Best "race to" quantity

hang-the-9 said:
From many older match commentators such as Buddy Hall, Grady, etc... they wanted to have 13 as the pro tour races, they thought even 11 was too short. I have a feeling that is about what I would want also to keep random variances such as a high break and run count or a few lucky rolls (dry breaks, lucky safes, etc...) dictate the match. If someone runs 5 racks or gets a few dry breaks in a race to 7 or 9, that is tough to get through, if it's a race to 11 or 13 the other player has more of a chance at the table to get through those with skill, or some luck of their own.

For the average "good" player in a league, say high C or B level, a race to 7 is good, playing even. I feel playing a race to 5 I can overcome a few unusual things happening that caused the loss of game. For example I was playing someone some 9 and 10 balls games just for fun, he won the first 4 games but that was due to me leaving him the last 2 balls to shoot in. I won the majority of the rest of them, probably 90% of games rest of the night. If we were in a race to 3 I would have lost already. Race to 9 even giving up the first 4 I would have won.
Click to expand...

There are a bunch of interesting comments in this thread, including yours.

For matching up just two players, would playing x-sets instead of one race-to-x be more equitable? What would be a reasonable structure? How many sets, and how would each set be structured? Thinking more of two good amateur competitors but comments about how pros would do it or have done it would be interesting, as well. Maybe money games have done this a lot?
 
Bob Jewett said:
For a given match length, play by sets gives more random results than a single match. If you want to give the weaker player a better chance to win, then play by sets.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, maybe I was thinking about it backwards. I guess I follow you bearing in mind that you said "for a given match length." A weaker player would be more apt to luck up and win a set or few instead of one longer race-to-x.

If a match is done with sets, could someone give an example of how the sets are structured? How many sets, how many games in a set, or are they "race to x" sets? And... why do they sometimes use sets?
 
livemusic said:
...
If a match is done with sets, could someone give an example of how the sets are structured? How many sets, how many games in a set, or are they "race to x" sets? And... why do they sometimes use sets?
Click to expand...
I've seen race to five in each set with a best of five sets (race to 3 sets) match. Any race in each set and any number of sets is possible. The Predator series is two sets race to four with a tie break shootout.

Sets are thought to make it more exciting for the audience. If one player wins a set 5-0, it's just a set and the other player seems to have a pretty good chance to come back.
 
Bob Jewett said:
At one time matches lasted two or three weeks. Mosconi's first World Championship took months of play in multiple cities.
Click to expand...
Let me fill in some details for those who didn't see the original thread about Willie's championships. The 1940-1941 World Championship (straight pool) was played in a league format from November 1940 to May 1941. There were 8 players and each player played each other player 32 matches to 125 points. Mosconi's won/loss record was 176-48. Andrew Ponzi was the runner-up with a 144-80 record. Mosconi pocketed something like 25,000 balls.
 
Woodshaft said:
Big pockets, shallow pocket shelves, and slow cloth---- all three of these conditions made/make billiards easier.
And the tables in the days of old where definitely easier than today's.
And my to answer this thread's question, I like 9 games for 9-ball, and 7 games is enough for 10-ball and 8-ball, during regular bracket play.
For final play, 11 games for 9-ball, 9 games for 10-ball and 8-ball.
Those are my picks for pro tourneys.
You could knock 2 games off each race for "average" player tourneys.
Click to expand...
Slow cloth didn’t ever make pool easier
 
I’ve always believed multiple races to 11 in 9B are the best format in general. A champion can run out a set on a very rare occasion, B players can see saw back and forth. After someone is up about 3-4 sets it’s pretty clear who’s best. That can add up to a lot of sets. It’s also a good length in a tourney to keep it moving along. For gambling as well, gives both sides plenty of room to adjust bet sizes. If there’s a dump going on the players have time to work it out(oh God did I really say that?).

In 1P 6 ahead is a long set but that’s enough to clear up who’s best. Doesn’t offer much flexibility for gambling and is horrible as a tourney format. 6 doesn’t have to be the number, can be 4 at the minimum.

I like ahead sets in general over races to a specific number in rotation games and 1P to determine who’s best.

But in rotation as mentioned before races to 11 are great for both tourneys & gambling.

I don’t really have many thoughts on 8B. If I was gambling a big number 10 ahead would be a great game if I wanted to lock up a win, reduces variance a lot.

The longer the set the less variance there is in any game. Banks has the least variance of any game anyways. That’s a different topic.

Best
Fatboy <———lazy writing today. Kinda scattered thoughts.
 
For what (little) it's worth, I think of it like this.

Longer sets and more sets - generally favor the better player. Over more time/games/sets, the skills & experience of the stronger player will tend to wash out the random "lucky rolls" ie unintended safe CB positions from the lesser skilled player, etc. Also, over more games the more experienced player will typically adjust to table conditions and the opponent's style of play better than the lesser player. As for more sets with shorter races vs less sets & longer races - IMO the latter tends to have a psychological benefit for whoever is losing, especially the first set. Starting a fresh set after losing one, gives an opportunity for the losing player a sort of "reset and clear the head" type of mindset vs trying to claw one's way back from being down in a longer race, which is hard for everyone but definitely more so for a person with less experience, confidence & tenacity.

For these reasons, personally, if I'm matching up with a player that I think I should be able to beat, I'll try to wrangle for fewer number of sets and longer races. If I'm playing someone I think will be tough for me to beat, I'll try to negotiate more sets and shorter races. And of course, the more the $$ the longer the races should probably be. Personally for 9b/10b I think races to 7 or 9 are plenty. 8b, races to 5 seems like plenty.

✌️
 
Last edited:
livemusic said:
There are a bunch of interesting comments in this thread, including yours.

For matching up just two players, would playing x-sets instead of one race-to-x be more equitable? What would be a reasonable structure? How many sets, and how would each set be structured? Thinking more of two good amateur competitors but comments about how pros would do it or have done it would be interesting, as well. Maybe money games have done this a lot?
Click to expand...

Thing with multiple sets is that it's easy to win more games but lose the match. Say you win 5-1, then loose 4-5 4-5, you won 13 games, lost 11 but lost in the end. Money players may like that format better since they have a better chance to win in multiple sets over time.
 
I looked briefly at the probability differences between a single race and playing by sets. If the total number of possible games is the same for both formats, it looks like playing in sets reduces the better player's chance by about the same as taking 10% of his FargoRate advantage away. For a 50 rating point difference, sets is like taking 5 FR points off his ability. That's not much, so "drama" may be a more important consideration.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I looked briefly at the probability differences between a single race and playing by sets. If the total number of possible games is the same for both formats, it looks like playing in sets reduces the better player's chance by about the same as taking 10% of his FargoRate advantage away. For a 50 rating point difference, sets is like taking 5 FR points off his ability. That's not much, so "drama" may be a more important consideration.
Click to expand...
This makes sense, but I would have thought it would be due to mental aspects of the game. Your results are numerical… Its not intuitive to me why this would be the case. Do you know why this is, or is that just the results your model spit out when rolling the dice many times in a random monte carlo sampling using Fargo win/loss logic or what?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
phreaticus said:
This makes sense, but I would have thought it would be due to mental aspects of the game. Your results are purely numerical… Its not intuitive to me why this would be the case. Do you know why this is, or is that just the results it spit out when rolling the dice many times in a random monte carlo sampling using Fargo win/loss logic or what?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Combinitorix?
 
Guy Manges said:
Yea, But the pockets were the same size as bushel baskets, I know earlier a member told me the old games had pockets that size... Guy
Click to expand...
LOL, I recall having to play against two different pros on an incredibly loose table back in the late 1990s. In their respective post-match comments, I got a lesson in culture. The one from Brooklyn described the pockets as "like sewers" and the one from an agrarian background in Indiana described them as "big as bushel baskets."
 
sjm said:
LOL, I recall having to play against two different pros on an incredibly loose table back in the late 1990s. In their respective post-match comments, I got a lesson in culture. The one from Brooklyn described the pockets as "like sewers" and the one from an agrarian background in Indiana described them as "big as bushel baskets."
Click to expand...
Stu, if I we're to ever or whenever get my book finished I most deffentlly want for you to have one, you have earned it... Guy. Also as far as pockets go I've seen the time that I wished they were a foot wide... But also 4" wide... I think thats all of us...
 
phreaticus said:
For what (little) it's worth, I think of it like this.

Longer sets and more sets - generally favor the better player. Over more time/games/sets, the skills & experience of the stronger player will tend to wash out the random "lucky rolls" ie unintended safe CB positions from the lesser skilled player, etc. Also, over more games the more experienced player will typically adjust to table conditions and the opponent's style of play better than the lesser player. As for more sets with shorter races vs less sets & longer races - IMO the latter tends to have a psychological benefit for whoever is losing, especially the first set. Starting a fresh set after losing one, gives an opportunity for the losing player a sort of "reset and clear the head" type of mindset vs trying to claw one's way back from being down in a longer race, which is hard for everyone but definitely more so for a person with less experience, confidence & tenacity.

For these reasons, personally, if I'm matching up with a player that I think I should be able to beat, I'll try to wrangle for fewer number of sets and longer races. If I'm playing someone I think will be tough for me to beat, I'll try to negotiate more sets and shorter races. And of course, the more the $$ the longer the races should probably be. Personally for 9b/10b I think races to 7 or 9 are plenty. 8b, races to 5 seems like plenty.

✌️
Click to expand...
That reset and clear is how many pros survive...
 
To determine who is best on a given day I would say race to fifteen and must win by three would be pretty decisive playing eight, nine, and ten ball. No science behind those numbers, just experience and my gut.

Hu
 
Bob Jewett said:
Let me fill in some details for those who didn't see the original thread about Willie's championships. The 1940-1941 World Championship (straight pool) was played in a league format from November 1940 to May 1941. There were 8 players and each player played each other player 32 matches to 125 points. Mosconi's won/loss record was 176-48. Andrew Ponzi was the runner-up with a 144-80 record. Mosconi pocketed something like 25,000 balls.
Click to expand...
Can you just imagine... Bob i was born in 1940 and twenty six years later Willie came to where I worked and put on an exhibition... Guy
I think I must have inherited his prostate...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top