statistical illusions
I think that when the statistics were run, it would have been based on a random rack. I would highly suspect that if Earl really did run all those racks, it was likely that the rack was set in a specific or fairly similar order every time and that the order lent itself toward a more consistent outcome on every break.
I've seen several telivised tournaments where a third party racking the balls did it in the same order every time.
Under those conditions, it would be easy to calculate where each ball would likely end up with a consistent break and therefore much easier to run. You would find yourself essentially playing the same rack several times in a row with a few variations here and there.
If these conditions existed, then the idea that the odds were anywhere close to 6-7 million to one is ridiculous. If you are essentially playing the same lay-out after the break just about every time, then the only statistic that carries significant weight is the odds of making a ball on the break 15 times in a row.
I would say that if you are really familiar with the table and can put the 1 ball in the side with a fair degree of consistency then it's possible that a competent player might acomplish this feat under the conditions above 2 or 3 times over a 30 year carrer....assuming that every attempt was a race to 15.
Imagine that you racked the balls the same way every time and used the same break every time and got a similar result nearly every time. If you played the same rack over and over again 1000 times, how often do you think you would find yourself consistently running 5 or more consecutive racks?
The only thing you'd have to practice is putting the 1 ball in the side pocket....everything else is predetermined by the stacked rack.
I think that when the statistics were run, it would have been based on a random rack. I would highly suspect that if Earl really did run all those racks, it was likely that the rack was set in a specific or fairly similar order every time and that the order lent itself toward a more consistent outcome on every break.
I've seen several telivised tournaments where a third party racking the balls did it in the same order every time.
Under those conditions, it would be easy to calculate where each ball would likely end up with a consistent break and therefore much easier to run. You would find yourself essentially playing the same rack several times in a row with a few variations here and there.
If these conditions existed, then the idea that the odds were anywhere close to 6-7 million to one is ridiculous. If you are essentially playing the same lay-out after the break just about every time, then the only statistic that carries significant weight is the odds of making a ball on the break 15 times in a row.
I would say that if you are really familiar with the table and can put the 1 ball in the side with a fair degree of consistency then it's possible that a competent player might acomplish this feat under the conditions above 2 or 3 times over a 30 year carrer....assuming that every attempt was a race to 15.
Imagine that you racked the balls the same way every time and used the same break every time and got a similar result nearly every time. If you played the same rack over and over again 1000 times, how often do you think you would find yourself consistently running 5 or more consecutive racks?
The only thing you'd have to practice is putting the 1 ball in the side pocket....everything else is predetermined by the stacked rack.
