If the #1 9-Ball Player Played the #50 Player...

K

kingwang

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What kind of odds would you give for the #50 player?

Basically, I'm asking how much skill difference there is between the best and the 50th best in the world in 9-Ball.

I personally believe there isn't much difference, and it would probably be 60/40 or maybe even closer to even. My friend disagrees and I just want to see what everybody else thinks.
 
kingwang said:
What kind of odds would you give for the #50 player?

Basically, I'm asking how much skill difference there is between the best and the 50th best in the world in 9-Ball.

I personally believe there isn't much difference, and it would probably be 60/40 or maybe even closer to even. My friend disagrees and I just want to see what everybody else thinks.
Click to expand...

We should talk games and balls not 60/40.
 
are you talking about gambling? if so the #1 and #50 are differient players when it comes to gambling as opposed to tournament style play.

Tournaments #1 = Mika
Gambling #1 = Orcullo (was reminded of Yang....so throw him there too)

#50.....i have no idea lol some one figure that out.


But for example i think orcullo would run over mika matched up for the $$$ in some good grind action, orcullo would grind mika to toothpaste. just my opinion
 
Last edited:
kingwang said:
What kind of odds would you give for the #50 player?

Basically, I'm asking how much skill difference there is between the best and the 50th best in the world in 9-Ball.

I personally believe there isn't much difference, and it would probably be 60/40 or maybe even closer to even. My friend disagrees and I just want to see what everybody else thinks.
Click to expand...

It can never be the same odds if there are always 2 different players. Too many things that factor in to consider.

Here are some examples....Tommy Kennedy beating Johnny Archer in the 1992 U.S. Open Championship is not as big an upset as Keith Thompson winning the 1970 Johnston City 9 Ball and All-Around titles. Kennedy and Thompson were both unheralded players. Neither was expected to do what they did. The fields of both tournaments were different, but asking them to do it all over again, Kennedy would be a huge favorite to replicate his victory vs having to bet again on Thompson duplicating his.

And besides all that, the very next week, the odds would change again.
Look how many "no name" players won something and then, they were no longer unranked. Prime example...there was a time in pool history when Earl was an unranked player. Who would have thought or picked him to win anything prior to him actually winning anything?

And after somebody DOES win, you have to figure out if they're the real deal or a one hit wonder.

I'd love to hear some great handicappers like Jay, Billy Incardona and Iba7467 chime in on this as well. Interesting to read their takes.
 
over time, #1 wins 90%


my personal litmus test when establishing levels in any game is that the next level up beats you 90% of the time, in pool, I believe the world's most elite players number around 25-40
 
even when looking at the money list there are alot of players that are not even on there....especially the asian/pinoy players. Parica, and Butsy are not on the list and effren is #29 lol.

so there are alot of players that are SUPER SPEED KILLERS in the top 50....its a pretty close field for sure. And again it very much depends on the format of the match.
 
Terry Ardeno said:
It can never be the same odds if there are always 2 different players. Too many things that factor in to consider.

Here are some examples....Tommy Kennedy beating Johnny Archer in the 1992 U.S. Open Championship is not as big an upset as Keith Thompson winning the 1970 Johnston City 9 Ball and All-Around titles. Kennedy and Thompson were both unheralded players. Neither was expected to do what they did. The fields of both tournaments were different, but asking them to do it all over again, Kennedy would be a huge favorite to replicate his victory vs having to bet again on Thompson duplicating his.

And besides all that, the very next week, the odds would change again.
Look how many "no name" players won something and then, they were no longer unranked. Prime example...there was a time in pool history when Earl was an unranked player. Who would have thought or picked him to win anything prior to him actually winning anything?

And after somebody DOES win, you have to figure out if they're the real deal or a one hit wonder.

I'd love to hear some great handicappers like Jay, Billy Incardona and Iba7467 chime in on this as well. Interesting to read their takes.
Click to expand...

Good logic, well put.

However for the purpose of the thread, I think we would be looking at the perennial 50ish ranked player, rather than someone on the rise. So kind of like the pool the equivalent of a journeyman fighter, but not necessarily a tomato can, which I suppose Tommy Kennedy or Keith Thompson would qualify as (the journeyman not the can).

I would say that that there is probably a big difference between these players otherwise he would be ranked higher. But then in 9 ball the difference in levels are smaller than in One Pocket or 14.1.
 
Presently, #1 is Mika and #50 is Pei Wei Chang.

In a set of any length (over 9 or 11), Pei Wei could get at least the 8-ball and get beaten regularly. Not to say the Pei Wei could never beat Mika - of course he can, but Mika is a much better player.

Side note: #46 is Ernesto Dominguez - who just beat Mika on Jan 9th in Spain.
 
Hmmm, you guys bring up some very good points.

Ok, to make it more specific, how about in a race to 9? Just a random matchup (as in you don't know if it is in a tourney or just action, you just know there are these two players playing)

If it's Pei Wei Chang vs Mika, how often do you think he would win?
What about #1s vs #50s in general?
 
kingwang said:
Hmmm, you guys bring up some very good points.

Ok, to make it more specific, how about in a race to 9? Just a random matchup (as in you don't know if it is in a tourney or just action, you just know there are these two players playing)

If it's Pei Wei Chang vs Mika, how often do you think he would win?
What about #1s vs #50s in general?
Click to expand...

It would depend on the table and the cloth. The biggest critiscm of Chang's game is his lack of stroke, but he is an excellent shotmaker.

I think he has a fair chance against Mika. Keep in mind he's won the World Games and has a silver medal in the 2004 World Championships. He led Alex Pagualyan 11-4 before Alex remembered that he was amazing.

Unfortunately these WPA rankings mean nothing. Raj Hundal is ranked 288th and we know that he can give Mika fits.
 
My opinion is there is very little skill difference. The 50th best player in the world is going to be a world class champion. I don't think the 1st player in the world can give him anything more than the last 2, or a game on the wire per race to 10.
 
CrownCityCorey said:
Presently, #1 is Mika and #50 is Pei Wei Chang.

In a set of any length (over 9 or 11), Pei Wei could get at least the 8-ball and get beaten regularly. Not to say the Pei Wei could never beat Mika - of course he can, but Mika is a much better player.
Click to expand...

You do not seem to know how good Chang is. He would be a World 9-ball champ if not for running into Alex on a mission after losing the last years final to Hohmann.

I would say atm Mika has the edge, but he is not going to spot Pei Wei Chang, and he is not going to be beating him "regularily", Pei Wei plays good enough to beat ANYONE in any given set and will win alot of sets, probably not a majority but in a big tournament when each plays the other I would say Pei Wei wins 4/10.

That list is a gong show anyhow. I will take

70 Ronnie Alcano
72 Roberto Gomez
72 Ramil Gallego
40 Dennis Orcullo

Over a slew of guys higher up. That list depends as much on playing the few events that get the ranking points as how well you play overall. Almost everyone from Taiwan does not play the US Open, one of the major ranking events that determines where you fall on that list.
 
Last edited:
donny mills said:
The rankings mean just a hair more than my sister beating me in a game of 9ball.
Click to expand...

There you go! The world rankings today are so arbitrary, with only certain tournaments counting for ranking points. Not that it's bad, just that it's a flawed system. Saying that, if you really could find the fifty best players in the world, the guy who is at the bottom of this group will still be an excellent player, like a Kiamco or a Gallego or a Schmidt. These bottom fifty players are quite capable of beating the number one ranked guy in a given match.

Unless his name is Wu. :grin-square:
 
top fifty?

I think that that question would mirror the results of the same question
in tennis. Since they have an official ranking system in tennis it's easier
to picture. The top five or even the top ten are at such an elite level of
skill that they make # 50 look like an amateur. Actually, the top few tennis players are so extraordinarily good that they are EXPECTED to win tournaments. When they don't it is usually because of some exogenous perturbations such as illness or injury. I add that the different surfaces can dictate definition of the top players.
 
Isn't it something how someone can ask a question and get 300 posters arguing rather than answering the question.

Why not just answer the question based on your top 50 rather than discuss the ranking systems, getting beat by sisters, mothers, brothers, players for cash or tournament rankings etc.

The forum should have a Q & A section and any poster not answering the question gets banned... What a place it would be... like playing runout pool every day.

Someone posted Dennis O would be 1st and another talked about 50th and John S, who here would bet even?

If I put my top pick Alex P against my 50th pick, Peach... I think everyone here would put money on Alex... maybe not Roy, he hates his money.

I post non related too often as well, be nice to have a proper Q & A without all the flames...
 
wrong forum

Jason , your post is NPR. Please try to keep to the correct forum.
Thank you.:kma:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top