Alternate Break is a disease upon the game

[HawaiianEye]

Every effort to consider winner and alternate break formats as "identical" conditions (thus drawing safe conclusions by comparing individual data) bypasses the "qualitative" characteristics of these two situations. It is impossible to fully predict the outcome of any given match situation based solely on break percentages, winner format allows for more possibilities which do affect the psychological part of the game.
Any player up 10-8 in race to 11 is able to risk a shot in order to "close the door" on the opponent in alternate break, while he would feel a lot more pressure knowing that a mistake at that point could cost him the match.

I agree 100% with everything you've said in your last two posts.

Alternate breaks is BS.

I've played for over 50 years and I've never played with anyone who said "the break doesn't really matter" who was willing to give me all the breaks.

For me, there is no excitement in watching alternate break rotation games.

 

[hang-the-9]

Funny to see this posted as my 8 year old just mentioned Wed evening on the way home that 8-9-10 ball should be winner break and asked me why it's always alternating. (for the league/tournaments he has entered).

That is more fair to both players, and leagues and many tournaments want both players to have a chance at the table (at least for the break). It is really the same reason there is handicapping in most events and leagues, so the other player does not feel like they are wasting time and money against a good player.

It really does not make any difference till you get into the high B players and even then not too much. Winner breaks with players that don't run out often or fail to make a ball on the break can be worse for the breaker than alternate break. I lost many sets where I hit a good break,opened the table, nothing went in, and my opponent ran out to win the set. Against D or C players I would not have any issues with giving up the break to them every game (if you don't count things like 9 on the break as a win).

 

[Grilled Cheese]

I would not use such hard word

I get a little passionate I guess...LOL

LOLOLOL!!! The perfect response.

I'm going to tell my One Pocket opponents the same thing and I'm going to go into detail about the disease for which there is no cure.

One-Pocket is not the same as it does not have a true open break. The break is not very random, and it absolutely leads to a clear advantage in the game.

Now everything is about figuring out a soft cut break...boring...boring...boring. When I was a kid, I enjoyed the BIG BREAKS, and run-outs from Archer, Strickland..Little David Howard....Varner...Buddy..Busta..Etc. It was so much more exciting. You could see some exciting swings!

Yes!!! While this thread isn't about these crappy template racks - I too miss the atomic breaks of guys like Archer, Strickland and Bustamante (and others. Smash the hell out of them, balls flying around the table...Power breaks, run and gun. Stringing racks together. 9 ball the way it was meant to be played. None of this sissy Euro-style alternate break, everyone gets a chance, slow play....pool is inherently not as exciting as many other sports, but I remember watching some of those matches from the Camel Tour days ...good stuff. Sigel, Varner, Buddy, Earl ...great pool, at a decent pace, lots of action. No shot clocks necessary. Watching these Euro Tour stops in recent years. Awful. Slow, robotic. Very systematic. BORING.

 

[Grilled Cheese]

There was never anything wrong with Winner Breaks, Race to Eleven matches. That was how we played major tournaments for decades, until........

As the OP said watching a good player string racks was exciting and seeing his opponent answer with racks of his own was even more exciting. I personally witnessed players coming back from being down 9-2 and 10-3 on more than one occasion, and all the time the crowd was on the edge of their seats. No one ever got up and left during a match between two good players because we knew anything could happen. Many matches still went hill-hill and that last rack was tension packed.

None of this happens with the Alternate Break format and that's a shame imo. I can understand the use of alternate breaks in short matches like the Mosconi Cup, but for major singles events I feel that Winner Breaks should still be the format of choice. Put the nine on the spot, break from the box with no soft break and let 'em fly! :thumbup:

I agree 100%.

I don't consider short races into my thinking because, I feel short races are silly to begin with. At this level it does not allow for enough resolution to determine who truly is playing best. The fact they have to use alternate break in a short race is an admission that the alternate break is a form of equalization. It's not weight as others have said, and I never claimed it was giving weight. It keeps races to 5 from becoming complete jokes.


I miss the big runs and the big comebacks.

I was at a Florida Pro Tour years back...Was watching Charlie Williams against some local player cannot remember his name. Race to 9. It was 2-2. The local guy misses a shot. Charlie ran a 7-pack and ended it.

It was beautiful to watch.

The take away for me was, here you go, you're in the 5th rack of a race to 9, 2-2, and you miss a ball and it *could* be your last shot for the match. Most never really think missing a ball that early in a race could be the end, but it can be. That makes the game better. It brings more meaning to every shot at the table. Always. Even if the other guy isn't running large strings, I've seen others where the incoming player never "sees" another ball again. They come to the table in a tight safe once or twice for the remainder of the match.

It brings a little bit of that pressure that exists in 14.1. You miss, and you may never shoot again.

There's NO entitlement to play again. There's NO chance given to you to play again, except if your opponent misses or plays you safe. But if they are playing perfect, you don't shoot again. You sit in your chair and watch.

Nothing automatic. Nothing written in the rules gifting you a chance to play again.

It's all about consequences. Accountability.

 

[RADAR]

There was never anything wrong with Winner Breaks, Race to Eleven matches. That was how we played major tournaments for decades, until........

As the OP said watching a good player string racks was exciting and seeing his opponent answer with racks of his own was even more exciting. I personally witnessed players coming back from being down 9-2 and 10-3 on more than one occasion, and all the time the crowd was on the edge of their seats. No one ever got up and left during a match between two good players because we knew anything could happen. Many matches still went hill-hill and that last rack was tension packed.

None of this happens with the Alternate Break format and that's a shame imo. I can understand the use of alternate breaks in short matches like the Mosconi Cup, but for major singles events I feel that Winner Breaks should still be the format of choice. Put the nine on the spot, break from the box with no soft break and let 'em fly! :thumbup:

Well stated Jay,I agree with you 100%.

 

[maha]

winner breaks my not allow weaker players many shots at the table so they tend not to enter the tournaments so smaller prize pools. is that what you want. pros break so much better than the weaker players they have few chances to even shoot.

pros against pros it doesnt matter much as all can run racks.

as it is the very top players win all the money each tournament and that is what is boring.

 

[Ken_4fun]

Guess you don't agree with me, I like loser breaks.

It encourages closer matches.

Apparently you don't like football, after the team scores you think it is a good idea that they get the ball back?

Geez.

Ken

 

[evergruven]

I should be clear that if your only concern is the odds of how likely the better player is to win the match, then the formats are equivalent. There may be other reasons why one format is preferable to another, such as perceived fairness, or possibilities of 10-packs or increasing/decreasing the average match length.

I can dig it. there are many variables involved, but regression toward the mean works.
there are things I like about both alternate and winner break, but it's hard for me to say one's objectively "better" than the other. winner break is more exciting, I think, as in that format, we can see what pool players are capable of, as far as pulling ahead, and coming back. alternate break seems like more of a mental exercise, but is interesting in its own way. a tuff roll either way can turn a match. different strokes, for different folks..

this conversation does make me wonder about pool. how can such a great game, with so much history, that's so accessible, be so controversial/frustrating to its fans?

the fact that there is so much controversy re: format isn't necessarily helping pool's cause as popularly-credible, but I think it actually speaks to its versatility and how much quality there is in the game.

 

[De420MadHatter]

Pool, has never been fair, in the sense, of everyone gets a equal opportunity, in regards to rotation games. One of the beautiful, idiosyncrasies of the game. Who gives a f$%&k about the rest of the world sports.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

I will put my initial post in a different way. Not only is it good for pool using winner break with great players being able to run out the set, what would really be good is to have a Michael Jordan like player with a 950 Fargo Rating that just destroyed his opponents.

Excellent pool is what will sell pool to the masses. Especially via a new superstar in the game.


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[Grilled Cheese]

This is a vast topic - rotational game breaks. Particularly 9 ball.

There's the discussion about how advantageous it really is. There's also the entire history of the 9 ball break, it's evolution and all the rules and changes made to alter the 9 ball break. (9 on the spot, break boxes, alternate break, anti-soft break requirements, rack devices, anti-pattern racking rules...so forth and so on) and combinations of those. There will always be better breakers and rack mechanics.

In the end, it doesn't matter because whatever applies to winner breaks applies to alternate break. Both are still breaks! The only difference is, the interruption caused by the alternating.

That is an excitement killer.

When you watch a player who is down in a match win a game, it's interesting to know they will break next as this would be a continuation of the streak or comeback. Control may surely change hands before that player evens up the score, but not always. It usually does though. But that's not the point. The point is - you DON'T KNOW. It could be in 1 game, or 5 games later that the table is handed over...AB totally kills that beauty. Same goes for the player who is tied up 5-5 and has the table, they could be in a journey to closing it out for the big win. You just don't know.

Instead, if it is the other player's break it's a big let down. An interruption. That "story line" comes to a halt. Now, it could continue on the following rack because the table is given back by the opponent say on dry break or miss...but it is spastic and broken up that way. It also kills player rhythm and if they are on a roll...


With AB you never get to see anything awesome. You are guaranteed to see a grinding back and forth most of the time. In WB, there's that rare chance the match you're watching may be some player's great 8-pack or something memorable.

As I said in my OP, it's a grinding battle. Euro's love it, because it matches their style. AB accommodates the more robotic, systematic, slow playing methodical styles. It's also very analogous to football (soccer). Once you get a lead, you hold it and run out the clock. Being very cautious.

That's what happens quite a bit in AB. Once a player is a few games ahead it is very hard to come back and win because your opponent will get the same amount of guaranteed opportunities at the table as the amount of games they have remaining to win. Very simply put, if it's 7-4 in a race to 9, the guy with 7 wins will get 2 more breaks guaranteed before the guy with 4 can even equalize the match or pull ahead. Now, breaks aren't sure things so players don't treat them as sure wins, but there is comfort in knowing that chance is there.


Now, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not whining about players who get behind in a match. That's their problem. They had equal chances to NOT be behind in the match, so that's tough cookies for them.

The point I'm trying to make is - the game changes in more ways that some realize. This leads to ugly, boring, s***style conservative play in end game phase. Less pressure play for one player.


It's much different to be up 7-4 on a guy when it is winner breaks, because knowing that you have no guaranteed innings later on if you give up the table means you must treat your current inning at the table as potentially your LAST.

This does in fact impact decision making. It is literally, a game changing factor.

 

[garczar]

Well stated Jay,I agree with you 100%.

I agree with this in "pro only" events. But try to run a local/regional event where you have a mixed bag of player levels. AB will bring more players almost every time. Go to Olathe,Ks in a couple weeks and see what i mean. At the Midwest 9ball Tour event there will probably be from 120-164 players. Calcutta will be REALLY sporty as well. Evelyn has always used AB in her events and has been doing it for over 25yrs. Must be doing something right.

 

[jay helfert]

I agree with this in "pro only" events. But try to run a local/regional event where you have a mixed bag of player levels. AB will bring more players almost every time. Go to Olathe,Ks in a couple weeks and see what i mean. At the Midwest 9ball Tour event there will probably be from 120-164 players. Calcutta will be REALLY sporty as well. Evelyn has always used AB in her events and has been doing it for over 25yrs. Must be doing something right.

And I agree with you. You might notice that I said in "major" events I thought playing Winner Breaks was better. In short race formats, I would also opt for Alternate Breaks. Of course, by now we know there is a better alternative. Just add one ball and play Ten Ball and all of a sudden no one is stringing racks. Okay, no one except Shane!

 

[Swighey]

I agree with this in "pro only" events. But try to run a local/regional event where you have a mixed bag of player levels. AB will bring more players almost every time. Go to Olathe,Ks in a couple weeks and see what i mean. At the Midwest 9ball Tour event there will probably be from 120-164 players. Calcutta will be REALLY sporty as well. Evelyn has always used AB in her events and has been doing it for over 25yrs. Must be doing something right.

Yep. No need to give any added advantage to the better players. If I enter a tournament above my skill level and throw dead money into the pot then I want to compete on a level playing field and know that I have some chance of being that rare upset in a short race - that’s what keeps dead money players interested. On the flipside, if I’m one of the better players in the tournament I will relish my edge with winner breaks as it gives me more control of the table than it does my opponent - but, if it’s alternate break then I will equally have confidence in my game and try to stay focussed and get the job done. No excuses needed if I make a couple of errors and the weaker play gets into the zone and takes me out - no calling him or her lucky and complaining about the format not protecting the better players. This is not giving weight to my opponent, it’s keeping the game fair and congratulating my opponent for playing well on the day. I don’t need the (HUGE) added advantage of breaking almost every game against a substantially weaker player who can occasionally put it all together.

At the pro level yes it’s different but with rack your won and templates and identical table conditions it’s becoming a game where we see the elite players playing the perfect rack far too often - so it is fundamental to the competitive nature of the game for both players to have equal breaking opportunities and equal opportunities not to make an error. This is not a lack of understanding of the game of pool, it’s an understanding of what makes the game purer and more exciting - yep, I know some of you think it’s more exciting to see packages and in some ways it is. Yes there are particular kinds of exciting situation that can only happen with winner breaks but there are other kinds of high tension matches that can only happen in an alternate break slugfest.

Having said all this, I have no problem with winner breaks. Matchroom are having it in the US Open as that’s the tradition. That’s ok - winner breaks as a natural state of the game seems to be hard wired into the mindset of many players who have been around for a while in some places and got used to it - again that’s ok. There is a place for this kind of tournament. But it’s a game that is played all around the world - in far flung places where some of us weird folk will play cash games winner breaks often with all sorts of crazy money balls. But we will play alternate break in a tournament every single time because that’s how a contest should be played. We have a lot of respect for packages and enjoy seeing them made but we get more excited about other more subtle aspects of the game. Alternate break is here to stay and if it’s a disease then it’s only a disease to those who think winner breaks is the be all and end all.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Alternate breaks is not about fairness, rewarding, or punishing anyone. It is about viability and relevance. Our game could take this one lesson from all other sports.

 

[garczar]

And I agree with you. You might notice that I said in "major" events I thought playing Winner Breaks was better. In short race formats, I would also opt for Alternate Breaks. Of course, by now we know there is a better alternative. Just add one ball and play Ten Ball and all of a sudden no one is stringing racks. Okay, no one except Shane!

All pro events should be playing 10ball. Totally agree.

 

[jrctherake]

Alternate breaks is not about fairness, rewarding, or punishing anyone. It is about viability and relevance. Our game could take this one lesson from all other sports.

Extremely accurate comment, although to me, it just doesn't sit right to have alternate break in 9 and 10 ball as long as certain rules such as, break in or out of box and where 9 is spotted.

To me, everyother game I play should be alternate break.

Again, if no box rule or 9 on spot with templates, well, at high levels of play it's never enough safety battles for my taste.

Just like in other sports, good defense in pool is just as impressive, if not more impressive than a run out from the break.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I know several people that will not play unless its alternate break.



I can see alternate break in 1hole but, any rotation the game should always been winner break.



Alternate break to me, is a form of weight given.



For example, the players I mentioned at first...., well, most of them do good to run "a" rack, much less put a "pack" together. Not to mention, most of them loose control of the CB way to often to make it to the money which means they would almost certainly never get a break (pun intended).



Winner break makes for a much more watchable matches. To think any different is nothing more than fear IMO.

Tap tap well said sir.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[9ball5032]

I agree.....winner should break.

 

[noMoreSchon]

If you ever have gambled, was it alternating break? Never have I seen such

a thing. Give up the break, maybe. So why is it different in tournaments? It shouldn't.

I myself don't look down on AB or WB with any variance. But like everyone, I like to see

opponents sitting down, and AB doesn't allow that. As for WB and people not showing up

there for tournaments, it would be awesome if someone respected my game to run a six

pack on me. And an honor to watch it.