9-Ball needs to be fixed
- Thread starter wrldpro
- Start date
Railbird-2026
New member
Simply fix. Put a spot down where the cue ball has to be and then in different places each day. Everybody breaks from same spot.
Well if there was interest like in major sports, pro commentators could hype the drama to a froth. (still not much content)
In the first post of this thread, wrldpro commented that "...the 1 ball goes in the side pocket over 90% of the time." I assume he means the side pocket on the opposite side from the breaker. Last night, to show that the percentage isn't that high, I posted the successful break rate for the matches I tracked in 11 Matchroom-produced events held this year and last year. They all used the Matchroom break box and 4" corner pockets. The aggregate successful break rate was 78%.
GideonF then said, logically, that the percentage might even be higher late in the events, after less-skilled players are eliminated and the remaining players would "have a feel" for the tables. I explained that the matches I tracked in those events are either from the single-elimination stages, with the matches on the feature table, or from events that have no weak players (Mosconi Cup, Reyes Cup, Premier League).
But today I took a look at what the percentage would be for matches from the Last 16 and later rounds in 7 of the 11 events, plus matches involving the final 10 players in the two Premier League events, plus all of the matches in the most recent Mosconi Cup and Reyes Cup. This cut the total number of games down from 2,159 to 1,427, about a one-third reduction. So here are the results.
This is a pretty small difference. And it doesn't directly address wrldpro's comment about how often the 1-ball goes in the side pocket. In some successful breaks the 1-ball is not pocketed at all (91 times out of the 1,125 successful breaks) or is pocketed but not in the side pocket opposite the breaker (10 of the 1,125). Also, the 1-ball is pocketed in the side pocket on some fouled breaks (52 of the 1,427). So the number directly corresponding to what wrldpro said (how often the 1-ball goes in the side pocket) is 1,125 - 91 - 10 + 52 = 1,076 games out of 1,427, or 75.4%.
So, the 1-ball was pocketed in the side pocket on the opposite side of the table from the breaker:
GideonF then said, logically, that the percentage might even be higher late in the events, after less-skilled players are eliminated and the remaining players would "have a feel" for the tables. I explained that the matches I tracked in those events are either from the single-elimination stages, with the matches on the feature table, or from events that have no weak players (Mosconi Cup, Reyes Cup, Premier League).
But today I took a look at what the percentage would be for matches from the Last 16 and later rounds in 7 of the 11 events, plus matches involving the final 10 players in the two Premier League events, plus all of the matches in the most recent Mosconi Cup and Reyes Cup. This cut the total number of games down from 2,159 to 1,427, about a one-third reduction. So here are the results.
Successful breaks from the original group of matches -- 78.1% (1,687 of 2,159)
Successful breaks from the smaller group of matches -- 78.8% (1,125 of 1,427)
This is a pretty small difference. And it doesn't directly address wrldpro's comment about how often the 1-ball goes in the side pocket. In some successful breaks the 1-ball is not pocketed at all (91 times out of the 1,125 successful breaks) or is pocketed but not in the side pocket opposite the breaker (10 of the 1,125). Also, the 1-ball is pocketed in the side pocket on some fouled breaks (52 of the 1,427). So the number directly corresponding to what wrldpro said (how often the 1-ball goes in the side pocket) is 1,125 - 91 - 10 + 52 = 1,076 games out of 1,427, or 75.4%.
So, the 1-ball was pocketed in the side pocket on the opposite side of the table from the breaker:
- on 75% of all breaks (1,076 of 1,427)
- on 91% of successful breaks (1,024 of 1,125)
- on 73% of fouled breaks (52 of 71)
Last edited:
uk_9_ball_convert
Active member
I agree with your first point, but I think the alternate break would lead to less situations where a match you would expect to be even ending up one sided and the type of match you walk away from. It may lead to more one sided matches when there is actually a big difference in ability though
uk_9_ball_convert
Active member
I don't like that idea as it gives the organisers too much power, they could definitely influence results depending on where they pick the spot. Even if it was truly random it adds a bit of luck as I'm sure each players would have their own strength and weaknesses around where they were good at breaking from.
Well said and also well-reasoned.
Still, what constitutes a blowout will change with alternate break. I might walk away from 9-5 in a race to 11 if it's alternate break, because the trailer must "break serve" twice just to reach double hill. In winner breaks, I'm staying put, because a player can hold the table for multiple racks at a time. The tradeoff is more blowouts but more memorable comebacks.
What many pool fans consider the greatest 9ball match ever played was in 2005 when a 16-year-old Wu Jiaqing came to the table with ball in hand on the 2ball after a Po Cheng Kuo foul. Wu trailed 16-12 in the race to seventeen WPA World 9ball final and, to everyone's amazement, ran the set out from there to become world champion. Twenty-one years later, the match is still often discussed on this forum. Alternate break would have robbed us of that unforgettable moment.
There's no real answer here, but I've been attending live events for over 50 years and know that, while the players themselves are split on the subject, the fans, with whom I have conversed on a regular basis for decades, prefer to see packages, even if it means having to see some blowout wins.
Without naming names, I can tell you that I have discussed winner vs alternate break with several of today's top ten (based on Fargo) and three of them favor a switch to alternate break in tournament play. My sense of things is that more than half of the top 100 pros would prefer such a switch. Still, as we have seen, nearly all action matches are played with winner breaks, so it seems the top few prefer winner breaks when the stakes are highest.
Winner breaks vs alternate breaks is a debate for the ages.
Last edited:
the object in those formats IS to win SETS. as you said tennis does it(has for over 100yrs btw) and no one bitches. get over the # games won deal. multiple sets is a great way to determine a winner. i'd MUCH prefer these long set stream matches to be played multiple sets instead. not everyone come out of the gate on fire and multiple sets makes for better TRUE champions.
sudocrushms
Well-known member
Yup, let 9b be the fast and loose game. If you really want to know who's the best, play 10b (...or 1p to make the old codgers happy
).But also, don't make 9b and 10b converge. Call pocket, no early 10s.
DieselPete
Well-known member
Yes, I'm aware of what the object is.
My opinion is that sometimes giving more money to the person that won fewer games over the last 90 minutes (or so) is a little weird.
My not upset about it, bitching about it, opposed to it, or in any way emotional about it.
In fact, I will and do watch it. I support it. I think there is room in pool for all kinds of formats. I just find it to be a little weird.
I have zero problems with called early 10b's, imo 10b-last is beyond boring. A called early win doesn't detract from the quality of the game. The best 10b event on earth is the DCC Bigfoot and that's played with Tex.Exp rules, granted its on a 10ft but those rules are fine. Most decent players don't shit that many balls in so its not a issue.Yup, let 9b be the fast and loose game. If you really want to know who's the best, play 10b (...or 1p to make the old codgers happy
But also, don't make 9b and 10b converge. Call pocket, no early 10s.
WTF?? What is ' a little weird' about winning the most sets vs. games if that is the format? Happens ALL the time in tennis. Happens in the Pred. PBS too and that format is exciting as hell. Sure you can have an opinion but what your basing it on is a flawed concept of playing sets vs. games. Two totally different formats.
DieselPete
Well-known member
First, you seem to be bringing a level of emotion or energy to this that I am not going to match. Perhaps take a chill?
If we compare pool to tennis, shouldn't we consider the length of a tennis match, even on the women's best-of-three side, in which it takes six games to win a set, with each game consisting of several points. There is ample time to determine the better player. Further, in tennis, stamina across sets is something they are measuring as vital to determine a worthy winner.
A race to four set is nowhere near as decisive as a set in tennis. A race to four is a crapshoot.
To better compare to tennis, perhaps we would play a race to 9, best two of three. Of course, time will not allow for that, so we settle for a crapshoot format.
Then, in tennis, they do not break ties with a skill test, like trying to serve at a target. They play more tennis. And they make the final set win by two, so it can go on until a worthy winner is decided. If pool wanted to look like tennis, a final set could be race to 4 but you have to win by two. (Pool will never do that due to time constraints though.)
Interesting(kinda data heavy) read on games won vs. match win-loss. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3233/JSA-190328 In men's tennis about 2% of matches are won by the player with fewer games and about 4.5% win with fewer points. Federer won roughly 80% of all his pro matches and won 54% of the points played. Dude was a gamer for sure.
Last edited:
sudocrushms
Well-known member
Counterpoint: No it doesn't. 
Im still waiting to see a tournament where everybody is running out the set, hell, show me a single match(race to 9) where somebody ran out the set without a miss or safe and think long and hard about how often it happens and how dumb all of you "run out the set, 9 ball is broken" dummies sound
Hell, I thought 9 ball and 10 ball the difference was right in the name
Wasn’t Little Ko vs Yapp 11-0 exactly that?
OMG!!! 1 example...maybe
That's considered the greatest 9 ball performance of all time.
Now if it were happening on a regular basis, it would raise questions.