Best "race to" quantity

[livemusic]

Race to 5, race to 7, 9, whatever... is there a number that players have arrived at that they feel crowns the better of two players on that given day? Assuming that this is just for the sake of determining the better of the two on that day, with no t.v. broadcast considerations. And is there any consensus opinion on whether it should be an even or odd number? Seems to be most often an odd number.

 

[David in FL]

Race to 5, race to 7, 9, whatever... is there a number that players have arrived at that they feel crowns the better of two players on that given day? Assuming that this is just for the sake of determining the better of the two on that day, with no t.v. broadcast considerations. And is there any consensus opinion on whether it should be an even or odd number? Seems to be most often an odd number.

The “better of the two players”?

Easy. The higher the number the higher the assurance that the cream will ultimately rise to the top. If it’s a race, it makes no difference if the final number is odd or even.

Realistically though, time constraints are always going to play a role in determining what that number is. It could be hours, or it could be days depending on the tournament/match/circumstances, but there’s always going to be time a parameter that has to be met.

 

[jimmyco]

I like 9 for no other reason than marking with coins on the sights.

 

[tomatoshooter]

I like at least 7. 11 is good, much more than that and stamina starts to become much more important and skill's importance is diminished slightly. It also depends on the game and players. If you can tear through racks quickly you need more games, if you are playing one pocket, a race to 4 is plenty.

 

[MitchAlsup]

9 sounds right to me.

 

[Pacecar]

I seem to remember that the statisticians at work wouldn't even consider a study if the performance of something vs another was different from each other... unless I had more than 20 samples (comparison data). If I had less than 20, then it would be difficult to determine a statistically significant difference.
So I would say a race to 21 if time allowed for it.

 

[Bob Jewett]

At one time matches lasted two or three weeks. Mosconi's first World Championship took months of play in multiple cities.

 

[couldnthinkof01]

Watching all of these super long races go hill-hill between close players, a race to 7 alt or 11 winner breaks is enough to weed out a roll or two between the best.
Week+ long events, round robin, knockout stage, races to 25? Could be fun if done like golf.
I like odd #s

 

[ChrisinNC]

Race to 5, race to 7, 9, whatever... is there a number that players have arrived at that they feel crowns the better of two players on that given day? Assuming that this is just for the sake of determining the better of the two on that day, with no t.v. broadcast considerations. And is there any consensus opinion on whether it should be an even or odd number? Seems to be most often an odd number.

When two players are matching up, the length of the races if there is no game spot, is very often based on how many sets they may choose to play in that session as well as how much $ they are playing for. With longer races, obviously you’re likely to play less total sets than with shorter races.

If it’s a tournament, the length of the races is often determined by how many players, how many tables available, and how long the organizers are wanting the tournament to last.

Any legitimate tournament is going to have races to no less than 7.

 

[straightline]

Marathons are different than sprints. The quality of pool in any session can run the gamut and even fluctuate as wildly. That just about leaves, <who wins most>.
Short races - for winning or losing some money without wasting time.
Long races, if you got something to prove.
By the game with time limits or by the game with no limits work similar. (I think)

 

[sjm]

In nine-ball, a race to more than 11 is overkill, but the reality is that in tournament play, with big fields such as those found at the WPC, the UK Open, the European Open or the US Open 9-ball, a two-stage race to 11 tournament takes six days. It's easily argued that a race to 11 is too long, but I'm OK with it in the biggest, most prestigious events. In any other event, race to nine is plenty enough for this fan.

Tournament play is not and never has been about crowning the best player in the field as champion --- it is, instead, about crowning as champion the player that plays best over the course of that event. Over time, of course, the cream rises to the top, and as we've seen, only the elite win the events having really tough fields.

Matchroom events year to date have these champions: a) Premier League Pool, Albin Ouschan, b) World Pool Championship, Shane Van Boening, c) World Pool Masters, Josh Filler, d) UK Open, Josh Filler, e) World Cup of Pool, Team Spain (Francisco Sanchez-Ruiz/David Alcaide), and f) European Open, Albin Ouschan.

In short, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the current formats used are doing an excellent job of separating the best from the rest.

 

[CanadianGuy]

the actual question is impossible to answer until we can accurately gauge the skill level of the field relative to the probability of winning a single game

with that information in hand, or if you feel something like Fargo is accurate then you can calculate from there

Dr Dave' exams was/is a great attempt towards evaluation

 

[WildWing]

I'd say race to 1,200, Cranfield vs Lassiter, back in the 60s. As I recall, Cranfield won, 1,200 to 600 something.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I'd say race to 1,200, Cranfield vs Lassiter, back in the 60s. As I recall, Cranfield won, 1,200 to 600 something.

Some details....

 

[WildWing]

Some details....
View attachment 658982

Good recount. I thought Lassiter had something like 647, but looks like the record says 730. By the way, I think Cranfield was the more knowledgeable 14.1 player, but I think a case can be made that Lassiter was the better all around player, given his accomplishments in nine ball and one pocket, as well as 14.1.

All the best,
WW

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Think your question is not definitive. Depends on game.

One Pocket race to two or three. Is long enough.

 

[middleofnowhere]

Just like a four day golf tournament it requires multiple sets to prove anything regardless the length of the race.

 

[Guy Manges]

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

 

[Woodshaft]

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.

 

[hang-the-9]

Race to 5, race to 7, 9, whatever... is there a number that players have arrived at that they feel crowns the better of two players on that given day? Assuming that this is just for the sake of determining the better of the two on that day, with no t.v. broadcast considerations. And is there any consensus opinion on whether it should be an even or odd number? Seems to be most often an odd number.

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.