Break Stats -- 2023 International 10-Foot (Bigfoot) 10-Ball, Oct./Nov. 2023

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are some aggregate break statistics from the 2023 International Bigfoot 10-Ball Challenge played October 30 - November 1, 2023 at the Sheraton Norfolk Waterside Hotel in Norfolk, VA with pay-per-view streaming by Accu-Stats. This was an invitational 16-man, single-elimination event. Shane Van Boening won the event, defeating Joshua Filler in the final match.

The commentators were Mark Wilson, Mike Sigel, and Kim Davenport. The match announcers and referees were Ken Shuman and Ed Liddawi.

Conditions -- The conditions for this event included:
- Diamond 10-foot table with 4 1/4" corner pockets and new Simonis 860 cloth;​
- Aramith Tournament balls with a red-dots cue ball;​
- Accu-Rack Pro10 racking template;​
- referee racks with the 1-ball on the spot (2-ball and 3-ball need not be on the back corners);​
- alternate breaks from anywhere behind the head string;​
- jump cues not allowed;​
- foul on all balls;​
- all slop counts (except spot any 10-ball made on the break);​
- 30-second shot clock (even after the break) with one automatic extension per player per rack; and​
- lag for opening break.​

The event's 15 matches (232 games), all streamed from the same table, were as follows (shown in the order in which they were played). The figures in parentheses are the Accu-Stats Total Performance Averages (TPA), as calculated by Accu-Stats and shown on the stream. TPAs were not provided for Matches 3, 7, and 12.

Mon., Oct. 30 (All matches in Round 1)
1. Chang Jung-Lin (.884) defeated Alex Kazakis (.763) 10-3​
2. Jayson Shaw (.889) d. John Morra (.853) 10-6​
3. Aloysius Yapp d. Roberto Gomez 10-8​
4. Shane Van Boening (.884) d. Mika Immonen (.714) 10-4​
5. Roland Garcia (.835) d. Naoyuki Oi (.811) 10-9​

Tues., Oct. 31 (Matches 6, 7, and 8 in Round 1; Matches 9 and 10 in Round 2)
6. Joshua Filler (.926) d. Alex Pagulayan (.774) 10-4​
7. Konrad Juszczyszyn d. Mario He 10-4​
8. Fedor Gorst (.883) d. Lee Vann Corteza (.803) 10-6​
9. Van Boening (.927) d. Garcia (.889) 10-9​
10. Chang (.882) d. Shaw (.852) 10-4​

Wed., Nov. 1 (Matches 11 and 12 in Round 2, Matches 13 and 14 Semifinals, and Match 15 Finals)
11. Yapp (.830) d. Gorst (.824) 10-8​
12. Filler d. Juszczyszyn 10-3​
13. Van Boening (.978 -- best of the event) d. Yapp (.750) 10-1​
14. Filler (.957) d. Chang (.889) 10-6​
15. Van Boening (.907) d. Filler (.881) 10-7​

Overall results

Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Match winners -- 49% (56 of 115)​
Match losers -- 34% (40 of 117)​
Total -- 41% (96 of 232)

Breaker won the game:
Match winners -- 61% (70 of 115)​
Match losers -- 32% (37 of 117)​
Total -- 46% (107 of 232)

Break-and-run games on all breaks:
Match winners -- 20% (23 of 115)​
Match losers -- 10% (12 of 117)​
Total -- 15% (35 of 232)

Break-and-run games on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Match winners -- 41% (23 of 56)​
Match losers -- 30% (12 of 40)​
Total -- 36% (35 of 96)

Here's a breakdown of the 232 games (for match winners and losers combined).

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:​
Breaker won the game: 64 (28% of the 232 games)​
Breaker lost the game: 32 (14%)​
Breaker fouled on the break:​
Breaker won the game: 6 (3%)​
Breaker lost the game: 11 (5%)​
Breaker broke dry (without fouling):​
Breaker won the game: 37 (16%)​
Breaker lost the game: 82 (35%)​
Therefore, whereas the breaker won 46% (107 of 232) of all games,​
He won 67% (64 of 96) of the games in which the break was successful (made at least one ball and did not foul).​
He won 32% (43 of 136) of the games in which the break was unsuccessful (fouled or dry).​

Break-and-run games -- The 35 break-and-run games represented 15% of all 232 games, 33% of the 107 games won by the breaker, and 36% of the 96 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

With alternating breaks, B&R "packages" of the normal type are not possible. But we can still look at the breaks of a given player and see how many he ran on his own successive breaks, and we can call these "alternate-break packages." The 35 break-and-run games consisted of 1 alternate-break 3-pack (by Garcia), 4 alternate-break 2-packs (2 by Van Boening and 1 each by Shaw and Yapp), and 24 singles.

10-balls on the break -- The 10-ball was made on the break once (0.4% of all 232 breaks), but it was immediately spotted (with the breaker continuing to shoot) rather than counting as a win.
 
Miscellany from the data for the 2023 International Bigfoot 10-Ball Challenge:

• The most balls made on a single break was 3, done four times -- twice by Van Boening (both game wins, one by B&R), and once each by Shaw and Juszczyszyn (both game losses).

• The average number of balls made on the break was 0.6 (this includes dry and fouled breaks). On successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul), the average was 1.3.

• Number of innings:
39% (90 of 232) of the games ended in one inning – 35 games on the breaker's first inning (B&Rs) and 55 games on the non-breaker's first inning.​
25% (57 of 232) of the games ended on the second or third inning.​
37% (85 of 232) of the games went beyond the non-breaker's third visit to the table, with the longest three games ending on the non-breaker's 8th visit.​

• 35% (82 of 232) 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) – 36% (35 of 96)​
- By the non-breaker after fouls on the break – 53% (9 of 17)​
- By the non-breaker after dry breaks – 32% (38 of 119)​

• The player who made the first ball after the break:
- Won the game in that same inning 52% of the time (120 of 231)​
- Won the game in a later inning 18% of the time (41 of 231)​
- Lost the game 30% of the time (70 of 231)​
[Note -- total games used here are 231 rather than 232 to eliminate a game that ended on 3 consecutive fouls before any ball was made after the break.]​

• The match loser won an average of 5.5 games in these races to 10. Two matches went to hill/hill; the fewest games won in a match was 1.

• The match that was longest in elapsed time, at about 145 minutes, and highest in average minutes per game, at 8.1, was Yapp d. Gomez 10-8. The elapsed time was measured from the lag until the winning ball was made (or conceded), so it includes time for racking and timeouts.

• The shortest match in elapsed time, at just under 70 minutes was Van Boening d. Yapp 10-1. The match lowest in average minutes per game, at 5.4, was Filler d. Juszczyszyn 10-3.

• The average elapsed time for these 15 races to 10 was 100 minutes, averaging 6.5 minutes per game.

• Breaking fouls averaged 1 for every 13.6 games, other fouls 1 for every 3.8 games, and missed shots about 1 for every 1.7 games.

• One or more safeties were played in about 50% of all games and in about 58% of games that were not B&Rs.
 
Even though the numbers are small, here are the break-and-run results for each player.

First-Round Losers (1 match each)
Kazakis -- 0 B&Rs out of 6 breaks = 0%​
Morra -- 0 of 8 = 0%​
Gomez -- 0 of 9 = 0%​
Immonen -- 0 of 7 = 0%​
Oi -- 2 of 10 = 20%​
Pagulayan -- 2 of 7 = 29%​
He -- 1 of 7 = 14%​
Corteza -- 0 of 8 = 0%​
Total -- 5 of 62 = 8%​

Second-Round Losers (2 matches each)
Garcia -- 6 of 19 = 32%​
Shaw -- 3 of 15 = 20%​
Gorst -- 1 of 17 = 6%​
Juszczyszyn -- 3 of 14 = 21%​
Total -- 13 of 65 = 20%​

Third-Round Losers (3 matches each)
Yapp -- 2 of 23 = 9%​
Chang -- 3 of 22 = 14%​
Total -- 5 of 45 = 11%​

Finalists (4 matches each)
Filler -- 4 of 30 = 13%​
Van Boening -- 8 of 27​
Total -- 12 of 60 = 20%​

Total -- 35 of 232 = 15%

As mentioned in post #1, the 35 break-and-run games consisted of 1 alternate-break 3-pack (by Garcia), 4 alternate-break 2-packs (2 by Van Boening and 1 each by Shaw and Yapp), and 24 singles.
 
Here are some aggregate break statistics from the 2023 International Bigfoot 10-Ball Challenge played October 30 - November 1, 2023 at the Sheraton Norfolk Waterside Hotel in Norfolk, VA with pay-per-view streaming by Accu-Stats. This was an invitational 16-man, single-elimination event. Shane Van Boening won the event, defeating Joshua Filler in the final match.

The commentators were Mark Wilson, Mike Sigel, and Kim Davenport. The match announcers and referees were Ken Shuman and Ed Liddawi.

Conditions -- The conditions for this event included:
- Diamond 10-foot table with 4 1/4" corner pockets and new Simonis 860 cloth;​
- Aramith Tournament balls with a red-dots cue ball;​
- Accu-Rack Pro10 racking template;​
- referee racks with the 1-ball on the spot (2-ball and 3-ball need not be on the back corners);​
- alternate breaks from anywhere behind the head string;​
- jump cues not allowed;​
- foul on all balls;​
- all slop counts (except spot any 10-ball made on the break);​
- 30-second shot clock (even after the break) with one automatic extension per player per rack; and​
- lag for opening break.​

The event's 15 matches (232 games), all streamed from the same table, were as follows (shown in the order in which they were played). The figures in parentheses are the Accu-Stats Total Performance Averages (TPA), as calculated by Accu-Stats and shown on the stream. TPAs were not provided for Matches 3, 7, and 12.

Mon., Oct. 30 (All matches in Round 1)
1. Chang Jung-Lin (.884) defeated Alex Kazakis (.763) 10-3​
2. Jayson Shaw (.889) d. John Morra (.853) 10-6​
3. Aloysius Yapp d. Roberto Gomez 10-8​
4. Shane Van Boening (.884) d. Mika Immonen (.714) 10-4​
5. Roland Garcia (.835) d. Naoyuki Oi (.811) 10-9​

Tues., Oct. 31 (Matches 6, 7, and 8 in Round 1; Matches 9 and 10 in Round 2)
6. Joshua Filler (.926) d. Alex Pagulayan (.774) 10-4​
7. Konrad Juszczyszyn d. Mario He 10-4​
8. Fedor Gorst (.883) d. Lee Vann Corteza (.803) 10-6​
9. Van Boening (.927) d. Garcia (.889) 10-9​
10. Chang (.882) d. Shaw (.852) 10-4​

Wed., Nov. 1 (Matches 11 and 12 in Round 2, Matches 13 and 14 Semifinals, and Match 15 Finals)
11. Yapp (.830) d. Gorst (.824) 10-8​
12. Filler d. Juszczyszyn 10-3​
13. Van Boening (.978 -- best of the event) d. Yapp (.750) 10-1​
14. Filler (.957) d. Chang (.889) 10-6​
15. Van Boening (.907) d. Filler (.881) 10-7​

Overall results

Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Match winners -- 49% (56 of 115)​
Match losers -- 34% (40 of 117)​
Total -- 41% (96 of 232)
Breaker won the game:
Match winners -- 61% (70 of 115)​
Match losers -- 32% (37 of 117)​
Total -- 46% (107 of 232)
Break-and-run games on all breaks:
Match winners -- 20% (23 of 115)​
Match losers -- 10% (12 of 117)​
Total -- 15% (35 of 232)
Break-and-run games on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Match winners -- 41% (23 of 56)​
Match losers -- 30% (12 of 40)​
Total -- 36% (35 of 96)

Here's a breakdown of the 232 games (for match winners and losers combined).

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:​
Breaker won the game: 64 (28% of the 232 games)​
Breaker lost the game: 32 (14%)​
Breaker fouled on the break:​
Breaker won the game: 6 (3%)​
Breaker lost the game: 11 (5%)​
Breaker broke dry (without fouling):​
Breaker won the game: 37 (16%)​
Breaker lost the game: 82 (35%)​
Therefore, whereas the breaker won 46% (107 of 232) of all games,​
He won 67% (64 of 96) of the games in which the break was successful (made at least one ball and did not foul).​
He won 32% (43 of 136) of the games in which the break was unsuccessful (fouled or dry).​

Break-and-run games -- The 35 break-and-run games represented 15% of all 232 games, 33% of the 107 games won by the breaker, and 36% of the 96 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

With alternating breaks, B&R "packages" of the normal type are not possible. But we can still look at the breaks of a given player and see how many he ran on his own successive breaks, and we can call these "alternate-break packages." The 35 break-and-run games consisted of 1 alternate-break 3-pack (by Garcia), 4 alternate-break 2-packs (2 by Van Boening and 1 each by Shaw and Yapp), and 24 singles.

10-balls on the break -- The 10-ball was made on the break once (0.4% of all 232 breaks), but it was immediately spotted (with the breaker continuing to shoot) rather than counting as a win.
Thank you for all these stats. IMO the ten on the break should be a win! Just look how hard it is to do.
 
Thank you for all these stats. IMO the ten on the break should be a win! Just look how hard it is to do.
Yes, it has certainly been a low-frequency event since they switched to using a template rack.

Wooden triangles were used in the Bigfoot events through 2015, and it was rack your own. I have reminded you a couple times of the travesty averted at the 2013 Tunica Bigfoot event. The 10 ball was made on the break 10 times in the last 2 matches. Fortunately, all 10 of them were spotted, because they all went in one of the foot-rail pockets. The rule for that event was to count them in any of the top 4 pockets but not in the bottom 2 pockets. At the prior Bigfoot event, at DCC in January of 2013, 10s on the break counted in any pocket. Had they used that rule in June of 2013, it would have been quite a travesty.

DCC has used rack your own in every Bigfoot event. The most 10s on the break at DCC in the 7 events since they switched to using a template is 4.

The International has had the referee do the racking for all 3 of their Bigfoot events so far, and 10s on the break have numbered 0, 2, and 1.

So doing away with spotting the 10 on the break in Bigfoot events would not seem to cause much harm. But when you say it is hard to do I hope you mean that it is just an infrequent slop shot, not that it is a skill shot deserving of a win. I view arguments sometimes heard about excitement and building a crowd as largely specious. And even though a 10 on the break is infrequent with a template, it could still pop up at the worst time, such as at hill/hill in the final match. Yeah, that might be memorable, but I'd find it disgusting.

My preference for 10-Ball, regardless of the size of the table, is for call shot and spot the 10 if made early. We've got lots of other events (9-Ball) where all slop counts.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it has certainly been a low-frequency event since they switched to using a template rack.

Wooden triangles were used in the Bigfoot events through 2015, and it was rack your own. I have reminded you a couple times of the travesty averted at the 2013 Tunica Bigfoot event. The 10 ball was made on the break 10 times in the last 2 matches. Fortunately, all 10 of them were spotted, because they all went in one of the foot-rail pockets. The rule for that event was to count them in any of the top 4 pockets but not in the bottom 2 pockets. At the prior Bigfoot event, at DCC in January of 2013, 10s on the break counted in any pocket. Had they used that rule in June of 2013, it would have been quite a travesty.

DCC has used rack your own in every Bigfoot event. The most 10s on the break at DCC in the 7 events since they switched to using a template is 4.

The International has had the referee do the racking for all 3 of their Bigfoot events so far, and 10s on the break have numbered 0, 2, and 1.

So doing away with spotting the 10 on the break in Bigfoot events would not seem to cause much harm. But when you say it is hard to do I hope you mean that it is just an infrequent slop shot, not that it is a skill shot deserving of a win. I view arguments sometimes heard about excitement and building a crowd as largely specious. And even though a 10 on the break is infrequent with a template, it could still pop up at the worst time, such as at hill/hill in the final event. Yeah, that might be memorable, but I'd find it disgusting.

My preference for 10-Ball, regardless of the size of the table, is for call shot and spot the 10 if made early. We've got lots of other events (9-Ball) where all slop counts.
Thank you for this reply. My take on making the ten on the break is that it would be a "slop" shot as you call it, but far less frequently than we see it happen in 9-Ball. I have no idea how to even attempt to make the ten on the break, and I'm not sure any of the Bigfoot players have a clue how to do that either. That's what makes it so unique if and when it does happen. With all due respect, we do not agree on the rules of Ten Ball. The way this game originated was to create a more difficult version of 9-Ball, and for that reason it was successful. It was originally played with the same rules as 9-Ball. There was no call shot and you could play combinations, billiards or any type of two-way shot on the ten and win the game. When we started the Bigfoot (called the Fatboy back then) at DCC those were the rules used. And they pretty much stayed that way until we decided for the reason you mentioned that the ten did not count in the bottom two (foot) pockets.
 
... When we started the Bigfoot (called the Fatboy back then) at DCC those were the rules used. And they pretty much stayed that way until we decided for the reason you mentioned that the ten did not count in the bottom two (foot) pockets.
Some additional info, Jay:

1. Event Names
There were 4 DCC Fatboy 10-Ball Challenge events (2009-2012), and they were all on 9-foot tables.​
The first 10-Ball Challenge on a 10-foot table was at the 2012 Southern Classic in Tunica, and it was just named the Diamond 10-Ball Challenge. The "Bigfoot" name started with the 2013 DCC event, and I think you held a naming contest for that. At DCC, it has been called the Diamond Bigfoot 10-Ball Challenge since then.​
2. 10-Balls on the Break
For the Fatboy 10-Ball Challenges, on 9-footers, a 10-ball made on the break in either foot-rail pocket was spotted, at least in 2011 and 2012.​
I don't have readily available info on that for the first two, in 2009 and 2010.​

At the first 10-Ball Challenge on a 10-foot table, at the 2012 Southern Classic, a 10-ball made on the break in either foot-rail pocket was spotted. That happened more than once.​
At the second 10-foot event, at the 2013 DCC, a 10-ball made on the break in any pocket counted as a game win. That happened more than once.​
At the next 10-foot event, at the 2013 Southern Classic, a 10-ball made on the break in either foot-rail pocket was spotted. That's the event where so many 10s were made on the break, and most of them were spotted.​
Beginning with the 2014 DCC, and continuing for every year since then at both the DCC and the International, a 10-ball pocketed on the break in any pocket was spotted.​
 
Last edited:
Back
Top