IPT Rule Changes

Nostroke

Nostroke

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I just heard Sigel telling people starting in Chicago What you make on the break is what you shoot. I guess this is in response to the easiness of 8 Ball for the pros but this isnt the answer. Now you are going to punish someone for making a ball in many instances. Totally unfair.

The answer is IMHO play 9 Ball.
 
Hmm, I doubt it has anything to do with the amount of runs, more to do with the mouth getting thrashed! Despite everyone in the world using HIS conditions he still couldnt challenge, now he's going to start messing with the rules. I don't recall this being a problem in the 8 ball world championships, euro champs etc etc.

He may have helped get this thing started BUT the sooner this guy is off the tour and they start using modern day standards the better.
 
Too late!

Nostroke said:
I just heard Sigel telling people starting in Chicago What you make on the break is what you shoot. I guess this is in response to the easiness of 8 Ball for the pros but this isnt the answer. Now you are going to punish someone for making a ball in many instances. Totally unfair.

The answer is IMHO play 9 Ball.
Click to expand...

Yup! But, IMHO, it's probably too late for them to back away from the
8-ball is harder, more strategy, no slop, slower cloth routine that they've been pumping.
 
TheOne said:
Hmm, I doubt it has anything to do with the amount of runs, more to do with the mouth getting thrashed!
Click to expand...

Wow! You must have your own definition of thrashed. Look again at how he got eliminated. He finished with the same 3-2 record as the 3 in his group who advanced and in the process defeated World Champ Wu and also defeated Feijen (who is in the final 18 and in the running for the final 6). You may not like the guy but he certainly didn't get thrashed. I think he actually did much better in that group than most people expected. (e.g. of the proper use of thrashed "Hohman got thrashed!" or "Helen Keller's son Ryan got thrashed going 0-32").

Wayne
 
Last edited:
wayne said:
Wow! You must have your own definition of thrashed. Look again at how he got eliminated. He finished with the same 3-2 record as the 3 in his group who advanced and in the process defeated World Champ Wu and also defeated Feijen (who is in the final 18 and in the running for the final 6). You may not like the guy but he certainly didn't get thrashed. I think he actually did much better in that group than most people expected. (e.g. of the proper use of thrashed "Hohman got thrashed!" or "Helen Keller's son Ryan got thrashed going 0-32").

Wayne
Click to expand...


OK maybe didnt explain my context very well, I dont like or dislike him to be honest, dont really know him. I mean thrashed in the sense that over the two events he's nowhere near the sharp end, but yes he has had a few decent results. Just can't imagined he ever expected to be sitting where he is in the money list after two events.

My only gripe is going back 20 years to use a cloth that suits his own game! Now he's going to start changing rules too, I hope not! :(

EDIT:

Mike won $7,693 in this event and $5000 in the first, maybe thrashed was the wrong word but I think you get my drift?
 
Last edited:
He is telling more and more people now-the weak players can run out under present rules. In one of his matches, his opponent would make a stripe but the Solids were "ducks" so SHE picked solids and got out on him. Then the next game she makes a solid and the stripes were ducks and she runs out on him again! Can you see how unfair this is?

Anyway now he is saying he "thinks" they are gonna make this change- a little less definite than last time i heard him on this so we shall see.
 
Nostroke said:
I just heard Sigel telling people starting in Chicago What you make on the break is what you shoot. I guess this is in response to the easiness of 8 Ball for the pros but this isnt the answer. Now you are going to punish someone for making a ball in many instances. Totally unfair.

The answer is IMHO play 9 Ball.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely. Whether this change is made or not, the answer is to continue to play 8 ball, because any chance this tour has of becoming a big hit with the casual poolplayers is to play the one game that they all play.

If this change is made, it might be a good idea to also allow a push out after the break.

A switch to nine ball or ten ball would, in my opinion, be a mistake.
 
I would like to see how this works out, I do believe there are far too many
run outs in ths tourney. I'm all for making things tougher to weed out the weaker players, having said that, they need Nine Ball for the future.

Also, imo, 8 ball doesn't seem to lend itself very well to television.
 
sjm said:
I disagree completely. Whether this change is made or not, the answer is to continue to play 8 ball, because any chance this tour has of becoming a big hit with the casual poolplayers is to play the one game that they all play.

If this change is made, it might be a good idea to also allow a push out after the break.

A switch to nine ball or ten ball would, in my opinion, be a mistake.
Click to expand...

Big money made millions of non fans play and watch Texas Hold'm. In your view, they should be playing 7 card Hi Low. the casual players game or maybe something else but definitely not Hold'm. Not saying your wrong but that is my view.
 
Nostroke said:
Big money made millions of non fans play and watch Texas Hold'm. In your view, they should be playing 7 card Hi Low. the casual players game or maybe something else but definitely not Hold'm. Not saying your wrong but that is my view.
Click to expand...

Nine ball had a 20+ year run as the most visible pro game but it failed to catch on with casual pool players, failing to convert them away from eight ball, their game of choice.

Contrastingly, Texas holdem so caught the imagination of the causal poker player that it's what every poker player, causal or serious, wants to play.

I believe that rotation games will never capture the imagination of the causal pool player. Needless to say, I may bre mistaken. If captuiring the fans' imagination is only about the money, I reckon it doesn't much matter which game is played.
 
It would be nice if the could add one stop next year with a change of game, lets say the World 10 Ball Championships and see how it goes down.
 
The break

Why don't they just make alternating breaks, like more and more 9 ball tournaments.

no-sho
 
A New Kind of 8ball

What about this...

The breaker is required to call the ball and pocket of EVERY shot, INCLUDING the break. That way, the opening break will look more like the start of a straight pool game. The luck factor of the break can be all but eliminated.

These games will obviously take longer to conclude, so make the races significantly shorter...like races to 5 instead of 8. Even if the races are shortened substantially, the overall luck factor will still be greatly reduced if the breaker is required to call the ball and pocket of the break shot.

Just throwing a zany idea out there. Don't know if it'll work at all in reality.
 
Another crazy idea

Here's another way to get rid of the dry/wet break luck factor.

Let the player who breaks shoot again whether or not a ball drops on the break. This would give the breaker an overwhelming advantage, and break and run percentages would probably be in the 70s/80s/90s for top players.

Then, you make it alternating breaks, and win by 2 like in tennis. So when you break, you are really truly supposed to win the rack. If you don't run out (or play a lock-up safety) then you're really hurting. It would be like losing a service game in tennis; for good players it shouldn't happen much.

Of course, matches could go on forever. But in the round robin format, you could let matches end in an 8-8 tie and give 1/2 a point to each player, so the tourney could proceed as usual. Only the final match could go on a long time but that's OK because it's the finals and that would actually be pretty exciting.

This would be a little weird, but I do think the cream would rise to the top a lot faster because you wouldn't win or lose any matches just because of dry breaks. If you lose, it's because you didn't run out as much as your opponent. No more "I played perfect but still lost." Also, you still want a good break to get a good spread and make your runouts easier.
 
ineedaspot said:
Here's another way to get rid of the dry/wet break luck factor.

Let the player who breaks shoot again whether or not a ball drops on the break. This would give the breaker an overwhelming advantage, and break and run percentages would probably be in the 70s/80s/90s for top players.

Then, you make it alternating breaks, and win by 2 like in tennis. So when you break, you are really truly supposed to win the rack. If you don't run out (or play a lock-up safety) then you're really hurting. It would be like losing a service game in tennis; for good players it shouldn't happen much.

Of course, matches could go on forever. But in the round robin format, you could let matches end in an 8-8 tie and give 1/2 a point to each player, so the tourney could proceed as usual. Only the final match could go on a long time but that's OK because it's the finals and that would actually be pretty exciting.

This would be a little weird, but I do think the cream would rise to the top a lot faster because you wouldn't win or lose any matches just because of dry breaks. If you lose, it's because you didn't run out as much as your opponent. No more "I played perfect but still lost." Also, you still want a good break to get a good spread and make your runouts easier.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think this is a very good idea! You eliminate the luck of having to make a ball at the break, and you also don't lose the art of the power break (which you would lose with my suggestion).

Though, I'd rather not give 1/2 points, or have a deuce, or anything like that if the score is knotted at 8-8. Things would really get messy...time-wise and statistics-wise.

I would rather just have the first person who reaches 8 games wins the match, regardless of who broke first. That of course would make the lag substantially more important in determining who breaks first.

So instead of the traditional lag of sending the ball up and down table to see who's closest to the head rail, why not think of another "lag" that would require more skill and less luck. Maybe the famous Efren shot of potting a spot shot and seeing who comes closest to the end rail. A coin toss would determine which person would shoot the spot shot first. If the first person misses the shot, then all the second person has to do is pot the ball. If both miss the shot, then they both try again, in reverse order.

You know, doing the tournament this way might just work out (except for maybe the zany lag idea :p ).
 
jsp said:
What about this...

The breaker is required to call the ball and pocket of EVERY shot, INCLUDING the break. That way, the opening break will look more like the start of a straight pool game. The luck factor of the break can be all but eliminated.
(snip)
Just throwing a zany idea out there. Don't know if it'll work at all in reality.
Click to expand...

I think this is a wonderful idea. It immediately fixes the issue of lucky/unlucky breaks. Right now the break shot is the most important shot in the game, and it is by far the luckiest shot in the game, and that is not how it is meant to be. Calling every shot would make the start of the game into a "chess match" that would be the most interesting part of every game.
 
Here's another idea. Leave it alone the way it is. The pressure alone is enough to make the weaker players dog it. Let pool be the only sport where it is possible to shut your opponent out without him ever getting out of the chair.

If you want to tweak it do this: IF one player runs out the set then let the opponent have one swing at doing the same thing. If the opponent then runs out the set as well they play again.

I think the format is fine. From what I have seen on the video feed the players are having to navigate relatively tricky outs on most of their turns to the table and the pressure is definitely showing in the missed shots and missed positions.

On the commentary side I think the announcers could pay a slight bit more attention to the game because sometimesthey missed opportunities to explain tricky layouts and subsequent choices while talking about something else.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top