interesting opening break

wigglybridge said:
actually, i can see this shot making more sense against a Stronger player, rather than a weaker one.

for example, if i were up against John Schmidt, or Thorsten, or Ralf, or Steve Lipsky, or... well, we could list a couple hundred...

and if i've practiced this shot and can make it 60% of the time, what do you think my chances are in a safety battle with any of the above? a LOT less than 60% is the answer. so it might actually be the smarter move.

just for kicks, i tried this shot 2 nights ago the minute i got to the room i play in, and made it on the first try.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree with this strategy. If you are in a game where you are a huge underdog and really have nothing to lose, then why not? It's an opening break shot, and sure, if you miss, you're in trouble. But then again, as Bob points out, if he can get to the point where he can make the shot 6 out of 10 times, then I like those odds a lot better than beating Thorsten in a safety battle 6 out of 10 times. Also, suppose you break the "conventional" way and leave a shot? You're in just as much trouble.
 
An interesting thought...

Suppose you do practice this shot and can make it 6 or 7 times out of 10. You could use this to your advantage later in the game as well. It's conceivable than you could be in a situation where you can take an intentional 3rd scratch and then upon re-breaking the balls, play this shot and then get on a run where you more than make up the 18 balls you lost on the fouls without your opponent ever getting to the table despite your 3 fouls. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I know your opponent has the choice to take the table as is, or have you re-break. If he chooses to have you re-break, then it's exactly as an opening break (or isn't it?) - and you can play to pocket a ball instead of breaking safe.
 
Winston846 said:
Suppose you do practice this shot and can make it 6 or 7 times out of 10. You could use this to your advantage later in the game as well. It's conceivable than you could be in a situation where you can take an intentional 3rd scratch and then upon re-breaking the balls, play this shot and then get on a run where you more than make up the 18 balls you lost on the fouls without your opponent ever getting to the table despite your 3 fouls. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I know your opponent has the choice to take the table as is, or have you re-break. If he chooses to have you re-break, then it's exactly as an opening break (or isn't it?) - and you can play to pocket a ball instead of breaking safe.
Click to expand...

On three fouls, there is no longer any choice. The rules changed a few years back. Re-break just as in opening break.
 
conversely, this shot makes no sense against a weaker player; if you miss, you open up a rack for him that he might not be able to on his own. and if you're the stronger player, you're odds-on to win a safety battle.

interesting thought, Winston, about playing it later in the game; it would come up in a couple of situations besides 3rd foul. for example if the other player makes a break shot but misses the stack and scratches, or calls a safe while sinking the break ball.

anyone know the odds of this one vs. other full-stack called shots?
 
Let's put it as simply as this. If playing this shot were a good percentage, then pros would not defer the break after winning the lag.

The only time I've ever seen this played in competition was this year at the DCC 14.1 Challenge when a ridiculously inebriated Alex Pagulayan played it to open the match against Darren Appleton.

Once I see pros who win the lag opting to break in 14.1 in order to play the top ball in the side, I'll know that they consider this shot worth shooting. Until then, it's impossible to take that view.
 
Winston846 said:
So can you still play this shot instead of breaking safe?
Click to expand...

Of course, you can.

On the other hand your opponent may himself be on two fouls when you re-break, if you have been trading fouls. Why take a chance at letting him off the hook so easily?
 
Rich R. said:
Please expand on this point.

The current rules say that a called ball has to go into a specified pocket. If he wants to do that on the break, similar to any other cluster shot, why should the rules prohibit that practice? I really don't understand.
Click to expand...

Suppose on further study we find out that the shot is 85% to go from a really tight rack (or maybe with only the front three balls frozen). That would totally change the character of safety play. The first to get to three fouls would have a large advantage. If the shot is 85% for pretty much everyone under standard conditions, then I think it should be outlawed.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Suppose on further study we find out that the shot is 85% to go from a really tight rack (or maybe with only the front three balls frozen). That would totally change the character of safety play. The first to get to three fouls would have a large advantage. If the shot is 85% for pretty much everyone under standard conditions, then I think it should be outlawed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the resonse Bob but I still don't understand. I hate to beat this one point but, even if this shot becomes makable 85% of the time, it is missable 15% of the time. It is not an automatic shot. I just hate the thought of outlawing any shot just because it can be made most of the time. I can make a hanger, from 12 inches away, most of the time, but I doubt if that shot will ever be outlawed.
 
Ok, I know I'm late on this thread. I think they should not allow a ball on the break in straight pool.

On my home table (tapped) I can make a corner ball 75% of the time. Between two really good players playing a typical opening round robin match to 100 that would translate to whoever wins the lag...wins the match 75% of the time. That doesn't make for good pool.

Andy
 
Somehow it's hard to believe that this shot has been overlooked by all the best players who have ever lived or are still alive. Greenleaf, Mosconi, Mizerak, etc., etc., etc. didn't and don't play this shot for a reason. Maybe it isn't such a sure thing.
 
Maybe you're right but I'll bet those players didn't have perfect racks which are common now with various new products for racking so tightly.

In addition, a better player shouldn't shoot this shot because they are favorites to win the safety battle. So it isn't a surprise that those champions never used those shots.

Andy
 
The first time I saw that shot played was by Mosconi in an exhibition. He did not try it in the match, but afterward when he was doing his trick shot demonstration. In fact, I saw two of his exhibitions that day, afternoon and evening. He made the shot in both performances.

I was in college at the time, and could not wait to get back to school to bury my friends with it. Alas, I doubt I ever got any better results than 1:5 attempts. But that was not so bad. Back then, none of the guys I played against were likely to make more than a handful of balls anyway, so it wasn't such a bad move.

Mosconi also showed another "dead" ball in a full rack. He banked the corner ball back in the same side upper corner pocket. This, he also made both attempts I saw. Easy!

As for taking such a risk in a match, I agree with @wigglybridge, I'd be more inclined to take this risk against a really good player. The likelihood of him making the first shot and leaving me in the dust would be great enough that I'd be willing to go for something radical just to get a chance. To get any shot against a top player is not a given.
 
Paul Dayton said:
Somehow it's hard to believe that this shot has been overlooked by all the best players who have ever lived or are still alive. Greenleaf, Mosconi, Mizerak, etc., etc., etc. didn't and don't play this shot for a reason. Maybe it isn't such a sure thing.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the balls, racks, cloth and tables are different now. Maybe the percentages have changed.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
Has anyone seen him play that shot in another match? If not, maybe he just saw something in the rack.
Click to expand...
I haven't tried working with the shot, but one thing he might have seen is that the head ball was only frozen to one of the balls below it and that ball was in turn frozen to both of the balls below it. Or maybe the "middle" ball was just frozen to the ball where the 8 ball often goes and not to the ball on the side of the rack. Small gaps in this situation can make a huge difference.

The table was tapped, so usually you would expect a tight rack.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I haven't tried working with the shot, but one thing he might have seen is that the head ball was only frozen to one of the balls below it and that ball was in turn frozen to both of the balls below it. Or maybe the "middle" ball was just frozen to the ball where the 8 ball often goes and not to the ball on the side of the rack. Small gaps in this situation can make a huge difference.

The table was tapped, so usually you would expect a tight rack.
Click to expand...

Yep. He did take a look at the rack though before shooting, though he didn't seem to examine it that long or carefully. It suggests he just checked to see if the balls were tight and then he went ahead and called it. I am curious though if he plays this shot regularly. I did a search but couldn't find another 14.1 opening break of his.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top