I personally like Winner Breaks. It has always been exciting to see a player string racks together. Everyone in the audience starts counting the racks. They could be pulling out to a big lead, or mounting a huge comeback. Either way, the crowd loved it.
What made Earl the great player he was, is his ability to string racks at any time. In the 80's and 90's, Earl was hitting his opponent with fives, sixes and sevens in every match. Pretty hard to fad that kind of firepower.
That being said, in todays competitive pool climate, there are too many problems with the 9-Ball rack. I like going to Ten Ball and Winner Breaks. It is considerable harder to string racks of Ten Ball. A three rack run is excellent and a four rack run is huge.
What made Earl the great player he was, is his ability to string racks at any time. In the 80's and 90's, Earl was hitting his opponent with fives, sixes and sevens in every match. Pretty hard to fad that kind of firepower.
That being said, in todays competitive pool climate, there are too many problems with the 9-Ball rack. I like going to Ten Ball and Winner Breaks. It is considerable harder to string racks of Ten Ball. A three rack run is excellent and a four rack run is huge.
The ten ball idea sounds good, J.
VIP - don't think we can compare to straight pool cuz of its weirdo disadvantaged break. Also, even if it's true that 150-and-out is more common in straight pool than running out the 9 ball set (not sure on that) there are numerous 'breaks' within each game. Each rack's break shot is comparable to 9 ball's in that there's some luck and danger involved. So in a way, 150-and-out is the equivalent of several racks of 9 ball, with some chance something could go wrong.
I won't say runouts in straight pool happen as often as 10 racks of 9 ball, but that only points out that 9 ball is luckier, not that the 10-rack-runner is more skilled than the 150 ball runner.
Personally, when I see alternating breaks, I think of as "consecutive" runouts if a player gets out every time he steps up to break, even if there happens to be another dude breaking in between =) Though I understand spectators won't see it that way and won't like it as much. But try to think of it from outside the spectator POV for a moment and you can see there's not much difference: The break will still be huge, failing to get out on you break can still change the outcome of the game, and earl can still get 5 or 6 break-and-runouts in a match... he just has to do them 1 at a time, and his opponent does too.
VIP - don't think we can compare to straight pool cuz of its weirdo disadvantaged break. Also, even if it's true that 150-and-out is more common in straight pool than running out the 9 ball set (not sure on that) there are numerous 'breaks' within each game. Each rack's break shot is comparable to 9 ball's in that there's some luck and danger involved. So in a way, 150-and-out is the equivalent of several racks of 9 ball, with some chance something could go wrong.
I won't say runouts in straight pool happen as often as 10 racks of 9 ball, but that only points out that 9 ball is luckier, not that the 10-rack-runner is more skilled than the 150 ball runner.
Personally, when I see alternating breaks, I think of as "consecutive" runouts if a player gets out every time he steps up to break, even if there happens to be another dude breaking in between =) Though I understand spectators won't see it that way and won't like it as much. But try to think of it from outside the spectator POV for a moment and you can see there's not much difference: The break will still be huge, failing to get out on you break can still change the outcome of the game, and earl can still get 5 or 6 break-and-runouts in a match... he just has to do them 1 at a time, and his opponent does too.
I have thought threw alternating breaks a little more over the past few days, and I have made a few more conclusions that I would like to add.
It's all comes down to this: alternating breaks is a handicap.
Let's say for example, in a regular set the stronger player has a better safety/kicking game. The player may even RELY on this well-developed part of his game to run another string of racks. Why limit the reward for having a better developed part of the game?
In 9-ball, kicking, safety play, breaking, shot-making, etc. all come into play. If you have two players equal in all ways except that one plays better safeties, shouldn't that player be rewarded?
It's all comes down to this: alternating breaks is a handicap.
Let's say for example, in a regular set the stronger player has a better safety/kicking game. The player may even RELY on this well-developed part of his game to run another string of racks. Why limit the reward for having a better developed part of the game?
In 9-ball, kicking, safety play, breaking, shot-making, etc. all come into play. If you have two players equal in all ways except that one plays better safeties, shouldn't that player be rewarded?
seymore15074 said:Exactly, so why would anyone want to do this? I want to see who's better come out on top!
The better player can't come out on top if he never leaves his seat. (except to rack)
I used to be a winner breaks kind of guy.
Now, I say it should always be alternating breaks. Always lag for the break, and play an odd number of games. This way the person with the best lag (skill) is rewarded for winning by always getting the first break, and if it is a hill-hill match they will get the last break too. Fairness is a paramount part of every gaming experience. That is exactly what the rules of a game are designed to do.... make the game fair for both parties.
No one posts up (gamble or tourney entry) to never have a shot at the table. If you can win, while the other player gets a chance to stop you from winning, you then you have really beaten your opponent. If you beat someone without them even getting a single shot you have just beaten the ghost. While that is a difficult task, matches are created to be test your skill against your living oponent.
JMO
SDF
Now, I say it should always be alternating breaks. Always lag for the break, and play an odd number of games. This way the person with the best lag (skill) is rewarded for winning by always getting the first break, and if it is a hill-hill match they will get the last break too. Fairness is a paramount part of every gaming experience. That is exactly what the rules of a game are designed to do.... make the game fair for both parties.
No one posts up (gamble or tourney entry) to never have a shot at the table. If you can win, while the other player gets a chance to stop you from winning, you then you have really beaten your opponent. If you beat someone without them even getting a single shot you have just beaten the ghost. While that is a difficult task, matches are created to be test your skill against your living oponent.
JMO
SDF
Last edited:
I voted for Winner breaks...
I only give up the table when I miss or the match is over....
I can't believe that someone would rather see an alternate break system rather than seeing anyone run 7 racks... how many times has anyone seen a pro run 7 racks?
IMO alternate breaks are only good for the fans and not the players.
Why not just have the fans vote on who wins a match and not waist any time at all playing?
I only give up the table when I miss or the match is over....
I can't believe that someone would rather see an alternate break system rather than seeing anyone run 7 racks... how many times has anyone seen a pro run 7 racks?
IMO alternate breaks are only good for the fans and not the players.
Why not just have the fans vote on who wins a match and not waist any time at all playing?
A
a_susie_cue
Guest
WINNER BREAKS seems to be the winner
Alternate break is far superior IMO
once you reach the level of skill where each player is perfectly capable of running out. at that point if one guy gets a couple good rolls he can win the whole thing with his opponent never shooting.
I want to watch and/or participate in a match. He breaks and runs now I have to answer that with a BRO of my own. going back and fourth each player showing what he's got... Thats a Match.. one guy watching the other guy shoot is just an exhibition.
once you reach the level of skill where each player is perfectly capable of running out. at that point if one guy gets a couple good rolls he can win the whole thing with his opponent never shooting.
I want to watch and/or participate in a match. He breaks and runs now I have to answer that with a BRO of my own. going back and fourth each player showing what he's got... Thats a Match.. one guy watching the other guy shoot is just an exhibition.
Winner Breaks
Winner breaks awards the player for winner the previous game. I like to see racks ran. I'm considered an Open or A player and would like to beat the best players with winner breaks. If I have a player run 4 or 5 racks on me thats great! He deserves to win.
Winner breaks awards the player for winner the previous game. I like to see racks ran. I'm considered an Open or A player and would like to beat the best players with winner breaks. If I have a player run 4 or 5 racks on me thats great! He deserves to win.
SanDiegoFan said:
Wow,,,,,, I really feel that my Billiards IQ has just gone down by a ball or two after reading post's like this one!!!!!!
If you are gambling, Who in the Hell!!!!!!!!!! ask's for the match to be alternate breaks?????? I'd love to see someone ask for that when gambling.
Isnt gambling about taking a chance to see who the better player is?
Also if you go into a Tournament, are you going to lobby so they change the format to alternate break, JUST SO YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN A GAME????????????????????????
Awwwww sounds like someone wants some pity, or maybe you just need to work on your game some more????
When you make a tournament alternate break, your just handicapping the tournament.
"Alternate break is far superior IMO
once you reach the level of skill where each player is perfectly capable of running out. at that point if one guy gets a couple good rolls he can win the whole thing with his opponent never shooting.
I want to watch and/or participate in a match. He breaks and runs now I have to answer that with a BRO of my own. going back and fourth each player showing what he's got... Thats a Match.. one guy watching the other guy shoot is just an exhibition."
actually I believe it's the other way around, and exhibition is letting both player's show off thier talent!
A Match is starting off with a 5 pack and then seeing your opponent run 4 racks and then you running 3, and then seeing your opponent run out the set.
And isnt getting a few rolls, or leaves just part of the game? or should we allow someone who got a bad leave or a bad roll to re-spot the CB, so it favors their next shot too????
I swear some of you people are Sally's and need to lift your skirt and grab your balls!!! That is if you can find them!!!! I bet you guys also squat to piss too!!!!
Winner Breaks
I couldn't agree more with Jay Helfert. 10 Ball is the game of the future and winner breaks should be played. Its harder to make a ball on the break and that one extra ball creates more problems. I can run twice as many 9 Ball racks as compared to 10 Ball racks.
I couldn't agree more with Jay Helfert. 10 Ball is the game of the future and winner breaks should be played. Its harder to make a ball on the break and that one extra ball creates more problems. I can run twice as many 9 Ball racks as compared to 10 Ball racks.
TWOFORPOOL said:
Hi Bob,
You point out another reason why some prefer winner breaks. For A players like you, winner breaks would...typically...be the only way you can beat a top road player or pro.
You just hope to catch a gear and get some rolls before they do. That's what happened at DCC last year when Bobby Pickle beat Efren. Otherwise, if you were to grind it out playing alt breaks then you wouldn't have much of a chance over time.
I can only assume that you don't gamble serious money against pros and dangerous roadies.
Regards,
Jim
I personally prefer winner-break, but it does somewhat depend on the length of the race. Our state 9-ball championship used to be races to 6 (5 in the loser's bracket!) and winner-break, and that, IMO, is too short of a race to play winner-break. People keep talking about running out the set, but the reality of the situation is that you don't have to run out the set; all you have to do is maintain control of the table for the duration of the set, whether it be through safety-play, or well thought out pushouts, or whatever. There is a big difference between getting innings and getting opportunities, and a good player who is breaking well will occasionally make it through a short set without giving his opponent any real opportunities; a great player might make it through a medium-length to long set without giving up any real opportunities.
Loser-break is my least favorite option, and I do have some experience playing that way, because there is a weekly tournament here that uses that format. Again, these are fairly short races (7 games), so I might feel differently about it over the long haul, but I really don't think so. My problem with loser-break is that it makes it doubly difficult for a player to mount any sort of comeback when every time he wins a game he loses control of the table. I have experienced this a couple of times when I would win the hot-seat in a tournament and then sit around for an hour waiting for the winner of the left side. You are cold going into the first set and he is hot, and you may end up 3 or 4 racks behind before you catch your gear, but it's very difficult to win from there if you never get to hold your serve.
As always, JMHO,
Aaron
Loser-break is my least favorite option, and I do have some experience playing that way, because there is a weekly tournament here that uses that format. Again, these are fairly short races (7 games), so I might feel differently about it over the long haul, but I really don't think so. My problem with loser-break is that it makes it doubly difficult for a player to mount any sort of comeback when every time he wins a game he loses control of the table. I have experienced this a couple of times when I would win the hot-seat in a tournament and then sit around for an hour waiting for the winner of the left side. You are cold going into the first set and he is hot, and you may end up 3 or 4 racks behind before you catch your gear, but it's very difficult to win from there if you never get to hold your serve.
As always, JMHO,
Aaron
Last edited:
StormHotRod300 said:
First, I suggest you bone up on your quoting skills.
In addition, do I understand you correctly, that anyone who disagrees with you is a Sally that has to squat when they piss? As you stated at the top of your post..."WOW."
Actually, no and I am surprised to read such a statement from someone who comes off as an experienced gambler. Do you think that the winner of a given match is, necessarily, the better player?
So Bobby Pickle is better than Reyes because Bobby beat him last year at the DCC...or better than Johnny Archer who Bobby beat at the Music City a couple of years ago?
And the issue is not confined to gambling matchs but tournament play as well. Do you think that the organizers of the Mosconi Cup squat when they piss?
Winner break! I enjoy watching players string racks together, especially when they are down. It takes a lot of heart to come back.
On a side note, I did see Efren Reyes down 10-1 alternating breaks against Allen Hopkins at the BCA AND Efren came back to win. Tough, but it can be done... if your Efren
.
On a side note, I did see Efren Reyes down 10-1 alternating breaks against Allen Hopkins at the BCA AND Efren came back to win. Tough, but it can be done... if your Efren
.
hilla_hilla said:Winner break! I enjoy watching players string racks together, especially when they are down. It takes a lot of heart to come back.
On a side note, I did see Efren Reyes down 10-1 alternating breaks against Allen Hopkins at the BCA AND Efren came back to win. Tough, but it can be done... if your Efren
Just wondering??? Taking both matches; you didn't think the match where Efren was at a HUGE deficit was more exciting to watch knowing that at any minute and any mistake he made, he could lose the match?
I think it takes the same (if not more) amount of heart to come back from a deficit as it does on running out the racks. You said it, "Tough, but it can be done..."
klockdoc said:
It did take a lot of heart on Efren's part, but Allen dogged a LOT of 9 balls. I watched the match with someone who played in that same tournament and we were both in disbelief at some of the shots Allen missed to win! I don't expect to see a come back like that from many players, but not everyone is Efren or gives the same intimidation factor Efren (of just being Efren) does either.
To answer your question, yes, it was exciting to watch. My personal preference, I would still rather watch players string racks together.