If you can run 50, you can run 100 - Math

hobokenapa

hobokenapa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Something I commonly hear is :

"If you can run 50, then you can run 100"

In the real world, I've not heard anyone jumping this much in one go so I set about applying some Math to it. As you will see, this proves the above statement is completely false.

Starting at the basics, clearly if I have an X% percent chance of running 50, then my chance of running 100 is not X/2, but X%^2. If you quantify it per ball as 90% chance of making a ball, the chance of running 50 is 0.5% (1 run in 200). Therefore running 100 puts it up at 1 in 40,000. Since a player with a high in the 50s probably has about a 1 in 200 of making a 50 run, the chance of 100 is practically zero.

However, just a small improvement in your chance of making a ball dramatically increases your runs. If you increase your skill so making a ball goes from 90% to 95%, you suddenly have about a 7.5% of chance of running 50, and a 0.5% chance of running 100. That is just 15 times less likely to go from 50 to 100, rather than 200 times less likely as for the first example. You have 13 times more chance of running 50 with a 95% ball making success rate rather than 90%.

The chance of doubling your run from A to B with a chance of X of making a ball is 1 in [1/X^(B/2)]. So the better you get, the more your high runs will 'explode', but if you don't improve they will only creep up based on the number of attempts made.

So, if running 100 is your goal, and you are currently in the 50s, don't even think about it. As has been constantly stressed here, the key thing is learning the game to improve the chance of making a given ball be it through patterns, knowledge or an increase in shotmaking. Focusing on the high run number is just not the way forward.

Of course, this is pure offense. The wonderful part of this game is there is so much more richness to it. Improving runs doesn't necessarily improve your ability to win a match. That comes with knowledge of defense and safety play, an art form that seems to be neglected (at least in the League that I run).
 
nice post :)

kinda what everyone knew, but never really explained so nicely.
 
Good post. Here's how I look at it. I'll compare the likelihood of running three racks (42 balls) to seven racks (98 balls).

If one's likelihood, starting from an ordinary break shot, of running the rack and leaving a breakshot is x, then your odds of running y racks is x to the y power.

I'd say a C player probably has an x of only .08, so their chance of running three racks is 1 in 1,953 while their chance of running 7 racks is just one in 47,683,716. Put another way, a C player would need a miracle to run seven racks, while the dream of running 42 is within the realm of possibility.

Perhaps the B player has an x of .2, so their chance of running three racks, beginnng from an ordinary break shot, is 1 in 125 while their chance of running 7 racks is just one in 78,125. Hence, the B player can expect to run 42 or better from time to time, but it is most unlikely that they will run 98.

I'll guess the A player has an x of .35, so their chance of running three racks, beginning from an ordinary break shot, is 1 in 23 while their chance of running 7 racks is just one in 1,554. Hence, the A player will often run 42 and 98 should happen every now and again.

The world class straight pooler probably has an x of .6, so their chance of running three racks, beginning from an ordinary break shot, is 1 in 4.6 while their chance of running 7 racks is one in 36. That's why if you attend pro straight pool events, you can count on seeing some 100 ball runs.
 
sjm said:
Good post. Here's how I look at it. I'll compare the likelihood of running three racks (42 balls) to seven racks (98 balls).

If one's likelihood, starting from an ordinary break shot, of running the rack and leaving a breakshot is x, then your odds of running y racks is x to the y power.

I'd say a C player probably has an x of only .08, so their chance of running three racks is 1 in 1,953 while their chance of running 7 racks is just one in 47,683,716. Put another way, a C player would need a miracle to run seven racks, while the dream of running 42 is within the realm of possibility.

Perhaps the B player has an x of .2, so their chance of running three racks, beginnng from an ordinary break shot, is 1 in 125 while their chance of running 7 racks is just one in 78,125. Hence, the B player can expect to run 42 or better from time to time, but it is most unlikely that they will run 98.

I'll guess the A player has an x of .35, so their chance of running three racks, beginning from an ordinary break shot, is 1 in 23 while their chance of running 7 racks is just one in 1,554. Hence, the A player will often run 42 and 98 should happen every now and again.

The world class straight pooler probably has an x of .6, so their chance of running three racks, beginning from an ordinary break shot, is 1 in 4.6 while their chance of running 7 racks is one in 36. That's why if you attend pro straight pool events, you can count on seeing some 100 ball runs.
Click to expand...

I should have played the lottery instead of playing pool on the day that I had my high run then because, in the last year (though I have taken at least 3 "month-and-a-half" breaks during that time), my high run is something like an 87. Oh don't worry though ... in the last couple weeks I've put down a couple of stellar 20-somethings. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjm
I was a B to B+ player for about 40 years and played a lot of 14.1 in the first 20 years. I have had many 50 to 70 runs and one 86, but never made it to 100. I guess I just choked when I got close. Johnnyt
 
Last edited:
the old saying that if you can run 50, you can 100 is techically, not a very accurate statement. As you proved with maths and probability.

however the statement could be interpreted a different way. If you can run 50 balls, then you pretty much have the knowlege and ability to run 100, or indeed a thousand. It's just down to other factors, such as concentration and focus, and the handling of pressure.

So while i agree completely with you hobokenapa in a technical sense, the original statement i believe has two meanings/interpretations. And the one of them i think is true. :)
 
Many moons ago, on a newsgroup far, far away, Blkjackds wrote:

If you can run 25, I guarantee you can run 50, 75, 100, and maybe more.

And I wrote:

Is this really true? I mean, I know that it's the PC thing to say to encourage the aspiring player, but personally, I don't think it's really true where the leather meets the ball.

In my experience, a 14.1 run is a series of problems that you have to solve with knowledge and skills. There are spells during a run when you will see a series of simple problems that you're familiar with and can solve with even just mediocre skills. But as the run lengthens, you will inevitably see a wider variety of problems, and more and more esoteric ones that require more obscure knowledge and skills. It might be a long stop shot, a thin cut that still requires much cue ball control, bumping balls open without tying them up, creating break balls, or using balls up table for a break.

I've seen many players that have been playing for years and years and have never gotten past being 20 ball runners and never will. Either their basic skills are lacking and limit the variety of shots they can execute and/or their knowledge is deficient and limits the number and types of problems they can solve. They just don't understand the game well enough to ever pocket more than a couple of dozen successive balls -- more thorough the grace of God -- than any other factor.

Lou Figueroa


hobokenapa said:
Something I commonly hear is :

"If you can run 50, then you can run 100"

In the real world, I've not heard anyone jumping this much in one go so I set about applying some Math to it. As you will see, this proves the above statement is completely false.

Starting at the basics, clearly if I have an X% percent chance of running 50, then my chance of running 100 is not X/2, but X%^2. If you quantify it per ball as 90% chance of making a ball, the chance of running 50 is 0.5% (1 run in 200). Therefore running 100 puts it up at 1 in 40,000. Since a player with a high in the 50s probably has about a 1 in 200 of making a 50 run, the chance of 100 is practically zero.

However, just a small improvement in your chance of making a ball dramatically increases your runs. If you increase your skill so making a ball goes from 90% to 95%, you suddenly have about a 7.5% of chance of running 50, and a 0.5% chance of running 100. That is just 15 times less likely to go from 50 to 100, rather than 200 times less likely as for the first example. You have 13 times more chance of running 50 with a 95% ball making success rate rather than 90%.

The chance of doubling your run from A to B with a chance of X of making a ball is 1 in [1/X^(B/2)]. So the better you get, the more your high runs will 'explode', but if you don't improve they will only creep up based on the number of attempts made.

So, if running 100 is your goal, and you are currently in the 50s, don't even think about it. As has been constantly stressed here, the key thing is learning the game to improve the chance of making a given ball be it through patterns, knowledge or an increase in shotmaking. Focusing on the high run number is just not the way forward.

Of course, this is pure offense. The wonderful part of this game is there is so much more richness to it. Improving runs doesn't necessarily improve your ability to win a match. That comes with knowledge of defense and safety play, an art form that seems to be neglected (at least in the League that I run).
Click to expand...
 
hobokenapa said:
Something I commonly hear is :

"If you can run 50, then you can run 100"

In the real world, I've not heard anyone jumping this much in one go so I set about applying some Math to it. As you will see, this proves the above statement is completely false.

Starting at the basics, clearly if I have an X% percent chance of running 50, then my chance of running 100 is not X/2, but X%^2. If you quantify it per ball as 90% chance of making a ball, the chance of running 50 is 0.5% (1 run in 200). Therefore running 100 puts it up at 1 in 40,000. Since a player with a high in the 50s probably has about a 1 in 200 of making a 50 run, the chance of 100 is practically zero.

However, just a small improvement in your chance of making a ball dramatically increases your runs. If you increase your skill so making a ball goes from 90% to 95%, you suddenly have about a 7.5% of chance of running 50, and a 0.5% chance of running 100. That is just 15 times less likely to go from 50 to 100, rather than 200 times less likely as for the first example. You have 13 times more chance of running 50 with a 95% ball making success rate rather than 90%.

The chance of doubling your run from A to B with a chance of X of making a ball is 1 in [1/X^(B/2)]. So the better you get, the more your high runs will 'explode', but if you don't improve they will only creep up based on the number of attempts made.

So, if running 100 is your goal, and you are currently in the 50s, don't even think about it. As has been constantly stressed here, the key thing is learning the game to improve the chance of making a given ball be it through patterns, knowledge or an increase in shotmaking. Focusing on the high run number is just not the way forward.

Of course, this is pure offense. The wonderful part of this game is there is so much more richness to it. Improving runs doesn't necessarily improve your ability to win a match. That comes with knowledge of defense and safety play, an art form that seems to be neglected (at least in the League that I run).
Click to expand...

Soooo...what do you want to play for then??
________
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
Good post. Here's how I look at it. I'll compare the likelihood of running three racks (42 balls) to seven racks (98 balls).-...]
Click to expand...

Here's something I wrote in the distant past in a distant newsgroup that is along the same lines as what sjm and the original poster are saying

****** (five or six years ago)

Here's some data for me that illustrate the break ball
bottleneck. Over the past four months, I've played 1460 innings of equal
offense (Open break and try to run 20 14.1 style). Here are the possible
results (0 - 20) and the number of times I've achieved each.

0 26
1 32
2 57
3 64
4 50
5 68
6 62
7 69
8 78
9 83
10 61
11 79
12 76
13 91
14 155
15 139
16 41
17 26
18 25
19 21
20 157

So 26 times I missed with bih in the kitchen [:-(] and 157 times I ran all 20.

91 times I missed while shooting at the key ball. 155 times I missed the
break shot. And 139 times I either failed to open up the pack, got stuck
in the pack or got so excited about the great break shot that I missed the
next ball.

My percentage of running 14 balls starting from bih with all balls on the
table is about 39%. But my percentage running 14 balls that includes
opening up a new rack is much lower. My percentage getting to 20 given
that I got to 6 is 14.3%, or about 1 in 7 tries. This is my true
percantage for running a rack.

So if I start with 9 balls spread out on the table, here are the number of
attempts I would probably need to achieve the following runs once.

run
___
14 -- 7 attempts (once in 0.5 hours of playing)
28 -- 49 attempts (once in 3 hours of playing)
42 -- 342 attempts (once in 23 hours of playing)
56 -- 2,389 attempts (Once in 160 hours of playing)
70 -- 16,700 attempts (Once in 1100 hours of playing)
84 -- 117,000 attempts (once in 7800 hours of playing)
98 -- 816,000 attempts (once in 54400 hours of playing)
112 -- 5,700,000 attempts ( once in 380,000 hours of playing)

My high run of 50 makes sense in light of this. If I tried for an hour a
day, I should run 56 about once every 5 months. But notice that I would
run 98 only about once every 150 years!!! So the saying that if you can
run 50, you can run 100 -- it just ain't true.
 
mikepage said:
Here's something I wrote in the distant past in a distant newsgroup that is along the same lines as what sjm and the original poster are saying

****** (five or six years ago)

Here's some data for me that illustrate the break ball
bottleneck. Over the past four months, I've played 1460 innings of equal
offense (Open break and try to run 20 14.1 style). Here are the possible
results (0 - 20) and the number of times I've achieved each.

0 26
1 32
2 57
3 64
4 50
5 68
6 62
7 69
8 78
9 83
10 61
11 79
12 76
13 91
14 155
15 139
16 41
17 26
18 25
19 21
20 157

So 26 times I missed with bih in the kitchen [:-(] and 157 times I ran all 20.

91 times I missed while shooting at the key ball. 155 times I missed the
break shot. And 139 times I either failed to open up the pack, got stuck
in the pack or got so excited about the great break shot that I missed the
next ball.

My percentage of running 14 balls starting from bih with all balls on the
table is about 39%. But my percentage running 14 balls that includes
opening up a new rack is much lower. My percentage getting to 20 given
that I got to 6 is 14.3%, or about 1 in 7 tries. This is my true
percantage for running a rack.

So if I start with 9 balls spread out on the table, here are the number of
attempts I would probably need to achieve the following runs once.

run
___
14 -- 7 attempts (once in 0.5 hours of playing)
28 -- 49 attempts (once in 3 hours of playing)
42 -- 342 attempts (once in 23 hours of playing)
56 -- 2,389 attempts (Once in 160 hours of playing)
70 -- 16,700 attempts (Once in 1100 hours of playing)
84 -- 117,000 attempts (once in 7800 hours of playing)
98 -- 816,000 attempts (once in 54400 hours of playing)
112 -- 5,700,000 attempts ( once in 380,000 hours of playing)

My high run of 50 makes sense in light of this. If I tried for an hour a
day, I should run 56 about once every 5 months. But notice that I would
run 98 only about once every 150 years!!! So the saying that if you can
run 50, you can run 100 -- it just ain't true.
Click to expand...

Ah, but to say you will only do something once every 150 years, doesn't mean that it will take 150 years. Only that it will happen once within that time period.:D

I agree with your conclusion though.
 
hobokenapa said:
Something I commonly hear is :
"If you can run 50, then you can run 100" ...
Click to expand...

I think you're right about the P^2. For a related articles that discusses the 14.1 shoot-out at the last Derby City Classic, see the June 2006 article at http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/BD_articles.html which also discusses the high runs by Mosconi and Cranfield.

I think while it may be good motivation to say the above, it makes about as much sense as saying "if you can run a 6-minute mile, you can run a 3-minute mile."

My conclusion on Cranfield was that his claimed 768 (in practice) is fairly believable, and Mosconi's 526 was perhaps less likely.
 
I have ran hundreds of 20's, dozens of 30's, a handful of 40's and only a couple of 50's. But I feel if I really knew how to play 14.1 that I might double all those numbers. If blackjack is right I sure would like a lesson. I don't think I will ever run 100 without learning how the game should be played.
 
MacGyver said:
Was bored:

Click to expand...
Those stats from Mike provided some great insights...thanks Mike....and thanks MacGuyver for the graph which makes it easier to comprehend.

Of course the 20 figure looks anomolous, but it represents the sum of all possible larger outcomes. Would be good to see this sample played out to 50 balls to see a similar trend with diminishing magnitude.

I don't agree with Bob's comparison of a 50 compared to a 100 as like comparing a 6 minute mile to a 3 minute mile. These are achievable events with statistic probablities. A 3 minute mile requires the performance of an event (running at sprint speed) that is far outside the aerobic capability of a 6 minute mile runner.

If we took the average run total from set up position for a 14.1 player, (let's say they make on average 8 balls), we could estimate how many trials it would take them before they would be likely to achieve a 50 break. It is about 1 in 120 opportunities according to my math.

Now to make a 100 break, the player would likely need to reach 50, 500 times before they compiled another 50 on top of that 50. Meaning they would likely need around 250,000 trials to make a 100 break.

Some will get lucky and achieve it earlier, some unlucky and achieve it later. The choke factor is likely to delay it, but the in zone factor is likely to shorten the wait. But generally the squaring of the trials is a very good indicator, and the fact is most who never achieve 100 breaks fail because either their average scoring rate, or the trials they attempt are not as high as is required.

A guy who averages 5 balls per open visit, is many times less likely to make 100 than someone who averages 10 balls per open vist. A guy making 5 balls per visit requires approximately 1024 attempts to make a 50 break, but 1,048,576 trials to make a 100 break. The 10 ball average guy just needs 1024 attemps to make a 100. A number he is capable of achieving in 20-30 sessions. But the 5 ball average player requires around 35,000 sessions to get his 100. A factor of about 1,000.

Colin
 
Last edited:
1,000 ball run

To take an extreme version, how about, "If you can run ONE ball, you can run [size=+5]1,000![/size]. And, of course, sort of like the infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite time will eventually turn out every line of poetry ever written, that guy who ran ONE ball would eventually run 1,000. But it would probably take much longer than the current age of the universe.:D
 
Colin Colenso said:
Those stats from Mike provided some great insights...thanks Mike....and thanks MacGuyver for the graph which makes it easier to comprehend.

Of course the 20 figure looks anomolous, but it represents the sum of all possible larger outcomes.
Click to expand...
I think it's saying that if you can run 16, you can run 20...
 
A question on this topic...

How many hours would you have to practice straight pool in order to be about as good as you are gonna get at it. 200, 500 1000?

My high run is 61 and I still hopes of hitting that magic 100. I have probably played 200-300 hours of straight pool (just guessing). If I practice at least an hour, I ussually will have a run in the 30's or 40's for a high. Sometimes I will get stuck for a high of 28.
 
When I have made that statement I also added that CONSISTENCY is a big part of that. You just need to keep getting a good break shot and spreading the balls and remain consistent in your shotmaking - along with executing proper shot sequence. If you dont think you can run a hundred, you won't. Plain and simple. Will everybody run 100? Probably not. I run more 80's and 90's than I do 20's and 30's - it all comes down to your attitude at the outset and throughout the run. Remember that.
 
While everyone has made good points so far; there is a factor yet unmentioned. It is the "Knowledge of the Game" factor.

Not ALL shots are equal; the statistics of make percentage are meaningless unless you consider the difficulty of the individual shot. Even an average amateur player could make 50 easy shots in a row - the trick is making your shots as easy as possible; and therein lies the "art" of 14.1.

What I am saying is that a poorer shotmaker can conceivably run more balls than a great shotmaker if he consistently follows the principles of the game, develops a sound knowledge of his own capabilities/limitations, and becomes a student of the game. I know this to be true (I am that "poorer shotmaker"...but have aspirations to be the "great shotmaker").

The more you study the game, the easier it will be to run balls, even if your shotmaking does not improve. I have had the privilege to work with some great straight pool minds (Danny D., Grady M., sjm, Mark Wilson, and a couple of anonymous pro's); and I am always amazed at the "risk reduction" strategies and principles they expound (not to mention the safety play knowledge they exhibit). It DEFINITELY has allowed me to compete more evenly with better shotmakers.

I believe that those 50 ball runners who reached that milestone through knowledge of the game, have a much better chance at 100 than a player that reached 50 by shooting the eyes out of 30 tough shots during the run of 50.

Having said all of that, I truly believe that shotmaking ability is ESSENTIAL to advancing your 14.1 ability.

P.S. - I am going to run at least 50 this weekend in St. Louis (of course I also thought Thomas Dewey was a lock over Truman)....bigger pockets, nice equipment, good coaching.
 
Last edited:
mworkman said:
A question on this topic...

How many hours would you have to practice straight pool in order to be about as good as you are gonna get at it. 200, 500 1000?

My high run is 61 and I still hopes of hitting that magic 100. I have probably played 200-300 hours of straight pool (just guessing). If I practice at least an hour, I ussually will have a run in the 30's or 40's for a high. Sometimes I will get stuck for a high of 28.
Click to expand...

Oh, I wish it was that simple. "Play 1000h and you're there, dude". Learning straight pool lasts a lifetime, some people learn fast, some don't. But never hurts to practice and read a few books.

And I think your high run doesn't matter much, I might have a session with a high run of 40, but I keep on running 20-30 like 3-5 times within 2h. I think consistent good breaks is more important than a single high run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top