If you can run 50, you can run 100 - Math
- Thread starter hobokenapa
- Start date
Well, perhaps the analogy was a little stretched, but would you accept a 4:25 vs. 3:50 mile? (150 years ago, the record for the mile was slower than 4:25.)Colin Colenso said:
Bob Jewett said:
Bob,
Please stop this discussion now. I get tired DRIVING a mile at my age. You are just making us feel bad about ourselves.
I think everyone here is thinking too much. If you look at a 90 ball-run as a 1 in 4,000 opportunity, you're definitely going to dog your face off trying to get to 100.
If you don't even think about what you're doing and just keep plowing away, who knows what will happen and who cares how many attempts it took?
If you don't even think about what you're doing and just keep plowing away, who knows what will happen and who cares how many attempts it took?
hobokenapa said:
The 50 to 100 comparison is fairly thin, I agree. Most 100 ball runs are fairly precise, with good patterns and end-racks. Not all, but most of them involve a hefty percentage of good play.
Someone who has just scraped the 50 ball high run mark won't have the knowledge to do the above. He might run the 50 very occasionally, but it usually won't be very pretty. Indeed, as Hoboken and SJM and Lou have eloquently described, the math is going to catch up with these guys. You can't keep running into balls in bizarre ways (and at wrong speeds) and expect to continue your run.
I think the most beautiful part of the game is that this trend continues even at the higher levels. Surely, a 150-ball runner should be able to run 200? Surely, someone who's run a hundred balls over 100 times would've cracked the 200 barrier once, right?
Well, I'm your perfect little lab rat for this one. The math is there, and it's very real. I think my patterns are such that they are good enough for me to run a whole lot of balls a whole lot of times. But they're not good enough for me to run 200 of them consecutively. And I'm not quite talented enough to make up for it with shotmaking.
The elusive and upsetting thing about the pattern idea above is that most racks I play will be taken off fairly well. But I just don't do it often enough to allow the 200 to appear. It's humbling. It's not about luck. If it were about luck, it would have happened by now. Like poker, it might involve removing only one or two "leaks" from my game - maybe hitting that one troublesome break shot a little differently, or removing balls in the center of the table a little earlier. I wish I knew.
I will give a little credence to the idea that there is another factor involved, that of nervously approaching the magic number and unconsciously doing something you ordinarily wouldn't. Last week, I played 4 games of straight pool and had 5 runs over 85. (The tournament in Maryland inspired me.) On each of the runs, I felt like I would blow past 200. That's how good I felt. Alas, something stupid happened each time. Get stuck to the rack, can't find/manufacture a good break shot, miss a mildly tough ball... I am not naive enough to believe they were all accidents. I guess I could try not to think about the number, but jesus, can anyone really do that?
- Steve
I've watched a few tapes of big 14.1 runs. What those guys are doing is just amazing. Each time they are separating a cluster, they rely on such little luck. They never just smash it and hope for the best. Almost as if they know exactly how the cluster will develop after contact.
that's a theoretical statement because theoretically every rack is the same. but in the real world,,,,
if 50 is your high run, then you are probably a mid B player and no, chances are you won't run 100 which is A- to A level.
if you run 50 often, then yes. consistancy gives you a better chance for obvious reasons,,,mainly, you understand what's going on.
if 50 is your high run, then you are probably a mid B player and no, chances are you won't run 100 which is A- to A level.
if you run 50 often, then yes. consistancy gives you a better chance for obvious reasons,,,mainly, you understand what's going on.
Steve Lipsky said:
I think this fairly well sums up why the 50 to 100 statement doesn't hold water. However if one can run 50 fairly easy (without wild shots) good patterns etc, then I think the original statement is not far fetched.
I've said the original statement before but I always meant (without saying) the player must have good straight pool knowledge.
I rarely play the game anymore (and it shows) but last week I tried 3 or 4 times and all I could dig out was a little over 30. It looked good but (whine begins)
The ball sets are just to worn. It felt like I was running into reinforced steel concrete when I tried to spread the racks.I don't break hard, prefer to slice and dice the rack and it just didn't work well. (end whine)
So for me to ever run a hundred again the equipment has to be better.
Rod
Just put up a 139 tonight... thought I was definitely gonna do it this time. I even tried thinking about it a little differently - not thinking of the number but just thinking to myself that I would NOT let my opponent shoot again during the game. Almost worked. I did get out to 275 in 4 innings though .
Anyway... ugh.
- Steve
.Anyway... ugh.
- Steve
Steve Lipsky said:Just put up a 139 tonight... thought I was definitely gonna do it this time. I even tried thinking about it a little differently - not thinking of the number but just thinking to myself that I would NOT let my opponent shoot again during the game. Almost worked. I did get out to 275 in 4 innings though
Anyway... ugh.
- Steve
Hey Steve. Nice to hear that you're still shooting 'em (relatively) straight.
You'll get there, 200 shouldn't be a problem for you. I just think you need someone to mark the scores for you so you wouldn't have to think about it 
Steve Lipsky said:
steve,,,i'm surprised at your statement. you are one of the most logical players i've ever watched and everything you do makes perfect sense....there's a clarity about your game.
yet there is a top player who doesn't frequent abc anymore, from a far away land,,,,who has run high mid 200's. i prefer your pattern, but he is a natural player(with a lesser game, imo), and yes, he would beat you most of the time. if you have the patterns and he has more skill(however one would define it), what precisely is missing in your game???
there is a definite heirarchy if you look at the runs. there are those who can run 100 and have highs in the mid 100's,,,,there are those who can run 200's, and there's that rarified air of elites who run 300+.
what element/s is drawing these well defined lines? is it that one tough shot? and if someone gave you one freebee miss per run, what would your average jump to?
Jude Rosenstock said:
I totally agree. I hit most of my high runs without thinking about it. I was only near the end that I caught on to what I was doing.
I think people should forget about the math and just try and run some balls. Work on your patterns and position play. That's what I gotta do, I have some nice runs but a great many of them were really UGLY and borderline comical to watch.
Rod said:
Thanks Rod. I set up for my favorite breakshot, but the balls just didn't open too well. I like 15 open balls after a break
, and only about 5 came open on this shot. I was left on the short rail, with an off-angle combination to shoot along the same rail. It was a tough shot, but because of my proximity to the first object ball, I thought I might have a chance.I took my time, lined it up more than a couple times, and then reminded myself that I could get away with a little error if I overcut the first ball (because it would send the 2nd ball into the rail side of the pocket). Finally, I made sure to hit it with good pocket speed, so I could get away with even a little more. As it turned out, I overcut it just slightly too much and even the pocket speed didn't save me. It hung deep in the jaws. I actually thought it would go. If it had, I'd have gotten out of the rack, I expect.
- Steve
Steve Lipsky said:
LOL!!! This is me. I'm proud to say I've broken 50 a couple of times (twice on 9' tables). Neither of them would involve the word "pretty." Unless the runs were described as pretty lucky, pretty unorthodox, and pretty friggin' ugly.
Fred <~~~ would faint at 99
bruin70 said:
Bruin,
Thanks for the nice words... if I am guessing this player correctly (the one you mention above), I would not think I play better patterns than he does. I have a lot of respect for his 14.1 game, and he is probably the best pure shotmaker I have ever seen. It's scary playing straight pool with someone like him - he gets into the very occasional jam and just shoots his way out of it.
Given a normal level of shotmaking talent, the tightness of the pattern play is what determines your upper limit on high run, in my opinion. During my run yesterday, I was really in the zone, often seeing the last 6 or 7 balls in the rack. And then after that game, I played Danny Barouty a game. Beating him about 120-40, he ran 110-and-out on me.
And there's just a difference in how he does it. It's just a little tighter, just a little less cueball movement, just a little more logical. I would bet my cuestick against a dollar that Danny probably averages being about 6-8 inches closer to his breakball than I do. Maybe that brings his make percentage to 96%, whereas mine might be 93%? All these little things, they add up.
A run in straight pool is like a pure visualization of the underlying math of your game. Ignoring a few intangible factors, it's the product of all the probabilities your pattern play and shotmaking ability combine to.
As to your last question, not sure what you mean by a freebie miss... maybe you mean that I can give myself a free shot one time during a run if I get stuck? I would suspect I'd run 200 that way. Probably would've last night - followed the 139 with a 53-and-out.
- Steve
Steve Lipsky said:
SL,
Very, very true. In the old days (slower cloth, mud balls forming clusters that did not just fall apart when tapped), "close position" was absolutely essential to successful play. Even with better equipment though, "close position" still yields tangible and significant benefits.
Willie Mosconi (in his biography) states that his true epiphany in pool was during a long, multi-city match with Ralph Greenleaf - he stated that once he realized his game was good enough he started playing closer and closer to the object balls; and after that he just tortured Greenleaf. He states the best match he ever played was a 125 and out (games then to 125) where he was never more than 8 inches from any object ball, and every shot went just as planned.
I also remember a session with Danny DiLiberto (vociferous proponent of slow-rolling whenever possible, and close position mastery). I had just finished running somewhere in the mid-20's (14.1), getting good position on a break shot; I looked at Danny expecting some positive reinforcement or comment since I had made several demanding shots during the rack. Danny, however, just looked at me with disgust, and said, "Geeeeez, you are NEVER going to run any balls until you start playing closer to the object ball." Though I still have some fear of over-running my position, I am DEFINITELY a believer in the benefits, and am trying to improve in this area.
Williebetmore said:
WBM, Sometimes I need smacked with a 2X4. Between your post and SL it is a missing ingredient. It's not that I don't play fairly close but it could be better. Years ago I know I use to play much closer including 9 ball.
I play more 9 ball and rarely play 14-1 so I think my mind seems to accept 2nd best as ok, I suppose. It will definitely be in my thoughts next time I play. It's the simple things and thanks.
Rod
Rod,Rod said:
Here's the problem: the definition of "close" varies from shot to shot. Figuring out the risk/reward is an ART FORM. There is no drill I can think of that can help - but I can guarantee that a session with one of the masters like Danny D. or Grady M. (where they help you think through and critique each and every shot) will help immeasurably; and at least get us thinking like the pro's (if not pocketing like them). JMO.
bruin70 said:
Geez, why we being all cryptic? Out with this player's name already.Steve Lipsky said:
As far as the topic, I think people are looking too deep into the "accuracy" of the quote. People are missing the phrase's optimistic spirit. If you can run 50 (you can string at least 3-4 racks together), then there is nothing that says you are technically incapable of running 100. The phrase is meant for encouragement.
The phrase is similar to saying..."If you can run 3 balls in order (rotation), then you can run 6 balls in order." Of course, the statistics for the two cases are vastly different, but that's not the point. The basic message is that you possess the basic tools necessary to play the game fairly competently, so as long as you keep improving your skills the sky's the limit.
However, it would be another thing to say "If you can run 10 (in straight pool), then you can run 50". Running only 10 balls implies that you cannot get passed the one rack hurdle, thus making you (most likely) technically incapable of running anything past a rack or two.