Alternate breaks, winner breaks, or loser breaks?

[memikey]

So does that logic extend to the chess player who had white and therefore the first move and won the game always having white and first move again in the next game?

How about darts? Should the guy with the huge advantage of the first throw and who wins the game always have the first throw in the next game?

What about noughts and crosses. Should the guy who goes first and wins the game always start the next game?

There may or may not be a good and justifiable reason for it but I don't think that's it JimS

 

[BazookaJoe]

If it's going to be alternating breaks, it should always be 10 ball.
8 ball alternate
9 ball winner breaks.
one pocket should be (and usually is) alternate.

 

[sde]

When watching a match I prefer winner breaks.
If I'm playing in a match I prefer loser breaks. Sometimes that is the only chance I get to shoot!

Steve

 

[Snapshot9]

To me

it depends on whether it is gambling or tournaments first. Anyone going up against someone they perceive to be as good or better usually prefers alternate break, whereas if they perceive to have the advantage want winner breaks. Loser breaks usually arises when there is a great disparity in skill levels.

In a sporting contest, it should be alternate breaks, because Pool is not totally offensive today, and it should be showcased where both players have to show offense and defense, thus making the sport much more appealing intellectually, and more exciting, IMO. Alternate breaks create parity between all players in a match, throughout all their matches in a tournament and is the fairest way for all players.

I mean the same team doesn't get the ball again after scoring a basket in basketball, do they? We have innings in baseball for a reason, giving each a chance for offense and defense. We, likewise, have offense and defense in Football also.

In gambling, it is decided on an individual basis although winner breaks has a long standing tradition for years, plus the very format for challenges dictates that the winner keeps breaking. In otherwords, it was thought that excellence of the sport should be rewarded and continued in the same manner, with the winner continuing to the next game.

Even in basketball one on one's challenge or money matches, one player keeps the basketball as long as he scores. When he fails to, the other player gets the ball.

So, my decision in gambling depends how we match up, whether I am going uphill or downhill, and who it is I am playing.

In tournaments, I prefer alternate breaks first, winner breaks second.

 

[seymore15074]

alternating makes it more even in my opinion.

Exactly, so why would anyone want to do this? I want to see who's better come out on top!

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I personally like alternate breaks. It makes pool more equal compared to other sports. In tennis, you have alternate serves. You don't see Federer win a game, and because he won.... get ready to serve for the next game.

Same in golf, just because you birdie doesn't mean your opponent doesn't have a chance at playing the hole.

I would like to see players all play the same number of games per match, in order to see "true" statistics.

Meaning, if one guy beats another guy 11-0, and another guy wins 11-10... one guy played 11 games and the other guy played in 21 games for the same set. Stats for the first set are diluted.

I think Hopkins will be running his million dollar tournament in this fashion. Everyone in the round-robin plays x games, win or lose (alternate break). There will be a cut (similar to golf), and those with the fewest wins play earlier the next morning. With everyone guaranteed the same number of games per set, you can do some interested things w/ tournaments.

I want the better player to win too... not necessarily the guy/girl who has the best break. Winner breaks makes the break paramount in who wins (at the highest level).

 

[Scottster]

"Pro Competition" break format is the NUTS for 8-ball 9-ball and 10-ball

How does that work?

In this format the break is alternate break. However it allows for a player to break and run up to 3 racks in one inning (a push, safety, or miss ends an inning) before returning the break to the opponent.

This format always gives each player an opportunity to stay in the match.
With alternate break, a match score of 7-3 in a race to 9 seems almost impossible to overcome. However in this format a 4 game swing can occur with one trip to the table. ie Player "B" can come to the table, win player "A"'s break, then break and run 3 more racks to tie the match up at 7-7 then return the break back to Player "A" for him to answer.

I believe this format promotes the best of competition, allows both players innings at the table, always allows a player the opportunity to shoot his way back into a match, and provides the excitement to the fans who want to see racks strung together.

 

[8-Ball Player]

If you do winner breaks you get someone in there like Johnny Archer and he will run 10 racks in a row and you wont even be able to leave your seat. Alternate breaks are fair, gives players a chance to break while they are in a big tournament.

 

[Tony Longoni]

i think for the good of the sport tournament matches should be alternate break, we need any match played to showcase the ablilities of both players for the benefit of the fans. other sports use an alternating method- tennis alternates serve, basketball is not make-it-take-it unless your playing in the neighborhood, football is an alternating format, ect...
now if your gambling i think the breaks are part of the negotiations and could be played in either format decided on by the participating players.

 

[CreeDo]

I liked jude's reply, it seems sensible.

My only gripe is that even if winner breaks only gives someone a theoretical 1% edge, it's still an edge with big money on the line.
If the only argument against alternating is that it isn't traditional... then I'd say heck with it and go with alternating.

Also, tho I've seen that 51% figure quoted before, I dunno if that applies to TV players. I think it must be closer to 60%. If they were truly about 50/50 to win on any given break, then it'd be a pretty rare thing to see 5 or 6 wins in a row with winner-breaks, like coming up heads over and over on a coin flip. But it seems pretty common.

 

[Roy Steffensen]

The breakshot is one of the most important shots in pool, and those of you who says that you don't wanna see the best breaker win, but the best player, well, the break is a major part of the game... Why should a good player get "punished" for having a better break than his opponent?

And about comparing the break with other sports. We can go on and on with this. In soccer it's losers break. If you score a goal, the other team starts with the ball. In tennis it is alternate. In boxing they just keep hitting each other, and in pool we should stick to the good old winner breaks

 

[seymore15074]

The breakshot is one of the most important shots in pool, and those of you who says that you don't wanna see the best breaker win, but the best player, well, the break is a major part of the game... Why should a good player get "punished" for having a better break than his opponent?

Exactly. If a player can run a whole set out on someone, and the other guy cannot; the player that runs them SHOULD win. What's the problem?

Secondly, if both players can run a whole set out, then they had better agree on lagging, and the better lagger will win (theoretically). What's the problem?

If your break sucks, work on it.

If you suck, you will want alternating breaks.

That's how I feel about it, as a player. And as a spectator, I feel like the following:

I want to see who can run out sets. I see people run individual racks every day, that is not exciting.

Safety battles and pressure situations can be "shrugged" off in alternating-break format; in winner-breaks format, you ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO WIN THE BATTLE! It could cost you the set!

 

[digitalcrack]

Exactly. If a player can run a whole set out on someone, and the other guy cannot; the player that runs them SHOULD win. What's the problem?

Secondly, if both players can run a whole set out, then they had better agree on lagging, and the better lagger will win (theoretically). What's the problem?

If your break sucks, work on it.

If you suck, you will want alternating breaks.

That's how I feel about it, as a player. And as a spectator, I feel like the following:

I want to see who can run out sets. I see people run individual racks every day, that is not exciting.

Safety battles and pressure situations can be "shrugged" off in alternating-break format; in winner-breaks format, you ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO WIN THE BATTLE! It could cost you the set!

Well Said.

 

[CreeDo]

as a player, I would want alternating. I don't think it's about the quality of the break so much as minimizing the bad combination of a somewhat lucky game + a bad format that has races that are way too short for great players. Alternating breaks offsets those problems a bit.

If it's a race to some reasonable figure on the other hand, like at least 30, go ahead and let winner break... it should even out.

And I agree as a spectator it's exciting to watch a break and run out like 6 in a row. That gets lost in alternating break.

 

[a_susie_cue]

Wow, the response to this was was interesting to me. I love everyone's input and appreciate it too.

 

[VIProfessor]

People who argue against winner breaks seem to look at only one side of the coin--the fact that a player can run out the set without the other getting a chance to compete. To begin with, the occurrence of someone running out the set in a race to 9 or more are few and far enough between that they become the stuff of legend in our sport. We will forever be talking about Earl's million dollar run and Johnny's famous 13 and out against Busty. So let's get that part out of the way. Even the best players will not run out the set often enough to impact the competitive quality of the winner break format. The problem, in that regard, is that sets are becoming way too short. Races to 5 and to 7 at the professional level is simply ludicrous! ESPN edits down the races to 7 when necessary anyway, so they might as well allow a proper length set and edit it as necessary to fit within their artifically short hour-long format.

The missing part of the equation to which I referred earlier is that under a winner breaks format, a player is never out of a match once he gets a chance at the table, so there is never any release of competitive pressure until the last nine ball drops. Even if a player is leading 10-0 in a race to eleven, he knows that any mistake can potentially cost him the match. It makes for greater suspense, greater excitement, and a better game. Further, the element of fighting spirit is intensified with a winner break format. To see a player sit in the electric chair for 4-5 racks and then jump up and respond with a multi-rack run or a tightly controlled series of games is a wonderful thing to behold, and it exemplifies the best in our sport. It is nothing short of tragic to remove that element from the game simply because some players can't fade the chair!

The break is huge in 9-ball. Live with it!

P.S.--why doesn't anyone complain that straight pool allows a person to run out a game? After all, it occurs with greater frequency in straight pool than it does in 9-ball. Why prevent the best players in the world from maximizing their performance?

 

[I rack balls]

People who argue against winner breaks seem to look at only one side of the coin--the fact that a player can run out the set without the other getting a chance to compete. To begin with, the occurrence of someone running out the set in a race to 9 or more are few and far enough between that they become the stuff of legend in our sport. We will forever be talking about Earl's million dollar run and Johnny's famous 13 and out against Busty. So let's get that part out of the way. Even the best players will not run out the set often enough to impact the competitive quality of the winner break format. The problem, in that regard, is that sets are becoming way too short. Races to 5 and to 7 at the professional level is simply ludicrous! ESPN edits down the races to 7 when necessary anyway, so they might as well allow a proper length set and edit it as necessary to fit within their artifically short hour-long format.

The missing part of the equation to which I referred earlier is that under a winner breaks format, a player is never out of a match once he gets a chance at the table, so there is never any release of competitive pressure until the last nine ball drops. Even if a player is leading 10-0 in a race to eleven, he knows that any mistake can potentially cost him the match. It makes for greater suspense, greater excitement, and a better game. Further, the element of fighting spirit is intensified with a winner break format. To see a player sit in the electric chair for 4-5 racks and then jump up and respond with a multi-rack run or a tightly controlled series of games is a wonderful thing to behold, and it exemplifies the best in our sport. It is nothing short of tragic to remove that element from the game simply because some players can't fade the chair!

The break is huge in 9-ball. Live with it!

P.S.--why doesn't anyone complain that straight pool allows a person to run out a game? After all, it occurs with greater frequency in straight pool than it does in 9-ball. Why prevent the best players in the world from maximizing their performance?

Great stuff!! I can not stand the TV formats. The better I get the more I see how terrible a race to 5 or 7 is. I also started to wonder since they edit out racks anyways why not have a long set........good point.

Eric.

 

[JimS]

People who argue against winner breaks seem to look at only one side of the coin--the fact that a player can run out the set without the other getting a chance to compete. To begin with, the occurrence of someone running out the set in a race to 9 or more are few and far enough between that they become the stuff of legend in our sport. We will forever be talking about Earl's million dollar run and Johnny's famous 13 and out against Busty. So let's get that part out of the way. Even the best players will not run out the set often enough to impact the competitive quality of the winner break format. The problem, in that regard, is that sets are becoming way too short. Races to 5 and to 7 at the professional level is simply ludicrous! ESPN edits down the races to 7 when necessary anyway, so they might as well allow a proper length set and edit it as necessary to fit within their artifically short hour-long format.

The missing part of the equation to which I referred earlier is that under a winner breaks format, a player is never out of a match once he gets a chance at the table, so there is never any release of competitive pressure until the last nine ball drops. Even if a player is leading 10-0 in a race to eleven, he knows that any mistake can potentially cost him the match. It makes for greater suspense, greater excitement, and a better game. Further, the element of fighting spirit is intensified with a winner break format. To see a player sit in the electric chair for 4-5 racks and then jump up and respond with a multi-rack run or a tightly controlled series of games is a wonderful thing to behold, and it exemplifies the best in our sport. It is nothing short of tragic to remove that element from the game simply because some players can't fade the chair!

The break is huge in 9-ball. Live with it!

P.S.--why doesn't anyone complain that straight pool allows a person to run out a game? After all, it occurs with greater frequency in straight pool than it does in 9-ball. Why prevent the best players in the world from maximizing their performance?

Well said friend. I doubt there's any principle of life we disagree on. Kindred spirits is the term I think.

There are good arguments about whether winner breaks is right but bottom line... when I"m playing, and I win, it ain't right if I have to sit down and let someone else play. I WON! IT'S STILL MY TURN!!

I think loser breaks or alternate breaks is cry baby crap. That's my stance and I'm in good hands.

 

[a_susie_cue]

Winner breaks seems to be the favorite.

For the most part, winner break is favored. However, it does appear to be a toss up between alternate and winner at tournaments. Thanks to everyone who responded. It was a debate we had at league not that long ago and I was just curious how others felt about it.

 

[Neil]

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