An intersesting Challenge, Who's up for the challenge

stevekur1 said:
Here's a link to an interesting challenge over on facebook.

I am personal friends with the person that made the bet !!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10217119636441478&set=a.1162514781482&type=3&theater
Click to expand...
The bet is not clear. The guy may want to reword it. I assume that the person who attempts the challenge (of running 43 without the cue ball touching a cushion in two tries) does not have to put up any money and loses nothing if he fails, but that's not how it's worded.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The bet is not clear. The guy may want to reword it. I assume that the person who attempts the challenge (of running 43 without the cue ball touching a cushion in two tries) does not have to put up any money and loses nothing if he fails, but that's not how it's worded.
Click to expand...

I believe what he means is that the players stepping up Post 500, if they fail they lose it. if they do it they get $1000 (500 of their own and 500 from Neil).

This has been done once before to him by Johnny Ervilino, and he doesn't think players of today have the skill and knowhow to do what Johny could do during his day !
 
Probably at least a 1000 to 1 shot for a highly skilled, but not world championship caliber, player to run three racks this way. The break shot itself seems to be the biggest issue, as controlling the cue ball can be tricky off the breakout.

I often saw John Ervolino try to do this for practice, but he nearly always stopped after one rack.
 
sjm said:
Probably at least a 1000 to 1 shot for a highly skilled, but not world championship caliber, player to run three racks this way. The break shot itself seems to be the biggest issue, as controlling the cue ball can be tricky off the breakout.

I often saw John Ervolino try to do this for practice, but he nearly always stopped after one rack.
Click to expand...

Hey Stu,

Do you know Neil Gold ?? he was very close to Johnny, was often with him.
 
That's a hell of a tall task. Reminded me of a gentleman that played I played with at a league a while back. Much older guy, maybe in his mid 70s and just started playing again after almost 30 years out of it. he told me a story of how his father challenged him to run a rack of straight pool without hitting a rail. Took him almost 5 years to do so and this guy was able to run in the high 80s.

good luck to anyone partaking in it.
 
WOW... After reading all the comments on FB and these comments, it looks like everyone is in agreement that the challenge is suicide leading to throwing away one's money attempting it.... Doesn't matter if one guy did it once or twice.... Mosconi ran 527 and stated he ran over 600 a few times... I believe him... I don't see anyone running 527 lately.. It's been over 70 years we are still waiting.... When did John Ervolino make this three racks?... How many more years do we have until 70 years goes by.... I'm still wanting to see some normal players that write on FB and here do one rack without hitting a rail. Don't think it will take place. So three racks... That's a joke.
 
14-1StraightMan said:
WOW... After reading all the comments on FB and these comments, it looks like everyone is in agreement that the challenge is suicide leading to throwing away one's money attempting it.... Doesn't matter if one guy did it once or twice.... Mosconi ran 527 and stated he ran over 600 a few times... I believe him... I don't see anyone running 527 lately.. It's been over 70 years we are still waiting.... When did John Ervolino make this three racks?... How many more years do we have until 70 years goes by.... I'm still wanting to see some normal players that write on FB and here do one rack without hitting a rail. Don't think it will take place. So three racks... That's a joke.
Click to expand...

Johny actually did 5 against another one of the old time players in my room. He did it at Commack Billiards.
 
stevekur1 said:
Hey Stu,

Do you know Neil Gold ?? he was very close to Johnny, was often with him.
Click to expand...


I saw Johnny play several times in his prime in the 1970's. He often ran with Jersey Red. Back then, he was splitting time between NY and Las Vegas. I didn't get to know him well until the last ten years of his life, when he lived exclusively in NY and played out of Amsterdam Billiard Club on the upper west side of Manhattan. If Neil was often with him, it's a safe bet that I know Neil, though I can't quite place him.

Johnny did not run a rack without hitting a rail with the cueball without a few tries, but he's the only guy I can ever think of that practiced it.

For someone who doesn't practice it and wants to run 43 balls as stated this way, unless they are a true superstar of the game, I still think it's worse than a 1000 to 1 proposition, so an even money bet for two tries is just a little out there.

There aren't many in the world who should take this bet even at 100 tries.
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
I saw Johnny play several times in his prime in the 1970's. He often ran with Jersey Red. Back then, he was splitting time between NY and Las Vegas. I didn't get to know him well until the last ten years of his life, when he lived exclusively in NY and played out of Amsterdam Billiard Club on the upper west side of Manhattan. If Neil was often with him, it's a safe bet that I know Neil, though I can't quite place him.

Johnny did not run a rack without hitting a rail with the cueball without a few tries, but he's the only guy I can ever think of that practiced it.

For someone who doesn't practice it and wants to run 43 balls as stated this way, unless they are a true superstar of the game, I still think it's worse than a 1000 to 1 proposition, so an even money bet for two tries is just a little out there.

There aren't many in the world who should take this bet even at 100 tries.
Click to expand...

Hey SJM! Just wanted to chime in here with my personal experience. You and I felt very similarly - I initially estimated the odds at approximately 300-1 I believe.

Curious, I went to try it. On my second attempt, I almost ran a 28 (at 19, my cueball rocked in a groove and grazed a rail; I know this doesn't count, but thought I'd mention that the 'run' continued through the end of the rack).

I found two things: the first is that it teaches you to play the rack in very unorthodox (and probably flat-out incorrect) ways, with far too many balls needing to be played uptable. The second is that there's definitely a learning curve here.

After experimenting with it a bit, I'd estimate that the truly top players in the game - with time to practice/learn - are likely somewhere in the 10-1 to 15-1 range.

Also of note - the player taking the bet needs to mandate it's on a super soft table. You need the ability to have the cueball half an inch off the rail, shooting an object ball frozen to the rail maybe six inches from the pocket, and basically hit the shot straight in and still have it fall.
 
Steve Lipsky said:
Also of note - the player taking the bet needs to mandate it's on a super soft table. You need the ability to have the cueball half an inch off the rail, shooting an object ball frozen to the rail maybe six inches from the pocket, and basically hit the shot straight in and still have it fall.
Click to expand...

Given the guy who posted the challenge was only offering even money, and only one try, I am sure he is way too much of a nit to allow that.
 
Steve Lipsky said:
After experimenting with it a bit, I'd estimate that the truly top players in the game - with time to practice/learn - are likely somewhere in the 10-1 to 15-1 range.

Also of note - the player taking the bet needs to mandate it's on a super soft table. You need the ability to have the cueball half an inch off the rail, shooting an object ball frozen to the rail maybe six inches from the pocket, and basically hit the shot straight in and still have it fall.
Click to expand...

Hey Steve, hope you're well.

As I noted, the odds I gave assumed that there would be no practice at learning how to do this.

I think the loose table assumption can't be made here, and that a ball on or near a rail often has to be banked or moved, neither easy given the requirement that the cue ball never hit a rail. I would guess that there exists a player skillful enough to merit only 25-1 on this proposition bet, but I'm sticking by my statement that there aren't many who should take this bet even with 100 tries, but elite players can certainly fade such odds.
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
Hey Steve, hope you're well.

As I noted, the odds I gave assumed that there would be no practice at learning how to do this.

I think the loose table assumption can't be made here, and that a ball on or near a rail often has to be banked or moved, neither easy given the requirement that the cue ball never hit a rail. I would guess that there exists a player skillful enough to merit only 25-1 on this proposition bet, but I'm sticking by my statement that there aren't many who should take this bet even with 100 tries, but elite players can certainly fade such odds.
Click to expand...

Hey S. I'm not sure I understand the feasibility of assuming no practice in your odds, as there would be no functional way for the person offering the bet to guarantee any takers haven't practiced in preparation.

As to the loose table, I'm simply saying that the challenger needs to demand it. If he doesn't get it, the odds definitely change significantly, and it's up to him to take the bet or not (I'd strongly suggest not :)).

Either way, it was interesting seeing how different my experience was compared to my expectations. I initially suspected this was close to functionally impossible; in actuality, though it took extreme focus and some pinpoint position play, it was not quite as difficult as I expected.
 
Steve Lipsky said:
Hey S. I'm not sure I understand the feasibility of assuming no practice in your odds, as there would be no functional way for the person offering the bet to guarantee any takers haven't practiced in preparation.
Click to expand...

No practice is not a requirement, but few people practice hard at proposition shots/bets that can't possibly come up in actual competition, so it seems a reasonable assumption. As I've said, I've never seen anyone not named Johnny Ervolino ever attempt this.

Clearly, if one were to dedicate oneself to this accomplishment, the odds change.

I think it's cool that you tried it. Hope you had fun with it.
 
There were some top pros from many years gone by who advocated practicing an hour a day minimum trying to run a rack without touching a rail- seems it was felt that this drill sharpened pin point precision on cue ball position needed for 14.1. The propositon bet however is ridiculous.
 
I will let anyone try to run one rack without the cue ball touching the rail
$500 bet on each rack

John Schmidt invited

I might offer 10 to one odds on 3 racks
your $100 to my $1000

Anyone who wishes to try can come to my house while i an staying home
to convalesce.

no one barrels

play on a like new Gold Crown 5 with simonis,no gimmick table
 
Last edited:
there's a drill that ronnie alcano showed in a tar match video with jayson shaw..alcano took around 10 balls and spreads them in kind of blob around the footspot..
make all the balls without hitting another ball or a rail..similar to the brainwash, but easier/more difficult, depending on how you see it..
 
Bob Jewett said:
Where is Leon Yonders when you need him?
Click to expand...
Since no one picked up on this....

Leon was a no-cushion and behind the back (sometimes at the same time) specialist. Here is a thread that discusses him.

https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=300673

He is in Ripley's for running 180 shooting with the cue behind his back.

A friend who was in San Francisco in the 1960s claims Leon ran 100 or 150 without a cushion and with a standard rack break. (As opposed to just spreading the balls on the table each rack as Knuchell mentions in the thread linked above.)

In The Straight Pool Bible, Babe Cranfield says that the greatest single run he ever saw was by Greenleaf. It was only a run of 60, but the cue ball touched the cushion only twice. I assume it was not for a proposition but just in a match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top