European Open 2025, Sarajevo, March 11-16

The_JV said:
Sample size, sample size, sample size.... ad nauseum.

Anyone that thinks two tippity top pros aren't continually going near hill/hill in an alternate break format, need to remove their noses from their calculators. ...
Click to expand...

It turns out that winner breaks and alternate breaks give the same chance for the better player to win the match. It has nothing to do with observation or sample size, it is pure probability theory.

This assumes that psychology doesn't play a part in the outcome. I think it's better to keep psychology out of it because you can argue on both sides whether one format helps or hurts a particular player based on his attitude/mindset.

That the break format doesn't affect match-win probabilities is quite an amazing result.
 
sudocrushms said:
This is why I like the new race to 3 sets of 4 format with winner break in each set. Gives players equal chances to run a pack and stop the bleeding in the overall match. Players trading blows is fun to watch.
Click to expand...
I really like the format as well... short race but I'd stretch it out to 5. No shootout, but tie break similar to pro tennis majors with a mash up of winner/alt breaks.
 
The_JV said:
I really like the format as well... short race but I'd stretch it out to 5. No shootout, but tie break similar to pro tennis majors with a mash up of winner/alt breaks.
Click to expand...
I think I've only seen that format for 10b, but would certainly expect the sets to be a game or 2 longer for 9b since the games go so much quicker.
It also give more logical times for breaks instead of a random time during a longer race. A couple shorter breaks are probably better for the players too.
The_JV said:
...and your odds of winning the lottery are nearly the same if you choose not to buy a ticket
Click to expand...
Your odds of finding a winning ticket on the ground are probably functionally as good as buying one.
 
Bob Jewett said:
It turns out that winner breaks and alternate breaks give the same chance for the better player to win the match. It has nothing to do with observation or sample size, it is pure probability theory.

This assumes that psychology doesn't play a part in the outcome. I think it's better to keep psychology out of it because you can argue on both sides whether one format helps or hurts a particular player based on his attitude/mindset.

That the break format doesn't affect match-win probabilities is quite an amazing result.
Click to expand...
Some players like Keith fed off the momentum and I’d say in his case winner breaks is a big edge for his personality. Some players I agree they have the same chance.

But the “play the rush” types I think winner breaks is a edge for them

Best
Fatboy

Hope your trip was/is going well😃
 
Fatboy said:
But the “play the rush” types I think winner breaks is a edge for them
Click to expand...
Of course... for someone like myself that can run out any rack, but is unlikely to put much a couple to a few together. Alt break is where it's at.

This holds true for top pros when you're facing guys that can string double digits together.
 
The_JV said:
Of course... for someone like myself that can run out any rack, but is unlikely to put much a couple to a few together. Alt break is where it's at.

This holds true for top pros when you're facing guys that can string double digits together.
Click to expand...
I suggest reading Bob Jewett's post #401 from a few hours ago.
 
The_JV said:
Of course... for someone like myself that can run out any rack, but is unlikely to put much a couple to a few together. Alt break is where it's at.

This holds true for top pros when you're facing guys that can string double digits together.
Click to expand...
I perfer to play alt break as I’m not a threat to sting together a package, I couldn’t ever break is why. So alt break is great for me to slow down the other player.

From a rail bird perspective (which is what I am now) I like winner break. It’s more fun to watch. But that’s just my take on it. Doesn’t make it right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAM
AtLarge said:
The semifinals were Filler d. Ko PY 11-1 and Kaçi d. Woodward 11-5.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. As I get older, these things have become a little harder to remember. Yes, so Filler, after a blowout win in the semis, got blown out by Kaci in the final ... quite probably Kaci's finest performance in a Matchroom major.
 
however yes the break whether winner or not gets it doesn't affect the outcome.

but that is when the break is relatively random as it should be. and it is for most players. and results reflect that.

except for those that learn the tricks to make it no longer random, and pocket a certain ball in a certain pocket consistency.
then those specific players can more easily string out a set for the win.

as they then can get more breaks during the game and on their break since they get to make a ball most times, and are playing for 8 balls instead of 9 balls. which also means a more open table to boot.
 
maha said:
however yes the break whether winner or not gets it doesn't affect the outcome.

but that is when the break is relatively random as it should be. and it is for most players. and results reflect that.

except for those that learn the tricks to make it no longer random, and pocket a certain ball in a certain pocket consistency.
then those specific players can more easily string out a set for the win.

as they then can get more breaks during the game and on their break since they get to make a ball most times, and are playing for 8 balls instead of 9 balls. which also means a more open table to boot.
Click to expand...

This is the situation that people analyze incorrectly. Yes if player A figures out the break and player B doesn't, player A wins both more games and more sets.

But player A wins the SAME number of sets whether it is winner or alternate breaks. This is the hard part for people to wrap their heads around. How can this be true when player A breaks more and thus wins more games with winner breaks?
How can this be true when player A can string racks and run out the set with winner breaks?

The secret is understanding that TWO things change switching from alternate to winner breaks, and our minds see one of them and are blind to the other. Yes, player A breaks more and consequently wins more games with winner breaks. But the other thing that changes is the DISTRIBUTION OF SET SCORES. More of player A's set wins are blowouts with winner breaks and fewer have close scores. So player A needs to win more games just to win the same number of sets. The set wins are the same--alternate or winner breaks.
 
I was sitting with Buddy Hall at the 2005 Carolinas Open in Goldsboro, NC, and this break topic came up about winner breaks. His thoughts at that time would be loser breaks would level the playing field. I'm sure that's not a popular opinion, by many, but this was coming from someone who does have a bit of wisdom when it comes to pool, especially 9-ball.
 
maha said:
however yes the break whether winner or not gets it doesn't affect the outcome.

but that is when the break is relatively random as it should be. and it is for most players. and results reflect that.

except for those that learn the tricks to make it no longer random, and pocket a certain ball in a certain pocket consistency.
then those specific players can more easily string out a set for the win.

as they then can get more breaks during the game and on their break since they get to make a ball most times, and are playing for 8 balls instead of 9 balls. which also means a more open table to boot.
Click to expand...
It does "appear" to me that players get their break more in the groove under the winner break format. An analysis would have to be done of course, but my intuition tells me that on break #1, the breaker has X percent chance of pocketing the 1 in the side. Then on consecutive break #2 that percentage increases and continues to increase as their consecutive breaks increases. The flip side is, if player B is sitting in their chair for 20 minutes, they are less likely to step to the table and have their break dialed in.

I guess the same argument could be made for just about any shot a player approaches after sitting for a while. For this reason, I think alternate breaks leads to a better overall played match. Oh well though, because I guess I'll always prefer winner breaks for the pros as long as the match length is long enough.

The break is once again growing in importance and will continue to be the thorn in the side of this game. I would like to see them go back to cue ball behind the line on a scratch after the break, maybe even with spotting made balls or moving balls in the kitchen. Maybe just keep it simple and cue ball behind the line. With the cut break, the scratch in the side happens quite a bit and the penalty is practically loss of rack. Cue ball in the kitchen would add some variety to the game.
 
JAM said:
I was sitting with Buddy Hall at the 2005 Carolinas Open in Goldsboro, NC, and this break topic came up about winner breaks. His thoughts at that time would be loser breaks would level the playing field. I'm sure that's not a popular opinion, by many, but this was coming from someone who does have a bit of wisdom when it comes to pool, especially 9-ball.
Click to expand...
Here again, when there is a break advantage, loser breaks gets rid of the blowout set scores and enhances the numerically close set scores. This gets misinterpreted as the field being leveled. But the actual chance of winning the set doesn't change.

This is a "playing a set" phenomenon, like in a tournament or gambling with races to whatever. It's a different situation if you are playing by the game. Then the break format matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAM
BasementDweller said:
The break is once again growing in importance and will continue to be the thorn in the side of this game. I would like to see them go back to cue ball behind the line on a scratch after the break, maybe even with spotting made balls or moving balls in the kitchen. Maybe just keep it simple and cue ball behind the line. With the cut break, the scratch in the side happens quite a bit and the penalty is practically loss of rack. Cue ball in the kitchen would add some variety to the game.
Click to expand...
The game needs to be as simple as possible to attract fans, I'd argue. And it can't be made complicated at the break itself. Even the push is hard to understand for newbies.

The problem with spotting the ball in the kitchen after a scratch on the break is the other player might not have a look at the next lowest ball. He might have to do a tough safety or push. Punishment, almost.

The player would have to have a choice of giving the ball back to the original breaker who scratched, but again, this would be complicating the event at the very start of each game.

Players take risks with cut breaks to get a ball in. The risk is a scratch and ball in hand for the other guy.
 
jbart65 said:
The game needs to be as simple as possible to attract fans, I'd argue. And it can't be made complicated at the break itself. Even the push is hard to understand for newbies.

The problem with spotting the ball in the kitchen after a scratch on the break is the other player might not have a look at the next lowest ball. He might have to do a tough safety or push. Punishment, almost.

The player would have to have a choice of giving the ball back to the original breaker who scratched, but again, this would be complicating the event at the very start of each game.

Players take risks with cut breaks to get a ball in. The risk is a scratch and ball in hand for the other guy.
Click to expand...
Of course they understand the risk. I just think the punishment is too drastic, and simplifies the game too much. People often underestimate the fan's intellect. Yeah I said it -- we underestimate the fans. 9 ball may be the simplest game in the entire world to understand. Yet where are the viewers? All the major sports are exponentially more complicated, with their nuanced rules that have evolved over the decades. Yet pool fans think the average viewer couldn't learn a handful of rules.
 
mikepage said:
Here again, when there is a break advantage, loser breaks gets rid of the blowout set scores and enhances the numerically close set scores. This gets misinterpreted as the field being leveled. But the actual chance of winning the set doesn't change.

This is a "playing a set" phenomenon, like in a tournament or gambling with races to whatever. It's a different situation if you are playing by the game. Then the break format matters.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I just thought I would add to the thread about Hall of Famer Buddy Hall's opinion on the topic. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top