We are going to watch, broken or not.

What do the average fans want? Probably not every match being 9-0 break and run fests, sure. But they also probably don’t want every rack turning in to a long safety battle to start. My guess would be most would like a mix of packages and the occasional dry break or safety battle.

Also, any solution has to consider that most matches are played with either no ref, or at best some weak ones that are going to struggle with no template. I can’t count how many bad racks I saw on the Predator stream. When two top pros keep breaking dry it’s a problem. Or how about the old days when even good refs would leave a gap behind the 9 from time to time leading to the 9 straight in the corner.
 
wrldpro said:
So now most tournaments the correction is to put the 9 ball on the spot instead of the 1 ball. The problem is the 1 ball goes in the side pocket over 90% of the time and players are almost able to play position on the 2 ball and if they don’t have a pocket for the 2 ball then most of the time they have a very good safety to play.
Click to expand...
Actually, the switch to nine on the spot was made more than twenty years ago on the Eurotour. It is not a new innovation, but it's use was mandated by the fact that the wing ball was being made too easily and that position play off the break was too easy. Second, because it requires a cut break in which the cue ball traces a path back across the rack area, often ending up below the rack area, playing position for the next ball is near impossible off the break and the statistics show it.

Even the three pack has become an endangered species in WNT play and, with the current break rules, some pretty capable players can go the entire WNT season without running a three pack.

With four-inch pockets, nine on the spot and a break box that is very narrow compared to that in use in other events, it's probably easier to argue that nine ball is too difficult rather than too easy in WNT play.

Nine ball has already been fixed.
 
Last edited:
The only change I would suggest is to enforce the 3 points rule that will require a bigger break and may cause more misses of the 1 in the side.

At the 2026 Asian championship that takes place these days, the referee brings an ipad to the table when racking that show randomize placement of the balls both for 9ball and 10ball, this eliminate pattern racking and makes it harder.
I don't like that in some events the 2ball always goes on the same spot - either the wing or the back.

In non WNT events where the box is not used, breaking from the side rail will still make the wing ball regardless if the 9ball or the 1ball is on the spot.
In WNT events, the box and 4 inch pockets makes the game harder.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think the game was broken before templates came along. As long as people had to hit them firm the game was fine. There’s not a thing wrong with occasional packages. Derby City has a rule that if anyone ever runs out the set then their opponent gets a chance to match, it’s never been used one time. It’s a cool idea but not exactly necessary.

Templates are the problem. Room owners love them because they help cloth last longer, not even debatable.

Bring back racking the balls with a triangle just give people a very short time to do it, don’t allow 2-3 min for racking.

Variance is GOOD. All the best games and sports in the world are built on this premise.
 
wrldpro said:
I gave an interview concerning this along with Billy Incardona in November at the International and we both agreed.
Why was the break changed to putting the 9- ball on the spot for breaking? Simple answer is the wing ball or 3rd ball in the rack was going in on the break shot 90% of the time. So now most tournaments the correction is to put the 9 ball on the spot instead of the 1 ball. The problem is the 1 ball goes in the side pocket over 90% of the time and players are almost able to play position on the 2 ball and if they don’t have a pocket for the 2 ball then most of the time they have a very good safety to play.
Next issue is a template rack. If the 9 ball is gonna be on the spot for the break get rid of the template and use a rack or if there has to be a template use an Outsville template that gives variance to how the balls separate from the rack area. I see Predator events using a rack instead of a template and the 1 ball only goes in the side pocket on the break about 30%.
Last option which I like the best is ban the cut break and make players hit the rack square from a break box. This is what me and Billy agreed upon.
The game shouldn’t be decided by a dead ball on the break or the break itself.
Click to expand...
Bobby, frankly who are you and Billy to think that your opinions or what you two agree upon are gospel and should be followed?

9 ball is what it is. The wing ball has been going since the beginning of the game. Changing it to on the spot led to the 1 in the side because talented players always find a new way which is why they are elite. I don’t really like templates and many players don’t, but at the end of the day at least everyone gets the same rack and it stops all the rack mechanic antics that existed before that led to many arguments and slowing down of matches while arguing over gaps in the racks employed and utilized by the rack mechanics.

9 ball doesn’t “need to be fixed”. If 9 ball is too easy or 10 ball is too easy with the discoveries elite players have made about that rack, then go to 15 ball rotation or just stop bitching.

You want to fix something, fix that club of yours and get those cheap ass Chinese Rasson tables out of there and get some quality equipment. Oh, that’s right, I remember, you alienated the Diamond dealer by demanding tables at his cost in the same arrogant manner that lends you to think that yours and Billy’s opinions are important enough to change the way 9 ball is played. You’ve been in the game a long time and you’re a good player, but as always, your hubris is your worst enemy. 🙄
 
Last edited:
I think 9-ball is already lost, the rack is so simple that you can always make the 1 or the wing ball if you know what you are doing. With the exception of a good ol' slug rack your opponent made for you with a triangle :poop:

I have to add that the template was introduced also because you get much less 9-ball movement and less racking shenanigans trying to manipulate 9 on the break. Running a rack is at least more difficult than making that 2-9 combo when 9 is hanging on the foot corner pocket.

Play 9-ball on tight table or play triangle racked 10-ball. I prefer the latter.
 
sjm said:
Actually, the switch to nine on the spot was made more than twenty years ago on the Eurotour. It is not a new innovation, but it's use was mandated by the fact that the wing ball was being made too easily ad that position play off the break was too easy. Second, because it requires a cut break in which the cue ball traces a path back across the rack area, often ending up below the rack area, playing position for the next ball is near impossible off the break and the statistics show it.

Even the three pack has become an endangered species in WNT play and, with the current break rules, some pretty capable players can go the entire WNT season without running a three pack.

With four-inch pockets, nine on the spot and a break box that is very narrow compared to that in use in other events, it's probably easier to argue that nine ball is too difficult rather than too easy in WNT play.

Nine ball has already been fixed.
Click to expand...
The contention that the one ball goes in the side 90% of the time under the current rules and it’s as easy as making the wing ball with the 1 on the spot is just flat wrong. No one who actually watches WNT pool with regularity would make that claim.
 
skip100 said:
The contention that the one ball goes in the side 90% of the time under the current rules and it’s as easy as making the wing ball with the 1 on the spot is just flat wrong. No one who actually watches WNT pool with regularity would make that claim.
Click to expand...
Agreed. No way it goes in 90%. It's well over 70% for the elite players, but the cut break needed to make the one in the side from the narrow WNT break box means that the days of playing specific shape off the break shot are behind us.
 
mjantti said:
Play 9-ball on tight table or play triangle racked 10-ball. I prefer the latter.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the choice. I'll take 9ball over any call shot game and the "ten ball last" version of 10ball is just silly, but 10ball is still an entertaining game to watch.

To each his own, but these days there are lots of events on offer in both disciplines so both the pro player and the serious fan can pick and choose.
 
skip100 said:
The contention that the one ball goes in the side 90% of the time under the current rules and it’s as easy as making the wing ball with the 1 on the spot is just flat wrong. No one who actually watches WNT pool with regularity would make that claim.
Click to expand...

on a stock GC a pro player make it 90%. i have been on the receiving end of it. not WNT break box, the old break box
 
sjm said:
Agreed. No way it goes in 90%. It's well over 70% for the elite players, but the cut break needed to make the one in the side from the narrow WNT break box means that the days of playing specific shape off the break shot are behind us.
Click to expand...
Not only that.
If someone will actually have the chance to try this break under the same conditions with 4 inch pockets and new cloth and balls, they will find that it is very hard to find the right spot of contact and speed.
And in many times there is no shot on the 2 ball when the 1 is made.
 
skor said:
Not only that.
If someone will actually have the chance to try this break under the same conditions with 4 inch pockets and new cloth and balls, they will find that it is very hard to find the right spot of contact and speed.
And in many times there is no shot on the 2 ball when the 1 is made.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. The WNT break is actually pretty difficult.
 
wrldpro said:
The game shouldn’t be decided by a dead ball on the break or the break itself.
Click to expand...
Before we "fix" nine ball, I want a data-based definition of what is broken about nine ball, with a large data set and no guesstimates about what happens on the break or thereafter.

We just watched two of the best ever play a race to 50, with 80 games being played. Only 35% of games were a break and run. 41% were break and run games if they had a successful break. The breaker actually LOST the game 32% of the time. (Nod to AtLArge for the stats).

Those numbers don't tell me the game is broken. They tell me even the greatest players allow the other player to the table most of the time, and lose a fair percent on their own break.

For the rest of the planet, I will assume that the breaker gives up the table even more, and loses the game even more.

Also, before the match started, I posted in the comments on the stream that I put the over/under on consecutive break-and-run games at 2.5. I believe Fedor had 3 (correct me if I am wrong, please), so I believe I foresaw what would happen really well. If leaving the opponent planted in the chair means the game needs a fix, alternate break is common enough.
 
Last edited:
If there's change at all make the break box allot Smaller.... I agree I like the current set up, but the one in the side all the time is Corey like.
 
I hate the constant cries for "fixing" the game. Why penalize players for studying the game and elevating the level of competition? We've already made the pockets absurdly tight. If we want to see Snooker, we can just watch Snooker.

It's strange how we switched from straight pool to 9 ball, because it was better for the spectators. Now, we want to eliminate the fast-paced excitement of 9 ball, because it's too easy for the players. Might as well just go back to straight pool.

Personally, I'd find far more enjoyment in watching an alternate break format, with both players breaking and running all the way to hill-hill. But, it would require a must win by 2 rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top