A
a_susie_cue
Guest
What do you prefer?
I believe alternate breaks is the best way to go about. Loser breaks makes it the most "fair" as you would always have a chance to make back the game you lost... but I believe alternate breaks is the best rule.
It will be guarenteed that your opponent will be getting a break, but every other rack it also rewards you for winning the game by getting a win-break scenario.
Winner breaks is probably the worst format. Sometimes it rewards very good play, by the fact that someone running out the balls gets rewarded by breaking and trying again... but it also rewards luck in some cases, which I never feel is right.
It will be guarenteed that your opponent will be getting a break, but every other rack it also rewards you for winning the game by getting a win-break scenario.
Winner breaks is probably the worst format. Sometimes it rewards very good play, by the fact that someone running out the balls gets rewarded by breaking and trying again... but it also rewards luck in some cases, which I never feel is right.
with winner breaks, good players are never out of the match even if the score is 10-0 in a race to 11. enough said.
HitHrdNDraw said:
But would a "good" player ever really be down 10-0 for it to matter in a case like this? Even most pros can't string together more than 3 or 4 racks consistently w/o giving up a shot or at least playing a safety, and if the "good" player misses enough key shots to fall 10-0... he probably won't be able to run 11 straight.
In 9-ball, 10-ball and 8-ball:
Small races, alternate break.
Long races, winner breaks.
Alternate breaks in the World 9-ball Championship final race to 17 is a joke. It's like a boxingmatch against Foreman & Tyson, and after Foreman get's hit in the face it's Tyson's turn to hit...
Small races, alternate break.
Long races, winner breaks.
Alternate breaks in the World 9-ball Championship final race to 17 is a joke. It's like a boxingmatch against Foreman & Tyson, and after Foreman get's hit in the face it's Tyson's turn to hit...
Yokel said:
Quite possible that a world champions can be down a lot. Corey Deuel beat Mika Immonen 7-0 or 8-0 in the US Open the year Mika Immonen won the World Pool Championship. It is naive to believe everyone plays good all the time. Wu Chia Ching ran out 5 straight racks to win the World Pool Championship 05. It is certainly possible. Besides its not about running 11 straight its about winning 11 straight.
S
Scottster
Guest
None of 'em
"Pro Competition" Break format is the NUTS. For 8-ball 9-ball and 10-ball.
"Pro Competition" Break format is the NUTS. For 8-ball 9-ball and 10-ball.
Only in one pocket is the alternating brake acceptable IMO.
In any other game alternating the break, or looser breaks is just another attempt to give a weaker player a chance. If the these are the terms of the set as a sort of handicap then I think its ok. I think if a guy wins he should break, if he runs a 6 pack so be it.
In any other game alternating the break, or looser breaks is just another attempt to give a weaker player a chance. If the these are the terms of the set as a sort of handicap then I think its ok. I think if a guy wins he should break, if he runs a 6 pack so be it.
I think it depends heavily on which game you speak of. In 1-pocket and 8-ball, the breaker has a huge advantage so alternating breaks is almost necessary. In fact, it's usually assumed in 1-pocket that alternating breaks apply. In 8-ball, sets are often very short since games can take a while. However, if someone has their break working, putting a package together is not that uncommon. Assuming the set is relatively short, ANY multi-rack run is going to be devastating to the other player so for this reason, I think alternating breaks is more fair.
However, in 9-ball, something like 51% of the time, the breaker wins. I don't see it as an overwhelming advantage for most players. I'll admit, no matter who I'm playing, if they're breaking, I expect to get to the table at some point in nearly every game. Although making a ball, getting position on the 1-ball and having no (or manageable) problems doesn't seem that uncommon, it's far more common to not make a ball on the break at all! So, if the game is 9-ball, I would probably favor winner-breaks simply because that's the traditional way 9-ball is played.
However, in 9-ball, something like 51% of the time, the breaker wins. I don't see it as an overwhelming advantage for most players. I'll admit, no matter who I'm playing, if they're breaking, I expect to get to the table at some point in nearly every game. Although making a ball, getting position on the 1-ball and having no (or manageable) problems doesn't seem that uncommon, it's far more common to not make a ball on the break at all! So, if the game is 9-ball, I would probably favor winner-breaks simply because that's the traditional way 9-ball is played.
HitHrdNDraw said:
True but that means little in a debate about which is better if there's nothing to compare it with. In an alternate break match a good player is never going to be 10-0 down in the first place
There are some loose parallels in other sports. Ball possession is almost as crucial in "rugby sevens" as having the break is in pool. Up until a few years ago each time a team had points scored against them they had to restart the game by kicking the ball into the opposition territory thereby usually immediately giving up ball possession again, often leading to a further score against them before they had even touched the ball.
The game became infinitely fairer and more attractive to spectators when the law was changed to instead make the team which had just scored restart the game.
The nearest pool equivalent to this is loser breaks but have to say I personally favour alternate breaks as a system most likely to throw up the player with the best all round game. Winner breaks tends to give disproportionate reward for the player with better breaking skills and/or more breaking luck on the day. Breaking skills would quite rightly still be rewarded without the winner breaks format, only to a lesser degree.
You can always tell a useless breaker by his posts
Depends on the race, anything more than 7 I think winner breaks. A great break is hard to achieve, it is a weapon. In short races it is possible to run out the entire set or not let them do anything but 2 rail kick, in that case alternating B is necessary. In long races you should get a chance before they reach the hill, if you don't take advantage and have an equally great break the you don't deserve to win. Of course there are times when the wing ball just isn't going for you and it is the other guy and such but that is why I think nine ball should be ousted by 10 BALL!! WHO IS WITH ME!!
Eric.
PS. I now also believe that there must be a 3rd party racker. People give me bad racks purposely, I try and give myself an advantage when I rack for myself, that guy over there that I have never seen before should rack.
Eric.
PS. I now also believe that there must be a 3rd party racker. People give me bad racks purposely, I try and give myself an advantage when I rack for myself, that guy over there that I have never seen before should rack.
memikey said:The nearest pool equivalent to this is loser breaks but have to say I personally favour alternate breaks as a system most likely to throw up the player with the best all round game. Winner breaks tends to give disproportionate reward for the player with better breaking skills and/or more breaking luck on the day. Breaking skills would quite rightly still be rewarded without the winner breaks format, only to a lesser degree.
You can always tell a useless breaker by his posts
I like the way you think, gud post.
Eric.
Sweet Marissa
www.Bella-Muse.com
............................................................................................................................
Last edited:
Seems to me that winning the game means you win the break as well. It's just the right thing to do. The winner deserves the break. He/she earned that privilege. GIVING the loser the break just goes against my grain. Why should the loser get a bigger chance to win the next game? If a person wants to gain an advantage they have to earn it by winning the game. I don't like the idea of feeling sorry for the loser and giving him a break by passing him the advantage for the next game. Ya gotta earn the advantage.
If not then maybe we need a limit on the number of balls a player can run in an inning. I mean, gee whiz it's just not fair that he's making ALL the balls. It's time to give somebody else a chance.
How about some cheeze with that whine. Yeah I know it's a hard ass stance to take but life is tough and then ya die. Deal with it. There's no sympathy in pool.
If not then maybe we need a limit on the number of balls a player can run in an inning. I mean, gee whiz it's just not fair that he's making ALL the balls. It's time to give somebody else a chance.
How about some cheeze with that whine. Yeah I know it's a hard ass stance to take but life is tough and then ya die. Deal with it. There's no sympathy in pool.
Last edited: