Break Stats -- 2025 Florida Open (9-Ball), August 2025

[AtLarge]

Here are some aggregate break statistics from the 2025 Florida Open played August 5-10, 2025 at Caribe Royale Orlando in Orlando, Florida, with pay-per-view streaming in the USA on wnttv. This was a 256-player 9-Ball event, produced by Matchroom Sport, with double elimination (Stage 1) down to 64 players (32 on the winners' side and 32 on the one-loss side) and then single-elimination (Stage 2) to the end. Aloysius Yapp won the tournament, defeating Shane Van Boening in the final match.

The commentators on the feature TV Table were Phil Yates, Jeremy Jones, Karl Boyes, and Scott Frost. The referees on this table were Ben Taylor-Fuente, John Leyman and a couple whose names I do not know.

Conditions -- The conditions for the Table 1 streamed matches included:

• Diamond Paragon 9-foot table with 4" corner pockets;​

• Simonis 860 Shark Grey cloth;​

• Aramith Tournament Black balls with a black-spots cue ball;​

• Magic Ball Rack racking template;​

• referee racks with the 9-ball on the foot spot and the 2-ball on one of the wings or in the back location;​

• winner breaks from behind the head string in a box approximately 8" to either side of the long string;​

• no illegal-break rule, but referees are to enforce a forceful-break requirement;​

• 30-second shot clock (60 sec. after the break and after a push out), with one 30-sec. extension per player per rack;​

• foul on all balls;​

• 3-foul rule in effect;​

• jump cues allowed;​

• all slop counts; and​

• lag for the break in each match.​

These stats are for all 14 matches (219 games) that were played on the feature Table 1, with commentary, during the single-elimination portion of the event (Stage 2, last 64 players). These 14 matches were 22% of the total of 63 matches played in Stage 2. The Stage 2 matches were races to 10 except for the 2 semifinals (races to 11) and the final (race to 13). These 14 matches are listed here in the order in which they were played.

Friday, Aug. 8

1. Jesus Atencio defeated Luong Duc Thien 10-1 (Last 64)​

2. David Alcaide d. Eklent Kaçi 10-3 (Last 64)​

3. Shane Van Boening d. Masato Yoshioka 10-1 (Last 64)​

4. Skyler Woodward d. Antonios Kakaris 10-4 (Last 64)​

5. Mickey Krause d. Carlo Biado 10-6 (Last 32)​

6. Francisco Sanchez-Ruiz d. Johann Chua 10-4 (Last 32)​

7. Van Boening d. Elliott Sanderson 10-5 (Last 32)​

Saturday, Aug. 9

8. John Morra d. Atencio 10-9 (Last 16)​

9. Van Boening d. Marvin Asis 10-4 (Last 16)​

10. Krause d. Moritz Neuhausen 10-6 (Quarterfinal)​

11. Van Boening d. Morra 10-2 (Quarterfinal)​

Sunday, Aug. 10

12. Aloysius Yapp d. Krause 11-9 (Semifinal)​

13. Van Boening d. Chang Yu Lung 11-10 (Semifinal)​

14. Yapp d. Van Boening 13-10 (Final)​

Overall results

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

Match winners -- 88% (121 of 138)​

Match losers -- 85% (69 of 81)​

Total -- 87% (190 of 219)​

Breaker won the game:​

Match winners -- 76% (105 of 138)​

Match losers -- 51% (41 of 81)​

Total -- 67% (146 of 219)​

Break-and-run games on all breaks:​

Match winners -- 34% (47 of 138)​

Match losers -- 27% (22 of 81)​

Total -- 32% (69 of 219)​

Break-and-run games on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):​

Match winners -- 39% (47 of 121)​

Match losers -- 32% (22 of 69)​

Total -- 36% (69 of 190)​

Here's a breakdown of the 219 games (for match winners and losers combined).

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:​

Breaker won the game: 131 (60% of the 219 games)​

Breaker lost the game: 59 (27%)​

​

Breaker fouled on the break:​

Breaker won the game: 3 (1%)​

Breaker lost the game: 10 (5%)​

​

Breaker broke dry (without fouling):​

Breaker won the game: 12 (5%)​

Breaker lost the game: 4 (2%)​

​

Therefore, whereas the breaker won 67% (146 of 219) of all games,​

He won 69% (131 of 190) of the games in which the break was successful (made at least one ball and did not foul).​

He won 52% (15 of 29) of the games in which the break was unsuccessful (fouled or dry).​

Break-and-run games -- The 69 break-and-run games represented 32% of all 219 games, 47% of the 146 games won by the breaker, and 36% of the 190 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

The 69 break-and-run games consisted of 1 four-pack (by Van Boening; it included a 9-ball on the break), 3 three-packs (one each by Chang, Van Boening, and Yapp, with Chang's including a 9-ball on the break), 9 two-packs, and 38 singles.

9-Balls on the break -- The 69 break-and-run games included 8 9-balls on the break (3.7% of all breaks).

 

[AtLarge]

Miscellany from the data for the 2025 Florida Open (9-Ball) event:
[This relates only to the 14 Stage 2 streamed matches I watched, not to all matches in the event.]

■ The most balls made on a single break was 3, done 7 times: thrice in B&R games, twice in game wins that were not by B&R, and twice in game losses.

■ The average number of balls made on the break was 1.2 (this includes dry and fouled breaks). On successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul), the average was 1.3 and the distribution was 71% 1 ball, 26% 2 balls, and 4% 3 balls.

■ Number of innings:

• 47% (103 of 219) of the games ended in one inning – 69 games on the breaker's first inning (B&Rs) and 34 games on the non-breaker's first inning.​

• 30% (66 of 219) of the games ended in the second inning.​

• 23% (50 of 219) of the games went beyond the non-breaker's second visit to the table. The game with the most innings ended on non-breaker's 8th visit to the table.​

■ 37% (80 of 219) 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% (69 of 190)​

• By the non-breaker after fouls on the break – 69% (9 of 13)​

• By the non-breaker after dry breaks – 13% (2 of 16)​

■ The player who made the first ball after the break:

• Won the game in that same inning 60% of the time (126 of 211)​

• Won the game in a later inning 16% of the time (33 of 211)​

• Lost the game 25% of the time (52 of 211)​

[Note -- total games used here are 211 rather than 219 to eliminate the 8 games in which no ball was made after the break.​

■ The loser won an average of 4.1 games in the 11 races to 10 (excludes semifinal and final matches). Of all 14 matches, 2 went to hill/hill (Morra d. Atencio 10-9 and Van Boening d. Chang 11-10). The most lopsided matches were two at 10-1 (Atencio d. Luong and Van Boening d. Yoshioka).

■ The average elapsed time for the 11 races to 10 was 82 minutes. The average minutes per game for all 14 matches was 6.0. The elapsed time was measured from the lag until the winning ball was made, so it includes time for racking and timeouts.

■ The race to 10 that was longest in elapsed time, at 118 minutes, was Morra d. Atencio 10-9. Of all 14 matches, the one highest in average minutes per game, at 6.9, was Yapp d. Krause 11-9.

■ The match that was shortest in elapsed time, at 48 minutes, and lowest in average minutes per game, at 4.4, was Van Boening d. Yoshioka 10-1.

■ Breaking fouls averaged 1 for every 16.8 games, other fouls 1 for every 5.8 games, and missed shots about 1 for every 2.0 games.

■ One or more safeties were played in about 42% of all games and in 62% of games that were not B&Rs.

 

[middleofnowhere]

I am sure it has been discussed but the one going in the side on almost every break is ridiculous.

 

[dquarasr]

I am sure it has been discussed but the one going in the side on almost every break is ridiculous.

Absolutely. I am amazed at how many successful 1-ball in the side breaks there were. It seems all the players were using the same cut break for the break box/9-on-the-spot racking.

85%!

Thanks for the stats, @AtLarge!

 

[dumisin]

I am sure it has been discussed but the one going in the side on almost every break is ridiculous.

except the way Earl was breaking it makes him look like a amateur

 

[Frosty]

I am sure it has been discussed but the one going in the side on almost every break is ridiculous.

Really? It’s like this, a lot of players cried like girls when the wing ball went all the time when the 1 was racked on the spot, and as it still should be. So then some genius changed the rules of the game to rack the 9 on the spot to stop the automatic wing ball. Then good players did what they do, they experimented and discovered with the cut break they could make the 1 in the side and often the wing ball as well. They’ve made up new rules for break boxes, racking the balls in a way never intended, putting the 2 in the back all the time, then making it be randomly placed when guys figured that out.

Good players experiment and find a way, and the only thing that has been consistent the last 25 years or so is the constant whining about it. It’s 9 ball, it’s meant to fast and action packed, that’s its appeal. If you don’t like it, don’t watch or play it, watch or play something else. Many say 10 ball is the way but that’s no different with the 2 balls behind the 1 going to the sides and the corner balls going 4 rails. Many say alternating breaks, that’s changing the rules and game into something it’s not. This isn’t golf or tennis where everyone always gets a turn. Most people that really appreciate the sport like to watch packages strung together. If you’re a fan of “safety battles” then play or watch 1 pocket or 14:1.

I once heard someone describe 9 ball as a game for gunslingers, that’s very true. It’s a test of a players ability to control the table when it’s their inning. It’s also a test for players to maintain their composure in the chair and whether they can rise to the occasion when an opportunity presents itself. They need to put the 1 back on the spot, no break box and let the game be what it is. If they don’t like the game as it is, then play 15 ball 61 rotation or go back to 14:1. This constant changing of the rules to appease the “everybody gets a chance to play, everyone gets a participation trophy” generation borders on ridiculous. Leave the game alone, if you don’t like it as it is, take up a different game. I’d rather watch lopsided shellackings than “safety battles”, those are as boring as watching paint dry.

 

[skogstokig]

Really? It’s like this, a lot of players cried like girls when the wing ball went all the time when the 1 was racked on the spot, and as it still should be. So then some genius changed the rules of the game to rack the 9 on the spot to stop the automatic wing ball. Then good players did what they do, they experimented and discovered with the cut break they could make the 1 in the side and often the wing ball as well. They’ve made up new rules for break boxes, racking the balls in a way never intended, putting the 2 in the back all the time, then making it be randomly placed when guys figured that out. Good players experiment and find a way, and the only thing that has been consistent the last 25 years or so is the constant whining about it. It’s 9 ball, it’s meant to fast and action packed, that’s its appeal. If you don’t like it, don’t watch or play it, watch or play something else. Many say 10 ball is the way but that’s no different with the 2 balls behind the 1 going to the sides and the corner balls going 4 rails. Many say alternating breaks, that’s changing the rules and game into something it’s not. This isn’t golf or tennis where everyone always gets a turn. Most people that really appreciate the sport like to watch packages strung together. If you’re a fan of “safety battles” then play or watch 1 pocket or 14:1. I once heard someone describe 9 ball as a game for gunslingers, that’s very true. It’s a test of a players ability to control the table when it’s their inning. It’s also a test for players to maintain their composure in the chair and whether they can rise to the occasion when an opportunity presents itself. They need to put the 1 back on the spot, no break box and let the game be what it is. If they don’t like the game as it is, then play 15 ball 61 rotation or go back to 14:1. This constant changing of the rules to appease the “everybody gets a chance to play, everyone gets a participation trophy” generation borders on ridiculous. Leave the game alone, if you don’t like it as it is, take up a different game. I’d rather watch lopsided shellackings than “safety battles”, those are as boring as watching paint dry.

maybe partition your rant into three or four paragraphs?

 

[Frosty]

maybe partition your rant into three or four paragraphs?

Edited just for you. It’s really not meant to be a rant, it’s more just being tired of listening to grown men cry about the break. It’s rotation pool, if the game doesn’t appeal as is, then play or watch a different game, just stop crying about it.

 

[jbart65]

I mostly agree with Frosty. So what if players are usually getting the one ball in? They often are not getting open looks at the next highest ball. Nor are they getting in multiple balls a lot, like players used to.

No matter how balls are racked, players will find a way unless old fashioned wood racks are brought back. And then the racking is too inconsistent to be fair.

 

[billb]

Really? It’s like this, a lot of players cried like girls when the wing ball went all the time when the 1 was racked on the spot, and as it still should be. So then some genius changed the rules of the game to rack the 9 on the spot to stop the automatic wing ball. Then good players did what they do, they experimented and discovered with the cut break they could make the 1 in the side and often the wing ball as well. They’ve made up new rules for break boxes, racking the balls in a way never intended, putting the 2 in the back all the time, then making it be randomly placed when guys figured that out.

Good players experiment and find a way, and the only thing that has been consistent the last 25 years or so is the constant whining about it. It’s 9 ball, it’s meant to fast and action packed, that’s its appeal. If you don’t like it, don’t watch or play it, watch or play something else. Many say 10 ball is the way but that’s no different with the 2 balls behind the 1 going to the sides and the corner balls going 4 rails. Many say alternating breaks, that’s changing the rules and game into something it’s not. This isn’t golf or tennis where everyone always gets a turn. Most people that really appreciate the sport like to watch packages strung together. If you’re a fan of “safety battles” then play or watch 1 pocket or 14:1.

I once heard someone describe 9 ball as a game for gunslingers, that’s very true. It’s a test of a players ability to control the table when it’s their inning. It’s also a test for players to maintain their composure in the chair and whether they can rise to the occasion when an opportunity presents itself. They need to put the 1 back on the spot, no break box and let the game be what it is. If they don’t like the game as it is, then play 15 ball 61 rotation or go back to 14:1. This constant changing of the rules to appease the “everybody gets a chance to play, everyone gets a participation trophy” generation borders on ridiculous. Leave the game alone, if you don’t like it as it is, take up a different game. I’d rather watch lopsided shellackings than “safety battles”, those are as boring as watching p

Great post. It is what it is.

For whatever my opinion is worth and if it were my tournament, I think that racks in major events should be set by a neutral ref using a hand rack and players should not be able to inspect them or ask for a rerack. The rack is what it is. Remove any predictability by not allowing the players to have any say in the rack. Just break the balls and play.

Again, you dont like the rules, dont play. As Frosty said, you are a good player...."find a way".

Nine ball is supposed to be fast and loose in my opinion. Safety play is a huge part but certainly not more important than overall firepower. When it comes to making it appealing for viewers, people love watching Strickland (back in his prime), Filler, Shaw, SVB, etc because they run out and they run out at a reasonable pace. Offense with pace is good for the casual viewer for sure. And though its not about the casual viewer, the idea that it is good product for the casual viewer may be something to consider given the current state of trying to grow nine ball into something that creates tv revenue, drives prize pools and is overall more appealing. It could become a win win for both the players and the promoters. Hopefully.

Look at the PGA. A lot of players were not fond of Tiger, for whatever reason, early in his career. But, once they realized that they could become millionaires by simply making the PGA tour because of what he was doing for viewership, they were all for it. Even finishing top 20 in a single tournament was more money than the average person was making in a year. Finishing at that level in a number of tournaments and you were making more than doctors and lawyers.

The game grew because he ran over people with his firepower. He became a brand as much as a golfer and the smart golfers knew that his presence and the product that the PGA was putting on tv each week was making them rich. A couple years after he came along, second place was paying as much or more than what first place was prior to his arrival. And first place was at levels that nobody couldve dreamt of.

There are a few pool players now who are becoming a brand. Certainly that makes good business sense. Those windows are small. Capitalize when you can. Imagine if Archer had the opportunities back then that players have now with social media. I bet the stability (or lack thereof) in his life would be way different that it is now. He was never a brand. He was just a top tier pool player. And we all know that a status like that by itself isnt worth a whole lot in the big picture. It might be going forward given the current growing posture of prize funds, but a world champion in the 80's or 90's, though an incredible accomplishment, simply doesnt carry much weight these days.

If the prize money is right, players will show up no matter what the rules.

If you have the firepower to run rack after rack after rack, then why shouldnt you be able to even it means the corner ball going on the break over and over and over. We are playing on the same table. If I dont like watching you run out, then I need to make that same corner ball and run those same racks. Otherwise, I am going to get sent packing. In straight pool, running huge numbers is celebrated. In nine ball, its almost taboo. To me, that makes no sense.

Now, this is my personal opinion. Certainly if Matchroom feels that growing the game and driving their revenue is best with break boxes and trying to slow the game, then have at it. I am a believer in free enterprise much the same as I am a not a believer in participation trophies or everybody getting a turn. Its their product. Sell it, grow it, mold it or whatever however you see fit.

And I am a huge Matchroom fan. They are injecting so much money into the game that regardless of what or how they do it, I will support them because at least they are doing something for me as a fan. Would I prefer things the way I mentioned.....sure because I love to watch offense. But I am going to watch regardless.

I guess my whole point is that I agree with Frosty.

 

[kingwang]

Break-and-run games -- The 69 break-and-run games represented 32% of all 219 games, 47% of the 146 games won by the breaker, and 36% of the 190 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

32% seems higher than normal for Match room events on 4" pockets right? Anecdotally, I feel like I heard about longer packages than usual during this tournament and the tables looked more generous based on the eye test. If that's true, I wonder what was different this time around.

 

[middleofnowhere]

Great post. It is what it is.

For whatever my opinion is worth and if it were my tournament, I think that racks in major events should be set by a neutral ref using a hand rack and players should not be able to inspect them or ask for a rerack. The rack is what it is. Remove any predictability by not allowing the players to have any say in the rack. Just break the balls and play.

Again, you dont like the rules, dont play. As Frosty said, you are a good player...."find a way".

Nine ball is supposed to be fast and loose in my opinion. Safety play is a huge part but certainly not more important than overall firepower. When it comes to making it appealing for viewers, people love watching Strickland (back in his prime), Filler, Shaw, SVB, etc because they run out and they run out at a reasonable pace. Offense with pace is good for the casual viewer for sure. And though its not about the casual viewer, the idea that it is good product for the casual viewer may be something to consider given the current state of trying to grow nine ball into something that creates tv revenue, drives prize pools and is overall more appealing. It could become a win win for both the players and the promoters. Hopefully.

Look at the PGA. A lot of players were not fond of Tiger, for whatever reason, early in his career. But, once they realized that they could become millionaires by simply making the PGA tour because of what he was doing for viewership, they were all for it. Even finishing top 20 in a single tournament was more money than the average person was making in a year. Finishing at that level in a number of tournaments and you were making more than doctors and lawyers.

The game grew because he ran over people with his firepower. He became a brand as much as a golfer and the smart golfers knew that his presence and the product that the PGA was putting on tv each week was making them rich. A couple years after he came along, second place was paying as much or more than what first place was prior to his arrival. And first place was at levels that nobody couldve dreamt of.

There are a few pool players now who are becoming a brand. Certainly that makes good business sense. Those windows are small. Capitalize when you can. Imagine if Archer had the opportunities back then that players have now with social media. I bet the stability (or lack thereof) in his life would be way different that it is now. He was never a brand. He was just a top tier pool player. And we all know that a status like that by itself isnt worth a whole lot in the big picture. It might be going forward given the current growing posture of prize funds, but a world champion in the 80's or 90's, though an incredible accomplishment, simply doesnt carry much weight these days.

If the prize money is right, players will show up no matter what the rules.

If you have the firepower to run rack after rack after rack, then why shouldnt you be able to even it means the corner ball going on the break over and over and over. We are playing on the same table. If I dont like watching you run out, then I need to make that same corner ball and run those same racks. Otherwise, I am going to get sent packing. In straight pool, running huge numbers is celebrated. In nine ball, its almost taboo. To me, that makes no sense.

Now, this is my personal opinion. Certainly if Matchroom feels that growing the game and driving their revenue is best with break boxes and trying to slow the game, then have at it. I am a believer in free enterprise much the same as I am a not a believer in participation trophies or everybody getting a turn. Its their product. Sell it, grow it, mold it or whatever however you see fit.

And I am a huge Matchroom fan. They are injecting so much money into the game that regardless of what or how they do it, I will support them because at least they are doing something for me as a fan. Would I prefer things the way I mentioned.....sure because I love to watch offense. But I am going to watch regardless.

I guess my whole point is that I agree with Frosty.

You covered more subjects then the players playing essentially "Break and first shot" by the breaking player. Honestly, while there is more money then in the past only the winner gets the big check.

If a player plays a bunch of tournaments and isn't first, he is lucky to make at the end of the year the takehome of an assistant manager of a fast food joint.

Second place was only $16,000. First got like 2 and 1/2 times the guy who came in second. Go down much further and the week is a break even or total loss.
I don't know what the weeks total attendance was, but at the final the seats looked pretty empty. People are not falling over themselves to come to pool the tournaments.

I am not sure there is any formula that can make pool much more then essentially (meaning you can't make a living), an amateur sport/game.

I live in a town with over 190,000 thousand people and there is not one pool room.
Years ago when I lived here there were not including bowling alley five pool rooms and I owned two of them. Pool now is almost all bar room play.

Back to the break, I like it with a rack and everything more random. What ever happens happens. In baseball today they don't even need the plate umpire. A computer can call perfect balls and strikes. I would not like to see that either.

 

[skogstokig]

32% seems higher than normal for Match room events on 4" pockets right? Anecdotally, I feel like I heard about longer packages than usual during this tournament and the tables looked more generous based on the eye test. If that's true, I wonder what was different this time around.

i would argue that the selection for the tv table in this SE played and broke at a very high level. tables looked no different in difficulty, if anything they seemed slower.

32% is a good deal higher than US opens when it still had 4.5" pockets. the fields have become tougher, the level has risen, but i still think this was an anomaly.

MR needs to start doing TPA stats..

 

[billb]

You covered more subjects then the players playing essentially "Break and first shot" by the breaking player. Honestly, while there is more money then in the past only the winner gets the big check.

If a player plays a bunch of tournaments and isn't first, he is lucky to make at the end of the year the takehome of an assistant manager of a fast food joint.

Second place was only $16,000. First got like 2 and 1/2 times the guy who came in second. Go down much further and the week is a break even or total loss.
I don't know what the weeks total attendance was, but at the final the seats looked pretty empty. People are not falling over themselves to come to pool the tournaments.

I am not sure there is any formula that can make pool much more then essentially (meaning you can't make a living), an amateur sport/game.

I live in a town with over 190,000 thousand people and there is not one pool room.
Years ago when I lived here there were not including bowling alley five pool rooms and I owned two of them. Pool now is almost all bar room play.

Back to the break, I like it with a rack and everything more random. What ever happens happens. In baseball today they don't even need the plate umpire. A computer can call perfect balls and strikes. I would not like to see that either.

Agreed. I am also a huge baseball fan and I like umpires. Change doesnt always mean better in my opinion. I guess as a baseball purist, I like live umpires with the caveat of helping very important calls be correct....i.e. instant replay. But balls and strikes are balls and strikes called by an umpire. Some may argue that my position makes no sense but as I said, its just my opinion.

As to the prize money.....I see your point very much so. Hopefully, fingers crossed, we are headed in a direction where the break even point for the week is much deeper down the field and if you get top 16 or whatever, you actually came out ahead. Its the nature of the beat though as things stands right now. We can only hope things continue to grow based on all kinds of external factors.

The biggest thing is that sports and the millionaires who make up main stream sports are entertainers when its all said and done. Just because someone can throw a ball or hit a ball doesnt make them rich. But the fact that someone will pay their hard earned money to watch them perform that skill certainly makes them rich. Pro athletes, Taylor Swift and actors are essentially one in the same but at many different levels....they have a skill people will pay money to watch. Depends on your audience as to how much those people will pay. Love her or hate her, she has a product and people will pay a fortune to watch her and her product.

And unfortunately right now, pool players arent very high on that list because not a lot of people will pay to watch SVB run racks. I would. But even my family doesnt understand how or why I am so addicted to this sport.