This would make for good action.
Paul,
Would you be willing to bet CJ that he could not break and run 50% of the time using your rules on a live stream?
Derby 9ball rack mechanics
- Thread starter nathandumoulin
- Start date
This would make for good action.
Paul,
Would you be willing to bet CJ that he could not break and run 50% of the time using your rules on a live stream?
You believe that the Mosconi Cup players making the 1 ball in the side a very high percentage of the time with a rack from a ref is slop?
Now I'm not a fan of the cut break... but those boys knew exactly what they were doing.
You're "slugging the communication rack"
You're "tilting the communication rack"
... Where did I say any players wouldn't like it? Where did I say nobody would want to watch it?
I don't think Champion players would want to play it or watch it. It makes the game into a
"rack running contest". The skills you develop at our level are a lot more than just breaking and running out, many levels can do that, especially on easy equipment. To equalize the field this would be optimal.
I, personally like both players to play each game, jockey for the first shot and whoever "out moves" the other player wins the game.
This can only be done if the break is minimized in importance, not maximized. Making a mandatory "roll out" after each break would create this scenario. I ask Johnny Archer if he approved of this rule and he really liked it, and he has a great break.
Champion level players want the subtle beauty to come out in the game, the break/rack emphasis short changes the player from a variety of skillful shots and ultimately dilutes the Game. 'The Game is the Teacher'
billiard rack
You're "tilting the communication rack"
... Where did I say any players wouldn't like it? Where did I say nobody would want to watch it?I don't think Champion players would want to play it or watch it. It makes the game into a
I, personally like both players to play each game, jockey for the first shot and whoever "out moves" the other player wins the game.
This can only be done if the break is minimized in importance, not maximized. Making a mandatory "roll out" after each break would create this scenario. I ask Johnny Archer if he approved of this rule and he really liked it, and he has a great break.
Champion level players want the subtle beauty to come out in the game, the break/rack emphasis short changes the player from a variety of skillful shots and ultimately dilutes the Game. 'The Game is the Teacher'
billiard rack
You're not paying attention. If its not a slop shot, it has to be wired, a trick shot. There can be no skill involved in the break :wink:
I hope Worminator sees the sarcasm in your post
!!!Maniac (sometimes wonders if PS isn't an alter-ego of JB :grin
Very good. The trick shot requires special attention be paid to the way the shot is set up. If the trick shot is not set up right, it won't go. That is what we are trying to avoid: stop the players from manipulating the rack and re-racking over and over as to make the wired ball possible.
This approach is destructive. I have no interest in it. What I would contemplate would be a challenge match between C.J. and another player using the No Conflict Rules, race to 100, and offer a significant bonus to the player that has the most break-and-runs if it exceeds 49.
I would not root against C.J. I would want him to play well and break that 50 if he could.
Last edited:
From the data I have collected, we can get a feeling for what the B&R percentage would be under the No Conflict Rules (what CJ calls the "break and first shot" rules). We would simply add the run-outs by the non-breaker after a dry or fouled break to the run-outs from the break by the breaker and then divide by the total number of breaks.
This afternoon I went back and calculated this result for the 37 matches (638 games) streamed at the 2012 US Open 9-Ball event. I originally reported the break results for this event here: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=293041.
The breaker ran out 145 times in his 638 breaks, for a B&R percentage, as previously reported, of 23%. Since the breaker fouled or broke dry 243 times, he had the first shot after the break 395 times, and his run-out percentage on those 395 opportunities was 37%. The non-breaker ran out after a dry or fouled break 87 times in 243 games, for a non-breaker run-out percentage of 36%. Therefore, the number of run-outs for the player who had the first shot after the break was 145 + 87 = 232. This made for an overall run-out-after-the-break percentage of 36% (232 of 638).
I think this 36% figure is a reasonable first estimate of what the B&R percentage would be under the No Conflict Rules for top players. However, there are a number of reasons why we might not want to generalize from this result. It represents only the streamed matches at one event. Also, importantly, the pros could be expected to break differently under the No Conflict Rules than they did at the U.S. Open. Fouls on the break might be fewer, and I expect the incoming player has a higher run-out percentage after a breaking foul than after a dry break.
Last edited:
come to the table "hooked" the next shot will be tarnished with a "luck element"
Thank you very much, I think this is a very accurate number and you're other assessments are accurate as well.
If I don't have to worry about making a ball on the break I will rarely scratch (if at all), and will change the break to cross the one to the foot corner pocket. This will give me a greater first shot and the spread of the balls will also be more predictable.
These are the factors I can see right away. I actually don't see this getting to 50% (average), but I do see it getting to between 41%/48% by players that have top 3 finishes in major championships (fyi - just a referential index).
The other factor is, with a champion player getting the first shot, even if they can't make it the safe produced will increase their odds of winning considerable. This will also take away the "sparring for the shot" that I personally think is the best part of 9 Ball/10 Ball games. When a player comes to the table "hooked" the next shot will be tarnished with a "luck element," and although there is certainly a skill to "kicking" I don't think it's an exciting {spectator} shot (relatively speaking).
Thank you very much, I think this is a very accurate number and you're other assessments are accurate as well.
If I don't have to worry about making a ball on the break I will rarely scratch (if at all), and will change the break to cross the one to the foot corner pocket. This will give me a greater first shot and the spread of the balls will also be more predictable.
These are the factors I can see right away. I actually don't see this getting to 50% (average), but I do see it getting to between 41%/48% by players that have top 3 finishes in major championships (fyi - just a referential index).
The other factor is, with a champion player getting the first shot, even if they can't make it the safe produced will increase their odds of winning considerable. This will also take away the "sparring for the shot" that I personally think is the best part of 9 Ball/10 Ball games. When a player comes to the table "hooked" the next shot will be tarnished with a "luck element," and although there is certainly a skill to "kicking" I don't think it's an exciting {spectator} shot (relatively speaking).
Last edited:
You have to hit them harder than you think to meet the center string requirement. Remember, balls pocketed in the foot corners do not count toward the requirement. A player learns quickly that he cannot take the chance of hitting them too softly.
Also remember that a table with all 9 balls left after the break is much harder to run than a table that has 7 or 8 balls left.
If a player is counting on the 1-ball being one of the balls to make it over the center string, that ball can easily be lost deep at the head of the table.
CJ, your rules guarantee that a player will only play the pushout game. They do not guarantee that a player gets to shoot. It is foreseeable that one player could take control for 3-4-5-6 or even 7 games and more without the back and forth that makes for good competition. Rules need to insure that both players have opportunities.
Also remember that a table with all 9 balls left after the break is much harder to run than a table that has 7 or 8 balls left.
If a player is counting on the 1-ball being one of the balls to make it over the center string, that ball can easily be lost deep at the head of the table.
CJ, your rules guarantee that a player will only play the pushout game. They do not guarantee that a player gets to shoot. It is foreseeable that one player could take control for 3-4-5-6 or even 7 games and more without the back and forth that makes for good competition. Rules need to insure that both players have opportunities.
I was just poking a little fun earlier...
....however, I would like to ask a question, both to Paul and CJ, and to the congregation.
Wouldn't the cut shot break of the 1-ball into the side pocket really be considered a skill shot, basically along the lines of any shot on the table where the balls are frozen and the proper hit sends the ball off along the tangent line?
I truly am a beginner in this game, but that is what the shot appears to be, to me. Educate me, if you will....
What percentage do you think that a top golfer pars or birdies a hole? What percentage do you think that a top bowler strikes? I have those numbers and I can tell you that they are significantly higher than 41-48%. Pools perfection is "break-and-run-out". Maybe we should take a lesson.
Lesson: Don't make the game harder.
Last edited:
There's actually more luck in the "cut break"
Sure, I'll take the position that the USA TEAM took at last year's Mosconi Cup Showdown. I believe I can speak for the majority of the team:
There's actually more luck in the "cut break" from what we (USA Mosconi Cup Team) experienced. With the cue ball zig zagging across the table there's much more chance of getting "kissed" and not being able to reach the desired "zone" of the table for the maximum "first shot opportunity".
The USA team would have a huge advantage breaking against the European team if the one was racked on the spot.(ioho) We just never use the "cut break" and the Europeans play that way all year long.
Sure, I'll take the position that the USA TEAM took at last year's Mosconi Cup Showdown. I believe I can speak for the majority of the team:
There's actually more luck in the "cut break" from what we (USA Mosconi Cup Team) experienced. With the cue ball zig zagging across the table there's much more chance of getting "kissed" and not being able to reach the desired "zone" of the table for the maximum "first shot opportunity".
The USA team would have a huge advantage breaking against the European team if the one was racked on the spot.(ioho) We just never use the "cut break" and the Europeans play that way all year long.
The real skill is playing "Roll Out," where you have to "wrestle" for the first shot.
We'll have to just agree to disagree on this issue. The break and run out part of pool is a small percentage of the skill of the game.
The real skill is playing "Roll Out," where you have to "wrestle" for the first shot...if you don't agree I'll play you and bet you can't get to 5 racing to 11 if we roll out after the break....you may never win a game, but, of course I don't know your skill level.
A top "short stop" will rarely, if ever win a game playing this way against Efren, Bustemante, Archer, Stickland, or myself....A shortstop may actually get close or possibly win a match playing the "break and first shot" rules.
We'll have to just agree to disagree on this issue. The break and run out part of pool is a small percentage of the skill of the game.
The real skill is playing "Roll Out," where you have to "wrestle" for the first shot...if you don't agree I'll play you and bet you can't get to 5 racing to 11 if we roll out after the break....you may never win a game, but, of course I don't know your skill level.
A top "short stop" will rarely, if ever win a game playing this way against Efren, Bustemante, Archer, Stickland, or myself....A shortstop may actually get close or possibly win a match playing the "break and first shot" rules.
I will just ignore that one. Let's just stay on topic.
As you're pointing out, Paul's crammed all breaks into the same black-and-white box...
There's no difference to him between an easy break that goes in 99% of the time (9b) and a challenging one that only is successful 70% of the time (10b).
Personally, I think his idea has enough merit to stand on its own, without pretending breaks are unskilled hangers or totally random. No conflict would still save time and argument even if he admitted the obvious.
Correction
As a matter of fact, that is not exactly true...
Correct, the EuroTour is played with the 9ball on the spot. But, that is approx. 5 tournaments per year.
On the other hand, the European Championships and many other tournaments are played with the 1ball on the spot.
Players prepare individually for separate tournaments...
The above "huge advantage" opinion is extremely subjective...
Almost like looking for an excuse...
What for???
The USA Team did extremely good this (last) year.
Regards
As a matter of fact, that is not exactly true...
Correct, the EuroTour is played with the 9ball on the spot. But, that is approx. 5 tournaments per year.
On the other hand, the European Championships and many other tournaments are played with the 1ball on the spot.
Players prepare individually for separate tournaments...
The above "huge advantage" opinion is extremely subjective...
Almost like looking for an excuse...
What for???
The USA Team did extremely good this (last) year.
Regards
Last edited:
practice the "cut break" with more of a vengeance
I stand corrected of course. :wink:
This is subjective and more of an inside joke with our team this year. Maybe it was a "trick" on my part to get them to practice the "cut break" with more of a vengeance.
I had a feeling this post might get a quick response from someone "across the pond". :thumbup: Hope you're doing well "pooler", it's been awhile, stay in touch, I always enjoy your "spin" on things. Aloha
I stand corrected of course. :wink:
This is subjective and more of an inside joke with our team this year. Maybe it was a "trick" on my part to get them to practice the "cut break" with more of a vengeance.
I had a feeling this post might get a quick response from someone "across the pond". :thumbup: Hope you're doing well "pooler", it's been awhile, stay in touch, I always enjoy your "spin" on things. Aloha
As you point out, those numbers are a first estimate and would likely be inaccurate. I would have to believe the true break and run % would increase significantly when the breaker no longer has to focus on pocketing a ball and can increase his focus on playing shape on the one ball.
I don't want to speak for CJ but I know if I were in his shoes I would not want to play a match that promotes a ruleset that I know is flawed. More importantly, I would not want to match up on a live stream viewed by a large audience in a game where I am going to be a huge underdog on half of the games. This would be the case if CJ were to play any player who is an A or above because, as CJ pointed out, the breaker has total control of every game he breaks. All he has to do is play shape on the one ball. I think you have to see how this ruleset is a huge equalizer, giving the inferior player a much better chance to win, but you are way too emotionally attached to admit it.