Corey would most likely just use a different, or maybe even a few different patterns, and alternate between them. It's not like Corey only has one 8 ball rack pattern.... That is a train Ken, and no one for that matter, can stop.
14-15 years ago I had been playing nothing but one pocket for months and had a 9ball game set up the next day for decent money. I was practicing the break and kept losing control of the cue ball. Corey comes in and I ask him to show me a few slow to medium speed breaks. He starts in showing me some 9 ball breaks, then he goes into the rack and gaps, then 10ball and gaps, then the full rack... Someone finally walks up and starts nosing in, Corey, as usual, quits talking and sits down. After the guy leaves Corey tells me that in 2, maybe three more, sessions just like that he could teach me everything he knows about the rack and break. Sick thing about that is that first lesson was over 2-1/2 hours long. And that was 15 years ago.....
Aha.
Which leads me to my point. Let's pretend that Corey, or whoever, has a specific break method for any random pattern of racked balls you put out there.
Sounds crazy, as in 8B, you have 15 balls. But, maybe it's not that difficult. You immediately have "constants". The 8B always goes in the middle. You always have a solid on one back corner. A stripe on the other. Whether it's on one side or the other may or may not be relevant. That could be addressed by simply breaking from one side as opposed to the other.
That leaves 12 slots that could be "random". However, it's only split up between 2 ball groups. Now, I'm not a mathematician, but I suppose there could be 1000 possible patterns there. Maybe more. Probably more. I don't know. Many of them would be 98% identical, tho, just by switching two balls.
For the sake of argument, I think one could somewhat safely assume that there would be a decent amount of "overlap". As in, one particular break would work very well for multiple, multiple patterns, as again.....those patterns might be 98% identical.
So, if the pro identifies 10 different breaks.....which could easily be 20, using the same break, except it's on the other side of the long string.... It's probably not too difficult to remember for that intelligent, dedicated pro. Might not be overly difficult for even a halfway sharp player.
What would folks do, if this happened? He's not manipulating the rack at all. He's taking the existing rules and solved the riddle.
Will you attempt to punish him for card counting....er, ball counting?
If a player has that figured out, he (or she) will be able to throw them in a rack and you'll NEVER know if it's an intended pattern or not.
So, is it still wrong, even though you can't prove it? And you have no idea if it's even going on? What if a player ordered you to rack the balls, then pointed out a pattern, and proved that he could break them in a way to benefit himself and snooker the opponent? Would you applaud him or villify him?
Would you say it's ok for the pro to solve EVERY pattern, as opposed to....say, just two of them? Because that's like saying that it's ok to cheat completely, but not to just cheat a lil.
Is this jealousy because Corey figured something out and others didn't?
Or is this an example of a morality play? Because there's very little room for morality in this game. Definitely no room for compassion or sympathy.
I applaud his intelligence.
And if I saw Corey pattern racking against me, would I say anything about it? Nope. I've watched several players pattern rack on me and never said a peep. I've observed how and where they're breaking and tried to see if I could make it work for me.
