Yes, but note that the DCC used a break box only in 2019 and 2020. Before that (I checked back to 2012), and again in 2022, it was break from anywhere behind the line.
Break Box 2022 US Open 9 Ball
- Thread starter Island Drive
- Start date
2021 International Open -- see recent post: https://forums.azbilliards.com/thre...nship-9-ball-august-2022.545713/#post-7334699
And don't forget the 2013 Mosconi Cup (although we probably should) -- 9-ball on the spot and a break box about 6" to either side of center, producing results of 33% successful breaks, 44% breaker won, and 10% B&Rs. And the Diamond table may have had just pro-cut pockets.
That last event, was the best thay have done. Filler seemed to be stringing racks together. Didn't seem to have a problem. Also remember the conditions will have an effect, on how a table breaks. Some will give up balls, some won't. And no one can predict that. Unless you can accurately cut the one in the middle every time. As that didn't happen I would put it on conditions. As well as that break box.
Anyhow I enjoyed seeing guys trying to figure it out. The equipment and format should be as tough, as possible!!!
Anyhow I enjoyed seeing guys trying to figure it out. The equipment and format should be as tough, as possible!!!
Again I understand your point. You mentioned that with a template is still tough for the general banger to get out. On the opposite side no matter what you do with the break the first player to get a shot runs out. So it’s a matter of do you want to watch a guy break and run or watch a guy break then play safety battle till one guy gets a shot then runs out?
These guys are the absolute best players in the world. Do you the guy who can break and run out to win or do you want the guy who can play safe and kick the best to win? The top players are going to win no matter what the rules are because they are the best players in the world. Same with golf no matter what rules you go by they are still the best players and will win or finish near the top consistently.
One question if you don’t like to watch players break and run out why not just go to the pool hall and watch the bangers play? Or why not watch 550 Fargo players and below play? I’ll watch 550 and below at the pool hall but I won’t watch them online or I definitely wouldn’t pay to watch them. If I want to watch 650-700 players I just go put my cue together and start hitting balls
dquarasr
Registered
This is highly relevant: what is Matchroom’s target audience, and is that the correct audience to grow the sport and get eyeballs on it? What is that demographic?
Answer these questions, as I would bet MR has already done, and the rule set should be easy(er) to define.
Not anywhere close to true. From my stats thread for this Euro event:
• 48% (106 of 223) of the games were run out by the player who was at the table following the break. These run-outs were:
- By the breaker after successful breaks (B&R games) – 44% (60 of 137)
- By the non-breaker after fouls on the break – 88% (21 of 24)
- By the non-breaker after dry breaks – 40% (25 of 62)
I've posted this stat for many years now. For the large majority of 9-Ball events, this stat is somewhere in the 40s. It is lower than 40% more often than it is above 50%.
Because pool is hard.
A successful break doesn't mean that you have a shot after the break. And if you do have a shot, it doesn't mean the table layout is conducive to running all the balls. The 61 and 27 numbers you quoted mean that the breaker ran out 44% of the time after a successful break (61 x .44 =27). That's not so bad when you consider all the reasons the breaker can fail to run out after a successful break.
I know it's hard. That's my point. And if it's not so bad, then why would anyone complain that the break box is boring?Because pool is hard.
Edit: Just to add...We're all different, and we all have different likes, and dislikes. Some people think 9-ball is boring if the players don't break and run out. I think watching players break and run out rack after rack, is boring. And apparently, non-pool players seem to think all pool is boring. I'm not sure how that will work out for pool, in the long run.
Last edited:
I absolutely love this break format... Really see nothing wrong with making the pros have earn their racks.
Lets not pretend that this was somehow unfair, and/or they didn't have enough time to prepare. The cut break from the box just has a strong element of chaos if they're going to try and generate potted balls, (which of course they're going to).
Looking forward to the next event.
Lets not pretend that this was somehow unfair, and/or they didn't have enough time to prepare. The cut break from the box just has a strong element of chaos if they're going to try and generate potted balls, (which of course they're going to).
Looking forward to the next event.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
I think there should be advance notice of rules changes like this. I don't think midseason or not is a big deal. I don't actually recall when this was announced so I can't say if this was too sudden of a change. If the change is announced too close to when it takes effect then that would favor players who have played under a similar ruleset.
I saw quite a few tough layouts after the break. Not only is is harder to get a ball, it's harder to get several, shortening your runout.
I was saying the first player to get the first open shot whether it be off the break, failed safety attempt by opponent or a successful safety attempt. 48% were won by the first person to the table after the break. I always read your break stats and you do an awesome job. How many times does a pro player get an open shot and not run out? Maybe 2-3% of the time? When they get an open shot they are going to run out that’s what they do.
Although I prefer 10 ball for the pros, if they are going to play 9 ball I support making it more difficult to pocket the wing ball on the break. When they play with the 1 on the spot and a template rack, it seems like the wing ball is almost automatic and the runouts become too perfunctory. I somewhat understand the sentiments that the current rules just delay the inevitable (the better player running out)- but they at least have play good safeties to do so.
Last edited:
I think the stats need to be looked at more in depth. Saying only 50% of games were won by the breaker may be misleading since it includes all players. I’d like to see stats on how many of the games Alvin won throughout the competition when he broke. I think these stats are slanted by the lower standard players who when breaking and getting a ball now have a less obvious table to clear than before
Stu brings up a good point, there is a balance between too easy and too tough with break rules. We don't want to see a wired ball, soft break, and easy layouts with the entire matches and tournaments coming down to who can control the 1 on the break the best. On the other hand we don't want to see the game become like straight pool, where the break becomes a liability and they start playing safety breaks after getting a few racks up to help protect their lead.
Where we differ, and where we all will differ, is where each of us feels that balance should be.
Personally I think a 27% BNR stat is just fine. That's how it was for many years prior to template racks. I remember when 30% BNR was reserved for tournament winners, and other pros were at 20%. I also like the more strategic play and post rack challenges. I hated watching 9 ball become about mastering the opening break and then mopping up open layouts.
I am concerned, however, about the breaker not having any edge at all. I wonder if that is due to the high frequency of scratches by cutting the rack so much.
I remember that Pat Flemming did some stats in the 90s and showed that the breaker had a very small advantage, I want to say it was in the low 50% range. No one believed it but it was over many, many racks of pool analyzed. But those were head on breaks where scratches were rare. That means not every dry break will result in a loss. With a higher number of scratches I can see how the number of losses due to a scratch could equalize the number of successful breaks.
My big fear is that matches come down to who gets lucky enough to dodge scratches on these wild cut breaks.
I am still happy to see this change. I think it's a needed adjustment to a game that had become too break-heavy. I think we give the pros a few tournaments to adjust and see if they can alter their run out percentages or reduce their scratches a bit. If so this might be spot on. And while I hate tinkering with the game, I personally feel this change is many years overdue.
As for 10 ball, that break is more solved than 9 on the spot 9 ball. I thought that was a known thing. 10 ball hasn't been considered harder than 9 ball for the top players for many years because with templates and a pop break they average 2 balls a break with ridiculous control over the spreads. No, we have to stick to 9 ball.
Just my humble opinion of course.
Where we differ, and where we all will differ, is where each of us feels that balance should be.
Personally I think a 27% BNR stat is just fine. That's how it was for many years prior to template racks. I remember when 30% BNR was reserved for tournament winners, and other pros were at 20%. I also like the more strategic play and post rack challenges. I hated watching 9 ball become about mastering the opening break and then mopping up open layouts.
I am concerned, however, about the breaker not having any edge at all. I wonder if that is due to the high frequency of scratches by cutting the rack so much.
I remember that Pat Flemming did some stats in the 90s and showed that the breaker had a very small advantage, I want to say it was in the low 50% range. No one believed it but it was over many, many racks of pool analyzed. But those were head on breaks where scratches were rare. That means not every dry break will result in a loss. With a higher number of scratches I can see how the number of losses due to a scratch could equalize the number of successful breaks.
My big fear is that matches come down to who gets lucky enough to dodge scratches on these wild cut breaks.
I am still happy to see this change. I think it's a needed adjustment to a game that had become too break-heavy. I think we give the pros a few tournaments to adjust and see if they can alter their run out percentages or reduce their scratches a bit. If so this might be spot on. And while I hate tinkering with the game, I personally feel this change is many years overdue.
As for 10 ball, that break is more solved than 9 on the spot 9 ball. I thought that was a known thing. 10 ball hasn't been considered harder than 9 ball for the top players for many years because with templates and a pop break they average 2 balls a break with ridiculous control over the spreads. No, we have to stick to 9 ball.
Just my humble opinion of course.
i wasn't specifically thinking of the break box but rather the 9 on the spot. but yea the break box too is an old solution.
i think going with these rules and using the template throughout will be fine. the triangle may look classier on tv but what happened in the filler-shaw match was unacceptable
Oops, sorry, I misunderstood your comment of "first player to get a shot." The percentage of runouts for the first player to get an open shot would certainly be higher than the numbers I quoted, but nothing like 97-98%. My stats threads actually often contain another stat that will show you it is not close to what you think. For my Euro Open thread, here's the relevant section:
• The player who made the first ball after the break:
- Won the game in that same inning 70% of the time (153 of 220)
- Won the game in a later inning 12% of the time (26 of 220)
- Lost the game 19% of the time (41 of 220)
[Note -- total games used here are 220 rather than 223 to eliminate the 3 games in which no ball was made after the break.]
So the first stat there says that the first player to make a ball after the break ran out 70% of the time in that same inning. The number you mentioned, runouts for the "first player to get an open shot" would be lower than that because the first open, offensive shot of a game might not result in pocketing the ball, which would add to the failures to run out. [Occasionally the first ball pocketed after the break is done so unintentionally, with no way to run out, so those are in my 70% (or, really, in the 30% non-runouts), and would not be in the non-runouts you would count. But I doubt that has much effect.]
I looked at the last 20 events for which I posted the runout percentage for the first player to make a ball after the break. Here is the distribution of those 20 results:
50% - 54% -- 2 events
55% - 59% -- 2
60% - 64% -- 6
65% - 69% -- 7
70%+ -- 3
The mean of those 20 numbers is 64%. The actual result for all of those events combined might be a little different, because the number of games tracked is different in each event. But I think we can conclusively say that the answer to your question of how frequently does a player get an open shot and not run out is -- a whole lot more often than you thought.
Yes. And your comment applies particularly when the stats are for a group of matches involving players with widely differing skill levels. But that wasn't really true for the 13 matches I tracked for this Euro Open. The matches were all from the Final 64 players, and on the feature table, where they always try to pick a good match.
The 13 matches I tracked included Ouschan 3 times and Van Boening 5 times. They both played 9 matches in total, so these results may not be representative of their full-tournament results. Results for Ouschan (34 breaks) first, then Van Boening (50 breaks):
Successful breaks -- 53%, 48%
Breaker won game -- 50%, 50%
B&R games -- 28%, 21%
It's also worth remembering that the overall 50% figure for games won by the breaker came from guys who won the matches, at 59%, and guys who lost the matches, at 39%.