It's all based on knowing where the balls are most likely to end up on a solidly hit break. We know, for example, that the the one-ball is likely to bank cross-corner towards the side that the balls were broken from (if it doesn't go in the side), and we know that the back ball tends to bank up table. Thus, you would place the two in the back of the rack. Similarly, we know that the nine tends to remain downtable, and the balls in the row behind it tend to remain there as well. Therefore, the eight would be racked in the row behind the nine. Those, in my opinion, are the most important ones, and as is obvious, their placement would be the opposite if you were trying to make the rack more difficult to run.
My advice for playing the ghost would be to rack the balls to be difficult the majority of the time, and to mix in a few totally random racks so that you do not fall into the same patterns.
I cannot discuss the practice of pattern racking without addressing the moral implications that have been raised in this forum. The opinion has been expressed that the word 'random' in the rules for racking forbids the use of a pre-conceived pattern. I confess that I was in disagreement with this opinion, but in writing the previous two sentences I decided to look at past versions of the BCA Rulebook to investigate whether there had been a change in wording to support one side or the other. I discovered that while the 1992 rules stated that the other seven balls were to be racked in arbitrary order (which according to Webster, is "depending on individual discretion"), the current rules state that the other seven balls are to be racked in random order (defined by Webster as "lacking a definite plan, purpose or pattern").
As such, I am regretfully forced to conclude, and to inform you, that pattern racking is definitely in violation of the rules, and that from this moment, I ask you to use this knowledge only to defend yourself and to be aware when someone is is pattern racking against you.