Do you think 9-ball would be better or worse if a mandatory push out after the break became a standard rule?

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
Pretty much everyone that I have ever seen advocate it were players that couldn’t run packages or those that didn’t break as well as their opponents.
I have never seen this format used except in a race to one match, which was the way the "Accustats game show" format worked. Race to one, single elimination with eight players was over in an hour, and it was fun. They tried it at Derby City one year, and it was a hoot.
 

smoochie

NotLikeThis
The break is a "luck shot"...? seriously...?
Yes it is, I don't know if you're new to the game, it doesn't matter if you practice the break for thousands of hours each table breaks differently, it is a luck shot by the end of the day.
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
If you have paid attention to your opponent’s game enough, you will know which shots they are comfortable with and those that they are leery of.

Before I push, I know exactly what I am going to do with the shot if it is given back to me. My opponent then has to try to think of what I was thinking before I pushed. It is a mind game, when actually you should only be thinking of the table layout instead of “what would he do?”

Pushing is an art.
I agree that pushing is an art....the old ‘roll out’ rules ( I played two fouls by the SAME player) sometimes you get a guy who is eager to shoot or is reluctant to let you shoot...so you push out tougher til he heps up.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
Yes it is, I don't know if you're new to the game, it doesn't matter if you practice the break for thousands of hours each table breaks differently, it is a luck shot by the end of the day.
Yep brand new... Also have been told a handful of times on this forum I have no clue what I'm talking about. You're in good company... ;)
 

13ball

New member
I’ve seen this discussed before and I’m curious what the game would end up being like if this became normalized. I think safety breaks would become fairly standard since pushing out has you at a disadvantage. Do you think it would ruin the game? It does pretty much solve the issue everyone has with racks. No more needing to rack with the 9 on the spot, or add a break box, or require that two balls pass the headstring (a silly rule IMO), and likely less time players spend on racking or arguing about the rack, etc. I’m not sure if I’m for it though. What are your thoughts?
Nine ball would be much better without jump cues
 

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I agree that pushing is an art....the old ‘roll out’ rules ( I played two fouls by the SAME player) sometimes you get a guy who is eager to shoot or is reluctant to let you shoot...so you push out tougher til he heps up.
I am with you.

I started playing and gambling under those same rules. That game was a thousand times better than the way they play it now.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Yes it is, I don't know if you're new to the game, it doesn't matter if you practice the break for thousands of hours each table breaks differently, it is a luck shot by the end of the day.
There have been some matches where the breaker has made the intended ball on the break over 90% of the time. That seems like relatively low luck.

The break shot at nine ball is problematic. I find it amazing that some players still don't realize that.

"Breaker must push" is a solution that probably eliminates the usefulness of pattern racking and makes triangle/template/tapping more or less irrelevant.
 

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Yes it is, I don't know if you're new to the game, it doesn't matter if you practice the break for thousands of hours each table breaks differently, it is a luck shot by the end of the day.
There have been some matches where the breaker has made the intended ball on the break over 90% of the time. That seems like relatively low luck.

The break shot at nine ball is problematic. I find it amazing that some players still don't realize that.

"Breaker must push" is a solution that probably eliminates the usefulness of pattern racking and makes triangle/template/tapping more or less irrelevant.

Making a ball on break is a "luck shot" with 75% positive probability. Getting a follow up can be trickier. I'd like to see them actually randomly rack balls, assisted by a simple computer program. The screen shows where the balls must go, so no advantage to pattern racks. It would be trivial to implement, could be on any smart phone or computer. We have the technology to make pattern racking a thing of the past. The only ones who want pattern racking think they have some hidden knowledge and advantage. They might for a while, but eventually it becomes common knowledge and degrades the game.

Breaking only from the spot would probably be better to make the rack less wired. That or break a 10B rack (of 15 ball rack) and remove the 10 (or 10-15) after the break. It would be a different game, but it's just an idea. I'm just brainstorming and I'm not proficient enough at 9B to have a valid opinion on the subject.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
There have been some matches where the breaker has made the intended ball on the break over 90% of the time. That seems like relatively low luck.
Last tournament I played in was a template rack 9 on the spot, alternate break, and I'd be willing to bet I went 80% for the day. Also put the 1 ball and CB in relatively the same position each time. I wouldn't have equated my results to luck seeing as I kept hitting the break the same way and dropping the same balls in the same pocket, but Mr. Smoochie has clearly stated that it was indeed luck, so who am I to argue.
 

Swighey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't see the need to punish a player for striking a good break. Alternate break still allows the stronger player to win, and provides equal opportunity for the opponent.

Where exactly did the alternate break format fall short...?

I agree with this - certainly for tournaments. Winner breaks allows players to get "in the zone" - that's not what competition in 9 ball (or 8 or 10) is about. Each rack is a separate game and match is a race to a specified number of games. The key word here is "race" - when one play moves ahead, why give him a another step forward? For me it's a better match when both players have the same opportunity and they have to find a way to stay in the zone rather than being freerolled into the zone when they win a game. It also increases the tension in a game which is relatively easy (pocket a wired ball on the break and run out). Winner breaks is fine for gambling and long money races but it's just not a great format for a tournament. There is a game designed for "in the zone play" - 14.1 with its long points races.
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There have been some matches where the breaker has made the intended ball on the break over 90% of the time. That seems like relatively low luck.

The break shot at nine ball is problematic. I find it amazing that some players still don't realize that.

"Breaker must push" is a solution that probably eliminates the usefulness of pattern racking and makes triangle/template/tapping more or less irrelevant.
The outcome of the break, however regular, is still hit or miss. If the break is such a controversy (guys who can break vs pussies ((kidding))) then once again, use a phone app that randomizes the balls and develop rules to address the anomalies (like allowing them).
As for must push, why not no push? Player must make legal contact.
 

Swighey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
or break a 10B rack (of 15 ball rack) and remove the 10 (or 10-15) after the break. It would be a different game, but it's just an idea. I'm just brainstorming and I'm not proficient enough at 9B to have a valid opinion on the subject.

Hmmm, interesting idea. I will experiment with that - 9 where the 10 usually goes, 1 at the front and the 10 in any of the other 8 spots. I wonder, would it be a different game or would it just change the break?
 

sixpack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I’ve seen this discussed before and I’m curious what the game would end up being like if this became normalized. I think safety breaks would become fairly standard since pushing out has you at a disadvantage. Do you think it would ruin the game? It does pretty much solve the issue everyone has with racks. No more needing to rack with the 9 on the spot, or add a break box, or require that two balls pass the headstring (a silly rule IMO), and likely less time players spend on racking or arguing about the rack, etc. I’m not sure if I’m for it though. What are your thoughts?
No.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
I agree with this - certainly for tournaments. Winner breaks allows players to get "in the zone" - that's not what competition in 9 ball (or 8 or 10) is about. Each rack is a separate game and match is a race to a specified number of games. The key word here is "race" - when one play moves ahead, why give him a another step forward? For me it's a better match when both players have the same opportunity and they have to find a way to stay in the zone rather than being freerolled into the zone when they win a game. It also increases the tension in a game which is relatively easy (pocket a wired ball on the break and run out). Winner breaks is fine for gambling and long money races but it's just not a great format for a tournament. There is a game designed for "in the zone play" - 14.1 with its long points races.
In theory the winner break format provides the possibility of a player never touching the table and still losing. While watching someone run off +9 racks would be something to behold. It's got to be the worst way to lose a tournament match, especially if you traveled a distance and paid steep money for entry.

Forgetting about "the zone" for a moment. There's nothing more enjoyable to me anyways, when you see mismatch in an alternate break format. Sure you'll still have Earl or Shane break and run the bulk of their games, but BiilyBob still gets to the table and attempt to grind out some wins. Not to mention the magnitude of the favourite dropping their "serve" in those matches. Now they have to pray their opponent also screws up. Give the little guys a chance damn it...
 

Swighey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In theory the winner break format provides the possibility of a player never touching the table and still losing. While watching someone run off +9 racks would be something to behold. It's got to be the worst way to lose a tournament match, especially if you traveled a distance and paid steep money for entry.

Forgetting about "the zone" for a moment. There's nothing more enjoyable to me anyways, when you see mismatch in an alternate break format. Sure you'll still have Earl or Shane break and run the bulk of their games, but BiilyBob still gets to the table and attempt to grind out some wins. Not to mention the magnitude of the favourite dropping their "serve" in those matches. Now they have to pray their opponent also screws up. Give the little guys a chance damn it...
Yep, couldn't agree more. Skewing a match in favor of the player who is already the favorite makes no sense at all.

And if (although this also makes little sense in a fair competition) it's for some people about "why should you have a shot if you lost?" then surely it should also be "if your balls are that big let's see you holding your serve when you have to do it every second game when you might be running a little cold".

That said, I have no beef with winner breaks - just alternate break makes more sense on so many levels.
 

Swighey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In response to the OP, I recall there being a high profile money match in recent years where there was a compulsory push out after the break. So someone better at pool than all of us doesn't think it's a terrible idea.
 

surlytempo

Member
In response to the OP, I recall there being a high profile money match in recent years where there was a compulsory push out after the break. So someone better at pool than all of us doesn't think it's a terrible idea.

Touring pros more than average players tend to favor a mandatory push-out after the break, for the same reason another poster mentioned above. The advantage of a mandatory push after the break tends to resolve most issues centered around racking, as Bob Jewett pointed out, but gives each player a fair opportunity to contest each rack. No one doubts that any pro in an Open+ field is capable of running X number of racks on any given day. And a mandatory push after the break doesn't necessarily mean the break is no longer an advantage, it still affords the breaker the opportunity to set the control conditions of the rack. It introduces a strategic element to the game, and is a lot more likely to result in interesting matches. I don't think a mandatory push-out is a great idea for low to mid field tournaments, as I don't think most players could effectively utilize the push in a strategically meaningful way. But for high level players and pros, a good push-out is an art in itself.
While watching someone run off +9 racks would be something to behold. It's got to be the worst way to lose a tournament match, especially if you traveled a distance and paid steep money for entry.
 

Dan_B

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
lol. Seems the worst people to ask about changes and possible improvements to pool are middling pool players themselves. They're too clouded by either tradition or personal preference.
...is that a kerfukle or a conundrum?

BTW? for anyone, please tell me it isn't so, the idea, that if, even, after a dry break the breaker gets to move the one?
...a push out now is only available, in gentlemanly quarters, when a ball has been pocketed, on the break, right?
 
Top