Derby 9ball rack mechanics

[(((Satori)))]

I want to be more clear on what I meant in the post above and the edit function is not working.

When we are talking about a match between two pros the inferior player has a much better chance to win a match under your ruleset than he does with the current ruleset. This is because of his ability to be a huge favorite in half of the games played. When you give a pro the ability to play shape on the one ball on the break and continue shooting after the break wether he pockets a ball or not you are a huge underdog no matter who you are because even if your opponent does not run out he was able to play the first safety.

Under these rules the best player in the world could catch one bad roll and lose the match against any player A or above because losing one game where you had the break will prove very costly in a reasonable length set.

 

[AtLarge]

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.

From the data I have collected, we can get a feeling for the percentage of games that would be won by the breaker under the No Conflict Rules.

For 7 of the pro events for which I have reported break stats over the past couple years, I added (1) the number of games won by the breaker when he made at least one ball on the break and did not foul and (2) the number of games won by the non-breaker when the breaker fouled or broke dry. This total is the number of games won by the first player to have a shot after the break. Dividing this total by the total number of breaks gives the percentage of games won by the player who shot first after the break. I think this is a reasonable "first estimate" for the percentage of games that would be won by the breaker under the No Conflict Rules.

For the 7 events I reviewed tonight, the percentage of games won by the player who shot first after the break ranged from 57% to 67%. For all 7 events combined, the percentage was 62%.

As with my "first estimate" of the percentage of B&R games under the No Contest Rules (see post #148 in this thread), this estimate should be considered rough for quite a few different reasons.

But in trying to quantify the "huge underdog" comment quoted above, it looks like the breaker under the No Conflict Rules might be something like a 5:3 favorite to win each game (if such rules were used in top-level events).

 

[(((Satori)))]

First I want to say that it is awesome that you take the time to formulate statistics. They are very interesting but in your formula the breakers are playing to pocket a ball which for Ed them to sacrifice position a little. A breaker who can focus more on position will be able to position the one ball and cue ball much more accurately which will in turn increase the runout percentage. From the time I have been able to experiment with this ruleset I have concluded that I would not bet against CJ breaking and running at 50%. A player of his caliber is likely to average close to 70% break and run IMO with these rules when he is focused.

As for the 5:3 favorite, all I can say is I would take the breaker in a pro event every time on those odds with those rules and I would in all likelyhood become rich unless the fix was in.

 

[AtLarge]

First I want to say that it is awesome that you take the time to formulate statistics. They are very interesting but in your formula the breakers are playing to pocket a ball which for Ed them to sacrifice position a little. A breaker who can focus more on position will be able to position the one ball and cue ball much more accurately which will in turn increase the runout percentage. From the time I have been able to experiment with this ruleset I have concluded that I would not bet against CJ breaking and running at 50%. A player of his caliber is likely to average close to 70% break and run IMO with these rules when he is focused.

As for the 5:3 favorite, all I can say is I would take the breaker in a pro event every time on those odds with those rules and I would in all likelyhood become rich unless the fix was in.

I do understand the point you have made a couple times that the breaker under the No Conflict Rules (NCRs) can focus on spreading the balls and getting position on the 1-ball (there is also a modest no-soft-break requirement). You seem to feel this will lead to much higher B&R percentages and breaker-wins percentages than my "first estimates." For the very best players, it might. My numbers are based on players chosen for the streaming table at major events, but they are not all top-tier players. I could cherry-pick the streamed matches and produce higher percentages for a subset of the matches.

But there are also some factors that work against the NCRs producing higher percentages on these measures than I estimated. A few examples are: (1) It's likely that the average number of balls on the table after the break will be higher under the NCRs, which might lead to more difficult run-outs. (2) The data for my estimates include games where the non-breaker got BIH after a breaking foul, thereby facilitating run-outs. A breaker does not have that opportunity. (3) Making the 9-ball on the break does not count as a win under the NCRs.

As for what CJ could do under the NCRs, we don't really know his speed these days. But your 70% B&R figure certainly shows your assessment of his game!

It's likely that we'll never know the answer to these questions, and we can speculate on a bunch of things. But at least the B&R estimate of 36% and the breaker-wins-the-game estimate of 62% for a decent cross-section of top players under NCRs have some numerical support behind them.

 

[Paul Schofield]

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....

Any shot where balls are manually set up becomes a trick shot. Yes, trick shots require skill. They also require special attention to ball placement (tiny spaces between balls and frozen balls). Here-in lies the problem. Just to name a few: re-racking, rack checking, pitted cloth, different size balls, dead ball racking gadgets, worn triangles, ball manipulating, rack tilting, ball tapping and on and on. These are all tied to the ball on the break, namely the trick shot. All of this is either time consuming, frustrating, distracting, and too often dishonest. Keep the ball on the break and we keep all this crap that goes along with it. Get rid of it and all the nonsense just goes away. Shoot what you break and get on with the game.

I think it is destructive to start our short games with a trick shot or a slop shot.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Trick shot?

Any shot where balls are manually set up becomes a trick shot. Yes, trick shots require skill. They also require special attention to ball placement (tiny spaces between balls and frozen balls). Here-in lies the problem. Just to name a few: re-racking, rack checking, pitted cloth, different size balls, dead ball racking gadgets, worn triangles, ball manipulating, rack tilting, ball tapping and on and on. These are all tied to the ball on the break, namely the trick shot. All of this is either time consuming, frustrating, distracting, and too often dishonest. Keep the ball on the break and we keep all this crap that goes along with it. Get rid of it and all the nonsense just goes away. Shoot what you break and get on with the game.

I think it is destructive to start our short games with a trick shot or a slop shot.

The idea of referring to the break as a trick shot is absurd but if you insist on using that definition then I must point out that you're simply replacing one trick shot to start the game with for a much easier trick shot to start the game with. By your definition when you manual set up the balls and hit them in such a way as to send the one ball in a specific area and the cue ball another specific area you have started the game with a trick shot.


By the way how does your rules eliminate pitted cloth, different size balls, worn triangles, and some of the other problems you speak of?

 

[justadub]

Any shot where balls are manually set up becomes a trick shot. Yes, trick shots require skill. They also require special attention to ball placement (tiny spaces between balls and frozen balls). Here-in lies the problem. Just to name a few: re-racking, rack checking, pitted cloth, different size balls, dead ball racking gadgets, worn triangles, ball manipulating, rack tilting, ball tapping and on and on. These are all tied to the ball on the break, namely the trick shot. All of this is either time consuming, frustrating, distracting, and too often dishonest. Keep the ball on the break and we keep all this crap that goes along with it. Get rid of it and all the nonsense just goes away. Shoot what you break and get on with the game.

I think it is destructive to start our short games with a trick shot or a slop shot.

I get all that.

My question lies in the distinction between a wired trick shot, and a tangent line shot, requiring skill to make.

Throw out making any ball other than the 1. Not a part of my question.

Do you not believe that making the one in the side is a matter of skill, not trickery? There is no rigging for the 1, it should be on the spot, and if the first three balls are frozen, as they should be, it should be a matter of skill putting that ball into the side. Or am I wrong?

As for the rest of your argument, carry on.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I get all that.

My question lies in the distinction between a wired trick shot, and a tangent line shot, requiring skill to make.

Throw out making any ball other than the 1. Not a part of my question.

Do you not believe that making the one in the side is a matter of skill, not trickery? There is no rigging for the 1, it should be on the spot, and if the first three balls are frozen, as they should be, it should be a matter of skill putting that ball into the side. Or am I wrong?

As for the rest of your argument, carry on.

This is precisely what I am talking about. Quite often the conditions you described can't easily be achieved. This poses problems.

As to drawing a distinction in your first line: there is no difference. Manually setting up the balls is a trick shot. Some require more skill than others.

 

[justadub]

This is precisely what I am talking about. Quite often the conditions you described can't easily be achieved. This poses problems.

As to drawing a distinction in your first line: there is no difference. Manually setting up the balls is a trick shot. Some require more skill than others.

.................forget it .................

 

[Paul Schofield]

.................forget it .................

Good choice. That one is not worth discussing.

 

[Worminator]

Good choice. That one is not worth discussing.

I believe the intentent of the "forget it" from justadub was more like, it's not worth my time trying to reason with an unreasonable person...

 

[AtLarge]

... By the way how does your rules eliminate pitted cloth, different size balls, worn triangles, and some of the other problems you speak of?

Such things create racking problems under normal rules but are rendered inconsequential (not eliminated) by the NCRs.

 

[Paul Schofield]

The real skill is playing "Roll Out," where you have to "wrestle" for the first shot.

C.J. Who wants to do that or watch it? For viable competition, both players must have opportunities to shoot. Earn your chance to shoot through a pushout duel is miserable.

I don't like parities but here it goes. Lets bring your idea to basketball and start every possession with a tip off. Imagine that one.

I can dream up a number of comparables.

 

[CJ Wiley]

I just personally don't enjoy 9 Ball as a "rack running contest"

C.J. Who wants to do that or watch it? For viable competition, both players must have opportunities to shoot. Earn your chance to shoot through a pushout duel is miserable.

I don't like parities but here it goes. Lets bring your idea to basketball and start every possession with a tip off. Imagine that one.

I can dream up a number of comparables.

I would want to do that and watch it.

Why do you argue over what I want to see or do? You invented the "no conflict rules" yet you are always seeking "conflict"...I'm sure there's no irony in this scenario.

Go run your tournaments and play your "break and first shot" rules and I hope every player runs every rack....what could be more fun than that, if you want to play/watch a "rack running contest?"

If the general public likes this you will fill up your fields, your tournaments will run quickly, {peacefully} efficiently and you can live "happily every after." I'm rooting for you, this sounds like a perfect scenario for players.

I just personally don't enjoy 9 Ball as a "rack running contest" and I can run racks as good as anyone. There's just not that much skill to it, that's all. Watching champion players fight for that first shot is entertaining to me, however, I'm looking at the incredible skill involved, and that's just my opinion and I'm sticking to it. 'The Game is the Teacher' www.cjwiley.com

 

[Paul Schofield]

Why do you argue over what I want to see or do?

Wait a second. You are the pro. The only way pros get paid is by garnering the attention of everyone else. Please, would you guys do something that the rest of the world can relate to. It would help the pool business in general. Look at where you guys are going: Called shot, Ten-Ball, 10 foot tables, tiny pockets, and now you are talking about pushout after the break. I can't do anything with all this. I put PPV matches on my screen in my room and it gets little attention. This bothers me. It should bother you.

 

[Paul Schofield]

But at least the B&R estimate of 36% and the breaker-wins-the-game estimate of 62% for a decent cross-section of top players under NCRs have some numerical support behind them.

Statistics can be valuable in many ways. Thanks for taking a look at your figures and doing your best to see how they would play out using the NCR.

 

[CJ Wiley]

What the game needs more than anything is to be seen consistently by the mass public.

Wait a second. You are the pro. The only way pros get paid is by garnering the attention of everyone else. Please, would you guys do something that the rest of the world can relate to. It would help the pool business in general. Look at where you guys are going: Called shot, Ten-Ball, 10 foot tables, tiny pockets, and now you are talking about pushout after the break. I can't do anything with all this. I put PPV matches on my screen in my room and it gets little attention. This bothers me. It should bother you.

The first tournament I played in after an 8 year layoff I heard them talking about a "TV Table". I thought "wow, this tournament has TV coverage?"

Then I found out they call the "streaming video table," the TV table. Somewhere in the last few years this has happened. I don't know of anyone that watches an sports on a computer, and if it's not on ESPN or a major station the sport isn't watched.

The reason people aren't watching your PPV is because pool has dropped out of sight on major TV networks. "Out of sight, out of mind"

I have had nothing to do with this and if anything, first off, I would say "stop calling streaming video TV! It's certainly NOT"....we do need to get some major TV coverage, but in the mean time why call an apple an orange? We average a million viewers on ESPN, what do we average on streaming video, five hundred or a thousand? A computer is not a TV.

None of this has anything to do with whether you play "break and first shot" or not. I really don't care what rules are played in events that aren't televised because, quite frankly it doesn't matter at all, the only ones that watch streaming video are "die hard" pool fans.

What the game needs more than anything is to be seen consistently by the mass public. This will draw new people into seeing pocket billiards as a viable entertainment option to seeing a movie or bowling.

 

[Paul Schofield]

What the game needs more than anything is to be seen consistently by the mass public.

It has been seen consistantly by the mass public in the past. We had our chance. The mass public said "Other stuff is more entertaining and more fun."

This will draw new people into seeing pocket billiards as a viable entertainment option to seeing a movie or bowling.

And where is everyone going to play pool? Have you looked around lately?


I want to add that I do not believe that professional pool promotes the game. I think it is reversed. Professional pool has riden on the back of pool's popularity.

 

[pletho]

It's just about impossible to get a perfect or good rack without touching the balls, especially the 1 ball.

All racks are not square, and all balls are not the exact same size. And all pool tables, and pool halls have this same problem.

So, my point is that in theory it's a noble idea and cool thing to say "let the rack" rack the balls, but anyone that has played pool in more than one pool hall and on more than just one table, if they are honest has to agree that it's impossible to just "let the rack" rack the balls!

 

[Maniac]

It's just about impossible to get a perfect or good rack without touching the balls, especially the 1 ball.

All racks are not square, and all balls are not the exact same size. And all pool tables, and pool halls have this same problem.

I may be in the minority here, but......in MY experience with MY home table:

My table/cloth/balls are almost 6 years old. The breaking area has dimples deep enough you could lose a compact car in them (well, okay, not quite that deep :smile. The table gets a LOT of play on it as I am a retired person and practice twice a day many times a week. So, the balls are fairly worn. I also have a Delta-13 Elite rack.

Guess what?

I can still, after 6 years of hard play, and the many pronounced dimples in the racking area, get a tight rack with all balls touching in less than a minute. More times than not, in less than 30 seconds.

The problem with racking in pool is, the closer to professional status that players reach, the more racking becomes an issue. You go to pool league on Monday night and see how many times in the MANY sets of balls that get racked do you see the behaviour that we witness at professional tournaments.

IMO, the reason we see the racking "wars" in professional pool is not because it takes so long to get a tight rack of balls, it's because it takes so long to get the necessary GAP in the balls where the breaker wants it.

In the tournament table conditions that many pros play on, getting a tight rack shouldn't be THAT much of a problem, given my experiences on my home table.

Another thing, not to be long-winded, but.......I have been experimenting lately with breaking balls that are not PERFECTLY tightly racked and my conclusion is that I still scatter the rack AND frequently make a ball or balls. Once again IMO, I think the professional gamers have just gotten to damn nit-picky in these modern times with the rack. And.......it's detracting from the entertainment value of the game.

Maniac