Alternate breaks, winner breaks, or loser breaks?

[StormHotRod300]

AV84fun,

No, I dont think Bobby Pickle is better than Archer or Reyes. I'm sure that on any given day, He can beat them, as he has proven. But cant that be said for any top player? And if Player A beats Player B in a gambling match, then at that time, yes they are the better player. Maybe Player B was having a OFF day or w/e but nobody is perfect.

And I never said that if someone DISAGREE's with me they are a Sally and should squat to piss.

But everyone! should want WINNER breaks, isnt that the reward for winning the rack? You stay at the table and continue to shoot untill you miss, play safe, pushout, or make a foul. Not give up the table so your opponent has the chance to win a game or the match when you did nothing wrong.

I mean who would want to go into a tournament and WANT it to be alternate breaks? Your basically Handicapping yourself from the start.

As for the Mosconi Cup, and certain tournaments, yes they should lift thier skirt and man up! and make it Winner Breaks.

I mean I hate watching the WPBA tournaments on TV cuz of the Alternate break format, its like ohhhh wow she ran out, now I get to see the other girl try to run out. I want to see players run racks.

If I goto a tournament and have someone run a 4 or 5 pack on me, well maybe i should practice more! And yes, I do like seeing a guy run a 4 or 5 pack even if it's on me.

I guess I just look at it like this, If you think you are good enough to play with the Pro's then play WINNER breaks and see how you fair against them.

Why should the Top player's be punished, just so the lesser player has a chance?

 

[BPG24]

Alternating breaks definitely makes it harder for me to stay in stroke, as do ring games...

If I was playing a better player than I would definitely want Alternating breaks though because it would cut down on the number of games in a row that they could win

Against a weaker player I would want winner breaks, even in a handicapped tournament

 

[atthecat]

I think we should just do alternate shots. One person makes a ball then the other person makes a ball. That way everyone gets to have fun and make pretty patterns!

Winner breaks!!!!

 

[Cameron Smith]

!

From a spectators stand point, I prefer winner breaks. I like to see players get in rythm and run rack after rack. I lose interest in 9 ball when players are playing lots of safeties and push outs. It's just so bloody repetitive. Most tournaments on tv these days are alternate breaks, and I have all but stopped watching them.

Winner Breaks provides the opportunity for great moments. If Daryl Peach ran 17 racks in the World finals it would be one of the most incredible things that ever occured in pool. However in alternating breaks format, the best thing he could possibly do is either come back from a 16-0 deficit or win 17-0, but that would require a huge amount of help from his opponent. In short Alternating breaks is BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!

From a players stand point, I still prefer winner breaks. If my opponent keeps putting packages together on me, and I can't I respond in kind, then I deserve to lose the match.

If he/she runs out the entire match on me and I never get a shot, I will applaud him/her. As much as people are worried about this occurence it is extremely rare. Why don't we initiate an equal innings rule as they have had in billiards?

If my opponent runs most or all of the match out on me and I lose while only getting one or two opportunities. I deserve to lose as I clearly did not play as well as my opponent.

 

[softshot]

If you want to get beat by a guy running 100+ balls ... play straight pool..
if you want to see a guy run 100 balls ..... watch straight pool.

If you want a fair competition in other games alternate the break. the only arguments against it seem to be by gamblers and gamblers don't care about fair games of pool they care about taking your money. Pool is just a vehicle to get it.

Hence 20 minutes of negotiation to play for $10 a rack. with both players feeling like they got the shitty end of the deal.

There is no pool player more afraid of playing an even match than a hustler.

There are many people who won't play me because I won't "Make it Interesting" I tell them that for me pool is already interesting.

Of course they are not interested in Pool .. they are interested in money.

And anything that makes the game FAIR is like a kitchen light to cockroaches... they scatter.

This of course only goes to prove that the terrible reputation pool has in America is well deserved.

 

[rossaroni]

If you want a fair competition in other games alternate the break. the only arguments against it seem to be by gamblers and gamblers don't care about fair games of pool they care about taking your money. Pool is just a vehicle to get it.

And anything that makes the game FAIR is like a kitchen light to cockroaches... they scatter.

This of course only goes to prove that the terrible reputation pool has in America is well deserved.

So, they must always play alternate breaks and never gamble in Taiwan and the Phillipines. Pool doesn't have a terrible reputation in these countries, so they must be doing something different then the winner breaks, hustler mindset of the Americans.

 

[Aaron_S]

Another alternative I hadn't previously considered is to do the break like the tennis serve. Player A gets x number of breaks in a row, and then player B gets the same number. You could set the number small, like 3 or 4, which would give each player the opportunity to string a few together while also creating more of an equal offense type situation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still a winner-breaks fan myself, but I would consider the above format to be a viable option; it works in tennis, anyway.

Also, it seems like I heard somewhere that one of my all-time favorite players, Buddy Hall, thought that loser-breaks was the best format. I have immense respect for the man, but I'm not sure I understand his reasoning if that is really how he feels. Has anyone else heard this?

Aaron

 

[pooljunkie4ever]

I am so tired of alternate break. This is why my tournament success has gone down hill IMO. Gambling I play great, score many wins. In tournament play I just can't fade the good break. I don't break well, so giving up my break to someone that breaks better than I really is a big spot. Also, it breaks up my momentum, After running a hard rack, the match is now tied, I give up my break and BOOM, the nine goes in, What a way to lose.
This alternating break IMO really has to go. If you can't win a game, then you don't deserve to break.

 

[Perk]

I prefer to play and watch winner breaks. If its an issue for having someone run a set out, make it a stipulation that each player will have the same number of attempts at the table in the match. For example if player A wins the lag and runs the set out, player B is one chance to do the same. Have the format be a win by 2 at least. If player A has a turn at the table and player B runs the set out the match is done.

I am not exactly sure why this is a huge topic considering that someone posted stats on the winner for win% and its only slightly above 50% and thats with 9ball.

It is 9ball or 10ball, running racks is exciting and challenging, let the horses run. Pool is a momentum game and alternate breaks takes away from that momentum, and personally I think it evens the playing field a bit.

 

[JoeW]

Tradition favors the gambler. But there are two sides to the issue.

One of the constants in pool is that for all games the player shoots until they miss. In this sense the winner continues at the table until they miss or so the hustler would have it.

A game of 9-Ball ends when the 9-ball is made and the game is over. In this sense there is no reason why the winner should continue at the table, except in so far as you can talk some fool into giving the winner an advantage over the loser.

It seems that the winner should be giving an advantage to the loser to keep the loser from quitting the session.

Pool players however continue with their traditions that encourage talking people out of their money.

Is it any wonder that people do not want to play against a better player who also wants some not so subtle advantage? As we all know there are other ways to fleece the loser and this is just another rationalization.

It would also seem that most losers are there to play not to watch an exhibition of skill by the winner of the last game.

We had a handicapped tournament last week in which the lesser player had to make fewer balls in a game of 8-Ball. The advantage to the weaker player was that they did not have to remove their balls from the table until it was to their advantage. In fact they did not have to remove their balls at all if they chose. Made for a very interesting and even tournament. Could not tell who was going to win as the stronger player had to make their balls and move the interfering balls. None-the-less the strongest player won the tournament -- but it was close.

 

[Snapshot9]

Breaking

Winner breaks.

I grew up in the time when 'excellence' in sport was rewarded, not punished, and being fair to the lessor player was an offer from the better player, not the other way around.

It's give lessor players way too many excuses to stay where they are in Pool instead of getting better.

It's the let everybody play syndrome, doesn't matter if you win or lose.

When I grew up, it was 'Let the buyer beware', and you survived on your own smarts in the world.

Today, it is 'Let the Seller be responsible' in every area of our lives.

As far as I am concerned, 'If you can't run with the BIG dogs, you sit on the porch', meaning if you are good enough to compete, you watch and practice until you think you are, you don't whine at the better player.

And that is called 'Giving respect where respect is due'. It will make a man out of you, and teach you humility.

 

[JoeW]

Let?s see if we compare playing pool to other sports if it is whining.

In the game of football if one team scores they must give up the ball to the other team. You can fill in the rest for baseball, basket ball, etc. Hockey is one exception but I am not sure how to stage the fight for the puck.

In a pool match where there is a race to some number of games. Each game is the equivalent of scoring one point. However, unlike nearly all other sports, when playing pool one does not give up their chance with the ball when a point is scored.

Apparently, when compared to other sports playing pool is inherently unfair to the loser at least that is the way other sports people would view it relative to their own sport. It is not rewarding the winner; it is placing the loser at a disadvantage.

If you want to play with the big dogs, or like the big dogs play, then similar standards should be used.

 

[Perk]

Giving respect where respect is due. It will make a man out of you, and teach you humility.

People dont want this anymore. They want their hand held in everything they learn or do. Look at little league, rocket football, heck even some high school sports now dont have tryouts or have restrictions for even playing time etc.

Personally I believe that the younger you experience humility, the better it will make you as an adult. A person is gonna want it or they wont. With all the handicapping etc, it seems that pool players just want it given to them without the hard work.

 

[wincardona]

Imo

Have you ever heard the story about the player that got staked to play a session of 9 ball with another good player,lost the lag and lost the set 9 to nothing with out a shot.. His backer pulled up and said,"you can't beat this guy" The player rebutted by saying "how do you know? you haven't seen me shoot yet"
Playing under certain conditions the breaker has an overwhelming advantage , for instance when the wing ball can't be stopped from going in. How can a player defend himself when that starts happening? By playing alternate break.Very much like the serve in tennis is an advantage, the break in 9 ball 10 ball and 8 ball are also an advantage ,but why should it be more of an advantage by allowing the the winning player to break the following game? Think about it,would you like to watch a tennis match where the server would be allowed to continue serving until he lost a point? Or a basketball game where the team that scored retained possesion of the ball? I don't think so. The reason sports like tennis and basketball are played with the alternate possesion rule is to make it more competive,and fair,resulting in closer more interesting matches and games.So I ask why don't we recognize,and respect the way great marketing minds structured rules for the major sports and follow suit?
IMO one of the greatest injustices is when a player has totally prepared him.or herself for a competition,and doesn't even get an opportunity to be rewarded for it.

 

[Cuebacca]

Tradition favors the gambler. But there are two sides to the issue.

One of the constants in pool is that for all games the player shoots until they miss. In this sense the winner continues at the table until they miss or so the hustler would have it.

A game of 9-Ball ends when the 9-ball is made and the game is over. In this sense there is no reason why the winner should continue at the table, except in so far as you can talk some fool into giving the winner an advantage over the loser.

It seems that the winner should be giving an advantage to the loser to keep the loser from quitting the session.

Pool players however continue with their traditions that encourage talking people out of their money.

Is it any wonder that people do not want to play against a better player who also wants some not so subtle advantage? As we all know there are other ways to fleece the loser and this is just another rationalization.

Hmm, so anyone who likes winner-breaks is either a hustler or a fool? Interesting. lol. I don't think that's a fair way to paint the winner-break camp.

In gambling, you can negotiate whatever you want. Make it alternating break, loser breaks, trailer breaks, or weaker player gets all the breaks.

In tournaments, especially professional tournaments, it should favor whoever is playing better. ie, set the conditions such that one who is playing better can win.

IMO, this isn't football, soccer, hockey, tiddlywinks, or any other activity. This is pool. No analogy is perfect, and they all break down eventually because pool is a unique game. The possibility of stringing racks together is part of what makes pool awesome!

But this is all just an amateur's perspective. I'd be really curious to hear what the pros say, even a pro that just completed a match where he never got much control over the table. Would he want to change pool to an alternating break format? Personally I don't think so, but that's just speculation.

In reality, I don't think any of this matters. If you cannot overcome the break in winner breaks, you cannot do it in alternating break either. If the guy who wins the lag always "holds his serve", exactly how can you win in alternating break?

In amateur tournaments, if you want players to get a chance to get their money's worth (while still losing), that's fine, go for alternating break, but it's not going to help them win. If one is going to win, they'll still need keep control of the game on their breaks, and/or have the opponent lose control of the game on the opponent's break(s).

Mathematically, alternating breaks may produce closer matches, but I just don't see how it helps the other person win. So if you want to hustle someone who isn't as good as you, perhaps you should offer alternating breaks, as it gives the illusion that they have a chance to win, IMO.

If I am looking at this wrong, and alternating breaks really does level the skill differential mathematically somehow, I'd be curious to understand how.

I think the only real advantage is "momentum", and I think it's fair and exciting to let someone keep their hot streak until it dies on its own.

 

[Cuebacca]

One other minor point is, if we are going to compare other sports to pool while pondering the break, I think we need to forget about football, hockey, basketball, and every other sport that is based on a clock.

Let's focus on tennis, baseball and any other game where its played to a designated number of points, games or innings.

It may not change the argument much, but I think the clock is a significant factor, as running down the clock can become a strategy that has no meaning in pool.

In tennis and baseball, they don't alternate after every single point, so likewise, in pool if alternating breaks is decided to have merit then perhaps a hybrid format is the way to go. This has been suggested by other posters before. For example, alternate after every 3 breaks.

 

[storke]

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.

i agree whole heartedly with you! thats why the format should be winner breaks. with alternate breaks if a player gets down by a large margin virtually impossible to win.

 

[JoeW]

Cuebacca said, "Hmm, so anyone who likes winner-breaks is either a hustler or a fool? Interesting. lol. I don't think that's a fair way to paint the winner-break camp."

I am sorry if you took it that way, that was not my intent. I was making an argument. The intent was not to impune anyone's character. It is more the ethos of playing pool.

I think your point re the clock is a good one. Tennis is a good example. There are a limited number of serves and they alternate.

Pool is of course none of these other sports, none-the-less, I can think of no other sports where the point maker has the opportunity for such a long sustained run while the opposition has no opportunity to reply.

I can not think of another game where the winner of the game is given an advantage over the loser in a subsequent game.

If a game is a thing in itself, then each game should begin anew with equal opportunities for winning. In a match situation this would be by a flip of the coin or alternating breaks. A New game should present no advantage for either party.

In a new game why should one or the other player be at a disadvantage? In my thinking if there is to be an advantage it should go to the underdog who is given the opportunity to catch up or get even if money is involved.

In a match situation, winning a game should not earn a point and an advantage for the next game. That is losing twice in one game.

If the challenger has agreed to these conditions unwittingly it would be a matter of good sportmanship to level the playing field rather than try to take advantage of it. "I won, lets see what you can do." is one way to think about it.

For some people it is more a matter of, "Lets see your best game and I will beat you." Not, "Lets see my best game and you never get a chance if I can help it."

I guess that people play pool for different reasons.

In Golf the best player of the last hole is first on the next hole. I think the intent is to have the best player show how the hole could be played. In this sense, the better player is, to some extent, giving the lesser player a slight advantage by allowing the lesser player to see the lay of the course (wind, roll, etc) before playing.

 

[Cuebacca]

Cuebacca said, "Hmm, so anyone who likes winner-breaks is either a hustler or a fool? Interesting. lol. I don't think that's a fair way to paint the winner-break camp."

Sorry, that was not my intent. I was making an argument. The intent was not to impune anyone's character. It is more the ethos of playing pool.

I think your point re the clock is a good one. Tennis is a good example. There are a limited number of serves and they alternate.

Pool is of course none of these other sports, none-the-less, I can think of no other sports where the point maker has the opportunity for such a long sustained run while the opposition has no opportunity to reply.

I can not think of another game where the winner of the game is given an advantage over the loser in a subsequent game.

If a game is a thing in itself, then each game should begin anew with equal opportunities for winning. In a match situation this would be by a flip of the coin or alternating breaks. A New game should present no advantage for either party.

In a new game why should one or the other player be at a disadvantage? In my thinking if there is to be an advantage it should go to the underdog who is given the opportunity to catch up or get even if money is involved.

In a match situation, winning a game should not earn a point and an advantage for the next game. That is losing twice in one game.

If the challenger has agreed to these conditions unwittingly it would be a matter of good sportmanship to level the playing field rather than try to take advantage of it. I won, lets see what you can do. is one way to think about it.

For some people it is more a matter of, "lets see your best game and I will beat you." Not, "Lets see my best game and you never get a chance if I can help it."

Thanks, Joe. Good points. I can definitely understand how some would prefer alternating breaks for the reasons you mention. IMO, alternating breaks will do no good, though, unless there is a win-by-two requirement. Otherwise, if the winner of the lag plays perfectly (keeps control of the table on all his breaks), the other player cannot win no matter what he does, just like in winner break.

Are any of the tournaments that use alternating break doing a win-by-two format currently? If not, I don't think they are being any more fair than if they played winner breaks.

IMO, the most fair thing they can do is have longer races. If alternating breaks produces closer matches on average, then perhaps winner break can allow longer races given fixed time constraints. In that sense, winner breaks would be more fair since it allows for more time for a longer race.

 

[Derek]

I know that if it's an alternate break format and I'm playing a better player that I feel I have a better chance to win. That being said, I don't think that is right and I prefer winner breaks. If I get clobbered, so be it.

For short races in a local tournament, up to 5 games, then alternate break does make a little more sense.

If you're playing in a winner breaks tournament and you don't like it, then you're probably playing with the wrong crowd.