Dry break/luck in 8-ball

[ineedaspot]

IMO, it looks like the game of 8-ball between two world class players is dominated by the dry break factor, which is mostly luck (not all luck but mostly luck). Example, the finals of the IPT, where Manalo missed one shot, Hohmann missed two, no safeties were ever played, and Hohmann won basically because he had less dry breaks. I also watched a few matches in a qualifier and it was more or less the same: very few misses, very few safeties, dry versus wet breaks were the dominant story of most matches.

With the dry break luck factor so big, it overwhelms the skill factor at this level. This is because players like Manalo and Hohmann almost always get out. Only rarely does it occur that the way the balls lie is so tough as to differentiate world class skill levels. Sure, every now and then there will be an out where Efren (or whoever is number 1) is able to get out, but the number 2 skilled player might not. But most of the time, in 8-ball, the table is easy enough so any top player will get out, given a shot.

Now the grueling IPT format seems to bring the cream to the top, but it's kind of inefficient to play a game with a large luck/skill ratio, but then you play for 12 hours a day for 7 days to reach the "long run" where the luck factor averages out and the skill factor dominates. Also, at the top level, where all the money is it's almost a coin toss. Not just the final race to 8, but the whole last group; I don't think any of the top 6 players is more than a 10-20% favorite over any of the others in a race to 8 playing 8-ball. So, while the format differentiates the world beaters from the shortstops, it's not so good at determining who is really number 1.

It would be nice to see a game or a tourney structure or a set of rules that can differentiate skill levels at the very top of the food chain in a reasonable amount of time. Like in say, tennis, where Federer is a big favorite against anyone else in the world (unless they're playing on clay and then Nadal has the edge but you get the point...)

For example, in the DCC one-pocket this year where Efren rolled over Alex P. and Jason Miller and even though Alex was playing great, Efren was playing that much better and it was evident; you could see the difference in skill.

BTW, I'm not knocking the IPT, which I think is fantastic, just posting a comment about 8-ball and dry breaks. I'm also not saying that 9-ball is a better game than 8-ball, and I'm not saying that Efren is the best player ever, or anything else...

 

[mnShooter]

I wouldn't consider the break luck. If the players had spent more time working on their break they would have a much better percentage. I used to only be able to make a ball <50% of the time, this was just hitting the ball as hard as I could. Now I can make one >80% of the time, with the Sardo rack.

Also watching the video on Eurosport there were many times when the player should of been out and didn't get out. It was just whoever capitalized on their opportunities who would win.

 

[Williebetmore]

IMO, it looks like the game of 8-ball between two world class players is dominated by the dry break factor, which is mostly luck (not all luck but mostly luck).

Spot-man,
I'm going to have to agree with you (emphatically). This is not the "championship" game (we already have one, and it's called straight pool).

To mnshooter I'll respond that these guys DO practice their break; but NO amount of practice will guarantee a made ball on those tables, and NO amount of practice will assure them of a shot after the break, and NO amount of practice will assure them of a runnable or winnable rack after the break.

I will agree that maximizing their breaking proficiency is a GREAT idea; but not sufficient to take away the luck factor.

 

[1 Pocket Ghost]

Spot-man,
I'm going to have to agree with you (emphatically). This is not the "championship" game (we already have one, and it's called straight pool).

To mnshooter I'll respond that these guys DO practice their break; but NO amount of practice will guarantee a made ball on those tables, and NO amount of practice will assure them of a shot after the break, and NO amount of practice will assure them of a runnable or winnable rack after the break.

I will agree that maximizing their breaking proficiency is a GREAT idea; but not sufficient to take away the luck factor.

Hey Willie, I definitely agree with you and I-need-a-spot....The luck factor is way too strong re. the break in 8 ball.

But secondly, my friend Willie, I'm afraid I have to correct you....You mistakenly stated - " This is not the "championship" game (we already have one, and it's called straight pool).".......Well, in reality it's ONE POCKET that is the 'Championship game'', the Game of Games', the Decathalon of pool !!!

I will however, accept straight pool as the second best pool game....^_^

 

[xianmacx]

tennis cannot be compared to pool. Pool is a game played against a table. If you make no ball on break, table wins....tennis is nothing like that. In pool a whole set could go by and one player never leaves the chair, how can that "compare" skill?

Only way to seperate top 10 players is to give them equal playing fields. IE h-o-r-s-e on a pool table. Set up a runout, if you can both get out, move to a harder runout.

Ian
________

 

[Snapshot9]

Every sport

contains what people perceive as an element of 'luck', hence 'the lucky roll or bounce', but when it is examined in the most elemental step by step structure, the reaction of such is exactly because of the way the initial action generated it to be.

Did Manalo break the way on the last game the way he did on the other games or not? Maybe he was keyed up, and put just a little more power into the break knowing the last game decided the match, and did not hit the head ball where he had in prevvious breaks, or had too much english on the break?
There are numerous reasons why he could have come up dry. Even breaking exactly the same way, but with a slightly different speed can make a difference. I know in lots of matches I play that go hill-to-hill, I have to have a little talk with myself before I break the last game, telling myself not to overpower the break, and making sure I strike the cueball exactly where I want to.

You can say it is luck all you want, but it is really a reaction from the defined action that generated it to begin with. Overall, I would say there 'runout' capabilities were very even, but Hohmann's breaking mechanics were better and more consistent than Manalos, and CONSISTENCY is the name of the game for excellence to be achieved in Pool.

 

[recoveryjones]

Spot-man,
I'm going to have to agree with you (emphatically). This is not the "championship" game (we already have one, and it's called straight pool).

To mnshooter I'll respond that these guys DO practice their break; but NO amount of practice will guarantee a made ball on those tables, and NO amount of practice will assure them of a shot after the break, and NO amount of practice will assure them of a runnable or winnable rack after the break.

I will agree that maximizing their breaking proficiency is a GREAT idea; but not sufficient to take away the luck factor.

Yes it's true that there's a luck factor with the break in eight and nine ball.Those who can hit the pack solid and park the cue ball in the center of the table have more odds of increasing that luck.

Once the break is over and done with, nine ball has a lot more (sometimes cruel) luck in it compared to eight ball, so at least 8 ball is an improvement in that regard.
RJ

 

[Williebetmore]

But secondly, my friend Willie, I'm afraid I have to correct you....You mistakenly stated - " This is not the "championship" game (we already have one, and it's called straight pool).".......Well, in reality it's ONE POCKET that is the 'Championship game'', the Game of Games', the Decathalon of pool !!!

I will however, accept straight pool as the second best pool game....^_^

1PG,
I stand corrected. Accept my humble apologies. I'm sure that soon they will be making all pool tables with only 2 pockets (I've actually seen one); when this occurs, I'm sure everyone else will see the wisdom of your assessment.

 

[ineedaspot]

contains what people perceive as an element of 'luck', hence 'the lucky roll or bounce', but when it is examined in the most elemental step by step structure, the reaction of such is exactly because of the way the initial action generated it to be.

There is an argument, as you point out, that "luck" is just an illusion. But also, in a very tangible and meaningful way, for some games and sports the luck/skill ratio is higher than others. The best player will still win in the long run, but it takes longer to reach the "long run." In 8-ball, the luck factor is high, so it takes a long time (i.e. 7 days, 12 hours a day) for the luck to even out and the skill to take precendence.

IMO, the pool game that has the least amount of "luck" is one-pocket, followed by straight pool. Part of the reason is that one-pocket is not just a run-out game, so it doesn't look "too easy" even when Efren plays. In 8-ball, you get a shot, you're supposed to run out, and top pros usually do. And normally, you don't have the opportunity to do something great, your only choices are to screw up or not to screw up. Every now and then there will be a layout that really tests the abilities of top pros, but most of the time it's routine. So you have to play for a long time in order to accumulate enough situations where the skill distinction between top-level players really makes a difference. And, at the same time, you have this dry break issue where a huge amount of luck is injected into every rack. And yes, some players break better than others and you can practice breaking etc., but there's still a ton of luck there.

In one-pocket, most of the time, the outcome of a particular shot or inning isn't as black and white. It's more of a continuous spectrum with respect to how well you hit a particular shot. You can hit it terrible and sell out, you can hit it OK and survive, you can hit it good and lock the other guy up and develop a ball, or you can come with an incredible shot and turn the whole game in your favor, etc. And even if you don't play a flamboyant style, making slightly better shots than your opponent on a consistent basis will make you come out ahead in a relatively short amount of time. Almost every time you come to the table, there's a chance to display the extra skill you have. In 8-ball (and 9-ball), opportunities to really demonstrate world-class skill are more rare.

 

[Renegade]

contains what people perceive as an element of 'luck', hence 'the lucky roll or bounce', but when it is examined in the most elemental step by step structure, the reaction of such is exactly because of the way the initial action generated it to be.

Did Manalo break the way on the last game the way he did on the other games or not? Maybe he was keyed up, and put just a little more power into the break knowing the last game decided the match, and did not hit the head ball where he had in prevvious breaks, or had too much english on the break?
There are numerous reasons why he could have come up dry. Even breaking exactly the same way, but with a slightly different speed can make a difference. I know in lots of matches I play that go hill-to-hill, I have to have a little talk with myself before I break the last game, telling myself not to overpower the break, and making sure I strike the cueball exactly where I want to.

You can say it is luck all you want, but it is really a reaction from the defined action that generated it to begin with. Overall, I would say there 'runout' capabilities were very even, but Hohmann's breaking mechanics were better and more consistent than Manalos, and CONSISTENCY is the name of the game for excellence to be achieved in Pool.

IMHO, I don't think Hohmann was superior to Manalo or the other way around. The final score showed that they were mostly even, and on the hill someone has to win and someone has to lose. It could have gone either way. So if luck was even a factor, it was only miniscule. A longer finals match would have put every doubt to rest.

Yes, their styles are different, but I think their record throughout the entire tournament would show that they were mostly even in every regard. And I think this is a testament to the appropriateness of the tournament format.

 

[tedkaufman]

IMHO, I don't think Hohmann was superior to Manalo or the other way around. The final score showed that they were mostly even, and on the hill someone has to win and someone has to lose. It could have gone either way. So if luck was even a factor, it was only miniscule. A longer finals match would have put every doubt to rest.

Yes, their styles are different, but I think their record throughout the entire tournament would show that they were mostly even in every regard. And I think this is a testament to the appropriateness of the tournament format.

I agree completely. And emphatically with needing a longer final. It was silly to have these guys grind through 12 hour days of competition, only to reach a final decided by a race to 8. It should have been at least a race to 15 or best of 2 sets, race to 8.

Anyway, it was a wonderful tournament. It's great to see this kind of buzz throughout the billiard world.

 

[LAMas]

In round 6 Holman beat Manallo 8 to 1 due to Manallo's inability to make a ball on the break. So in the Finals, Manallo improved his break - did he change something or was it the table?