Aternate Break vs. Winner Breaks

Which do you prefer?

  • Winner Breaks

    Votes: 32 62.7%

  • Alternate Breaks

    Votes: 19 37.3%
  • Total voters
    51
Double-Dave

Double-Dave

Developing cue-addict
Silver Member
In the WPM they played with alternate break. The main pros and cons seem obvious; with alternate it's difficult to come back from two or three frames down, with winner breaks you might sit out the match after losing the lag.

But which do you prefer and why?
 
Definately Winner breaks. You shouldnt be punished for winning a rack.
 
Although alternate breaks makes it a bit fairer in the sense that it helps prevent someone being shut out after losing a coin toss, I do prefer winner breaks for the same reason as Icon of Sin. I won, I'm shooting you should stay sitting till I miss.

Curious though that loser breaks wasn't an option. Sometimes on tougher tables it's more advantageous to have a loser breaks format.
 
in rankings, eurotours, etc: winner breaks.

for tournaments with ALOT of spectators: alternating brake.

my favorit; winner in the qualifying matches, alternating in the single KO round.

most fair: winner breaks. I WIN, AND U RACK.

most fun: LOsers break (that because im a loser :D j/k)
 
In a matchup where I'm the favorite to win, then WINNER BREAK:D

If I'm the underdog, then alternate Breaks. :rolleyes:

Black Cat :cool:
 
Winner breaks for sure. From an entertainment standpoint its far more exciting to watch. I actually find alternate breaks boring.

Alternating breaks is a bit of an equalizer. A player of lesser skill has a greater chance of winning against a top pro because the latter is handcuffed. He/she can't run four or five racks, which is ultimately what makes them so unbeatable.

It doesn't really affect me in my own matches as I rarely run more than 2-3 racks and still not that often. But for the pros they certainly should be playing winner breaks.
 
Icon of Sin wrote:
> Definately Winner breaks. You shouldnt be punished for winning a rack.

Well, I don't agree. I tend to look at this as the serve in tennis -- i.e., I prefer alternative breaks.

-- peer
 
Last Eurotour in Austria had alternate breaks all the way, from first round to the final. Race to 10. However, each player got 3 breaks. I think that's a nice compromise between true alternate breaks and winner breaks. Lesser players still get a few chances at the table, while better players can string some racks together. Make the tables tougher and you wouldn't see many runs over 3 racks anyway. What do you all think?
 
A combination of both...

I like Alternate Break with a 3 run rack limit in one inning. To elaborate, If a player breaks and runs out he will break the next game. If he misses in that rack, but still wins, the other player will then be returned the break.

If a player runs three consecutive racks, on the fourth game, even though he has not missed in his inning, the break will be returned to his opponent.

This format inspires competition and heart. A player can be stuck 7 to 3 in a race to nine, put a 3 pack on the board and be right back in the match, whereas with the alternate break, a 4 game deficit is almost impossible to overcome even with a heart of a lion.
 
In straight pool you don't stop to let your opponent shoot half-way through a run, and it should be the same for the other pool games for me.

If you win, then you earnt the right to choose whether to break again.
 
Icon of Sin said:
Definately Winner breaks. You shouldnt be punished for winning a rack.
Click to expand...

then should a tennis player continue to serve until he loses a game? i don't consider alternate breaks a "punishment" format. it is, imo, a FAIR formate where two players get equal chances.

pool(9ball) is the only game where a player can lose and never get a chance to play. i can think of no other game where one of the contestants might never step up to the plate. and alternate breaks alleviates an unfair advantage to the big break. alternate breaks also makes EVERY game important because holding your break becomes absolutely critical.
 
Winner should always break.........................There is nothing like having your rythum broke. If anyone is going break my stride i want it to me......lol. Besides after sitting for a couple of racks when you do get to the table you always seem to focus a lil more....... Sort of like having 75 balls run on you in straight pool, and when you get to the table you make it count because if you dont you know what can happen to you.
 
In One-Pocket, the losing Opponent gets the break.

The Break Shot is fastly becoming a very IMPORTANT SHOT, especially in Alternate Breaks (see scenario below)

I win the flip, I break & run out

You get the break, come up dry & don't push out perfect. I run out

On my break, I make a ball & run out... you are 0 & 3

You get the break, come up dry. I have a shot. I run out

On my break, I make a ball & run out... you are 0 & 5

Get the idea? It's a nasty situation... I've seen it lots of times.

In the IPT, the fellow wth the bad break shot is the loser..PERIOD
 
Double-Dave said:
... But which do you prefer and why?
Click to expand...
If you want fair, play alternate breaks.

But nine ball itself is broken. If the rack is tight, the wing ball will go in pretty much every time. If the wing ball doesn't go in, the rack was bad. Now they are also requiring X-number of balls to go above the side pockets or you give up ball in hand to your opponent even though you made the ball you were playing.

Absolutely stupid.

Time for ten ball.
 
Alternating breaks punishes the player for making early mistakes. Which is ridiculous in my opinion. I don't understand why people are so concerned about a player being blanked in competition. Have any of you ever seen anyone run out 8 9 or 10 racks to beat an opponent who never had a single opportunity at the table? And if so, how many times?

Furthermore the flip side is, both players break and run out all of their racks in an alternating break format. As a result the player who broke first wins the match. The only thing he/she did better than his/her opponent was win the lag. But then again the player who ran out the match in winners break format, won the lag too.
 
Last edited:
Cameron Smith said:
Alternating breaks punishes the player for making early mistakes. Which is ridiculous in my opinion. I don't understand why people are so concerned about a player being blanked in competition. Have any of you ever seen anyone run out 8 9 or 10 racks to beat an opponent who never had a single opportunity at the table? And if so, how many times?

Furthermore the flip side is, both players break and run out all of their racks. As a result the player who broke first wins the match. The only thing he/she did better than his/her opponent was win the lag. But then again the player who ran out the match in winners break format, won the lag too.
Click to expand...



I agree, I have yet to see someone put an 11 pack on someone in a tournament. I have rarely even seen it in person. Maybe once I think. Winner break shows who is the better player. Who can run more consecutive racks? Whose rhyhm will break first. Who can come back down from a huge deficit by putting a 5 pack on someone. I love to watch winner break tournaments. The excitement is alot more than exilirating than an alternating break format.

Tony
 
ceebee said:
In One-Pocket, the losing Opponent gets the break.
Click to expand...

Here in the NW, when we play one pocket, it is alternate breaks. :confused:

In other pool games, I feel the alternate break format was mostly championed by bar table owners/vendors that would get more dollars by keeping the scores closer...more hill-hill matches = more moola!
 
Bob Jewett said:
If you want fair, play alternate breaks.

But nine ball itself is broken. If the rack is tight, the wing ball will go in pretty much every time. If the wing ball doesn't go in, the rack was bad. Now they are also requiring X-number of balls to go above the side pockets or you give up ball in hand to your opponent even though you made the ball you were playing.

Absolutely stupid.

Time for ten ball.
Click to expand...

Bob, actually at the last Eurotour, they had a rule that said that pocketed balls on the break + balls crossing the kitchen line had to add up to three to allow you to continue the inning. In other words, even if you made a ball on the break, two other balls had to cross the line you were breaking from. If that didn't happen, the inning was turned over to your opponent, but without ball in hand.

Anything to avoid the soft break I suppose, especially now when Eurosport is covering these tournaments on TV. Soft breaks are not made for TV..

You could still break without using warp speed though, new cloths and the wing ball going in every time, made it fairly easy to soft break without using a soft break...

I agree with you, time for 10-ball and winner breaks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top