In what circumstances does the weaker player get more advantage from tighter pockets?

[HawaiianEye]

One other factor, great players miss less against players they know they will beat, so that sort of overrides the difficulty of the player. A long time ago, I realized I had become a good player when Jay Swanson started missing against me.

I'm just the opposite. I miss less when I'm playing somebody who plays equal to me or better.

If I'm playing somebody I know I can beat 90% of the time, I let my guard down and don't concentrate as much. Then, all it takes is a couple bad rolls and for them to get lucky and you are down. In short races you don't want to get behind.

The last time I played a tournament and I had to spot the guy some games on the wire and I started out "balls to the wall". I won the toss and then I broke and ran the first three games without him getting up to the table. Then lost the set 5-3 because I didn't pay attention to what was going on and the guy lucked a couple 9 balls in before I got my mind back to the game.

When I'm playing somebody who plays good, I usually play much better because I know I can't lose track of what's going on.

 

[Ekojasiloop]

This is why one pocket is such a good game, because nothing changes to any meaningful extent if you play tight or loose.

Rotation games good player should rather play bad players on buckets because they're gonna be the first to have control and will run out every time and no pressure. Pockets and conditions get super tough and enybody in the world can rattle three or four eight or nine balls in a row. That's the thing too, when good players miss on super tough gear they hang the ball so much. Bad players it goes three rails and freezes downtable.

I think the question really depends on the level of the players. It's too general of a question. Two pros? Two short stops? Two league players?

 

[one stroke]

I just ran into this playing one pocket against a better player on a tight table I hung in there pretty good , then we played on buckets and he drilled me ,, after talking with him he said he was much more confident in pocketing balls and fired a lot of shots he would not have played on a tight table , to me it made not difference I'm the straighter shooter but if I don't get to shoot it makes no difference

1

 

[lfigueroa]

Playing a weaker player and giving up a big spot, say 13-6, I always preferred playing on a tighter table.

First off, I knew the guy wasn't going to be slopping in any shots and, as the better player, my advantage in accuracy and consistency would be amplified on the tougher equipment. Second, as the better player, I also knew how to change my strategy for the tighter equipment and access the percentages on making any given shot better than the weaker guy, who was liable to think his chances on any given shot hadn't changed.

Lou Figueroa

 

[KRJ]

Playing a weaker player and giving up a big spot, say 13-6, I always preferred playing on a tighter table.

First off, I knew the guy wasn't going to be slopping in any shots and, as the better player, my advantage in accuracy and consistency would be amplified on the tougher equipment. Second, as the better player, I also knew how to change my strategy for the tighter equipment and access the percentages on making any given shot better than the weaker guy, who was liable to think his chances on any given shot hadn't changed.

Lou Figueroa

I have to agree. Heck, safeties don't even need to be "lock up", just give him distance and watch him miss. He won't know he can't make that shot until after the match is over

 

[Dexter36]

Depends on what type of player the better player is imo. If you are a center ball shooter, tighter pockets are probably a strong advantage, as you have broken the game down more to being likely decided by whoever shoots the ball truer. If the better player knows how to move whitey around the table well and can get better english by cheating the pockets etc, then playing on a table with tighter pockets will somewhat limit better players tool bag while not stripping the novice of tools they didn't have in the first place.

I use a lot of spin when I can to improve positioning, I'm not intimidated by making shots on a table with tight pockets, but I certainly will have to choose shots that are decidedly less aggressive at certain points to keep the runs going.

In short.. If I'm playing a lesser player, bigger pockets makes the entire game easier for me, whereas for my opponent it only makes his shot easier... don't forget, the pockets are bigger for me too now as far as potting balls goes.

 

[realkingcobra]

I think everyone in this thread that thinks they have a better chance of beating a better player than they are by playing on a table with tight pockets....should be playing even up, as in with no spot

 

[Dexter36]

I prefer playing straight up, even when I am outmatched. I don't like getting beat up on the table and it makes me play better. This way i'm forced to be like the player I'm trying to become instead relying on a handicap to give the player I am a chance. Just my preference, maybe this makes me a sitting duck? I just stay away from games I can't afford to lose & it seems to work out ok. Not to mention.. staying even or making a few bucks off someone when they had to give me one or multiple balls to compete takes all the satisfaction out of earning a victory.

Just depends what the focus is I guess, I don't play pool as a career choice, i'm ok donating a bit if it makes me better. The physics, the mental challenges, and the psychological battles are the things that enticed me come back to the game after a decade of not playing. I've ended up fighting in the parking lot with poor losers (once) one too many times, just not worth the 50 bucks. At this point seasoned players are the only ones I'm willing to gamble with, and even then one has to pick their poison carefully.

 

[jsp]

For rotation games (9/10 ball), I think it's pretty reasonable to think that in many cases the weaker player has a better chance of winning with tighter pockets. Why? Because in order to win a rack in a rotation game, you don't need to sink more balls than your opponent. You just have to sink the last ball. Your chances of getting to shoot at the last ball, as the weaker player, go up with tighter pockets.

How many times have we lost racks to much weaker opponents because we would run out all the way to the 9 ball and hang it?

Let me be clear. I said "better chance of winning". Not that the weaker player will be the favorite.

 

[Justin Bergman]

IMO one pocket should only be played on tight pockets. On loose tables the good players turn one pocket into 9 ball. They are super aggressive and you're supposed to be.

For 9 ball or 10 ball. The tighter the pockets the more the better player has an advantage for sure. It's harder to break and run out for one and that alone makes it where the better player win more games. When both players get to the table at least once those are way better games.

 

[mikepage]

[...]
For 9 ball or 10 ball. The tighter the pockets the more the better player has an advantage for sure. It's harder to break and run out for one and that alone makes it where the better player win more games. When both players get to the table at least once those are way better games.

There is a complication here. Let's say Justin in playing a pro-level but not national-class pro-level player, say someone he is expected to beat 9-6.

It could be that in the long haul the score will average 9-6 on a tight table and also on a loose table. But that doesn't mean the matches are the same. Basically the tighter table also tightens up the score. On the easier table Justin with both win 9-0 and 9-1 more often, and he'll lose 7-9 and 8-9 more often. So overall he'll lose more often. On the tighter table he'll win closer to 9-6 and he'll lose less. Effectively the race to 9 smells like a shorter race when like Justin says both players don't get to the table at least once in a typical game.

 

[KRJ]

IMO one pocket should only be played on tight pockets. On loose tables the good players turn one pocket into 9 ball. They are super aggressive and you're supposed to be.

For 9 ball or 10 ball. The tighter the pockets the more the better player has an advantage for sure. It's harder to break and run out for one and that alone makes it where the better player win more games. When both players get to the table at least once those are way better games.

I gotta agree with this. So, also, are you implying on the tighter table, the much better shooter will know when and how to play better safeties as well? And, the lesser player will "go for it' when the odds are way against him making that tough shot. The good player will duck and hide when needed, and give the lesser play "flyers" when the time is right.

Either lesser player misses or the safety is good enough for ball in hand, either way the better player will know what to do. Plus, the better player will know it's a tough table, the lesser player just thinks he's a banger for missing

 

[Nick B]

I gotta agree with this. So, also, are you implying on the tighter table, the much better shooter will know when and how to play better safeties as well? And, the lesser player will "go for it' when the odds are way against him making that tough shot. The good player will duck and hide when needed, and give the lesser play "flyers" when the time is right.

Either lesser player misses or the safety is good enough for ball in hand, either way the better player will know what to do. Plus, the better player will know it's a tough table, the lesser player just thinks he's a banger for missing

I'm not sure it favors either player. The exception is with a big breaker. The guy with the huge break can be playing a lot of 6 Ball when playing rotation games. Tight pockets make fewer balls on break and thus more clusters and movers have more opportunities.

Same for One Pocket. Favors the movers and ball herding types.