I have a medium, in-between break. I usually pocket 1 or 2 balls, sometimes 4 or 5 when they roll well.
I tend to knock the cue-ball off the table when I try to kill it.
I tend to knock the cue-ball off the table when I try to kill it.
Controlled easy break or slam the balls?
- Thread starter Billiard Architect
- Start date
If you can get a 70% success rate with a controlled break I think you should stay with it. It is just terrible to scratch on the break and give your opponent ball in hand and he runs out on you and you never get to the table again. I have seen this happen quite a few times and it has happened to me. I always try to use a controlled break these days after 40+ years playing.
Why take the fun out of breaking? How about a medium/hard to hard stroke?
I have been working on my terrible break for years, never making anything on the controlled breaks anyway. I have a Predator BK2. Turned my back foot to where it sits almost 90% to the cueball path (allows me to push off the back foot), shortened up my grip, much like SVB, lengthened my bridge like SVB, focusing on the one ball while shooting for accuracy, and I am smaking the hell out of the balls (19.5 mph LOL) but am making a ball on 90%+ of the time. And they are spread very nicely. I hold back just a little to control whitey.
You can have the soft break and the like.
Actually in many events over the last several years the 2 being in the back has been a requirement..... And yes rack your own is thankfully taking over from opponent racks........ It's hard for me to recall a single match I have ever played where it was opponent racks where at some point the slug wasn't introduced... Most commonly after a 3 pack LOL
Look on this obscure website:
http://www.azbilliards.com/accustats/
.... ok, ok, nobody could have known the info was in these. But seriously, this is good stuff from the first issue:
"The odds of making the 9-ball on the break are 38 to 1"
"The odds of scratching on the break are 9.5 to 1"
Granted, these figures are from the 1980's but these figures give you some insight. You know that making the 9 on the snap is a bit of luck and is probably only only marginally affected by a little more speed. Probably. But scratching on the break in an era when nobody was really soft-breaking obviously resulted in an unacceptable rate of scratching. Now, if I knew I would scratch before I did it, I would call "safety" and my opponent would have to get out his jump cue to play the cueball from where I left it. Just kidding, you'd have to put a piece of cloth in the pocket for that to be a legal safety. Anyway, check out this from the second issue of accu-stats:
"Tournament Average for scratching on the
break: 11.0%
Tournament Average for making the 9-ball
on the break: 5.5%"
Apparently this anomaly was from a specific tournament where players opted for trying to outbreak each other. Here is another where scratch percentage went up but snaps went down, from the 4th issue:
"The 9-ball went on the break 3.5% of the time while the
cue ball scratched on the break 11%."
Here is another factor to consider, from the 5th issue:
"Mike Sigel and Dave Bollman made the most balls on any one break shot - five, yet they both lost the rack!"
.... here is knowledge from the fifth issue, showing that you might learn from the players failing to learn - rules changed to give ball in hand anywhere on the table - the 11% rate of scratch on the break went unchanged from the 11% of the prior tournament!
The final comment that I will make is that this was done at tournaments where top professionals made a ball on the break only around 60% of the time on average. Of course, if you had taken the advice of one of those HOF players, Sigel, you would already know which choice to make.
Good luck, and more importantly..... good percentage to ya
http://www.azbilliards.com/accustats/
.... ok, ok, nobody could have known the info was in these. But seriously, this is good stuff from the first issue:
"The odds of making the 9-ball on the break are 38 to 1"
"The odds of scratching on the break are 9.5 to 1"
Granted, these figures are from the 1980's but these figures give you some insight. You know that making the 9 on the snap is a bit of luck and is probably only only marginally affected by a little more speed. Probably. But scratching on the break in an era when nobody was really soft-breaking obviously resulted in an unacceptable rate of scratching. Now, if I knew I would scratch before I did it, I would call "safety" and my opponent would have to get out his jump cue to play the cueball from where I left it. Just kidding, you'd have to put a piece of cloth in the pocket for that to be a legal safety. Anyway, check out this from the second issue of accu-stats:
"Tournament Average for scratching on the
break: 11.0%
Tournament Average for making the 9-ball
on the break: 5.5%"
Apparently this anomaly was from a specific tournament where players opted for trying to outbreak each other. Here is another where scratch percentage went up but snaps went down, from the 4th issue:
"The 9-ball went on the break 3.5% of the time while the
cue ball scratched on the break 11%."
Here is another factor to consider, from the 5th issue:
"Mike Sigel and Dave Bollman made the most balls on any one break shot - five, yet they both lost the rack!"
.... here is knowledge from the fifth issue, showing that you might learn from the players failing to learn - rules changed to give ball in hand anywhere on the table - the 11% rate of scratch on the break went unchanged from the 11% of the prior tournament!
The final comment that I will make is that this was done at tournaments where top professionals made a ball on the break only around 60% of the time on average. Of course, if you had taken the advice of one of those HOF players, Sigel, you would already know which choice to make.
Good luck, and more importantly..... good percentage to ya
Last edited:
Thanks for the info. What are the tournaments where the 2 in the back is a requirement? Also, what tournaments are players racking their own these days?
Fran it's too late to try and jog those brain cells awake...
I do know the last 2 US Opens were rack your own as was DCC this year....
Those are the ones that come to immediate mind but I have watched a ton a streams where it was rack your own... brain just not cooperating..... The 2 in the back seems common as well as I recall Ralf having to point it out at either a Seminole event or Turning Stone last year......
Ok Thanks. That's really interesting about a mandatory 2 in the back. I'd never heard of that before. I wonder if it's legal in qualifiers for WPA points, since it's technically against the rules.
It's a shame that players can't depend on their opponent to give them an honest rack. Now those same players who couldn't be trusted can continue to cheat by manipulating the rack to their favor. It doesn't matter if the opposing player can check the rack. These cheaters are experts.
As much as I hate the Magic Rack, this seems to be the only solution.
Pattern racking isn't cheating.
It is cheating if pattern racking is against the rules.
I found out this past weekend that if you "delicately" put the balls together in the Magic Rack you can sometimes leave a crack between balls. I discovered this when I checked the rack on one of my opponents when they were "very gently" laying the balls in place. The rest of the tournament I was checking everyone's rack. Lol
Sometimes the opponents would gently force the balls together by touch the sides of the balls, pushing them toward the center of the rack, but if they didn't touch one tier of the balls, I was all over the rack. On the bar table, I was breaking pretty good and wanted to have that consistency.
I hope my honest opponents don't harbor any ill feelings toward me because I checked the Magic Rack very frequently.
I believe this could be only due to balls that were not round - correct?
Bottom line: if you want to be a perfectionist, then bring the newest Arimith set of balls with the Magic Set.....or in the least the Sardo Rack, my favorite.
Putting the two in the rear has been around a bit, I assume because that placement makes the 2 very unpredictable and makes the B & R more difficult. We play more 10 ball than 9, and we put the 2 and 3 on the outside of the last row, which also (presumably) makes it a tougher rack.
When we play 10 ball with the 5 also being a money ball, we put the 5 adjacent to the 10. Where do others place a 5 ball when there's $ on it?
I always "massage" my Magic Balls, because sometimes getting some crack isn't a good thing.
I often get crack between my 2 Magic balls (second row). Rarely, when I massage my Magic 2 balls, they still won't want to get together. In which case I turn those 2 balls so their #'s are touching. I swear this helps...
If I'm getting a consistent rack (ie. magic rack), then I just pay attention to how the balls react on a given shot/angle/speed. If I can wire in the wing ball, I can hit it slower and work the cue ball back a bit, because the one ball typically banks back into the kitchen.
What I'd like to know is how really good breakers observe how balls respond - because my head is always down at implosion and by the time I look up, I've missed the initial reaction. I can't see where the one ball initially goes when I hit 'em real hard.
If I'm getting an inconsistent rack (ie. triangle rack), then I hit the suckers as hard as I can, up to the point where I feel I can still control whitey.
What I'd like to know is how really good breakers observe how balls respond - because my head is always down at implosion and by the time I look up, I've missed the initial reaction. I can't see where the one ball initially goes when I hit 'em real hard.
If I'm getting an inconsistent rack (ie. triangle rack), then I hit the suckers as hard as I can, up to the point where I feel I can still control whitey.
I think even the Magic Rack can be exploited. It may make some difference if you have balls that aren't round but for the most part, as you use the Magic Rack, it wears just like any thin plastic would and you have to be careful about making sure the balls touch one another.
Some MR's can be exploited, based on wear/precision of mfr'g - but the options available for a mechanic are far more limited than a triangular rack.
Can ya tell I'm a MR fan?
Matt <-- lobbiest against mechanics and sluggers
Anything can and will be expoited in pool.
The pattern rack argument is a big joke. I was complented the other day on never pattern racking and have used the same pattern in every match of every tournament played over the psat ten years. Nobody has ever challenged it or made comment except Gabe.
Why not come up with a pattern and make that a standard too?
Racking is a true science to some.