Break Stats -- 2023 U.S. Open Pool Championship (9-Ball), September 2023

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are some aggregate break statistics from the 2023 US Open Pool Championship played September 25-30 at Harrah's Resort Atlantic City, in New Jersey. Streaming was by pay-per-view on DAZN in the USA. This was a 256-player 9-Ball event produced by Matchroom Sport. Ko Ping Chung won the tournament, defeating Fedor Gorst in the final match.

The event was double elimination down to the final 64 players (32 on the winners' side and 32 on the one-loss side). It was then single-elimination play from that point to the conclusion. Races were of 5 different lengths during the 6 days -- to 8 in the first 3 rounds on the losers' side, to 9 for all other rounds up to the Last 64, to 10 for the Last 64 round through the quarterfinals, to 11 for the semifinals, and to 13 for the finals. The main commentators in these streamed matches were Michael McMullan, Jeremy Jones, Karl Boyes, and Steve Schlanger, with assistance from Scott Frost in 4 of the matches and Ralph Eckert in 1. The tournament director was Brendan Moore. The referees included Marcel Eckardt, Desislava Bozhilova, and John Leyman. Hannah Wilkes did some announcing and interviewing on the last two days.

Conditions -- The conditions for the streamed matches I tracked included:
• Diamond 9-foot tables with 4" corner pockets;​
• Simonis 860 shark grey cloth;​
• Aramith Tournament Black balls with a black-dots cue ball;​
• Magic Ball Rack racking template;​
• referee racks with the 9-ball on the foot spot (2-ball not necessarily in back location);​
• winner breaks from behind the head string in a box approximately 8" to each side of the long string;​
• no 3-point (illegal-break) rule, but referees enforce a "forceful break" requirement;​
• no shot clock until the last 16 players, then a 30-second shot clock (60 sec. after the break), with one 30-sec. extension per player per rack;​
• foul on all balls;​
• 3-foul rule in effect (did not occur);​
• jump cues allowed;​
• all slop counts; and​
• lag for the break in each match.​

These stats are for all 29 matches (422 games) streamed on the feature table with commentary (Table 1 from Monday through Thursday and the "TV Table" on Friday and Saturday). These matches constituted just 6% of the total of 479 matches scheduled in the tournament, but included 19% of the matches in the single-elimination portion of the event (final 64 players). These 29 matches are listed here in the order in which they were played.

Mon., September 25
1. Francisco Sanchez-Ruiz defeated Jon Weber 9-1​
2. David Alcaide d. Kenichi Uchigaki 9-7​
3. Shane Van Boening d. Andrew Finnigan 9-2​
4. Corey Deuel d. Ko Ping Chung 9-6​
5. Joshua Filler d. John Moody, Jr. 9-4​
6. Chang Yu-Lung d. Anton Raga 9-8​

Tues., Sept. 26
7. Duong Quoc Hoang d. Joey Tate 9-7​
8. Skyler Woodward d. Charles Carlisle 9-2​
9. Ralf Souquet d. Earl Strickland 9-8​
10. Lee Vann Corteza d. Roberto Gomez 9-5​
11. Aleksa Pecelj d. Edward Epperson 8-0​
12. Mika Immonen d. Trenton White 8-1​

Wed., Sept. 27
13. Gerson Martinez Boza d. Eric Roberts 8-7​
14. Corteza d. Mario He 9-7​
15. Woodward d. Alex Pagulayan 9-7​
16. Van Boening d. Pierfrancesco Garzia 9-5​
17. Tyler Styer d. Jose Alberto Delgado 9-7​

Thurs., Sept. 28
18. Marc Bijsterbosch d. Moritz Neuhausen 10-9 (Last 64)​
19. Woodward d. Do The Kien 10-5 (Last 64)​
20. Jayson Shaw d. Strickland 10-3 (Last 64)​
21. Ko PC d. Jeff De Luna 10-3 (Last 32)​
22. Carlo Biado d. Mieszko Fortunski 10-6 (Last 32)​

Fri., Sept. 29
23. Fedor Gorst d. Biado 10-7 (Last 16)​
24. Shaw d. Woodward 10-5 (Last 16)​
25. Aleksa Pecelj d. Shaw 10-7 (Quarterfinal)​
26. Ko PC d. Max Lechner 10-6 (Quarterfinal)​

Sat., Sept. 30
27. Gorst d. Pecelj 11-6 (Semifinal)​
28. Ko PC d. Aloysius Yapp 11-0 (Semifinal)​
29. Ko PC d. Gorst 13-6 (Final)​

Overall results
Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Match winners -- 74% (194 of 262)​
Match losers -- 72% (115 of 160)​
Total -- 73% (309 of 422)​
Breaker won the game:
Match winners -- 65% (170 of 262)​
Match losers -- 36% (57 of 160)​
Total -- 54% (227 of 422)​
Break-and-run games on all breaks:
Match winners -- 26% (67 of 262)​
Match losers -- 14% (23 of 160)​
Total -- 21% (90 of 422)​
Break-and-run games on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Match winners -- 35% (67 of 194)​
Match losers -- 20% (23 of 115)​
Total -- 29% (90 of 309)​

Here's a breakdown of the 422 games (for match winners and losers combined).

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:​
Breaker won the game: 178 (42% of the 422 games)​
Breaker lost the game: 131 (31%)​
Breaker fouled on the break:​
Breaker won the game: 7 (2%)​
Breaker lost the game: 20 (5%)​
Breaker broke dry (without fouling):​
Breaker won the game: 42 (10%)​
Breaker lost the game: 44 (10%)​
Therefore, whereas the breaker won 54% (227 of 422) of all games,​
He won 58% (178 of 309) of the games in which the break was successful (made at least one ball and did not foul).​
He won 43% (49 of 113) of the games in which the break was unsuccessful (fouled or dry).​

Break-and-run games -- The 90 break-and-run games represented 21% of all 422 games, 40% of the 227 games won by the breaker, and 29% of the 309 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

The 90 break-and-run games consisted of 1 four-pack (by Corteza), 5 three-packs (2 by Ko PC and 1 each by Sanchez-Ruiz, Shaw, and Pecelj), 14 two-packs, and 43 singles.

9-Balls on the break -- The 90 break-and-run games included 6 9-balls on the break (1.4% of all breaks).
 
Last edited:

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Miscellany from the data for the 2023 US Open Pool (9-Ball) Championship:
[This relates only to the 29 matches I tracked, not to all matches in the event.]

• The most balls made on a single break was 3, done 9 times. The breaker won 8 of those 9 games; 3 of the breaks included the 9-ball.

• The average number of balls made on the break was 1.0 (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:
42% (176 of 422) of the games ended in one inning – 90 games on the breaker's first inning (B&Rs) and 86 games on the non-breaker's first inning.​
28% (118 of 422) of the games ended in the second inning.​
30% (128 of 422) of the games went beyond the non-breaker's second visit to the table. The game with the most visits to the table ended on the breaker's 10th visit.​

• 27% (114 of 422) 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) – 29% (90 of 309)​
- By the non-breaker after fouls on the break – 52% (14 of 27)​
- By the non-breaker after dry breaks – 12% (10 of 86)​

• The player who made the first ball after the break:
- Won the game in that same inning 52% of the time (216 of 416)​
- Won the game in a later inning 19% of the time (81 of 416)​
- Lost the game 29% of the time (119 of 416)​
[Note -- total games used here are 416 rather than 422 to eliminate the 6 games in which no ball was made after the break.]​

• Four of the matches went to hill/hill. Two of the matches were whitewashes.

• The average minutes per game for all 422 games was 6.9. The elapsed time was measured from the lag until the winning ball was made, so it includes time for racking and commercial breaks. Commercial breaks occurred only in the Last 16 matches. They were significant in these matches, generally occurring after every 3 games in a match, and lasting about 3 minutes each.

• The match lowest in average minutes per game, at 4.0, was Shaw d. Strickland 10-3. The match highest in average minutes per game (it was prior to the use of the shot clock), at 10.4, was Alcaide d. Uchigaki 9-7.

• Breaking fouls averaged 1 for every 15.6 games, other fouls 1 for every 5.0 games, and missed shots about 1 for every 1.4 games.

• One or more safeties were played in about 47% of all games and in about 59% of games that were not B&Rs.
 
Last edited:

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
The stats in Post #1 are for 29 matches -- 17 in the first 3 days of the event (double-elimination stage) and 12 in the last 3 days (single-elimination stage). Here is a comparison of a few stats from those two stages.

Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Days 1-3 -- 69% (162 of 234)​
Days 4-6 -- 78% (147 of 188)​
Total -- 73% (309 of 422)​

Breaker won the game:
Days 1-3 -- 49% (114 of 234)​
Days 4-6 -- 60% (113 of 188)​
Total -- 54% (227 of 422)​

Break-and-run games on all breaks:
Days 1-3 -- 15% (35 of 234)​
Days 4-6 -- 29% (55 of 188)​
Total -- 21% (90 of 422)​

Break-and-run games on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Days 1-3 -- 22% (35 of 162)​
Days 4-6 -- 37% (55 of 147)​
Total -- 29% (90 of 309)​

Games lasting 3 or more innings
Days 1-3 -- 35% (83 of 234)​
Days 4-6 -- 24% (45 of 188)​
Total -- 30% (128 of 422)​

Missed Shots (approx.)
Days 1-3 -- 1 per 1.1 games​
Days 4-6 -- 1 per 2.1 games​
Total -- 1 per 1.4 games​
 

DaWizard

Well-known member
Do you have some place where you gather all this? Or publish a paper in some sports research magazine.
 

skogstokig

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
great stuff as usual!

the main tv production for the SE phase was great, but they are lacking in stats. a missed jump combo isn't a missed pot, yet they seem to count it as that. also they could have occasionally appearing stats on the score interface such as: TPA (or similar), time since last visit, kicking success, etc.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
great stuff as usual!

the main tv production for the SE phase was great, but they are lacking in stats. a missed jump combo isn't a missed pot, yet they seem to count it as that. also they could have occasionally appearing stats on the score interface such as: TPA (or similar), time since last visit, kicking success, etc.
I think Matchroom's stats work is improving; better now than a year or two ago but still with some mistakes from time to time. That's probably true for all stats keepers, myself included. Plus, subjectivity enters the picture. Here is a post I wrote last year that relates to this:

 

skogstokig

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think Matchroom's stats work is improving; better now than a year or two ago but still with some mistakes from time to time. That's probably true for all stats keepers, myself included. Plus, subjectivity enters the picture. Here is a post I wrote last year that relates to this:


i suppose one could get rid of most subjectivity by having "open ball misses" and "misses total" where the latter includes jump shots
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
i suppose one could get rid of most subjectivity by having "open ball misses" and "misses total" where the latter includes jump shots
But how would you define "misses total?" The player's intention on a jump shot or a kick is not always known.
 

DaWizard

Well-known member
They let me use a computer here in prison. I don't get out much. ;)



[Repeating an old post.]
Ah bummer.. Still most of these journals work online. But you have to write an article with interesting data and conclusions. That's not easy (to me).
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I compiled this half heartedly while working on a broken washing machine today. I was just curious if Ko Ping Chung had figured out the break down to a controlled level or just an opportunistic level. So my focus is whether there was any consistency in where the 2 ball ended up based on where it was in the rack.

I numbered the rack positions in the rack are counting 1 (top), 2, 3, 4, 5 (middle), 6, 7, 8, 9 (bottom). I also tracked the 2 ball location using the diamonds as a coordinate system relative to the upper left corner pocket from the perspective of the racker. 1:3.5 would be here because it was 1 diamond to the right of the corner pocket and 3.5 diamonds down. So that would be an “up table” resting position

IMG_4157.jpeg


It seems like the 2 ball goes up table often in position 2, 3, and 9. Positions 7 and 8 safely stay down table. Positions 4 and 6 are really moving but tend to get collisions early on and stay down table if not park near the corner pockets. Ko struggled getting a look at the 2 ball if it was in position 2 or 7 against Yapp but otherwise always found a look at it against Fedor.

Versus Yapp…
IMG_4153.jpeg


Versus Fedor…
IMG_4154.jpeg


So again nothing seems too controlled or repeatable. Just had the post-break layouts favor him and really battled well through push outs and safeties (if not running out altogether). And of course he’s jumping at a level we usually only say Fedor can (if not better). Well deserved. Just an unbeatable performance.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I compiled this half heartedly while working on a broken washing machine today. I was just curious if Ko Ping Chung had figured out the break down to a controlled level or just an opportunistic level. So my focus is whether there was any consistency in where the 2 ball ended up based on where it was in the rack.

I numbered the rack positions in the rack are counting 1 (top), 2, 3, 4, 5 (middle), 6, 7, 8, 9 (bottom). I also tracked the 2 ball location using the diamonds as a coordinate system relative to the upper left corner pocket from the perspective of the racker. 1:3.5 would be here because it was 1 diamond to the right of the corner pocket and 3.5 diamonds down. So that would be an “up table” resting position

View attachment 721604

It seems like the 2 ball goes up table often in position 2, 3, and 9. Positions 7 and 8 safely stay down table. Positions 4 and 6 are really moving but tend to get collisions early on and stay down table if not park near the corner pockets. Ko struggled getting a look at the 2 ball if it was in position 2 or 7 against Yapp but otherwise always found a look at it against Fedor.

Versus Yapp…
View attachment 721605

Versus Fedor…
View attachment 721606

So again nothing seems too controlled or repeatable. Just had the post-break layouts favor him and really battled well through push outs and safeties (if not running out altogether). And of course he’s jumping at a level we usually only say Fedor can (if not better). Well deserved. Just an unbeatable performance.
Interesting tables, Matt. You did that while working on a washing machine?!? I did hear one of the commentators at some point (maybe not during these two matches) say that players were hitting the break differently depending on where the 2-ball was racked, to increase the chances of getting a shot at it after the break. But Ko's break looked so much the same each time, that it didn't seem like he was varying it. He made the 1-ball in the side 23 out of those 24 breaks, and I don't remember him varying the cue ball breaking location at all. So if he varied anything it would have to be speed, spin, or degree of cut, and that would risk missing the 1-ball on those tight side pockets. Your conclusion of opportunistic rather than controlled for the relationship between the cue ball and 2-ball after the break seems right to me, at least in these matches.

I did look at your table for the Yapp match and found a few things to edit. I didn't go through the Gorst table. In the Yapp table:
Game 7 -- the 2-ball was made on the break, so "2 Landed" should be N/A instead of 2.5:6​
Game 9 -- the 2-ball was racked in position 3, not position 2​
Game 9 -- "2 Landed" was more like 2:6 than 3:3​
Game 11 -- the Jump/Combo was on the 3/5/4 balls rather than the 2-ball​
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Washer drain wasn’t working. So each iteration of testing it out meant I had to manually drain the tub into a bucket over and over and over. So I had a lot of sitting time. I 100% trust your revisions.

It was Scott Frost that suggested they might play the break differently based on 2 ball position. But I had suspected that like 3 or 4 events ago. I was suspecting they might use a little extra draw on the cueball if the 2 was racked up top. But I knew it wouldn’t be interesting looking into it for just any match. It needed to be someone with some anomalous results. KPC definitely produced that. But looking into it, I just didn’t find any method to his madness. I think he just got lucky. I wish I tracked his cueball resting position. I feel like his secret was dialing into a break more likely for the cueball to favor center table (from left to right) and slightly favor the bottom half of the table a smidge. I think it just had better chances of a good look on the 2.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Re: B&Rs per Match per Player

Post #1 is for the 29 matches I tracked -- 17 in Stage 1 (Double Elimination, DE) and 12 in Stage 2 (SE). So the number of player appearances in those matches (2 per match) was 34 in DE and 24 in SE, for a total of 58 (29 x 2 = 58). Here's the distribution of the number of B&R games for those 58 player appearances. For each number of B&Rs, the first number is for the DE stage, the second number is for the SE stage, and the third number is the total.

0 B&Rs -- 12, 5, 17
1 B&R -- 14, 5, 19
2 B&Rs -- 4, 4, 8
3 B&Rs -- 3, 3, 6
4 B&Rs -- 1, 4, 5
5 B&Rs -- 0, 1, 1
6 B&Rs -- 0, 2, 2
Total -- 34, 24, 58

So the players had no B&Rs in 17 of the 58 player appearances, or 29%. This consisted of 35% (12 of 34) in the DE stage and 21% (5 of 24) in the SE stage.

The mean number of B&Rs in the 58 player appearances was 1.6 (90 ÷ 58), consisting of 1.0 (35 ÷ 34) in the DE stage and 2.3 (55 ÷ 24) in the SE stage.

[Note: In terms of a comparison, this ignores the fact that the races in these matches were of 5 different lengths -- to 8 and 9 in DE and to 10, 11, and 13 in SE.]
 
Last edited:
Top