Break Stats -- US Open 10-Ball Championship, July 2015

[AtLarge]

Also, do you think if the pros played more tournaments exclusively on 7-footers, they would get better acclimated to the subtle changes and their statistics could actually get better...maybe widening the gap and showing how much easier the game could be on 7 footers? So in time (if CSI held these over and over) could the stat percentages change?

I guess that's possible, but I think most of the players in the streamed matches already had quite a bit of experience on 7-footers.

Edit -- And this reminds me. Ignacio won 2 of the 3 events at the US Bar Table Championships back in February. He had never before played on a 7-footer. Maybe the learning curve is not too steep, providing they use Diamonds rather than something like old bar boxes with different cue balls.

 

[spartan]

Here's a comparison of break results from the streamed matches I watched at 10-Ball events on three different-sized tables.

The results for the 7-foot table are strictly for this recent 2015 US Open 10-Ball Championship.
The results for the 9-foot table are for the 2014 CSI Invitational 10-Ball Championship, for which the conditions were essentially the same as for the US Open except for table size.
The results for the 10-foot table are for the aggregate of all 5 Bigfoot events held at the Derby City Classic and the Southern Classic from 2012-2015. Conditions for these events differed in some significant ways from the conditions for the CSI events (no breaking templates, for example).

• Broke successfully (made at least one ball and did not foul):
7' -- 72% (209 of 291)
9' -- 65% (150 of 232)
10' -- 54% (529 of 985)

• Breaker won game:
7' -- 57% (167 of 291)
9' -- 49% (114 of 232)
10' -- 51% (500 of 985)

• Break-and-run games:
7' -- 31% (89 of 291)
9' -- 21% (49 of 232)
10' -- 15% (151 of 985)

• Break-and-run games on successful breaks:
7' -- 43% (89 of 209)
9' -- 33% (49 of 150)
10' -- 29% (151 of 529)

• Run-outs by player at table following the break:
7' -- 41% (120 of 291)
9' -- 35% (82 of 232)
10' -- not calculated

Excellent stuff AtLarge. These stats clearly confirm that 7ft tables are much easier than 9ft
The % for 7ft would have been even higher if the field this year was all pros like last year.

Let us see the comparison for upcoming 7ft 8ball vs last year 9ft 8ball
Cos there was a lot of chatter that 8ball on 7ft is harder than 8ball on 9ft

 

[mikepage]

Yes, I was following the Fargo ratings, too. They could certainly jump up and down quite a bit as a game was won or lost. I'd like to know exactly how they are calculated, something I haven't found on the FargoRate website.

First, you have to understand how FargoRate computes match odds generally.

What the rating difference tells us is each player's chance of winning a single game, averaged over all the varying conditions.

For Rodney(785) and Scott (756) , for example, the 29-point rating difference says that Rodney is a 55% to 45% favorite to win each individual game.

Turning this into a chance of Rodney winning a race-to-10 match is a little complicated. We have to compute individually the chance Rodney wins 10-0, 10-to-1, 10-to-2, ... 10-to-9 and add them up. To find just one of these, say the chance Rodney wins 10-to-3, we have to look at the myriad ways this can happen:
SSSRRRRRRRRRR --> here Scott wins the first 3 and Rodney wins next 10

then there are many, many more ways that we can count with a combinatorial prefactor,

RRRRSSRRRSRRR
SSSRRRRRRRRRR
SRRRRSSRRRRRR, etc...

The end result is in an even race to 10, it is Rodney 67%, Scott 33%.

The during-the-match "from here" percentages are done pretty much the same way

 

[AtLarge]

Thanks for the description, Mike.