Ipt a Mistake??

[iacas]

You are right that the percentages are not as high, but IMHO the priniciple is the same - The break is a major advantage for top-class players. Instead of deliberately crippling the game by enforcing a non-open table on the break it is much easier and fairer to simply use an alternating break.

Although watching great players run multiple racks is certainly exiting it is simply not a fair format for a professional sport of any kind. No other sport I know of has a format that allows someone to without their opponent being able to play.

But that's where we'll likely continue to disagree. What are the odds someone will run three racks in a row? How about five?

Suppose someone starts with a 4-pack and gets up 4-0 before failing to run out. Now his opponent gets to run four, three, or five. So let's say it's 4-3 and the guy runs two or three, getting it to 7-3.

I've seen 7-3 matches with alternating breaks. At 7-3, the "winner breaks" format favors the guy with "3" because he controls his own fate moreso than with alternating breaks. In alternating breaks, he's VERY likely to lose even if pros run out only 50% of the time. But if he can stay at the table... he could run five and out to win.

I think "winner breaks" makes big comebacks a whole lot more likely than alternating breaks.

Plus, the odds of someone running eight racks in a row are slim to none, wouldn't you say?

 

[hobokenapa]

Just look at the percentages of Tennis games Pros win on their serve - Would anyone play Tennis where the winner of each game serves in the next? Of course not, and at the top level Pool is fundamentally unfair when played winner breaks.

Completely agree. The argument commonly used against this "if I am 8-3 down, I have no chance" is ridiculous. The fact is you lost the match after those 11 racks, and shouldn't be able to just run six and win. If players get that good, then breaking someone's break will be like breaking someone's serve in tennis. If serve is broken in the first game of a tennis match, often the breaker serves out the set just by holding serve, but the pressure mounts as they get closer. Alternate breaks is just a no brainer to me.

 

[watchez]

Is there a site or link to a complete list of results of Valley Forge? Places & payouts

 

[Scottster]

In reply to breaking rules. I would like (and have mentioned before) to see alternating breaks, with a twist. I would like a player have the opportunity to run 3 racks (in one inning). Then, after the third consecutive rack, the break would then be returned to the opponent. This format has the best of both, winner, and alternate break.

 

[Cameron Smith]

Completely agree. The argument commonly used against this "if I am 8-3 down, I have no chance" is ridiculous. The fact is you lost the match after those 11 racks, and shouldn't be able to just run six and win. If players get that good, then breaking someone's break will be like breaking someone's serve in tennis. If serve is broken in the first game of a tennis match, often the breaker serves out the set just by holding serve, but the pressure mounts as they get closer. Alternate breaks is just a no brainer to me.

Im sorry but this doesn't make any sense. If someone is 8-3 down they don't necessarily deserve to lose. They should have an opportunity to comeback and win. If they run 7 and out they have every right to win the match because this person played spectacularily when there was no hope. But how often does this happen in winner break matches anyways?

In respect to your statement that good players should be able to break someones serve, there is not much you can do from the chair. Throwing things at your opponent is unfortunately against the rules so if you don't get an opportunity there is not much you can do. At least in tennis you always have that chance to break serve, however slim it may be (Roger Federer or Andy Roddick).

I keep hearing people state running 8 racks as a reason why they should play alternate breaks. First of all this is very rare. But lets look at another situation that is also rare. What if your opponent wins the lag gets the first break and runs out on all of his breaks? Furthermore you run out all of you breaks. You both played perfectly but he won because he got the first break. Its ridiculous to say that your opponent deserved it because he won the lag.

The most racks I have ever seen run by a pro is seven. As a I said earlier if a player runs out a match embrace that as a great moment in pool. The player who lost will get another chance because it is round robin.

One last thing I would like to add about tennis. Its not a good comparison because of how often players hold their serves. Often times you see matches where there are just two break of serves in the match, 6-4 6-4 is the most common final score in tennis.

 

[sniper]

As soon as I started reading this thread the first thing that came to my mind was the thread about whether eight ball would be challenging enough for the top pros, I think Theone started it but I'm not sure. The open table rule can make the game ridiculously easy for a top player if he is in stroke. The eight pack that happened in Weert was the highest run yet in any IPT event, that is seven tournaments total, so it is not like it's a common thing, even the six packs were only a couple per tournament. I like the idea of keeping the open table rule in play, but perhaps tightening the pockets a bit more.

 

[hobokenapa]

Im sorry but this doesn't make any sense. If someone is 8-3 down they don't necessarily deserve to lose.

You misunderstand. What I mean that if someone was 8-3 down in a race to 9, the complaint of alternate break is often 'Well, I've got no chance of catching up now'. That is because of their bad play in the previous 11 racks not because of the format.

It doesn't make sense for a person to have an advantage and if they win to keep that advantage to the point where the other person doesn't get to play.

 

[Island Drive]

All the ideas you've all come up with are very good. The one item that "concerns" me the most is the player attending the qualifying events to try and get 'in'. The round robin events I was not even thinking about. I just feel the qualifiers should offer some protection to the person that invests and incredible amount of time and cash to get there, the alternate break may be the way to equalize the situation. As for make a stripe, shoot a stripe, its the publics mentality here in the states that thinks that way, its probably time to change that. Now the tight pockets also would cure the 7 and 8's that have come about.

 

[Cameron Smith]

You misunderstand. What I mean that if someone was 8-3 down in a race to 9, the complaint of alternate break is often 'Well, I've got no chance of catching up now'. That is because of their bad play in the previous 11 racks not because of the format.

It doesn't make sense for a person to have an advantage and if they win to keep that advantage to the point where the other person doesn't get to play.

Even so, the match isn't over yet. I think if someone runs 6 and out they deserve very much to win.

Using your logic Wu should not have won the world championship, it was unfair to Kuo that Wu ran 5 and out.

 

[Alex Kanapilly]

I can't people are still arguing over entirely the wrong thing - It is NOT a problem with an open table after the break (With which I entirely agree), it is simply the problem of not playing Alternating Break.

Just look at the percentages of Tennis games Pros win on their serve - Would anyone play Tennis where the winner of each game serves in the next? Of course not, and at the top level Pool is fundamentally unfair when played winner breaks.

The WPBA have moved to an alternating break format, why not the IPT?

I agree 100% Open after the break and alternate break is the way to go. I just played in two local 8 ball tourneys and the matches are tight with this format, you can't make too many mistakes... you must hold serve.

Alex

 

[AuntyDan]

Even so, the match isn't over yet. I think if someone runs 6 and out they deserve very much to win.

Using your logic Wu should not have won the world championship, it was unfair to Kuo that Wu ran 5 and out.

Alternating break is fundamentally fair by definition. Fair means that both sides in a match have an equal chance to win. Was it fair Kuo never had a chance to reply to Wu's 5 pack? Would Kuo have had such a large lead over Wu in the first place if they were playing alternating break?

If a player is down say 8-3 in a race to 11 this means they have lost at least 2 if not 3 games on their own break. That means they have been playing worse than their opponent, so yes it is fair they lose. Give them enough time and sure, any top pro can hit a streak, but so what? Tournament play is all about coming with your best game out of the gate and keeping it up until you close out the match, no more and no less.

If they are capable of running a 5 pack they can still do so in an alternating break format every other game. The player who, in your example, is up 5 racks, has almost certainly been doing just this. It just takes a bit more concentration to spot these "packs" in the alternating break format. For example in last year's WPBA tour stop in San Diego an on-fire Kelly Fisher put together an effective 6-pack, getting a B&R on her last 3 break games in the semi and the first 3 games in the finals, if memory serves.

 

[Cameron Smith]

Alternating break is fundamentally fair by definition. Fair means that both sides in a match have an equal chance to win. Was it fair Kuo never had a chance to reply to Wu's 5 pack? Would Kuo have had such a large lead over Wu in the first place if they were playing alternating break?

I don't know if he would have such a lead over Wu, because they didn't play alternate breaks. Maybe.

If a player is down say 8-3 in a race to 11 this means they have lost at least 2 if not 3 games on their own break. That means they have been playing worse than their opponent, so yes it is fair they lose. Give them enough time and sure, any top pro can hit a streak, but so what? Tournament play is all about coming with your best game out of the gate and keeping it up until you close out the match, no more and no less.

So they should be denied the chance to catch up and win? No it is not all about keeping up your best game throughout the match, it is about winning. There are many players who have run 6, 7 and 8 racks, but not too many can pull it out when they need it. One thing that defines a great competitor is that they can pull out their best when they need it.

At the Nasdaq open (tennis) last year Rafael Nadal had Roger Federrer down 2 sets to none in a best of 5. Roger Federrer came back and won the next three sets to win the match. It was one of the best tennis matches I had seen last year. But by your logic Roger did not deserve to win because he didn't play his best at the start.

What about a boxer who starts weak and loses the first six rounds, I suppose he shouldn't win right?

You are right any top pool player can hit a streak of racks but how many of them can do it when they need it? Alternate breaks in my opinion remove that dramatic comeback which is important for sports. Dramatic comebacks are what people talk about for years after the match takes place. The Rodney Morris, Raj Hundal final at the WPM was one of the best finals I have ever seen because after Morris got to the hill at 7-1 I had written Hundal off. Nevertheless Hundal won the next 7 racks to take the title, this would not have been possible with alternate breaks.

. For example in last year's WPBA tour stop in San Diego an on-fire Kelly Fisher put together an effective 6-pack, getting a B&R on her last 3 break games in the semi and the first 3 games in the finals, if memory serves.

Thats not a six pack. When running balls and racks it is all mental after a certain point. Part of what makes it difficult is mental blocks. Runs are only runs if they are achieved during one session. I doubt that she was even thinking that she was trying to run rack number four when she started her second match.

Here is a similar instance. At the end of a practice session I winde down by throwing 15 balls on the table and run them out and I do that as many times I can. A little while ago I ran 180 playing in this manner and then quit because I was tired and I wanted to go home. When I came back the next day I ran 32 in the same manner right out of the gate. Should I say that I ran 212 balls? I wouldn't. But if I did in effect run 212 balls then what about Willie Mosconi who allegedly ran 526 and then stopped? Im sure he ran at least four or five the next time he stepped to a table so technically his run was 530.

 

[AuntyDan]

Alternate breaks in my opinion remove that dramatic comeback which is important for sports. Dramatic comebacks are what people talk about for years after the match takes place. The Rodney Morris, Raj Hundal final at the WPM was one of the best finals I have ever seen because after Morris got to the hill at 7-1 I had written Hundal off. Nevertheless Hundal won the next 7 racks to take the title, this would not have been possible with alternate breaks.

I absolutely agree that when players can run a big pack when down a lot of game in a winner-break format it is dramatic and exiting. It just is not as fundamentally fair a format as alternating break. The obvious way to highlight this is to simply take it to the extreme case - A match won by a single player in a single effective innings. This of course used to happen in Straight Pool occasionally and can still happen in 9 or 8 Ball if the sets are short enough.

So is it fundamentally fair for a player to lose without having had a single chance to shoot?

There is of course no perfect answer with the current systems; both alternating or winner breaks have their good and bad points. About the only way to make Pool a totally equal game would be a Bowling/Equal Offense format - Each player breaks individually a set number of racks and runs as many balls in each rack as possible, then the player with the highest overall score wins. But that would hardly be an attractive thing to watch would it?

 

[Cameron Smith]

I absolutely agree that when players can run a big pack when down a lot of game in a winner-break format it is dramatic and exiting. It just is not as fundamentally fair a format as alternating break. The obvious way to highlight this is to simply take it to the extreme case - A match won by a single player in a single effective innings. This of course used to happen in Straight Pool occasionally and can still happen in 9 or 8 Ball if the sets are short enough.

So is it fundamentally fair for a player to lose without having had a single chance to shoot?

Your right it is not very fair to the other player however it is extremely rare. Rarer than a maximum in snooker but perhaps more frequent than a no hitter in baseball. I personally believe that 14.1 match ups should be a best of three. 150 and outs or 140's and outs are far more common in 14.1 than running out a set in 8 or 9 ball.

Nevertheless the person who ran out the match played superbly, as well as the game can be played. For doing that I think they do deserve to win, and it is a great moment in the sport. However it is no more or less fair than, for example, Marcus Chamat making three nines on the break against Mika Immonen. Mika actually played better than Marcus in that match.

The equivalent to running out a set in winner breaks format is running out all of your breaks in the alternative break format. If you break first and run out on all of your breaks, but don't win any games on your opponents serve then you still win. Your opponent lost because he/she broke second. But then again its relatively rare occurence.

There is of course no perfect answer with the current systems; both alternating or winner breaks have their good and bad points. About the only way to make Pool a totally equal game would be a Bowling/Equal Offense format - Each player breaks individually a set number of racks and runs as many balls in each rack as possible, then the player with the highest overall score wins. But that would hardly be an attractive thing to watch would it?

I certainly agree with you here. I wouldn't want to see equal offensive pool. I can't imagine this would sell very well to the general public. Bowling works because the innings are quick, you can get three matches into a 1hr and 30 minute time frame.

That being said I feel that winner breaks offer an overall dramatic quality to the game that is seriously lacking with alternate breaks. I have always found the latter format to be a dreadfully boring thing to watch.

 

[Banks]

Put on your running shoes

This is 8-ball, not some game to decide who can be nicest or most fair. The only thing that should be done is a player should have one guaranteed turn at the table. If he can match the run, then it should go into "o/t". Chances are, it won't happen. If you get run out after having a chance at the table, too bad, you could've run out in just the same fashion. And in the end, these events (while being held for the players) are also held for the viewers who will help shape the format by what they want to see.

Don't like the format? Don't play. Play the format? Don't complain if you lose "because of the format".