I may have a solution to the racking problems!

[PocketPoint]

How about this:

Rack your own, but you get a time limit such as 10 or 15 seconds. If you don't have them racked by that time, you forfeit the break.

This way a player won't have the time to mess with the rack.

The only problem is enforcing the time limit.

 

[Roger Long]

How about this:

Rack your own, but you get a time limit such as 10 or 15 seconds. If you don't have them racked by that time, you forfeit the break.

This way a player won't have the time to mess with the rack.

The only problem is enforcing the time limit.

Isn't it funny how any "solution" to any problem, always creates a new problem?

Roger

 

[Dropped84GMC]

Or maybe just have a third party rack it?

 

[bigfred]

How about spotting the nine after every break? Nine does not count on the break. Would solve a lot of issues.

 

[PoolBum]

How about this:

Rack your own, but you get a time limit such as 10 or 15 seconds. If you don't have them racked by that time, you forfeit the break.

This way a player won't have the time to mess with the rack.

The only problem is enforcing the time limit.

How about 3 seconds and we shoot you in the foot if you're not done?

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

How about spotting the nine after every break? Nine does not count on the break. Would solve a lot of issues.

That solves some of it, but perhaps the bigger issues relate to wiring a ball on the break and pattern racking.

The most simple solution would be to rack ten ball with the nine in the money ball position and then take the 10 ball off the table once the balls come to rest. If the 10 ball went in on the break it counts as a ball made and the breaker continues his inning.

 

[Neil]

............

 

[stljohnny]

If you are so worried about a ball being wired to a hole, all you have to do is move the rack off the spot to another location. But, then, that wouldn't really be the same game, would it??

I really don't understand why everyone has such a problem with the rack, saying it is broken, ect. The PROS only break and run out 30% of the time. Is that really a problem?? If they were doing it 80-90% of the time, then there might be a problem, but, as a rule, they don't.

Everyone wants to see big packages, but as soon as someone starts one, everyone wants to complain about it. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Even Donny Mills in his match against Shane V.B., Don made what, a ball on the break 84 or so times in a row. Now, Donny is no slouch at the table, but, even with the break, how many times did he run out?? And, he STILL lost! What's that say about the break?? It's important for sure, but there is a lot more to the game than just the break.

+1 *tap tap* this really should be the end-all to this entire racking crap the last few weeks.

 

[PoolBum]

I really don't understand why everyone has such a problem with the rack, saying it is broken, ect. The PROS only break and run out 30% of the time. Is that really a problem?? If they were doing it 80-90% of the time, then there might be a problem, but, as a rule, they don't.

Are you questioning whether or not running out from the break 30% of the time versus, say, 10% of the time, would have any effect on the outcome of a match?

Also, the 30% stat is for before the break (although I think the ~30% state is for the top B&R %'s among the pros) . The B&R % will be higher if the breaker is guaranteed to make the wing ball on the break.

 

[Neil]

..............

 

[Aaron_S]

If you are so worried about a ball being wired to a hole, all you have to do is move the rack off the spot to another location. But, then, that wouldn't really be the same game, would it??

I really don't understand why everyone has such a problem with the rack, saying it is broken, ect. The PROS only break and run out 30% of the time. Is that really a problem?? If they were doing it 80-90% of the time, then there might be a problem, but, as a rule, they don't.

Everyone wants to see big packages, but as soon as someone starts one, everyone wants to complain about it. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Even Donny Mills in his match against Shane V.B., Don made what, a ball on the break 84 or so times in a row. Now, Donny is no slouch at the table, but, even with the break, how many times did he run out?? And, he STILL lost! What's that say about the break?? It's important for sure, but there is a lot more to the game than just the break.

Tap tap. And the B&R percentages haven't changed much since all of this rack reading business started, either. If you watch this match from 1993:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkbB_r1GBDU

you will notice that Scott racks the balls, walks away, and then the player breaks. There is no minute inspection of the rack and requests for re-racks. I think this is how it should be when there is a neutral racker. During the US Open commentary it was mentioned that Pat Flemming will often concede the break in a hill-hill match, because, statistically speaking, the non-breaking player wins more often at hill-hill.

If the issue is gaps in the rack, then I think the magic rack is an acceptable solution. It has a few flaws, sure, but it's the only rack I'm aware of that can overcome the flaws in a table that cause it to rack bad.

If the issue is randomness in the rack, then I think the solution is to change the rules. IMO, the word "random" should have never been in the rules in the first place, because there is no test that can prove or disprove randomness. It would have been better to just say that the other 7 balls must be racked in numeric order from top to bottom - everybody plays the same pattern; that would be fair, if a bit boring. Of course, in this day in age there's always a computer around (pda phones, etc), so one could conceivably write a program that would generate racks based on a random number generator. At the start of each game, the program would spit out a racking order for that rack.

Aaron

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

If the issue is randomness in the rack, then I think the solution is to change the rules. IMO, the word "random" should have never been in the rules in the first place, because there is no test that can prove or disprove randomness. It would have been better to just say that the other 7 balls must be racked in numeric order from top to bottom - everybody plays the same pattern; that would be fair, if a bit boring.

Aaron

The word random appears only in the BCAPL league rules. The World Standardized rules do not refer to random at all but are rather more clear about it.

Rule 2.2 states:

2.2 Nine Ball Rack
The object balls are racked as tightly as possible in a diamond shape, with the one ball at the apex of the diamond and on the foot spot and the nine ball in the middle of the diamond. The other balls will be placed in the diamond without purposeful or intentional pattern.

All this talk I hear on here about whether mathematically randomness can be achieved etc. is just BS. For instance, say my favorite color is red so I will tend to grab the 3 ball first and it therefore will more often end up towards the front of the rack near the one ball. Even though theoretically it may not be truly random, it is not against the rules because it is inadvertent. It is not done purposefully or intentionally.

The rule is about purposely racking the balls in positions that give you an advantage.

Even if the rule (such as the BCAPL rule) does say random, we all know what it is really about and it's not about achieving some unobtainable theoretical randomness, it is about intentionally pattern racking to gain an unfair (against the rules) advantage over your opponent. That's a nice way of saying cheating.

A purely professional event is somewhat of a different dog. Even if the event is being played by WPA rules, if all the players are doing it and they all know all the others are and don't protest, so be it. Pool is played at match play and players are not competing against the field. Refs are typically not overseeing every match and therefore players have the responsibility to report any infractions they have a problem with in a timely manner. But when the last day comes and the ref comes in to rack the balls, there shouldn't be any whining either.

I disagree that it doesn't matter for us lesser players that seldom B&R. In an amateur tournament if someone is pattern racking, that one rack that it helps them get out can make the difference in a match. No one is saying pattern racking gives one an insurmountable advantage. It's an edge is all. But it can and does make a difference often enough. I've heard many claim pattern racking doesn't matter, citing B&R percentages and so forth, but no one has been able to explain why are all the pros doing it then. I'm still waiting for an answer to that one.

 

[bobroberts]

The word random appears only in the BCAPL league rules. The World Standardized rules do not refer to random at all but are rather more clear about it.

Rule 2.2 states:

I disagree that it doesn't matter for us lesser players that seldom B&R. In an amateur tournament if someone is pattern racking, that one rack that it helps them get out can make the difference in a match. No one is saying pattern racking gives one an insurmountable advantage. It's an edge is all. But it can and does make a difference often enough. I've heard many claim pattern racking doesn't matter, citing B&R percentages and so forth, but no one has been able to explain why are all the pros doing it then. I'm still waiting for an answer to that one.

The pro's believe that pattern racking helps but its just a psychological thing.
No different then amateurs. imho.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

The pro's believe that pattern racking helps but its just a psychological thing.
No different then amateurs. imho.

I suppose the debate over whether the advantage is real or imagined will rage on. Personally, I believe anyone that says there is no advantage is either fooling themselves or not being honest. Nonetheless, advantage or not it is against the rules. A player that will knowingly break the rules for any edge, including for what they perceive as nothing more than a psychological edge, is weak of character imho.

 

[onepocket1]

imho - The time taken to rack is ruining the game and the major problem to be overcome. A time limit and the 9 does not count in the lower pockets (spot it up ) would fix this problem. The time limit is Pat Flemming's solution.

 

[Geometry]

How about this:

Rack your own, but you get a time limit such as 10 or 15 seconds. If you don't have them racked by that time, you forfeit the break.

This way a player won't have the time to mess with the rack.

The only problem is enforcing the time limit.

I agree that as you racked and tried this out you might have thought it was a good idea but as you think about it now, you are realising that it's a bad idea and is full of flaws.

 

[Zbotiman]

"Really, I mean your not kidding?"

Of course it would have an effect. What I'm saying is, the TOP players are only doing 30% of the time. What do you think the stats would actually be for the rest of us??

Here's something for you to mull over, might give you a headache like it did me.--

We all think the break is a huge advantage. And, when spotting someone, the break is the last thing we want to give up. I'm the same way. Now, the supposed stats state that the breaker loses more games than he wins. Try an wrap your head around that for a little while.

Also, how many times have you seen a real good player give up the breaks and the 5 or 6 to pretty decent players, and still win? I have a number of times. Why do you think they are willing to do that?? Maybe because they know that the breaker will not run out over 50% of the time. That means, they get to the table the majority of games, and have the skill to turn the game to their advantage, or to an outright win.

We have all been told so many times how important the break is, and that the whole game depends on the break, that we are actually starting to believe it. It's important, for sure, but only one shot of the game.

I'm one that never wants to give up the break. But, last year I really learned something in a weekly tournament. Guys that I would only give the 8 to for the cash, I suddenly now had to give them the 7 & the snaps! (handicapping was ridiculous IMO) It actually made a pretty even game, but as the weeks went by, I was finding I still had the best of it. And, some of them were likely to put a 3 pack down on you. But, most breaks they either wouldn't make a ball, or have no shot after the break. That was when I could take over control.

I still won't give up the break, even though I "know" it's not as big a deal as I thought it was. Part of the reason I won't, is I don't like having to wait for a screwup to get a chance to shoot in EVERY rack. I like to put a package together if I can. But, they really don't happen all that often.

....just want to make sure what I'm reading here,"the break isn't that important?" Among top pro's, what is it that you think makes the difference playing 9-ball? The break is an advantage, if you've done your due diligence and learned, always! It's the first shot for goodness sake in an offensive game. The B&R stats only are factoring in a small percentage of the advantages the first break offers. If nothing else, it's the first opportunity to decide how to execute your will upon your opponent! I like the fact that your selling this to a playing populous on one side of it, but it really isn't to be taken seriously that the break isn't an enormous advantage among pro's.

 

[Neil]

................

 

[Aaron_S]

The word random appears only in the BCAPL league rules. The World Standardized rules do not refer to random at all but are rather more clear about it.

Rule 2.2 states:



All this talk I hear on here about whether mathematically randomness can be achieved etc. is just BS. For instance, say my favorite color is red so I will tend to grab the 3 ball first and it therefore will more often end up towards the front of the rack near the one ball. Even though theoretically it may not be truly random, it is not against the rules because it is inadvertent. It is not done purposefully or intentionally.

The rule is about purposely racking the balls in positions that give you an advantage.

Even if the rule (such as the BCAPL rule) does say random, we all know what it is really about and it's not about achieving some unobtainable theoretical randomness, it is about intentionally pattern racking to gain an unfair (against the rules) advantage over your opponent. That's a nice way of saying cheating.

A purely professional event is somewhat of a different dog. Even if the event is being played by WPA rules, if all the players are doing it and they all know all the others are and don't protest, so be it. Pool is played at match play and players are not competing against the field. Refs are typically not overseeing every match and therefore players have the responsibility to report any infractions they have a problem with in a timely manner. But when the last day comes and the ref comes in to rack the balls, there shouldn't be any whining either.

I disagree that it doesn't matter for us lesser players that seldom B&R. In an amateur tournament if someone is pattern racking, that one rack that it helps them get out can make the difference in a match. No one is saying pattern racking gives one an insurmountable advantage. It's an edge is all. But it can and does make a difference often enough. I've heard many claim pattern racking doesn't matter, citing B&R percentages and so forth, but no one has been able to explain why are all the pros doing it then. I'm still waiting for an answer to that one.

Nice post! I didn't realize the wording was different in the WSR, but it seems that the problem persists of there not being a test to determine if a rack was put together "without purpose". If player A likes 1 pattern and player B likes a different one, but the rule is that neither player can rack their pattern, then you are bringing each individual player into the equation, which doesn't seem ideal to me. I think ideally you should be able to look at a rack (regardless of who racked it or who is breaking) and determine if it is a legal rack or not. Neither set of rules accomplishes that.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I posted this on another thread. I copied it and pasted it here. It seems that it is most applicable here under "solution".

There has been no simple method found that simultaneously protects the integrity of the front end of our games and keeps the “ball on the break requirement”. Keep the ball and you own all the garbage that goes along with it.

I have a second suggestion. Just get it out in the open and let everyone do what ever they want to do. Everyone brings their own personal racking gadget of preference (Magic, Sardo, Delta, etc.), pattern rack, rack your own, finger and finagle the balls, go above or below the spot, twist the rack, no rack checking, break and go. Make it all legal. This is better and more honest than what is happening now.