Can I run 500 balls in 14.1?

G

gerryf

Well-known member
Background:
The LOPB event had SVB and Ruslan Chinakhov attempting high runs in 14.1

Bob Jewett had done the stats for John Schmidt's attempts to beat 526, and he posted that Schmidt was running 50 balls about half the time, and running 100 balls about a quarter of the time. When SVB started playing, it turned out that he had stats in the same ballpark.

I found that interesting, and Bob chimed in later with more 'expectations' regarding high runs based on ball sinking averages. A number of commentators also found the 'numbers game' to be interesting so I looked at it some more.

My calculations produce numbers similar to Bob's, so maybe I know what I'm doing here. Bob, if you see something out of whack, please speak up!!

Caveats:
Note that we're dealing with pretty small numbers of runs here, so the variability in the numbers is LARGE! Also, to make even 20 or 30 attempts takes a lot of time, and adds fatigue into the mix, so you'd expect the BPI to fluctuate a lot during the day and between days. For Ruslan, we only have one days data (and 10 attempts). For SVB, we have five days of data, and the number of attempts varied from 14/day to 25/day, and his BPI fluctuated from 63 to 89 between days. So these are rough calculations and you wouldn't want to bet the mortgage.

What we see:

Attempts​
BPI​
Runs
50100200
John Schmidt
1100​
70*​
50%25%
Shane van Boening
93​
70**​
48%20%5%
Ruslan Chinakhov
10​
127​
70%50%30%

* Schmidts BPI is calculated from the odds of someone getting 50% and 25% runs as observed by Bob Jewett.

**Shane had an actual BPI of 70, but with only 93 attempts, the distribution of the runs was clearly skewed.
  • SVB had more 'under 50' ball runs than would be expected. (48)
  • - SVB's actual runs were closer to what would be expected with someone shooting 60 BPI.
  • At 60 BPI and 100 attempts, you would expect to run about twenty-five 100's, five 200's, and one 300.
  • In his 93 attempts, SVB ran nineteen 100's, five 200's, and one 300.


Can I run 500 balls?

Following Bob Jewett's take on this, how many attempts would it take before I was 'even money' to run 500 balls?

If SVB could sustain a 70 BPI average,, he's looking at about 900 attempts before he'd be even money to break 500.

If Ruslan could sustain his 127 BPI,, he would likely take about 35 attempts before he'd be even money to get a 500 ball run.


1636656763980.png

I'm very sorry, but it appears that I will not get my 500 ball run before the sun burns out.
 
gerryf said:
Background:
The LOPB event had SVB and Ruslan Chinakhov attempting high runs in 14.1

Bob Jewett had done the stats for John Schmidt's attempts to beat 526, and he posted that Schmidt was running 50 balls about half the time, and running 100 balls about a quarter of the time. When SVB started playing, it turned out that he had stats in the same ballpark.

I found that interesting, and Bob chimed in later with more 'expectations' regarding high runs based on ball sinking averages. A number of commentators also found the 'numbers game' to be interesting so I looked at it some more.

My calculations produce numbers similar to Bob's, so maybe I know what I'm doing here. Bob, if you see something out of whack, please speak up!!

Caveats:
Note that we're dealing with pretty small numbers of runs here, so the variability in the numbers is LARGE! Also, to make even 20 or 30 attempts takes a lot of time, and adds fatigue into the mix, so you'd expect the BPI to fluctuate a lot during the day and between days. For Ruslan, we only have one days data (and 10 attempts). For SVB, we have five days of data, and the number of attempts varied from 14/day to 25/day, and his BPI fluctuated from 63 to 89 between days. So these are rough calculations and you wouldn't want to bet the mortgage.

What we see:

Attempts
BPI​
Runs
50100200
John Schmidt
1100​
70*​
50%25%
Shane van Boening
93​
70**​
48%20%5%
Ruslan Chinakhov
10​
127​
70%50%30%

* Schmidts BPI is calculated from the odds of someone getting 50% and 25% runs as observed by Bob Jewett.

**Shane had an actual BPI of 70, but with only 93 attempts, the distribution of the runs was clearly skewed.
  • SVB had more 'under 50' ball runs than would be expected. (48)
  • - SVB's actual runs were closer to what would be expected with someone shooting 60 BPI.
  • At 60 BPI and 100 attempts, you would expect to run about twenty-five 100's, five 200's, and one 300.
  • In his 93 attempts, SVB ran nineteen 100's, five 200's, and one 300.


Can I run 500 balls?

Following Bob Jewett's take on this, how many attempts would it take before I was 'even money' to run 500 balls?

If SVB could sustain a 70 BPI average,, he's looking at about 900 attempts before he'd be even money to break 500.

If Ruslan could sustain his 127 BPI,, he would likely take about 35 attempts before he'd be even money to get a 500 ball run.


View attachment 616122

I'm very sorry, but it appears that I will not get my 500 ball run before the sun burns out.
Click to expand...
I could've predicted that with a lot less math! :)

Seriously, thanks for sharing. What I really took away has nothing to do with the numbers. It is this: There is nothing mystical about people that can and can't do something monumental. The monumental is nothing more than the sum of the small pieces. Keep improving the small pieces and the big things will happen.

Running hundreds sounds daunting. Trying to improve upon a poor 'per inning' average sounds manageable. This is a great example and a great reminder for me. Thank you!
 
Tin Man said:
... The monumental is nothing more than the sum of the small pieces. Keep improving the small pieces and the big things will happen. ...
Click to expand...
It's important to know which small pieces are the problem so you can work on the right thing. In the case of Schmidt, half of his runs ended either on the break shot or the shot after the break. Without doing the counts, I'd say that Ruslan and Shane were similar or maybe even more prone to mistakes on those two shots -- remember the scratches on the breaks? I think Shane changed his breaking strategy part way through his attempts.
 
Maybe another way to look at this:

We have 93 runs from SVB. and here's a summary showing how often SVB ran racks.

Racks completedout of 100 attempts
0100
191
268
356
447
539
633
723
819
916
1014
1114
1210
138
146
155
164
174
183
192
202
212
221

So you can try to just run 2 racks.
  • SVB was doing 68% or about 2 out of 3.
  • RC was doing 90%

You can try to run 4 racks.
  • SVB was doing 47% or about 1 out of 2.
  • RC was doing 70%.
 
gerryf said:
... I'm very sorry, but it appears that I will not get my 500 ball run before the sun burns out.
Click to expand...
The burning out part is not the problem. The Sun is expected to expand in its old age until it engulfs the orbit of the Earth. That will likely end your attempts.

As for the math above, it mostly looks right to me. In the case of Ruslan, however, I think that either he got lucky in those few tries or he is the greatest straight pool player alive today or maybe who has ever played. By that very limited set of runs, he is 3 in 10 to run 200. That means he could bet even money on 200 with two tries on that table and win.
 
Bob Jewett said:
In the case of Ruslan, however, I think that either he got lucky in those few tries or he is the greatest straight pool player alive today or maybe who has ever played. By that very limited set of runs, he is 3 in 10 to run 200. That means he could bet even money on 200 with two tries on that table and win.
Click to expand...
I agree Bob. I believe that SVB underperformed, and RC overperformed.

SVB had a lot of wild breaks and scratches, particularly early on.. His 3rd day was his best, with 14 runs and 89 BPI.

Ruslan showed how the pattern could be managed, and it was superb. But his lifetime high run is 274??

Earlier I posted the "last balls" for each run.

1636661052584.png
1636661074425.png

Both missed most often on the break and the 1st shot.

After that though, it looks like SVB was missing throughout the rack, whereas once Ruslan was in control (3 balls after the break), he managed the cue ball and didn't miss.

Small numbers of runs though. It was too bad Ruslan couldn't stick around for a few more days.
 
Last edited:
I've peaked at 52 balls on favorably-sized pockets. I kinda think that's how good I will always be no matter what, unless I treat pool like a sport and train like an athlete far beyond what is comfortable.

Very hard.
 
If any shot missed by both players could be set back up and pocketed on a second attempt, then the cause of the miss is not the difficulty of the shot, not the statistical amount of attempts, but rather the mind set of the player attempting to make the shot that was missed.

Address the focus applied before attempting to make the shot, and the ball goes in, and the run continues on.

Momentary loss of focus is why players miss shots at that skill level. And you CAN'T apply that to a mathematical equation, sorry!!
 
realkingcobra said:
.... Momentary loss of focus is why players miss shots at that skill level.
Click to expand...
I agree. The reason these top quality players are losing position or missing the shot is loss of focus somewhere leading up to it. I think that's primarily what average BPI measures.

There's also talent or skill in reading the pattern and developing a plan of attack. Long term 14.1 players definitely approach the patterns differently than long-term rotation players.
 
gerryf said:
I agree. The reason these top quality players are losing position or missing the shot is loss of focus somewhere leading up to it. I think that's primarily what average BPI measures.

There's also talent or skill in reading the pattern and developing a plan of attack. Long term 14.1 players definitely approach the patterns differently than long-term rotation players.
Click to expand...
They're also missing shots because they don't truly understand how to stay focused playing 14.1

The unwritten rule you'll never find written in a book is if you're going to take a break for a few moments, never, never, NEVER take a break to where you're next shot after you're break...is the BREAK SHOT! MAKE THE BREAK SHOT FIRST, then make at least one or two more balls after the break. That way when you take a break, and you actually break your rhythm, focus, and timing of shooting, when you come back to the table you have the time to get back in the focus of playing again, by pocketing much simpler balls in your run out patten.

Thats why after a break, the first shot missed most of the time is the break ball, or the first ball after the break.

The player is out of focus until pocketing a few easy shots first.
 
The second unwritten rule is when playing, the player should NEVER know what the ball count is until AFTER a miss, this avoids building pressure when running rack after rack. All the player needs to know is they ran the last 14 balls, hasn't missed yet, and is now faced with another break shot to do it all over again.
 
realkingcobra said:
They're also missing shots because they don't truly understand how to stay focused playing 14.1

The unwritten rule you'll never find written in a book is if you're going to take a break for a few moments, never, never, NEVER take a break to where you're next shot after you're break...is the BREAK SHOT! MAKE THE BREAK SHOT FIRST, then make at least one or two more balls after the break. That way when you take a break, and you actually break your rhythm, focus, and timing of shooting, when you come back to the table you have the time to get back in the focus of playing again, by pocketing much simpler balls in your run out patten.

Thats why after a break, the first shot missed most of the time is the break ball, or the first ball after the break.

The player is out of focus until pocketing a few easy shots first.
Click to expand...
Ha! Ha! That does make good sense.

I'll pay attention to that next time.
 
gerryf said:
Background:
The LOPB event had SVB and Ruslan Chinakhov attempting high runs in 14.1

Bob Jewett had done the stats for John Schmidt's attempts to beat 526, and he posted that Schmidt was running 50 balls about half the time, and running 100 balls about a quarter of the time. When SVB started playing, it turned out that he had stats in the same ballpark.

I found that interesting, and Bob chimed in later with more 'expectations' regarding high runs based on ball sinking averages. A number of commentators also found the 'numbers game' to be interesting so I looked at it some more.

My calculations produce numbers similar to Bob's, so maybe I know what I'm doing here. Bob, if you see something out of whack, please speak up!!

Caveats:
Note that we're dealing with pretty small numbers of runs here, so the variability in the numbers is LARGE! Also, to make even 20 or 30 attempts takes a lot of time, and adds fatigue into the mix, so you'd expect the BPI to fluctuate a lot during the day and between days. For Ruslan, we only have one days data (and 10 attempts). For SVB, we have five days of data, and the number of attempts varied from 14/day to 25/day, and his BPI fluctuated from 63 to 89 between days. So these are rough calculations and you wouldn't want to bet the mortgage.

What we see:

Attempts​
BPI​
Runs
50100200
John Schmidt
1100​
70*​
50%25%
Shane van Boening
93​
70**​
48%20%5%
Ruslan Chinakhov
10​
127​
70%50%30%

* Schmidts BPI is calculated from the odds of someone getting 50% and 25% runs as observed by Bob Jewett.

**Shane had an actual BPI of 70, but with only 93 attempts, the distribution of the runs was clearly skewed.
  • SVB had more 'under 50' ball runs than would be expected. (48)
  • - SVB's actual runs were closer to what would be expected with someone shooting 60 BPI.
  • At 60 BPI and 100 attempts, you would expect to run about twenty-five 100's, five 200's, and one 300.
  • In his 93 attempts, SVB ran nineteen 100's, five 200's, and one 300.


Can I run 500 balls?

Following Bob Jewett's take on this, how many attempts would it take before I was 'even money' to run 500 balls?

If SVB could sustain a 70 BPI average,, he's looking at about 900 attempts before he'd be even money to break 500.

If Ruslan could sustain his 127 BPI,, he would likely take about 35 attempts before he'd be even money to get a 500 ball run.


View attachment 616122

I'm very sorry, but it appears that I will not get my 500 ball run before the sun burns out.
Click to expand...
 
gerryf said:
Ha! Ha! That does make good sense.

I'll pay attention to that next time.
Click to expand...
The only connection to the next rack is the break shot. The most balls that have to be ran is 14 to clear the table and commect to the next rack. Running 400+ balls can't be done on a table because there isn't 400+ balls on a table to run. The focus is on the 14 balls, and making sure you have a bridge to connect to the next rack. You don't focus on running 526, or 626, you focus on the 14 balls on the table, and you do that 14 balls at a time.

When someone runs a 10 pack in 9b, there's no focus on the 90 ball run, the focus is on the 10 consecutive racks, of 9 balls per rack. Everytime you clear the table, its time to hit the reset button and clear the same 14 balls again.

If you've got the skills to pocket the balls, keep the cue ball under control, and stay FOCUSED on the layout of the balls, then running balls is as simple as counting to 14 over and over again.

The pockets have NEVER caused a player to miss a ball, the PLAYER miss judged the shot that was missed. If a pocket has already taken 50 balls, why would it NOT take another ball if shot CORRECTLY!
 
realkingcobra said:
... The pockets have NEVER caused a player to miss a ball, the PLAYER miss judged the shot that was missed. If a pocket has already taken 50 balls, why would it NOT take another ball if shot CORRECTLY!
Click to expand...
Because of the idiot mechanic? One table I played on had the cloth in the corner pockets folded so the folds were on the facing. That trapped more than one road player.

Another table I played on had one strange foot pocket. If you ran a ball perfectly along the foot rail into the pocket at speed, the pocket would reject.

I'm sure others have similar stories. I bet Mosconi would have a story or two if he were still around.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Because of the idiot mechanic? One table I played on had the cloth in the corner pockets folded so the folds were on the facing. That trapped more than one road player.

Another table I played on had one strange foot pocket. If you ran a ball perfectly along the foot rail into the pocket at speed, the pocket would reject.

I'm sure others have similar stories. I bet Mosconi would have a story or two if he were still around.
Click to expand...
I understand that 100%, but you don't run 200+ balls then blame a miss on the pockets, it don't take that long for bad pockets to show up.
 
realkingcobra said:
If any shot missed by both players could be set back up and pocketed on a second attempt, then the cause of the miss is not the difficulty of the shot, not the statistical amount of attempts, but rather the mind set of the player attempting to make the shot that was missed.

Address the focus applied before attempting to make the shot, and the ball goes in, and the run continues on.

Momentary loss of focus is why players miss shots at that skill level. And you CAN'T apply that to a mathematical equation, sorry!!
Click to expand...
Especially for Straight Pool!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top