Is "pattern" racking cheating in 9 ball?
- Thread starter Shortside K
- Start date
ccn7 said:
I never did read that book. I flipped through it at the bookstore and saw that they recommend a draw stroke to 'kill' the cueball on narrow-angle, full-ball kick shots, so I left the book there. How does the rest of it stack up?
ccn7 said:This is Chapter 4 Game Breaks.And yes you could semi predict where some of the balls will end up by doing a pattern break if your that good a player,I'm not that good.I wouldnt go so far to say its cheating, as its more of an edge, just like playing with a great cue.Should we all play with the same cue so no one gets the edge.
.....6
....5 7
...4 9 8
....2 3
.....1
Whew didnt think i"d ever get that rack design to look right on here
That's because you were trying to rack from the head of the table.
A few years ago I became aware of patterns which could make runouts more difficult, and I used them for a while in handicap 9-ball tournaments (where they seemed to make the most sense, since the weaker player (me) didn't play a runout game). I didn't notice much of a difference.
I think that the random collisions that occur during a hard break tend to negate the advantages of a pattern rack anyway. I'll also throw my 2 cents in with the people who think that "random",—as used in the written rules—means "we don't care".
Ken
Ahh, this brings back fond memories of the lively discussions we had about Nick, Danny and Gabe monkeying around the table!Bob Jewett said:
Hail Mary Shot said:
Good point, on a soft break, I understand that order may make a significant difference, but on a power break, I do not see any effect.
Hail Mary Shot said:
Interesting...although I don't understand how it works...are you playing the 1 ball in the side? If this is the case, then ok...but if not, then it shouldn't matter because if you make another ball you have the 1 to get position for the next.
But in any case, you have the choice to break at whatever speed you want! If you don't like the way the balls are positioned in the rack, then use that knowledge to change the way you break for that rack or set.
The pros don't care what position the balls are in, except the 1 and the 9. If a ball drops, and they can see the object ball then they have a good chance of getting out.
I think its all part of the game and good players should adjust if they feel like its necessary. In fact, if your really good you can read the rack and use their pattern to your advantage.
-Phillip
DoomCue said:
David,
I don't think we are arguing how to interpret the word random, we understand the definition. However, its feasable that we are arguing that this choice of wording was incorrect when the rules were printed. Did they really mean to say "random" or should it have said "in any order?"
Although I find your other posts intruiging and spot on, I have to disagree with you on this one. Pattern racking might give one person an advantage, but that is if you don't notice. If you notice the position of the balls you can surely use this to your advantage as to the type of break to use, which side of the table to break from, and so on. I think its nitty for a plyer to complain about the position of the balls in the rack.
Is it cheating when one player knows dead kisses or dead caroms to win the game? No! The player is just using HIS knowledge to gain the advantage and win that game. When I see a great shot that I would have never thought of...I don't cry and say, you cheated! I study and observe the shot and try to put that into my database of shots. The same analogy can be used with racking...if someone has this knowledge then it can be used and its not considered cheating. For all the people that think pattern racking is cheating, its most likely because you don't know how to read racks. My advice, study and observe!
-Phillip
I think the rule writers meant to say "random" with no predetermined pattern and people are using their own interpretation to try to justify not following this rule.
The intent of the rule is to remove, as best they can, any advantage gained by things other than the play on the table. Changing the pattern depending on who is breaking, you or opponent, is not random.
However, given the state of mind of most pool players, I think this is unenforceable in unrefereed matches.
If you don't thnk this is the intent, play in a refereed match and ask the referee to rack in a particular order for you and see what he says.
Interestingly enough, when Ronnie Alcano was in Shanghai last year for the ITP qualifier, I watched some of the side 9 ball matches he played with the Chinese players. They played winner breaks and racks his own. He always racked for himself in the same pattern. As far as I know I'm the only one who saw it.
He racked
1
2 3
4 9 5
6 7
8
The intent of the rule is to remove, as best they can, any advantage gained by things other than the play on the table. Changing the pattern depending on who is breaking, you or opponent, is not random.
However, given the state of mind of most pool players, I think this is unenforceable in unrefereed matches.
If you don't thnk this is the intent, play in a refereed match and ask the referee to rack in a particular order for you and see what he says.
Interestingly enough, when Ronnie Alcano was in Shanghai last year for the ITP qualifier, I watched some of the side 9 ball matches he played with the Chinese players. They played winner breaks and racks his own. He always racked for himself in the same pattern. As far as I know I'm the only one who saw it.
He racked
1
2 3
4 9 5
6 7
8
Last edited:
See GADawg's post. I totally agree with him that people are trying to get around the rule by trying to interpret where no interpretation is necessary. Just like an earlier rules discussion, this is black-letter. Random means, well, random. Influencing the order by purposefully placing the balls isn't random, and therefore breaking the rules. If you knowingly break the rules, you are cheating.pip9ball said:
I think pattern racking is cheating because the rules say it is. Racking, in an honorable world, should NOT be a point of contention between players. Unfortunately, that's clearly not the case. I think if you pattern rack, you are a rack mechanic - you're manipulating the rack for a more favorable outcome. That should be done with a cue and a stick, not the rack. Pattern racking by an opponent dictates what the player can do with the break. That's not the intent of the break shot. That would be like me moving Tiger's ball on the tee, or using a leaf blower on Federer's ball toss. The breaker should be able to break however he wants - you shouldn't be able to dictate it based on a pattern rack.
There is no rule against caroms, jump shots, 35+mph breaks, banks, etc. There is one against non-random racks. I check racks, and I do look for non-random placement. I have told opponents that's illegal. Sometimes they get mad, but I don't care. If they get mad, it must be because they know they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
-djb
GADawg said:
Ask anyone to rack the balls to your specifications and see what they say. I don't "play requests" when I'm racking either. In this situation, it's the referee's rack, and he gets to rack "randomly" the way he wants. It would be interesting to know how many referees rack using a pattern.
GADawg said:
Now, there's a pattern even I could remember.
Ken
DoomCue said:
The way the balls are placed in no way dictates how you choose to break....only you can do that. I'll let you rack em in any order you want as long as the 1 and the 9 are in the middle. I have many different types of breaks and will choose the best option given the particular rack. If I choose to break the same without checking the rack, then so be it thats my choice.
My definition of a rack mechanic is one whom intentionally leaves small gaps between certain balls to change the percentages to pocket a ball on the break. The order doesn't matter as long as all balls are touching.
I've seen you play and you play very well. At your level, the position of the balls shouldn't make a difference in your game. Just like you adapt to different rooms and table conditions, adapt to the rack.
I myself don't pattern rack as I don't think it makes that much of a difference, however, if somebody else wants to I think of it as a chess match and change my break up. Often times this will get to my opponent as their pattern is failing.
As with most things these days, everthing is open to interpretation. If pattern racking really is illegal then the rule should be elaborated on more where it explicitly states that racking the balls in the same order is illegal. I know that the textbook definition of "random" is exactly this....but then again everybody else (especially non technical people) will interpret "random" differently too. To remove all ambuigity, the rule should be changed so that it is very explicit and is not open to intrepretation.
-Phillip
I thought I had done this post already, but I can't find it, so here goes...
I have previously posted that I believed that pattern racking was not against the rules and that the term 'random' did not mean that a player could not rack them as he pleased. However, a review of older rulebooks, combined with a simple trip to the dictionary, has convinced me that intent of the rules is to prevent pattern racking. If you look at the 1992 BCA rulebook, you will not that except for the one and the nine, the balls are racked 'in arbitrary order'. By 1997, the wording of the rules regarding racking stated that the balls were to be racked 'in random order'. Merriam Webster's dictionary defines 'arbitrary' as being left to the discretion of the individual performing or controlling the act or process, and it defines 'random' as having no predetermined pattern or order. Thus, it seems clear that between 1992 and 1997 the rules committee deliberately took steps to illegalize pattern racking. The word of Bob Jewett, longtime BCA Rules Committee member, should be considered authoritative on this subject.
As to the assertion that the pros don't care where the balls are racked, nothing could be further from the truth. The acute observer will notice that even if you break 'em like King Kong, there are definite places that the balls tend to track depending on where they are racked. This is the reason why pages in numberous pocket billiards books and magazines have been devoted to 9-ball racking patterns, and why there are whole DVD's that cover nothing but the rack.
Where do you think the soft cut break originated? Once pros like Corey saw that the one ball was falling in the side consistently with the use of the Sardo Rack, they developed a break that allowed them to play position on the two, since it was routinely racked behind the nine. And why was it routinely racked behind the nine? Because on a hard break, the one generallys goes uptable if it doesn't go in the side. Thus the two was racked behind the nine by knowledgeable players since it generally stays downtable, and the breaking player would have to travel a greater distance to get shape on it.
I remember watching match on Accu-Stats where the referee was consistently placing the eight ball in the row behind the nine using a Sardo Rack, and the nine ball was staying close to the spot and the eight ball was usually landing close to the long rail--directly across from the spot. To make matters worse, the corner ball was falling with robotic regularity and time after time, the layout would be such that the player would move no more than a foot from the eight ball to get straight on the nine. Grady Matthews was going crazy in the booth, and kept saying (rightly so) that of all places to put the eight ball, the row behind the nine was the worst because it was making the game too easy for the breaking player.
In short, it does matter where the balls go, and pattern racking is indeed contrary to the rules. However, it is extremely difficult to enforce, and all that does indeed go out the window when wild spot balls begin to enter the equation.
I have previously posted that I believed that pattern racking was not against the rules and that the term 'random' did not mean that a player could not rack them as he pleased. However, a review of older rulebooks, combined with a simple trip to the dictionary, has convinced me that intent of the rules is to prevent pattern racking. If you look at the 1992 BCA rulebook, you will not that except for the one and the nine, the balls are racked 'in arbitrary order'. By 1997, the wording of the rules regarding racking stated that the balls were to be racked 'in random order'. Merriam Webster's dictionary defines 'arbitrary' as being left to the discretion of the individual performing or controlling the act or process, and it defines 'random' as having no predetermined pattern or order. Thus, it seems clear that between 1992 and 1997 the rules committee deliberately took steps to illegalize pattern racking. The word of Bob Jewett, longtime BCA Rules Committee member, should be considered authoritative on this subject.
As to the assertion that the pros don't care where the balls are racked, nothing could be further from the truth. The acute observer will notice that even if you break 'em like King Kong, there are definite places that the balls tend to track depending on where they are racked. This is the reason why pages in numberous pocket billiards books and magazines have been devoted to 9-ball racking patterns, and why there are whole DVD's that cover nothing but the rack.
Where do you think the soft cut break originated? Once pros like Corey saw that the one ball was falling in the side consistently with the use of the Sardo Rack, they developed a break that allowed them to play position on the two, since it was routinely racked behind the nine. And why was it routinely racked behind the nine? Because on a hard break, the one generallys goes uptable if it doesn't go in the side. Thus the two was racked behind the nine by knowledgeable players since it generally stays downtable, and the breaking player would have to travel a greater distance to get shape on it.
I remember watching match on Accu-Stats where the referee was consistently placing the eight ball in the row behind the nine using a Sardo Rack, and the nine ball was staying close to the spot and the eight ball was usually landing close to the long rail--directly across from the spot. To make matters worse, the corner ball was falling with robotic regularity and time after time, the layout would be such that the player would move no more than a foot from the eight ball to get straight on the nine. Grady Matthews was going crazy in the booth, and kept saying (rightly so) that of all places to put the eight ball, the row behind the nine was the worst because it was making the game too easy for the breaking player.
In short, it does matter where the balls go, and pattern racking is indeed contrary to the rules. However, it is extremely difficult to enforce, and all that does indeed go out the window when wild spot balls begin to enter the equation.
Last edited:
For the most part, while I disagree with your conclusions, I can't say that your logic is faulty, except for this:
If the balls are tight, and the one is on the spot, that's about all that can affect what the player can do with the break. The general disposition of the balls after the break is all that might be affected by any pattern, and there is still a tremendous amount of chance in that - much more than the number of possible "random" racking patterns.
I just think it's a non-issue, and that the persons who are calling opponents out for pattern-racking are having to dig just as deep into the rules for their point of view as the pattern racker is for theirs. For every time you rack for an "easy runout" and two balls are locked up after the break, there is just as good a chance that when your opponent racks you for a "difficult runout", all the balls will be open.
So, the question is, if it matters, how much does it matter, and then, how far do we take this? There have been many examples of "preferred" racks posted in this thread. Should we put all of those racks in a database and compare every rack to that group to ensure that none of the "random' racks match these "preferred" patterns? Should players who have discovered new and improved rack patterns submit them to the authorities for testing, certification and inclusion in the database of non-randomness?
Just from what I've gathered in this thread, caring about it is the biggest difference between the two camps. I might or might not rack in a pattern, and I certainly don't care if someone gets their jollies by pattern racking against me.
Ken
DoomCue said:
If the balls are tight, and the one is on the spot, that's about all that can affect what the player can do with the break. The general disposition of the balls after the break is all that might be affected by any pattern, and there is still a tremendous amount of chance in that - much more than the number of possible "random" racking patterns.
I just think it's a non-issue, and that the persons who are calling opponents out for pattern-racking are having to dig just as deep into the rules for their point of view as the pattern racker is for theirs. For every time you rack for an "easy runout" and two balls are locked up after the break, there is just as good a chance that when your opponent racks you for a "difficult runout", all the balls will be open.
So, the question is, if it matters, how much does it matter, and then, how far do we take this? There have been many examples of "preferred" racks posted in this thread. Should we put all of those racks in a database and compare every rack to that group to ensure that none of the "random' racks match these "preferred" patterns? Should players who have discovered new and improved rack patterns submit them to the authorities for testing, certification and inclusion in the database of non-randomness?
Just from what I've gathered in this thread, caring about it is the biggest difference between the two camps. I might or might not rack in a pattern, and I certainly don't care if someone gets their jollies by pattern racking against me.
Ken
In my opinion, racking the balls in a special pattern to gain advantage is unsportsmanlike conduct.Shortside K said:
"Randomness" is a problem. I achieve it when racking by simply not paying any attention to which ball I put where except for the one and nine. (I always get the one right and usually get the nine right.) The balls go into the rack in the order I happen to pick them up in. I suppose that's not quite random since first balls to hand will tend to be the ones pocketed near the foot of the table or first into the hopper on ball return tables.
The WPA rules revision committee struggled with the issue, and some wanted to specify an order. The proposed rule reads:
The object balls are racked as tightly as possible in a diamond shape,
with the one ball at the top of the diamond and on the foot spot and the
nine ball in the middle of the diamond. The other balls will be placed
in the diamond without purposeful or intentional pattern.
with the one ball at the top of the diamond and on the foot spot and the
nine ball in the middle of the diamond. The other balls will be placed
in the diamond without purposeful or intentional pattern.
In a separate document called the "Regulations" which discusses officiating issues, the instructions are this:
If the tournament official determines that the player is intentionally positioning balls
in the *rack, the player will be given an official warning to refrain from doing
so. Once warned, should the player continue with intentional positioning
of the rack, he shall be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct.
in the *rack, the player will be given an official warning to refrain from doing
so. Once warned, should the player continue with intentional positioning
of the rack, he shall be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct.
It is unfortunate that some instructors and even some who work as referees have suggested racking orders to achieve some benefit. I did a silent experiment several times. When my opponent was about to break, I noticed the order the balls were in. (You only have to remember six numbers for this, such as 2-7-8-5-6-4 starting next to the one ball, and reading in rows, since the one and nine are in known locations and the ball not mentioned (the 3) must be at the back.) My conclusion was that if there was any pattern to where the balls ended, it was very weak. There are several problems with that kind of experiment. The racks weren't tight. My opponents weren't very good. The balls were of various sizes.
Last edited:
All I can say is that 19 years ago, after playing 9-ball for about a year, I noticed, through observation, that the balls tended to go in certain places, and I came up with a pattern that I thought would make the runout more difficult for the opponent. Since then, I have seen this pattern, with minute variations, in racks by knowledgeable players, in Pool & Billiard Magazine, and in Jack Koehler's Upscale Nine-Ball. Also, take a look at professional or top players when they rack their own and see if they ever place the eight in the back of the rack. Then see how many times it happens when they're racking for their opponent. Trust me, it's not by accident.
Edit: Obviously, I'm not taking credit for any racking patterns, just noting that through my own observation, I independently came to the same conclusion that a number of other people did.
Edit: Obviously, I'm not taking credit for any racking patterns, just noting that through my own observation, I independently came to the same conclusion that a number of other people did.
Last edited:
I think a few may have skipped or disregarded post #35:
I was willing to buy into the argument that "random" means "any order", until a true expert on the rules stepped in.
Now, I'm not going to let it bother me if someone pattern racks on me. I don't think it's a huge advantage, and there's really nothing I can do about it anyway. However, the above post makes it clear that it's against the rules, whether we like that rule or not. I agree that the wording of the rule should be changed as proposed, to remove ambiguity.
Of course, when you're gambling, and there is a specific money-ball being given as weight, it's pretty much implied that you're going to rack that money ball behind the 1-ball, but IMO, that's fine. If the subject came up, I'm sure both players would agree to that way anyway.
Bob Jewett said:
I was willing to buy into the argument that "random" means "any order", until a true expert on the rules stepped in.
Now, I'm not going to let it bother me if someone pattern racks on me. I don't think it's a huge advantage, and there's really nothing I can do about it anyway. However, the above post makes it clear that it's against the rules, whether we like that rule or not. I agree that the wording of the rule should be changed as proposed, to remove ambiguity.
Of course, when you're gambling, and there is a specific money-ball being given as weight, it's pretty much implied that you're going to rack that money ball behind the 1-ball, but IMO, that's fine. If the subject came up, I'm sure both players would agree to that way anyway.
To follow up, I must reiterate that until looking at this forum, I had not ever considered the issue of pattern racking as a problem and in fact used it to my advantage for over two decades. The question is not whether you should care about it, but whether it is legal. As noted before, any examination of present and past rules does make it clear that the governing bodies of pool, somewhere in the mid-nineties, decided to prohibit this practice. Bob Jewett's statement regarding the deliberations of the WPA rules revision committee makes it even more clear.
If your opponent's pattern racking is a non-issue to you, then you have no problem and you obviously will not raise the question in your gambling matches (I wouldn't either). However, please be advised that it is an issue that may arise in a tournament, and tournament players need to be aware of it so that they stay on the right side of the law when they engage in formal competition.
If your opponent's pattern racking is a non-issue to you, then you have no problem and you obviously will not raise the question in your gambling matches (I wouldn't either). However, please be advised that it is an issue that may arise in a tournament, and tournament players need to be aware of it so that they stay on the right side of the law when they engage in formal competition.
Cuebacca said:
Maybe a lot of people are skipping or disregarding the post because it refers to WPA rules and not BCA as the original post started.
Rule 5.2 of the BCA World Standardized Rules...the other balls in RANDOM order, racked as tightly as possible." There are no penalties assigned to this rule in BCA, such as unsportsman like conduct, or starting the racker with a foul. So I would have to take rule to mean random is really, any order, pattern or otherwise.
Even if they do change this to read as the WPA rules do, The people with the knowlege of what makes a good rack vs. a bad rack will still be able to use that to their real or otherwise imagined advantage when they are breaking.
It's just another skill players should learn if they feel they can benefit from it. some will, some won't. JMO
pip9ball said:
I was going to answer your question but some guys here beat me to it.
Some guys here asked if there is an effect on the layout when using a patterned rack. so the logical answer is Yes. for the normal average player, they aren't aware of such racking order can make a difference, but it does.
And Yes, all good players read the rack before they break. this goes to show you that good players acknowledge the existence and benefits of rack patterns. good players don't just bang right away after the rack has been setup, they choose the best possible area of where to break. colors are not that difficult to memorize.