Fargo on Bar boxes

[Rocket354]

Yes. For this to be satisfied for SVB and Fedor playing bar-box 8-ball, they's need to be flipping a coin for each break. That would make the events (games) independent. For two games as independent events you have, from SVB's perspective
P(WW) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
P(LL) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
P(WL) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
P(LW) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
As a result you have 0-2 a quarter of the time, 2-0 a quarter of the time, and 1-1 half the time

Depends on your definition of A and B. I view them as P(Shane wins given he breaks) and P(Shane wins given he does not break) since those are the only two options in most any race. In winner- or loser-break format the probability of winning a given game is dependent on the previous games. In alternate-breaks, it is not.

For winner breaks, alternate breaks, and loser breaks, the games are not independent events for these runout players. For winner breaks and loser breaks you get almost all 0-2 and 2-0 scores. For alternate breaks you get almost all 1-1 scores.

Small nitpick, but I suspect you meant to say that loser-breaks would result in almost all 1-1 scores.

I see what you are saying that the probability of winning game 3 doesn't depend on the OUTCOME of game 1, But game 1 and game 3 are correlated here. The likelihood is high you either win both or lose both

Agreed.

Yes, this is exactly my point.

...then handicapping races based on Fargo is very dependent on table size, whereas I was led previously to believe that Fargo is somehow indifferent to table sizes. If I want to handicap a race to any number n then to do so accurately I need to know the table size. Likewise, as we previously discussed, if I want to handicap a race it would also very much depend on what game the players are playing, for example 9b vs 1p.

I am not sure what you are referring to here. But if you find an example, I will happily concede. I am not wedded to any particular analogy or explanation. I want them to be right and helpful. If they are missing one of those, I will abandon them.

I think the breakdown comes from not having a clear definition of how Fargo is useful and how it should be used. Is Fargo indifferent to table sizes and the specific pool game being played? Or is it not?

 

[SSP]

It depends on your skill set. If you have precise control, smaller is better. If a top players had to bet he could run a six-pack in 100 breaks, and could choose the table size, he would pick the bar table.

How about this 18-pack?

I would compare this to Jason Shaw's 832 ball 14.1 run, that was a great run but not something that he does everyday, Bergman is a great player and I'm not knocking him in anyway, I've watched a lot of pro's play on barbox tables and there are a lot of break and runs but I see a lot of those on 9ft tables as well .

 

[InsertCleverNameHere]

Breaking up clusters requires a different skill set, you must know and get proper position to make the object ball AND break the cluster AND leave yourself with proper position to continue the run while navigating this in tight spaces, people who run racks on a bar box have superior cue ball control.

One feeds the other. Striking the cueball well and thus the object ball opens the door to the precision required to handle clusters and tight spaces. Does every great shot maker do it at the same level? Of course not. But the first step to that control starts with precise hits on the object ball soooooo

 

[mikepage]

...then handicapping races based on Fargo is very dependent on table size, whereas I was led previously to believe that Fargo is somehow indifferent to table sizes. If I want to handicap a race to any number n then to do so accurately I need to know the table size.

No. If 3-5 is an even race on 9-foot, it is an even race on 7-foot as well. This issue is just about the distribution of scores.

 

[SSP]

One feeds the other. Striking the cueball well and thus the object ball opens the door to the precision required to handle clusters and tight spaces. Does every great shot maker do it at the same level? Of course not. But the first step to that control starts with precise hits on the object ball soooooo

Two different animals, you can pocket balls well but not have precise control where the cue ball lands, one skill does not mean you will have the other both must be worked on as they are 2 different skill sets.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Two different animals, you can pocket balls well but not have precise control where the cue ball lands, one skill does not mean you will have the other both must be worked on as they are 2 different skill sets.

They are the exact same skill set. Hitting the ball clean into the pocket means the CB goes where you expect.

Read what Nick Varner wrote about Buddy Hall's position play in the words he wrote about him when Buddy died.

 

[Bob Jewett]

They are the exact same skill set. Hitting the ball clean into the pocket means the CB goes where you expect. ...

I know a league player who has no interest in playing position. He is a very good ball pocketer. He shoots and then looks around for the next shot. He has no expectation of where the cue ball might end up. (APA 5)

Also, there are a lot of players who will decide to put the cue ball on spot X and then do it, but the only way the cue ball could have gotten there was to miss the object ball and that's what they did. Often heard: "But I got perfect position."

I agree that the shot cannot be completely planned until both the pocketing (aiming) and position (spin/speed) are decided, but there are a lot of players who frequently do only one of those.

 

[boogieman]

I know a league player who has no interest in playing position. He is a very good ball pocketer. He shoots and then looks around for the next shot. He has no expectation of where the cue ball might end up. (APA 5)

Also, there are a lot of players who will decide to put the cue ball on spot X and then do it, but the only way the cue ball could have gotten there was to miss the object ball and that's what they did. Often heard: "But I got perfect position."

I agree that the shot cannot be completely planned until both the pocketing (aiming) and position (spin/speed) are decided, but there are a lot of players who frequently do only one of those.

It makes me sick the amount of times I get pinpoint position and miss the OB. I got so sick of it that I wrote a hand written no in sharpie on a piece of notebook paper and taped it to my wall. I read it before I play every time.

The note says:

Cueball control or shotmaking?

THEY ARE THE SAME THING!!!

I knew this but it didn't really sink in until watching old straight pool matches. One of my favorites is Jim Rempe and Allen Hopkins. Watching the way they control the CB is pretty enlightening. Once they get an "easy shot" they make every shot easy from that point onward. I was so used to missing balls that I just went for shape within 2'-3' of ideal. You can beat bangers like this but eventually it's not precise enough when playing better players.