American Rotation ... my thoughts

3andstop

3andstop

Focus
Silver Member
I'm sure that the structure is great and naturally it is going to be enjoyable for those that enjoy it. That may number in an amount that makes this successful. I certainly hope so because anything that promotes the game is a plus.

Generically speaking .. even this game, I just can't get myself to enjoy watching any rotation game. After a while they just become redundant and predictable.

Specifically, I think there might be a bit more excitement and fun in American Rotation if the balls are valued at face value rather than one point and two points.

For me, I personally enjoy far greater the games that leave the creativity to the player. Straight pool, One Pocket, or even 8 Ball is more interesting to watch. But that's just me and those are just my initial thoughts when watching this demo.

I do realize the pool playing younger generation can make themselves quite happy playing the ghost in rotation. I'm not one of them. Now I'm not saying it's easy to do, I'm just saying it's redundant.

**edit .. the following is relative to 14.1 match. Sorry I didn't include that.
Now on an entirely different subject, Joe Tucker made a comment about Appleton running out against Busty and it wasn't fair he didn't get a chance. I don't know about 50 and stop like Joe mentioned, but I do feel that if a player runs out from the opening break, the other player should be able to receive an opening break him or herself and a chance to out do it.

Should that rule ever come into play, a game of 150 wouldn't necessarily stop at 150 if the first player ran out from the opening. Rather they would continue the run until they miss. Then re-rack the balls and perform the opening break for their opponent and give them an equal chance to reach or surpass the run.
 
Last edited:
3andstop said:
Now on an entirely different subject, Joe Tucker made a comment about Appleton running out against Busty and it wasn't fair he didn't get a chance. I don't know about 50 and stop like Joe mentioned, but I do feel that if a player runs out from the opening break, the other player should be able to receive an opening break him or herself and a chance to out do it.

Should that rule ever come into play, a game of 150 wouldn't necessarily stop at 150 if the first player ran out from the opening. Rather they would continue the run until they miss. Then re-rack the balls and perform the opening break for their opponent and give them an equal chance to reach or surpass the run.
Click to expand...

I missed this comment by Joe and am confused. Was he talking @ Daz and Busty playing Amer Rotation? Am Ro is alternate break which affords only a 20 and stop (other than the special rules where on 1st rack you can run out and be awarded break on 2nd rack and get 40 - the max possible in Am Ro without your opponent shooting). I'm missing something.
 
KoolKat9Lives said:
I missed this comment by Joe and am confused. Was he talking @ Daz and Busty playing Amer Rotation? Am Ro is alternate break which affords only a 20 and stop (other than the special rules where on 1st rack you can run out and be awarded break on 2nd rack and get 40 - the max possible in Am Ro without your opponent shooting). I'm missing something.
Click to expand...


No, he was talking about that straight pool match they had to 200 points. :)
 
That's why I like the game I invented a little more...

3andstop said:
I'm sure that the structure is great and naturally it is going to be enjoyable for those that enjoy it. That may number in an amount that makes this successful. I certainly hope so because anything that promotes the game is a plus.

Generically speaking .. even this game, I just can't get myself to enjoy watching any rotation game. After a while they just become redundant and predictable.

Specifically, I think there might be a bit more excitement and fun in American Rotation if the balls are valued at face value rather than one point and two points.

For me, I personally enjoy far greater the games that leave the creativity to the player. Straight pool, One Pocket, or even 8 Ball is more interesting to watch. But that's just me and those are just my initial thoughts when watching this demo.

I do realize the pool playing younger generation can make themselves quite happy playing the ghost in rotation. I'm not one of them. Now I'm not saying it's easy to do, I'm just saying it's redundant.

**edit .. the following is relative to 14.1 match. Sorry I didn't include that.
Now on an entirely different subject, Joe Tucker made a comment about Appleton running out against Busty and it wasn't fair he didn't get a chance. I don't know about 50 and stop like Joe mentioned, but I do feel that if a player runs out from the opening break, the other player should be able to receive an opening break him or herself and a chance to out do it.

Should that rule ever come into play, a game of 150 wouldn't necessarily stop at 150 if the first player ran out from the opening. Rather they would continue the run until they miss. Then re-rack the balls and perform the opening break for their opponent and give them an equal chance to reach or surpass the run.
Click to expand...

It's just harder to keep track of points... It's called progressive rotation where each ball is worth one point and each ball made in succession is worth an additional point.

So if your opponent breaks and then comes to the table and makes the 1 through 4 he gets 1 point for the one, 2 points for the 2, 3 for the 3 and 4 for the 4, for a total of 10 points. If you come to the table and make the 5-9, you would earn a total of fifteen points. If he then makes the 10-15, he would get 21 additional points for a one rack score of 31-15.

IOW, you get rewarded more the more balls you run.

It's not just set points for specific balls.

It's more difficult due to clusters and greater traffic to run balls early, so if you do manage to run out a full table, then you have earned a LOT of points.

Jaden
 
Jaden said:
It's just harder to keep track of points... It's called progressive rotation where each ball is worth one point and each ball made in succession is worth an additional point.

So if your opponent breaks and then comes to the table and makes the 1 through 4 he gets 1 point for the one, 2 points for the 2, 3 for the 3 and 4 for the 4, for a total of 10 points. If you come to the table and make the 5-9, you would earn a total of fifteen points. If he then makes the 10-15, he would get 21 additional points for a one rack score of 31-15.

IOW, you get rewarded more the more balls you run.

It's not just set points for specific balls.

It's more difficult due to clusters and greater traffic to run balls early, so if you do manage to run out a full table, then you have earned a LOT of points.

Jaden
Click to expand...

Jaden:

I really like your format! The progressive/incremental nature of it is very appealing to ball-pocketing-consistency game addicts, like those of us who play 14.1.

Whereas the American Rotation only rewards you 1 or 2 points for each ball, the incremental nature of your format will force (reward?) more offense, which I like.

I'll have to try it the next time at the poolroom!

Thanks for sharing that format,
-Sean
 
I always thought the original game with its face value points, race to 61 points, with roll outs and spot shots was just fine the way it was, and plenty exciting with lots of twists and turns in the strategy. I do like Tucker's take on it, but would like to see the classic version played by top players...and not just the Filipinos, either!
 
I tried playing American rotation last week and kept having a similar issue.

I'd run 8 or 9 balls and then get myself screwed and miss the 10th. Then my opponent would easily run 10-15 ... he'd have 11 points and I'd have 9 points for the rack, in which I felt I had done all the hard work and he just mopped up.

That's typical (being heavily penalized for late misses) for rotation games, but I don't see the need for the 11-15 to be worth 2 points as it seems to skew point scoring too much at times.

The progressive scoring (1,3,6,10,15,21,etc.) would be much more fair, but I can see keeping track as a problem for most. Maybe not if you had a chart with the run # to score # available?
 
Last edited:
It wouldn't be difficult.

It wouldn't be difficult to put together a chart that would automatically show what the points accumulated per inning are.

You could just mark off which balls were pocketed for the inning and tally the score per the chart.

Jaden
 
West Point 1987 said:
I always thought the original game with its face value points, race to 61 points, with roll outs and spot shots was just fine the way it was, and plenty exciting with lots of twists and turns in the strategy. I do like Tucker's take on it, but would like to see the classic version played by top players...and not just the Filipinos, either!
Click to expand...
Agreed. 61 is the better game. Much more creative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top