Break Stats -- 2021 World Pool Championship (9-Ball), June 2021

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are some aggregate break statistics from the 2021 World Pool Championship played June 6-10, 2021 at Marshall Arena in Milton Keynes, England, with pay-per-view streaming in the USA on DAZN. This was a 128-player 9-Ball event produced by Matchroom Sport. The players were divided into 16 groups of 8 players, with double elimination in each group to eliminate 4 from each group. Then the last 64 players played single-elimination rounds to the end. Albin Ouschan won the tournament, defeating Omar Al Shaheen in the final match.

The main commentators were Phil Yates, Alex Lely, and Karl Boyes. Several players also commentated on one or more matches. The referees in the streamed matches were John Leyman, Marcel Eckardt, Desislava Bozhilova, and Brendan Moore. The MC/announcer/interviewer was Michael Bridge.

Conditions -- The conditions for the streamed matches included:
• A new Predator 9-foot table with 4 1/4" corner pockets and shallow pocket shelves;​
• Blue Simonis cloth;​
• Aramith Tournament Black balls with a black-measles cue ball;​
• racking template on the first 3 days, triangle rack on the 4th and 5th days;​
• referee racks with the 1-ball on the foot spot (2-ball not necessarily in back location);​
• winner breaks from anywhere behind the head string;​
• no illegal-break rule, but a "forceful" break is required;​
• 30-second shot clock (60 sec. after the break), with one 30-sec. extension per player per rack;​
• foul on all balls;​
• jump cues allowed;​
• all slop counts; and​
• lag for the break in each match.​

These stats are for all 23 matches (357 games) that were played in the main arena (Table 1). These matches constituted 10.4% of the total of 222 matches played in the tournament (1 match was forfeited). These 23 matches are listed here in the order in which they were played.

Sun. June 6 (Group Stage)
1. Fedor Gorst defeated Mark Magi 9-7​
2. Alex Kazakis d. Kelly Fisher 9-1​
3. Jayson Shaw d. Moritz Neuhausen 9-7​
4. Joshua Filler d. Margaret Fefilova 9-2​
5. Shane Van Boening d. Petr Urban 9-3​
6. Roberto Gomez d. Albin Ouschan 9-7​

Mon. June 7 (Group Stage)
7. Masato Yoshioka d. Veronika Ivanovskaia 9-7​
8. Van Boening d. Oscar Dominguez 9-4​
9. Jasmin Ouschan d. Jeffrey DeLuna 9-5​
10. Mario He d. Tyler Styer 9-3​
11. Shaw d. Imran Majid 9-6​
12. Billy Thorpe d. Marcel Price 9-4​

Tues. June 8
13. Skyler Woodward d, Gorst 11-8 (Last 64)​
14. Van Boening d. Shaw 11-4 (Last 64)​
15. Jeremy Sossei d. Robbie Capito 11-7 (Last 32)​
16. Naoyuki Oi d. Filler 11-6 (Last 32)​

Wed. June 9
17. Francisco Sanchez-Ruiz d. Oi 11-7 (Last 16)​
18. Woodward d. Gomez 11-7 (Last 16)​
19. David Alcaide d. Maz Lechner 11-4 (Quarterfinal)​
20. Ouschan d. Woodward 11-5 (Quarterfinal)​

Thurs. June 10
21. Ouschan d. Alcaide 11-4 (Semifinal)​
22. Omar Al Shaheen d. Olivér Szolnoki 11-9 (Semifinal)​
23. Ouschan d. Al Shaheen 13-9 (Finals)​

Overall results

Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):

Match winners -- 89% (195 of 219)​
Match losers -- 80% (110 of 138)​
Total -- 85% (305 of 357)

Breaker won the game:
Match winners -- 74% (163 of 219)​
Match losers -- 51% (70 of 138)​
Total -- 65% (233 of 357)

Break-and-run games on all breaks:
Match winners -- 40% (88 of 219)​
Match losers -- 19% (26 of 138)​
Total -- 32% (114 of 357)

Break-and-run games on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Match winners -- 45% (88 of 195)​
Match losers -- 24% (26 of 110)​
Total -- 37% (114 of 305)

Here's a breakdown of the 357 games (for match winners and losers combined).

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:
Breaker won the game: 216 (61% of the 357 games)​
Breaker lost the game: 89 (25%)​

Breaker fouled on the break:
Breaker won the game: 4 (1%)​
Breaker lost the game: 12 (3%)​

Breaker broke dry (without fouling):
Breaker won the game: 13 (4%)​
Breaker lost the game: 23 (6%)​

Therefore, whereas the breaker won 65% (233 of 357) of all games,
He/she won 71% (216 of 305) of the games in which the break was successful (made at least one ball and did not foul).​
He/she won 33% (17 of 52) of the games in which the break was unsuccessful (fouled or dry).​

Break-and-run games -- The 114 break-and-run games represented 32% of all 357 games, 49% of the 233 games won by the breaker, and 37% of the 305 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

The 114 break-and-run games consisted of 1 6-pack (by Van Boening), 1 5-pack (He), 2 4-packs (Ouschan and Gomez), 2 three-packs (Woodward and Ouschan), 21 two-packs, and 47 singles.

9-Balls on the break -- The 114 break-and-run games included 2 9-balls on the break (0.6% of all breaks), one when a racking template was used and one when a triangle rack was used.
 
Last edited:

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Miscellany from the data for the 2021 World Pool Championship (9-Ball) event:

• The most balls made on a single break was 4, done once each by Gomez (lost game) and Sossei (a win by B&R).

• The average number of balls made on the break was 1.3 (this includes dry and fouled breaks). On successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul), the average was 1.4.

• 47% (169 of 357) of the games ended in one inning – 32% (114) won by the breaker (B&R) and 15% (55) won by the non-breaker. Ten percent (37 of 357) of the games lasted more than 3 innings.

• 38% (134 of 357) 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) – 37% (114 of 305)​
- By the non-breaker after fouls on the break – 75% (12 of 16)​
- By the non-breaker after dry breaks – 22% (8 of 36)​

• The player who made the first ball after the break:
- Won the game in that same inning 64% of the time (226 of 355)​
- Won the game in a later inning 13% of the time (47 of 355)​
- Lost the game 23% of the time (82 of 355)​
[Note -- total games used here are 355 rather than 357 to eliminate the 2 games in which no ball was made after the break.]​

• The loser won an average of 4.7 games in the 12 races to 9 and 6.1 games in the 10 races to 11 (excludes the final match, a race to 13). None of the 23 matches went to hill/hill. Four of the races to 9 finished at 9-7, and one of the races to 11 ended at 11-9. The most lopsided match was one at 9-1.

• The average elapsed times were 89 minutes for the 12 races to 9 and 114 minutes for the 10 races to 11. The average minutes per game for all 357 games was 6.6. The elapsed time was measured from the lag until the winning ball was made (or conceded), so it includes time for racking and commercial breaks. Commercial breaks were significant in these matches, generally occurring after every 3 or 4 games in a match, and lasting about 3 minutes each.

• The match lowest in average minutes per game, at 5.6, was Van Boening d. Urban 9-3. The match highest in average minutes per game, at 7.5, was Alcaide d. Lechner 11-4, although that match seemed to contain some delays in starting new games while play was shown on another table.

• Breaking fouls averaged 1 for every 22.3 games, other fouls 1 for every 6.4 games, and missed shots about 1 for every 2.0 games.

• About 45% of the games involved one or more safeties.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
A racking template was used on Days 1-3 (16 matches in Group Stage through Last 32) and a racking triangle on Days 4-5 (7 matches in Last 16 through Finals). How do a few of the stats compare?

Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Template -- 88% (205 of 233)​
Triangle -- 80 (100 of 124)​
Total -- 85% (305 of 357)

Breaker won the game:
Template -- 68% (158 of 233)​
Triangle -- 60 (75 of 124)​
Total -- 65% (233 of 357)

Break-and-run games on all breaks:
Template -- 34% (79 of 233)​
Triangle -- 28% (35 of 124)​
Total -- 32% (114 of 357)

Break-and-run games on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Template -- 39% (79 of 205)​
Triangle -- 35% (35 of 100)​
Total -- 37% (114 of 305)
 
Last edited:

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A racking template was used on Days 1-3 (16 matches in Group Stage through Last 32) and a racking triangle on Days 4-5 (7 matches in Last 16 through Finals). How do a few of the stats compare?

Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Template -- 88% (205 of 233)​
Triangle -- 80 (100 of 124)​
Total -- 85% (305 of 357)

Breaker won the game:
Template -- 68% (158 of 233)​
Triangle -- 60 (75 of 124)​
Total -- 65% (233 of 357)

Break-and-run games on all breaks:
Template -- 34% (79 of 233)​
Triangle -- 28% (35 of 124)​
Total -- 32% (114 of 357)

Break-and-run games on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Template -- 39% (79 of 205)​
Triangle -- 35% (35 of 100)​
Total -- 32% (114 of 305)

Looking at your WPM stats

It seems as though there wasn't a huge difference between them and the World Pool Championship (once the triangle rack was introduced)
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Is that a very high percentage of "Breaker Wins"?
When the rate of successful breaks is high, the break-and-run rate tends to be high, boosting the breaker-won-game percentage. But it varies a lot depending on the conditions (rules and equipment). Dr. Dave has tabulated a few stats from a lot of my threads. Here is the 9-Ball table: https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/break/stats/#9-ball. The 65% figure from this event was equaled or exceeded in just 4 other 9-Ball events shown there.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
Wonderful stuff here. Thank you for these illuminating statistics.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
When the rate of successful breaks is high, the break-and-run rate tends to be high, boosting the breaker-won-game percentage. But it varies a lot depending on the conditions (rules and equipment). Dr. Dave has tabulated a few stats from a lot of my threads. Here is the 9-Ball table: https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/break/stats/#9-ball. The 65% figure from this event was equaled or exceeded in just 4 other 9-Ball events shown there.
I suppose winner breaks will tend to have a higher "Breaker Wins" percentage especially for matches with mismatched players.
 

Cameron Smith

is kind of hungry...
Silver Member
When the rate of successful breaks is high, the break-and-run rate tends to be high, boosting the breaker-won-game percentage. But it varies a lot depending on the conditions (rules and equipment). Dr. Dave has tabulated a few stats from a lot of my threads. Here is the 9-Ball table: https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/break/stats/#9-ball. The 65% figure from this event was equaled or exceeded in just 4 other 9-Ball events shown there.
Holy smokes at the 2014 US Open stats. The breaker won 50% of the games and made a ball 54%. If you encountered a 50/50 shot at any other time in the game, you’d play safe.
 
That’s a lot of impressive stats!

I see the debate of winner breaks vs alternate breaks has been discussed endlessly. And the stats her would suggest breaking gives an advantage.

However in my opinion part of the skill is to sting racks together and build a lead. And regardless at some point the better players will be able to string more racks and win, vs a weaker player who would break down more frequently.

But my question would be, does winning the lag give an advantage, because if you build a lead does the pressure of being kept off the table effect the frozen out player so they struggle to fight back?

So I’m really curious to know, does such a stat exists showing % of winner of the lag to winner of the match?
 
Last edited:

skogstokig

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
But my question would be, does winning the lag give an advantage, because if you build a lead does the pressure of being kept off the table effect the frozen out player so they struggle to fight back?

yes. both in winner breaks and alternate breaks, it's a big advantage. extreme example:

 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... So I’m really curious to know, does such a stat exists showing % of winner of the lag to winner of the match?
Here's a post showing lag results in each of the last 8 Mosconi Cups (short races, alternate breaks): https://forums.azbilliards.com/thre...osconi-cup-december-2020.523249/#post-6813922. In total for those 8 events, the team that won the lag won the match 61% of the time (79 of 129 matches).

In the World Pool Championship (9-Ball) last week (medium-length matches, winner breaks), the winners of the lag in the matches played on the main streaming table won the match 52% of the time (12 of 23 matches).

I could go through my notes on dozens of past events and determine this percentage, but not right now.
 
Last edited:
Here's a post showing lag results in each of the last 8 Mosconi Cups (short races, alternate breaks): https://forums.azbilliards.com/thre...osconi-cup-december-2020.523249/#post-6813922. In total for those 8 events, the team that won the lag won the match 61% of the time (79 of 129 matches).

In the World Pool Championship (9-Ball) last week (medium-length matches, winner breaks), the winners of the lag in the matches played on the main streaming table won the match 52% of the time (12 of 23 matches).

I could go through my notes on dozens of past events and determine this percentage, but not right now.
Thanks for the info, don’t bother digging through your notes.

Seems fairly simple, the shorter the game the more the getting to break first matters. But as games get longer, it becomes less significant.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... Seems fairly simple, the shorter the game the more the getting to break first matters. But as games get longer, it becomes less significant.
For those who believe that the concepts of probability and statistics apply to pool players....

If both players are 70% to win the rack from their break, the following percentages apply to how the lag sets the match percentage:

Race to / lag winner wins match
3 / 58.5%
5 / 56.1%
7 / 55.0 %
9 / 54.3%

This means, for example, that if they are playing a race to 7, the winner of the lag is expected to win 55% of the time, which a a pretty big advantage.
70% from the break is fairly large. None of the averages listed for events are that large. Some players may reach that level in an event, but if they're the monster fish in a small pond, you expect them to win every rack they play. The calculations above are for two evenly-matched players.
The chances are the same for winner breaks and for alternate break. In either case, in a hill-hill match, the winner of the lag will get the odd break.
 
For those who believe that the concepts of probability and statistics apply to pool players....

If both players are 70% to win the rack from their break, the following percentages apply to how the lag sets the match percentage:

Race to / lag winner wins match
3 / 58.5%
5 / 56.1%
7 / 55.0 %
9 / 54.3%

This means, for example, that if they are playing a race to 7, the winner of the lag is expected to win 55% of the time, which a a pretty big advantage.
70% from the break is fairly large. None of the averages listed for events are that large. Some players may reach that level in an event, but if they're the monster fish in a small pond, you expect them to win every rack they play. The calculations above are for two evenly-matched players.
The chances are the same for winner breaks and for alternate break. In either case, in a hill-hill match, the winner of the lag will get the odd break.
Deep down who doesn’t love some good stats!

This last WC was the first 9-ball tournament I have ever watched. And my gut feeling was the matches were to short. Statistically that would seem fair as longer as matches decrease the effects of winning the lag.

However I think my judgment is heavily clouded, because my love is Snooker not pool. Therefore when I started to watch I was amazed how quick the matches lasted, Not necessary thinking about the effects of the break off.

However I can appreciate the spirit of the game is fast and furious and longer matches are probably not what the fans want, in the end it’s as much about entertainment as anything else. And It’s the quick fire nature of the game that is part of its attraction.
 
Top