What world ar eyou living in? NOBODY wants to watch pool.
I cant believe i am going to say it: i am with dick.
I cant believe i am going to say it: i am with dick.
A New Way to One Hole
- Thread starter BeiberLvr
- Start date
They haven't made rules like this for chess. And it's slow as paint drying. It's the intellectual pursuit that makes it exciting. The payoff after a lot of strategy. IMO, we don't need another checkers equivalent for pool. We have all the short rotation games for that.
Perhaps we should ask how we educate folks to get them to understand why one pocket is exciting (in its own way) rather than dumb the game down to the lowest common denominator.
Once you see the art in high-level one pocket, it's pretty awesome...
-td
Perhaps we should ask how we educate folks to get them to understand why one pocket is exciting (in its own way) rather than dumb the game down to the lowest common denominator.
Once you see the art in high-level one pocket, it's pretty awesome...
-td
Listen, maybe I didn't put my thoughts into words as well as I would have liked. At heart I am a traditionalist as far as game rules are concerned. I have often spoken out against rule changes in major pool games. That would include one pocket.
However I do think Bieberlvr has suggested a nice variation to the game, that might be more exciting for the general pool audience to watch. It might make a fun tournament format as a side event. Some of you think that the strategy of the game would somehow be less important, but actually it would put more pressure on the shooter. The safeties and moves would have to be well timed and effective, and you'd see some spectacular shots as well. I like spectacular shots, but I realize I might be in the minority on that point, since people apparently love barbox pool.
The fact that this rule variation uses the full rack, means that many of the moves and shots would stay unchanged, but the strategy would have to be adapted to the limitations. Specifically you couldn't try to wear your opponent out with destructive moves that do nothing but drag out the game, keeping it going for hours. You would still shoot the same shots, pretty much, but you'd have to be more effective and try to accomplish several things with one shot. There would be more pressure on each and every shot. I guess someone might try to run two and then do nothing but safe for the rest of the game, but it would be very risky indeed.
I honestly don't know why some people are so adamantly against shooting at the pocket? It seems everyone wants the one pocket table to be so tight as to make even mundane shots close to impossible. Some people would probably be much better off playing balkline or 3-cushion.
I don't think this game variation would destroy the strategic part of the game at all, tough it would change it somewhat in the direction of more aggression. The comparison would be more aptly drawn between chess and speed chess, rather than chess and checkers.
Last edited:
Tell ya what i like- playing to like 32 balls, instead of 4 games to 8.
You continue to ay the balls until they are all gone, alternate brwak, as per usual.
It allows early, mid and end game efforts...plus, i lime to make all the balls on the table when (if!) I run out.
You continue to ay the balls until they are all gone, alternate brwak, as per usual.
It allows early, mid and end game efforts...plus, i lime to make all the balls on the table when (if!) I run out.
Listen, maybe I didn't put my thoughts into words as well as I would have liked. At heart I am a traditionalist as far as game rules are concerned. I have often spoken out against rule changes in major pool games. That would include one pocket.
However I do think Bieberlvr has suggested a nice variation to the game, that might be more exciting for the general pool audience to watch. It might make a fun tournament format as a side event. Some of you think that the strategy of the game would somehow be less important, but actually it would put more pressure on the shooter. The safeties and moves would have to be well timed and effective, and you'd see some spectacular shots as well. I like spectacular shots, but I realize I might be in the minority on that point, since people apparently love barbox pool.
The fact that this rule variation uses the full rack, means that many of the moves and shots would stay unchanged, but the strategy would have to be adapted to the limitations. Specifically you couldn't try to wear your opponent out with destructive moves that do nothing but drag out the game, keeping it going for hours. You would still shoot the same shots, pretty much, but you'd have to be more effective and try to accomplish several things with one shot. There would be more pressure on each and every shot. I guess someone might try to run two and then do nothing but safe for the rest of the game, but it would be very risky indeed.
I honestly don't know why some people are so adamantly against shooting at the pocket? It seems everyone wants the one pocket table to be so tight as to make even mundane shots close to impossible. Some people would probably be much better off playing balkline or 3-cushion.
I don't think this game variation would destroy the strategic part of the game at all, tough it would change it somewhat in the direction of more aggression. The comparison would be more aptly drawn between chess and speed chess, rather than chess and checkers.
Glad at least one person gets it.
Thanks
Sorry Beibs, he does not actually "get it", per say!..He is a straight pool addict, and they have not really got anything (pool wise)..for about 70 years now!
Last edited:
One pocket is great as it is. But you can play any rules you want if you can get your opponent to agree.
More than one person gets it, it's just not you.
I'm a little late to this thread, but I have read it all and this discussion is worthwhile. First let me say I love one pocket just as it is, for me personally I wouldn't change anything. However, I do recognize that there are some problems for certain circumstances, like tournaments.
If you want the game to go faster and you don't want to change the strategies much, here's how.
Fouls are a bad thing, they are to be discouraged, they should carry a greater penalty. We can accomplish that in a way that speeds up the game.
Instead of spotting a ball when you commit a foul, you give one of your balls to your opponent, This simple change would keep the game moving forward, and never backward. It would cause shooters to exercise more caution when letting the CB fly around the table, It would cut down on intentional fouls and cause the shooter to take more chances to get out of a trap.
I believe this simple change could reduce the length of games by 25 to 50%.
I would like to see this simple rule tried at a one pocket tournament where they always have trouble trying to get a full field of 32 or more completed in even three days.
The only exception I would allow to this rule is this. If a player has his game ball hanging in his pocket, his opponent may play the current rule which allows him to scratch behind the ball and spot that ball and one of his own balls. I think this strategy in the end game is important, and a player should not automatically win the game because he hung his game ball rather than made it.
I have played one pocket for many years, and only for the growth of the game, especially in tournaments would I support changes like the one I am suggesting. Before you reply to this post, I would appreciate your thinking about this, and bringing logical and sound reasoning.
If you want the game to go faster and you don't want to change the strategies much, here's how.
Fouls are a bad thing, they are to be discouraged, they should carry a greater penalty. We can accomplish that in a way that speeds up the game.
Instead of spotting a ball when you commit a foul, you give one of your balls to your opponent, This simple change would keep the game moving forward, and never backward. It would cause shooters to exercise more caution when letting the CB fly around the table, It would cut down on intentional fouls and cause the shooter to take more chances to get out of a trap.
I believe this simple change could reduce the length of games by 25 to 50%.
I would like to see this simple rule tried at a one pocket tournament where they always have trouble trying to get a full field of 32 or more completed in even three days.
The only exception I would allow to this rule is this. If a player has his game ball hanging in his pocket, his opponent may play the current rule which allows him to scratch behind the ball and spot that ball and one of his own balls. I think this strategy in the end game is important, and a player should not automatically win the game because he hung his game ball rather than made it.
I have played one pocket for many years, and only for the growth of the game, especially in tournaments would I support changes like the one I am suggesting. Before you reply to this post, I would appreciate your thinking about this, and bringing logical and sound reasoning.
That thought process right there led to the beginning of the demise of 9 ball....because it was to boring to watch on TV and to slow....LMAO
Didn't read every post but I totally disagree with changing any rules. Anyway, as players games evolve it seems the game does as well. Remember years ago when every game seem to involve a wedge? Now it is much more offensive and there is a ton of real talented players making mind boggling shots. Let's just leave a beautiful game alone.
My sentiments, exactly.
If you take the time to learn One Pocket you'll also learn to appreciate it for what it is, and the way it is. After that, you will never consider changing it.
The only reason this subject comes up is to simply pass time on the forum until someone asks another question about tips, or ferrules.
I wouldn't want to speed up anything if my house was making money by an hourly rate, but I think you're right about the tournaments. :smile:
I like one pocket the way it is but for tournaments and gambling I have a new version of one pocket I have been trying.
I call it PHX one pocket.
Ten ball rack just like ten ball. Same rules as one pocket.
Each ball in your pocket is worth one point. Win with 6 points.
The only difference is that the 10 ball is worth 2 points to avoid a 5 to 5 tie.
Try it and let me know what you think.
Bill S.
I call it PHX one pocket.
Ten ball rack just like ten ball. Same rules as one pocket.
Each ball in your pocket is worth one point. Win with 6 points.
The only difference is that the 10 ball is worth 2 points to avoid a 5 to 5 tie.
Try it and let me know what you think.
Bill S.
Boy this thread sounds interesting, I think I'll read it.....
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Jeff Livingston
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Jeff Livingston
