How much luck is in pool?

[billy]

I just watched this interview with Pagulayan and at the question "which is harder pool or poker" Alex responded that are the same because in both game you need skill and luck. This reply can lead a non pool person to think that in pool luck plays the same big factor as in poker ( which I think is clearly bs.). Now, do you really think luck play such a big factor in pool? I'm also interested in a distinction between 9ball/10ball, straight pool and one pocket.
Bye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYjH0xMw70 (1:25)

Alex is an exceptional pool player. So I think his grip on luck in either is completely misunderstood

You might see an excellent pool player that can play cards well but not nearly as many excellent poker players will be able to hold a cue much less win at it. The skill difference in pool compared to poker would be huge, no comparison

This would be a rediculous statement coming from others but not from Alex because he is already an accomplished pool player

jmo

 

[Diamond69]

I've heard this a few times in my life .The better the player the luckier he is.
Is that a true statement.I think so.I think skill is somewhat involved with luck.

8pack, I agree completely. The better you are enables you to make your own luck.

IMO your luck, good or bad, is based on how good you are. This is when YOU are at the table. If you are good, you don't get those "bad" rolls as often because you're good enough to not put yourself in that position most of the time. When your opponent is at the table, if he hooks you on accident, it is his good fortune, not your bad luck.

 

[ShootingArts]

excellent message here

"luck" is a scapegoat. Example "i was unlucky because i scratched on the 8" So instead of taking responsibility for hitting the ball bad and scratching, i blamed the scratch on "bad luck".

My mindset is that there is no luck in pool after the break. If somebody I am playing tends to get lucky rolls they are playing a style that causes rolls, lucky and unlucky. Some people play high variance styles of poker, some low variance styles. Either style can be a winning or losing style.

Too often we use other people's good luck or our bad luck as an excuse. While the luck factor might have played a part, it plays a part such a small percentage of the time in pool that I prefer to ignore that tiny percentage and adopt the attitude there is no luck after the break. Taking responsibility for my results and assigning the responsibility for the results of all of their shots to the other player makes me a stronger player I believe.

Likewise, I prefer to ignore luck in poker. At 1.5 to 2% it isn't really a factor. When the other player hits his miracle out that needed two perfect cards to win, he went from a smaller pair than the cards in my set when he got the two perfect cards for quads on the turn and river, that isn't a bad beat or even luck, it is just the odds playing themselves out. Bites that I lost when I got the money in right but that doesn't mean I'll ever play differently because somebody might hit running cards to make quads. Had just this happen to me maybe a week ago. Saw a royal flush in another hand too. I folded after the flop when I didn't like the chances of a broadway straight or a flush when I was drawing to what could easily be a losing hand even if I made it. Somebody went bust on that hand.

Hu

 

[catpool9]

My mindset is that there is no luck in pool after the break. If somebody I am playing tends to get lucky rolls they are playing a style that causes rolls, lucky and unlucky. Some people play high variance styles of poker, some low variance styles. Either style can be a winning or losing style.

Too often we use other people's good luck or our bad luck as an excuse. While the luck factor might have played a part, it plays a part such a small percentage of the time in pool that I prefer to ignore that tiny percent.

Hu

In the game of pool a player makes his own luck , if that is what you want to call it, ( by his choice of shots,) if you play favorable rolls "For the Pocket" after contact ( as in the english's you use & power of your stroke) you will generally fair much better than just poke N hope shooting!

Most shots are 50/50 that you will get a fair saftey regardless of what you do, but you can make that margine of percent much higher Your Way if you pay much more attention to where the lay of the balls will be after the shot.



David Harcrow

 

[Goose1972]

pool like most sports has some luck, but for the most part the winner is whoever makes the least mistakes. Pool is like chess.

poker requires skill and knowledge but unless you are clairvoyent luck plays a tremendous part in it. Poker is like Backgammon.

i play checkers.

 

[ShootingArts]

something else to consider

I just watched this interview with Pagulayan and at the question "which is harder pool or poker" Alex responded that are the same because in both game you need skill and luck. This reply can lead a non pool person to think that in pool luck plays the same big factor as in poker ( which I think is clearly bs.). Now, do you really think luck play such a big factor in pool? I'm also interested in a distinction between 9ball/10ball, straight pool and one pocket.
Bye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYjH0xMw70 (1:25)

We have talked about skill and luck, pool and especially poker often comes down to heart. Going all in on air for your tournament life is tough, calling somebody's all in with a moderate hand even tougher. Likewise, heart more than who is the better or luckier player often determines the winner in pool.

Alex has tons of heart, a big part of why he is a winner in pool and poker. If we could quantify heart we might find that it is a far bigger factor than luck.

Hu

 

[ShootingArts]

I played checkers, then I played chess, then I played checkers

pool like most sports has some luck, but for the most part the winner is whoever makes the least mistakes. Pool is like chess.

poker requires skill and knowledge but unless you are clairvoyent luck plays a tremendous part in it. Poker is like Backgammon.

i play checkers.

I played checkers as one of the first games I ever played, probably the first board game. Then I played chess for years. Then I played checkers again.

Much to my surprise checkers was much harder than chess!

Hu

 

[Rocket354]

There is more luck in poker, and it isn't close. Poker over a given hand is 99% luck and over a given tournament is 95% luck. Pool is like 10% and 5% over a game and a tournament, respectively. In poker if you play a lot the luck evens out and the better players will come out ahead, but that takes a stupidly high number of hands, a number so high most people who've played poker never even come remotely close to reaching.

The tournament comparison is correct. Moneymaker won the WSOP getting damn lucky, and hasn't done squat since because he's a very mediocre player. A mediocre pool player will never, ever win the US open 9ball event. Maybe an "amateur" will but that's because this amateur will be the next top pro who's just coming into his own, meaning he's just as good as any top pro.

 

[elvicash]

Tom Kennedy, Gabe Owen, John Schmidt, Reed Pierce.

Definitely not amateurs, but not exactly world class 9 ballers either. I bet all those guys will tell you that they caught a few good rolls to get there.

I think you are funny. I bet these guys would say they played great and took advantage of the rolls when they got one but I doubt they thought they got lucky.

 

[elvicash]

Luck is obviously not as big a factor in those games as in 9 ball, but it is still there.

When you stick yourself to the stack but find a dead ball wired directly toward the corner, and you fire it in and run 50 more....is it lucky if that dead ball was the only shot you had?

The good player see that shot and runs the extra fifty. The great player sees a nearly dead ball and manipulates that shot to go and runs the 50 and out. Neither is luck it is just executing based on what you get. If you are going to call that luck then there is extreme luck in all sporting endeavors. I think this is a very negative way to look at the game.

 

[Jaday]

luck begins where skill ends. If you have no idea what is going to happen with the shot any positive or negative outcome could be perceived as luck.

 

[joelpope]

I think luck plays a part more in the rules being played. I remember when shots all had to be called. In short races, luck can play a bigger role in the outcome. Eliminating combo shots or ball in hand and calling every pocket reduces the times that a 3 beats a 9 in a match. People forget the good rolls they receive and obsess over the bad rolls that "cost them the match". Rolls go both ways in the long run.

My thoughts exactly... As farbas "luck" going both ways. Good and bad rolls, good and bad cards. I guess the "luck" is more about when they happen. Filling 2 pair for a boat when you didn't need the boat is not as memorable as filling the boat to win the hand. Ditto on a luck safety at critical end game.

All things considered, I would think that the random deal of a shuffled deck may have a little less luck involved than the table layout after a break but not by much because of the breakers abilityntomcontrol the cue ball to an extent.

 

[COREYGT1977]

Luck

THE LUCKIEST "B" PLAYER IN THE WORLD COULD NEVER BEAT
Tom Kennedy, Gabe Owen, John Schmidt, Reed Pierce
I SAY "B" PLAYER BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE LESS SKILLS

 

[billy]

Tom Kennedy, Gabe Owen, John Schmidt, Reed Pierce.

Definitely not amateurs, but not exactly world class 9 ballers either. I bet all those guys will tell you that they caught a few good rolls to get there.

three of the four players you named are US Open Champions

in my book they are world class players of pool

jmo

 

[ShootingArts]

a typical no limit holdem hand

Here is a fairly typical hand of no limit texas holdem. I wish I could use truth tables or a flow chart but I’m very rusty at both of those and lacking software so I’m going to try a narrative.

I’m in early middle position with the ace of clubs and the queen of hearts as my pocket cards. Good, not great but I’m going to play them this hand. I bump things to three big blinds, just routine I don’t want the big blind to limp in or the small blind to come in very cheaply or I won’t have a clue about their cards. The button, the dealer, is the man I’m interested in. He is a good player but very aggressive, maybe too aggressive for his own good. He just calls so he probably has some potential to his hand but nothing much. The small blind comes along and the big blind folds. The small blind is a pretty much fit or fold player and as expected folds after the flop. The flop has a jack and two low clubs in it, didn’t help me much but probably missed the dealer too. Like most aggressive players he is optomistic and if I check to him he is going to bet almost certainly 2/3 to 3/4 of the pot, too much for the math justifying a drawing hand continuing.

If he does that I have to call, raise, or fold and I don’t like any of those options so I bet, 1/2 pot. I’m not too far out of line drawing plus this is nasty sizing for a lot of reasons. One is it is a typical value bet size begging for a call if the flop helped me a bunch. Another thing is the minimum raise will put us across the committment threshold. There is little chance I will call a raise and even that will force him to strongly reconsider what I am probably holding. I am more likely to fold or shove. If I fold great, but if I call he is probably way behind with his middle pair. If I shove he faces a tough decision too, I’m either way ahead or way behind and bluffing, tough to decide which. He isn’t thrilled but he calls my bet. The hand isn’t going as planned and he is outside his comfort zone.

The turn is the king of clubs putting three clubs on the board and helping my straight. I have lots of outs now but more importantly both I and the other player know there is a possible club flush on the board and we both know he doesn’t have the ace of clubs. Bad news for me is that the king is a big part of the button’s range. He almost certainly didn’t have AK or KK the way he has played the hand but K-9 through K-Q is very possible as is a king with any suited card, he is a loose player on the button. The other player knows I am fairly aggressive too but I played this hand from an early weak position, I’m not likely to be holding two blanks and the king is very much part of my range also. I have a lot of outs including almost certainly the aces and maybe the queens and the button knows I play pretty tight especially from an early position. I quietly go all in. I’m not that far from 50-50 if he calls and he is at least 50-50 to fold meaning I have excellent odds of winning this hand right here. He is aggressive but not stupid.

I might have the flush, I might have a king, I might have the four cards to the flush or straight I have, I may have a set, I may have a bigger pair than his, and there is still one card to go. Many hands in my range have a much better chance of inproving than his hand does. I have just a little bigger stack than he does so although he thinks he may well be ahead at the moment the risk of continuing seems too great. He folds the better hand and we never know if the river would have improved my hand or his or the most likely result, a blank that helped neither of us.

Most hands play out similar to this, one player maneuvers the other(s) out of their comfort zone. The player(s) folding might think they are folding the better hand but the reward is no longer worth the risk. As always when the hand doesn’t go to showdown the winner might have had a monster hand, they may have had the weakest hand in poker. Skill, math, and heart were involved in this hand. One thing that wasn’t involved was luck.

Hu

 

[sfleinen]

I just watched this interview with Pagulayan and at the question "which is harder pool or poker" Alex responded that are the same because in both game you need skill and luck. This reply can lead a non pool person to think that in pool luck plays the same big factor as in poker ( which I think is clearly bs.). Now, do you really think luck play such a big factor in pool? I'm also interested in a distinction between 9ball/10ball, straight pool and one pocket.
Bye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYjH0xMw70 (1:25)

Slh:

Luck can't be legislated out of pool, even with "call shot" (ball/pocket nomination) rules. For example, even in 8-ball, 10-ball, and 14.1 (all three are call-shot games), if you call a ball into a pocket, and it doesn't go directly in, but bobbles-out, goes off a facing rail/cushion, and into the called pocket, that's a legal shot, because the nominated ball went into the nominated pocket. A pure lucky shot, but in the context of the rules, "it went."

In fact, even snooker has its share of luck. Do you know the very first televised 147 at a world's championship -- Cliff Thorburn's milestone 147 at the Snooker World's Championship in 1983 -- started off with an extremely lucky gaff shot?

Check this out:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vh2NOS9HH-w
(The lucky gaff shot is at 0:45 in this video.)

Cliff's subsequent 147 is a milestone in the annals of snooker, yet it was a lucky fluke that started it off. Should "luck" like this be legislated out of the game? I don't think so.

I would say luck plays a decreasing part in these games, in this specific descending order:

9-ball
8-ball
One Pocket
14.1
Snooker
Bank pool

Notice that I say that luck plays more of a role in one pocket than 14.1, because 14.1 is a consistency game over the long haul. It's entirely possible to gaff a shot in one pocket, and get "lucky" with the leave where your opponent is in serious trouble. Not likely with skilled one pocket opponents, but it does happen. Luck of this nature plays less in 14.1. Yes, it does happen -- the same sort of fluke experienced by Cliff Thorburn in snooker happens in 14.1 as well (with the proviso that 14.1 is a call-shot game, unlike snooker, so that the fluked ball has to go into the called pocket for the player to be able to continue his turn at the table). But because the pocketing in snooker is *so* precise, the precision involved with this kind of rare fluke more than overrides the "call shot" fluke-limiting nature of 14.1.

I think the one game that absolutely, without a doubt, minimizes luck to the barebones minimum, is Bank Pool. I'm a firm believer in that. Reason? It's a call shot game, where the proviso is that the shot must go in CLEAN! The bank has to happen exactly as you call, and cannot carom off of another ball into the pocket, nor combo into another ball, nor take an extra rail to get to the called pocket. If you call, say, "double cross-side," that shot better go across the table twice and into the called side pocket, cleanly, otherwise you lose your turn at the table. If that ball goes the called two rails, but then clips another ball on the way to the called side pocket, you lose your turn at the table -- even if the ball pockets in the called pocket.

That, to me, is probably the most profound minimization of luck I've ever seen in any pool game. And the best example of pure display of skill and execution in pocketing single shots in pool. Getting position after that perfectly-executed bank is also key to the game as well, for you need to continue your run to be able to have a chance at winning the game.

However, with as much as I love bank pool, my favorite two games are as my avatar says -- 14.1 and one pocket. My avatar pic says it all.

I hope that helps!
-Sean