Alternate Break or Winner Break

[JimS]

Certainly it is arguable. The winner won the money. He only wins the break if we agreed to play winner breaks. Who breaks has to do with the original arrangement not who won.

We're just not going to be able to make a game.

I think loser breaks is garbage.. and the same for alternate break.

Lets feel sorry for the loser and give him an even chance to win. BS! You win if you do what's necessary to to win. If you don't get the job done you lose. You have to make your own advantage.. you have to earn it. If someone is playihg so well that they never give up the table they EARNED the match win.

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

If someone runs out an entire set, I would think that they deserve to win. Furthermore I don't understand why people are so interested in giving weaker players opportunities to beat better players.

This is a poor assessment. What is put into consideration in an alternate break system is an equal opportunity to play on the pool table of both players regardless of they are of the same caliber or not (high or low caliber) and maintain their engine running at a certain pace (prevent an out of stroke scenario due to long waiting for a turn). though this format was introduced in an event where both players are of the same caliber and avoid a one-sided scenario. the one who won the lag have a slight advantage to win if both players were able to run-out their breaks in a hill-hill match. I don't think nor believe that alternate breaks gives weaker players an opportunity to beat better players. I have been in matches and I have also seen where a weaker player beats a better player in a winner's break format just because the weaker guy is damn lucky and is in deadstroke. the point is, it is more likely that a weaker guy beats a better guy in a winner's break format rather than in an alternate break format. you may or may not have a chance to play on a table in a winner's break if your opponent is demon possessed.

 

[Cameron Smith]

This is a poor assessment. What is put into consideration in an alternate break system is an equal opportunity to play on the pool table of both players regardless of they are of the same caliber or not (high or low caliber) and maintain their engine running at a certain pace (prevent an out of stroke scenario due to long waiting for a turn). though this format was introduced in an event where both players are of the same caliber and avoid a one-sided scenario. the one who won the lag have a slight advantage to win if both players were able to run-out their breaks in a hill-hill match. I don't think nor believe that alternate breaks gives weaker players an opportunity to beat better players. I have been in matches and I have also seen where a weaker player beats a better player in a winner's break format just because the weaker guy is damn lucky and is in deadstroke. the point is, it is more likely that a weaker guy beats a better guy in a winner's break format rather than in an alternate break format. you may or may not have a chance to play on a table in a winner's break if your opponent is demon possessed.

Alternating breaks are an equalizer, that is why the WPBA switched to them, to slow down Allison Fisher. The world class pro will run more racks more often than the local pro. If the ability to string racks together is taken away, then the local pro has more of a fighting chance.

Nevertheless you are right a weaker player can still win in a winners break format. But they have to play well enough to do it. I beat a much better player playing winners breaks. I got into dead stroke and was a little lucky. I think I deserved the win.

We don't need to equalize the playing field. Pool has never been an equal opportunity game. Pool is about monopolizing the pool table, always trying to run out the set, run 150 and out, run 8 and out off the break if possible etc. What makes a champion is the ability to quickly shake off the rust after a long run is put on them and fire right back. What should you do when someone runs 100 balls on you in 14.1, do complain that you sat down for too long? Let it get to you and play tight for the remainder of the match, or try and shake off the icicles and run 150 and out? I should think the latter.

Alex Pagualyan ran 6 racks on Rodney Morris in the semi-finals of the World Pool Masters a couple of years ago. Trailing 6-0 Rodney fired back at him running two 3 packs to win the set 8-7. That is what pool is all about, and that is how the game was meant to be played.

This isn't elementary school, we don't have to give everybody an opportunity to play. Players have to earn it at the top levels. If a player runs 11 racks and out on me, yes it is frusterating but I do believe that they would deserve to win the match due to some outstanding play.

But once more and for the last time, it is very rare that a player doesn't get their opportunities to run out the set themselves, so all of these equal opportunity arguements are moot.

 

[VIProfessor]

I repeat the question posed in an earlier post. Are the proponents of alternate breaks prepared to propose that straight pool be limited to innings of 50 balls? If a player beats me by running out the set I am much more satisfied by that than a set in which I had many opportunities and didn't take care of them.

As I've said before, part of the beauty of nine-ball is the fact that between strong players, no one can ever afford to relax because any mistake can mean that it's your last inning at the table. That should never be taken away!

Earlier today I watched the 2006 WPC match between Wu and Corey Duel, and the match had no suspense whatsoever by the time the viewer started watching, because the score was already 8-3 or 8-2 in a race to 10, playing alternate breaks. As a result, even when Wu missed a shot it didn't mean anything because Duel knew that no matter what he did, Wu would have ample opportunity to close the match out.

Imagine what the excitement level of the crowd would have been if Wu missed that seven ball in a winner's break format. The question would have been, "Can Duel make a run from here.?

In contrast, consider the famous match between Mike Sigel and Nick Varner in which Sigel was up 9-2 in a race to eleven, HOOKED Varner on a two ball and then whispered to his wife, "Watch!! Nick's going to kick in the two ball and then run out the set on me!" And you know, Nick ended up winnig the set! In an alternate break format, Roger Griffis' famous run to the hill from being down 12-0 in a race to 13, Mika's resounding comeback against Rempe in the '98 U.S. Open, and Spanish Pete's comeback from 8-2 against Frankie Hernandez (after Frankie had packed up half his equipment!) could never have occurred. That's excitement, and you will never see it like that with the alternate breaks format!

Edit: Another part of nine-ball that is eliminated by the alternate breaks format is the ability to take the heat! Anyone can take the pressure of an opponent breaking lights out and executing a picture perfect run out if they know they will get a chance in the very next rack. Part of what constitutes a champion, IMHO, is the ability to fade an opponent's six pack and respond with a package of his own. To me, THAT'S nine-ball! The electric chair should never be removed from the game!

 

[crosseyedjoe]

But once more and for the last time, it is very rare that a player doesn't get their opportunities to run out the set themselves, so all of these equal opportunity arguements are moot.

Nope, the fact that it happens means something.

Alternating break also evens out the luck on break. Getting a dry break is not a player's error.

Imagine a game of American football or soccer having the team who last scored gets the possesion. Also imagine a tennis game that the set winner always gets to serve on the next set. This will give you a better insight on why reward could very well skew the outcome of the competition.

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

I repeat the question posed in an earlier post. Are the proponents of alternate breaks prepared to propose that straight pool be limited to innings of 50 balls? If a player beats me by running out the set I am much more satisfied by that than a set in which I had many opportunities and didn't take care of them.

As I've said before, part of the beauty of nine-ball is the fact that between strong players, no one can ever afford to relax because any mistake can mean that it's your last inning at the table. That should never be taken away!

Earlier todayI watched the 2006 match between Wu and Corey Duel, and the match had no suspense whatsoever by the time the viewer started watching, because the score was already 8-3 or 8-2 in a race to 10, playing alternate break. As a result, even when Wu missed a shot it didn't mean anything because Duel knew that no matter what he did, Wu would have ample opportunity to close the match out.

Imagine what the excitement level of the crowd would have been if Wu missed that seven ball in a winner's break format. The question would have been, "Can Duel make a run from here.?

In contrast, consider the famous match between Mike Sigel and Nick Varner in which Sigel was up 9-2 in a race to eleven, HOOKED Varner on a two ball and then whispered to his wife, "Watch!! Nick's going to kick in the two ball and then run out the set on me!" And you know, Nick ended up winnig the set! In an alternate break format, Roger Griffis' famous run to the hill from being down 12-0 in a race to 13, Mika's resounding comeback against Rempe in the '98 U.S. Open, and Spanish Pete's comeback from 8-2 against Frankie Hernandez (after Frankie had packed up half his equipment!) could never have occurred. That's excitement, and you will never see it like that with the alternate breaks format!

Edit: Another part of nine-ball that is eliminated by the alternate breaks format is the ability to take the heat! Anyone can take the pressure of an opponent breaking lights out and executing a picture perfect run out if they know they will get a chance in the very next rack. Part of what constitutes a champion, IMHO, is the ability to fade an opponent's six pack and respond with a package of his own. To me, THAT'S nine-ball! The electric chair should never be removed from the game!

True so to speak, but we must also consider and remember that the game of pool also involves luck! there are situations where a person is 8-0 down in an alternate break format and still come up with a "W". or in most situations, let's say 3-5 racks down and still won the game in that kind of a format. this is due to dry breaks, no openings, a mistake, foul or a scratch or any other unexplicable unfortunate circumstances. There is also a drama here and excitement involved since the pool player and the audience pray that the opposing player makes an uncharacteristic error. It's like saying when that person who is down 4 racks and comes up with the win would later say "WHEW, that was freakin close and I got goosebumps all over me"

"POOL is 99% SKILL and 1% LUCK ! But if I was given the chance to choose between the two, I'd take the 1% LUCK !

 

[Fred]

Winners break might be one of the reasons Pro pool enjoys it's current popularity with the masses. So I guess if it aint broke don't fix it.
Justin Nuder

 

[Cameron Smith]

Nope, the fact that it happens means something.

That is a matter of a opinion. I believe that running out racks is part of the character of pool, take that away and it loses something. I have had racks run on me, and I have always appreciated watching it even though anyone who knows me will say that I am fiercely competitive. The electric chair is part of pool and I would never want to change that.

Getting a dry break is not a player's error.

Initially you are right, it is not. However if a player continuously comes up dry while breaking from the same spot it does become players error. Part of what makes a great pool player is the ability to figure out the break. With the one ball on the spot I believe that Cory Duel will figure out the break on just about any table.

Imagine a game of American football or soccer having the team who last scored gets the possesion. Also imagine a tennis game that the set winner always gets to serve on the next set. This will give you a better insight on why reward could very well skew the outcome of the competition.

Football isn't pool and neither is tennis. The sports can not be compared. At least not well enough to convince me of anything.

All of the arguements against winners breaks seem to be based on the scenario that a player runs 7, 8, 9 or 10 racks to run out a set without the other player ever getting an opportunity. And so far my thread on running out a set is showing that the most experianced pool fans have only seen the feat a handfull of times. But again that is one of the areas where our opinion differs. I personally believe that such incidences do not warrant an overhaul of the match format.

Every other scenario in winners breaks involves both players getting an opportunity. In this scenario if a player misses and his opponent finishes off the set, my personal belief is that the first player shouldn't have missed. If my opponent keeps leaving me no shot, and I lose, I believe that I should have played a better safety.

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

However if a player continuously comes up dry while breaking from the same spot it does become players error. Part of what makes a great pool player is the ability to figure out the break. With the one ball on the spot I believe that Cory Duel will figure out the break on just about any table.

Blame Sardo for the alternate break format ! If my memory serves me correctly, the time when the alternate break format came into the limelight is the time when people started using the sardo rack. I might be branded as dillussional for saying that the sardo rack has something to do with the alternate break. in my opinion, it has. take Corey Deuel as an example. he is able to use his soft break to it's maximum potential due to the perfect diamond created by the sardo rack which enables him to surely pocket balls in every one of his breaks. not to mention old pal Neils who uses the same soft break strategy coupled with his slow game brand of play. I notice these guys have difficulty capitalizing on the break if a normal triangle was used in racking the balls. I'll be glad to be sitting in the electric chair so long as a sardo isn't used! Down with SARDO, the culprit behind the alternate breaks ! just kiddin ...

 

[crosseyedjoe]

Blame Sardo for the alternate break format ! If my memory serves me correctly, the time when the alternate break format came into the limelight is the time when people started using the sardo rack. I might be branded as dillussional for saying that the sardo rack has something to do with the alternate break. in my opinion, it has. take Corey Deuel as an example. he is able to use his soft break to it's maximum potential due to the perfect diamond created by the sardo rack which enables him to surely pocket balls in every one of his breaks. not to mention old pal Neils who uses the same soft break strategy coupled with his slow game brand of play. I notice these guys have difficulty capitalizing on the break if a normal triangle was used in racking the balls. I'll be glad to be sitting in the electric chair so long as a sardo isn't used! Down with SARDO, the culprit behind the alternate breaks ! just kiddin ...

LOL, no this is a better idea. Since many players want to be rewarded for playing a good rack, we can just change the format to no opponent and best number of racks string together to decide who gets to the next round. Before you know it, they will start to complain about the break itself, when they finally realized the total randomness of a break and ask that only SARDO will be used in competition.

I don't know why people dislike the idea of eliminating rewards, evenning out luck on break, and a truer race to the finish, and making pool more competitive when played at higher level.

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

LOL, no this is a better idea. Since many players want to be rewarded for playing a good rack, we can just change the format to no opponent and best number of racks string together to decide who gets to the next round. Before you know it, they will start to complain about the break itself, when they finally realized the total randomness of a break and ask that only SARDO will be used in competition.

I don't know why people dislike the idea of eliminating rewards, evenning out luck on break, and a truer race to the finish, and making pool more competitive when played at higher level.

LMFAO !!! I think it is only natural for pool to have some kind of a change. such as rules on how the game is played as pool continue to evolve and new brand of play is introduced. some of us might like it and some of us don't. but that's how it works! this does not only apply to pool but also to other sports such as basketball, tennis, volleyball, and so forth and so on! the argument here is can people (particularly pool players) cope up and make adjustments to these changes? DOWN with SARDO !!!

 

[Neil]

.............

 

[Aaron_S]

As far as running out a set is concerned. I've never had anyone do it to me in a tournament, but when/if it happens, I'm not going to consider them less worthy of the win just because I didn't get to shoot. There's no such thing as a lucky seven-pack, IMO.

Aaron

 

[Scottster]

If I'm in a tourn., I want to know that I have a chance to catch up if I fall behind. Alt. break, catching up is as rare as running out the set. If not even more so. I have heard far more people in small local tourn. complain "he runs out everytime I let him to the table" . So, what's next to make it fair?

I have already answered your question in my reply to this topic, SuperStar has as well BTW (Brilliant minds think alike).

 

[crosseyedjoe]

LMFAO !!! I think it is only natural for pool to have some kind of a change. such as rules on how the game is played as pool continue to evolve and new brand of play is introduced. some of us might like it and some of us don't. but that's how it works! this does not only apply to pool but also to other sports such as basketball, tennis, volleyball, and so forth and so on! the argument here is can people (particularly pool players) cope up and make adjustments to these changes? DOWN with SARDO !!!

DOWN with SARDO, no you can't do that. They want their run-outs.

Since these guys wanna play the table instead of playing a more competetive against another player, maybe they should just start playing pool layouts, the more consecutive racks you get the harder the layout. All players will play exactly the same layouts. Now that's what you call fair.

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

DOWN with SARDO, no you can't do that. They want their run-outs.

Since these guys wanna play the table instead of playing a more competetive against another player, maybe they should just start playing pool layouts, the more consecutive racks you get the harder the layout. All players will play exactly the same layouts. Now that's what you call fair.

Hmmm.....pool layout matches are already being played. sad to say, those are only played in trickshot matches. same layout for each player, each successful shot by a player, earns him a point. Thank God they don't have to use Sardo setting up those layouts !

 

[crosseyedjoe]

Kind off. I was thinking more about a 9-ball layout puzzle with increasing difficulty. Your score is how many layouts you run-out consecutively.

 

[Cuebacca]

All of the arguements against winners breaks seem to be based on the scenario that a player runs 7, 8, 9 or 10 racks to run out a set without the other player ever getting an opportunity. And so far my thread on running out a set is showing that the most experianced pool fans have only seen the feat a handfull of times. But again that is one of the areas where our opinion differs. I personally believe that such incidences do not warrant an overhaul of the match format.

I agree; it seems like the arguments for alternate break are based on something that even the most hard-core pool fans have only witnessed a handful of times or less. Also, when they do see that happen, it is very impressive and they will remember it forever. Why take that away?

If I went to a tournament to watch Efren Reyes and in his match, Joe Blow won the lag and kept Efren in his chair to run 13 and out in one inning, I think seeing that would make it worth it to me to have missed seeing Efren play.

However, I propose a solution to make situations like this more fair for both players: Winner breaks with a guarantee of at least one inning per player.

Example: Race to 7. Player 1 wins the lag. Player 1 runs 7-and-out in the first inning. Since Player 2 is guaranteed one inning, Player 2 gets one inning to try to run 7-and-out. If Player 2 cannot run 7-and-out to match Player 1's performance, then Player 1 immediately wins when Player 2's inning ends. If Player 2 is able to match the 7-and-out in one inning, it goes into overtime.

In overtime, it is a race to 1, with the same guarantee of at least one inning per player in overtime. If Player 1 breaks and runs 1-and-out in overtime and if Player 2 matches that break and run out, then it goes to double overtime, and so on.

So, with this "winner breaks, 1-inning guaranteed" format, no one could complain that they didn't at least have some chance to prove that they were playing better than their opponent. It would still be rare to have one person break and run out the set, and extremely rare to see an overtime.

Seems like a good compromise to me, but what do I know?

 

[Captain Dan]

My preference is not listed. Should be loser breakes.
"Writen by someone who loses to much."

I like your thinking, I'd be breaking a lot more .

Funny thing is, we have started this idea in car racing in Australia. After the 1st Rnd of the season, starting position is determined by where you finished the race before, so if you won you start on the back of the pack. This allows for closer racing, and a more competive and enjoyable series to watch.

Daniel

 

[Cameron Smith]

I agree; it seems like the arguments for alternate break are based on something that even the most hard-core pool fans have only witnessed a handful of times or less. Also, when they do see that happen, it is very impressive and they will remember it forever. Why take that away?

If I went to a tournament to watch Efren Reyes and in his match, Joe Blow won the lag and kept Efren in his chair to run 13 and out in one inning, I think seeing that would make it worth it to me to have missed seeing Efren play.

However, I propose a solution to make situations like this more fair for both players: Winner breaks with a guarantee of at least one inning per player.

Example: Race to 7. Player 1 wins the lag. Player 1 runs 7-and-out in the first inning. Since Player 2 is guaranteed one inning, Player 2 gets one inning to try to run 7-and-out. If Player 2 cannot run 7-and-out to match Player 1's performance, then Player 1 immediately wins when Player 2's inning ends. If Player 2 is able to match the 7-and-out in one inning, it goes into overtime.

In overtime, it is a race to 1, with the same guarantee of at least one inning per player in overtime. If Player 1 breaks and runs 1-and-out in overtime and if Player 2 matches that break and run out, then it goes to double overtime, and so on.

So, with this "winner breaks, 1-inning guaranteed" format, no one could complain that they didn't at least have some chance to prove that they were playing better than their opponent. It would still be rare to have one person break and run out the set, and extremely rare to see an overtime.

Seems like a good compromise to me, but what do I know?

I like this, I seem to remember something similar being used in carom billiards. Though I could be wrong.