Is "pattern" racking cheating in 9 ball?

[Bob Jewett]

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. ...

I thought that that the BCA used (and printed in the BCA rule book) the WPA World Standardized Rules. Has this changed? I'm pretty sure that they haven't been the "BCA" rules for several years.

As for the original intent of the wording, I believe it was the same as the proposed wording, which is to say the racking order must be without intentional pattern. It is unsportsmanlike conduct and not part of legitimate play to try to gain advantage from the order of the balls in the rack. If a particular TD wants to say otherwise to avoid having to come over to each table to view the order for each rack, then that's up to him, but it's not part of the current rules or the proposed rules.

 

[Slider]

It is unsportsmanlike conduct and not part of legitimate play to try to gain advantage from the order of the balls in the rack.

Let's say the TD throws together a random rack, and it's my break.

If I see a familiar pattern in that rack, and I have figured out ways to break that pattern to my advantage, is that unsportsmanlike?

Ken

 

[Cuebacca]

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.

The BCA rules are the same as the WPA rules, if I am not mistaken. The reason why Bob's post was not the same as the BCA rules is because he was posting the proposed change to the rule, not the current rule. The only difference I've noticed so far between the two rule sets is that the BCA website does not list their complete rule set. IE, some of the rules are missing. You can see this by looking at the rule numbers.

 

[Cuebacca]

Let's say the TD throws together a random rack, and it's my break.

If I see a familiar pattern in that rack, and I have figured out ways to break that pattern to my advantage, is that unsportsmanlike?

Ken

Using the information gathered from reading the rack is not unsportsmanlike, IMO. On the contrary, it is highly sportsmanlike.

EDIT: LOL, I just reread the post you quoted. I believe Mr. Jewett was referring to the process of racking, not the process of breaking.

 

[pdcue]

I am amazed at the number of "players" that do not know the BCA World Standardized Rule regarding "racking the balls" in 9 ball. These same "players" routinely "pattern" rack in 9-ball to try to gain an edge against their opponents.

Without exception, the "players" I discussed the matter with, stated that (excluding the 1 ball and the 9 ball) the remaining balls DO NOT have to be racked "randomly", but may be racked in any order. This legitimizes their "pattern" racking. They were ALL very sure about this and some even became quite angry during the discussion.

Rule 5.2 of the BCA World Standardized Rules for racking for 9-ball states: "... with the 1-ball at the top of the diamond and on the foot spot, the 9-ball in the center of the diamond, and the other balls in RANDOM order, racked as tightly as possible."

Definition of "random" (from "web definitions"):

1. "lacking any definite plan or order or purpose",
2. "lack of predictability, without any systematic pattern",
3. "having no plan, seemingly haphazard",
4. "having no discernible structure or repetition",

I can't see how it could be clearer.

If the BCA rules stated that "the remaining balls may be racked in ANY order" I would agree that "pattern" racking is acceptable, but the definition of the word "random" makes "pattern" racking unacceptable in my way of thinking. It is an infraction of Rule 5.2 of the BCA World Standardized Rules.

I know that many tournaments specify that the 2 ball be racked at the bottom of the rack. Fine. This is "specified" by the tournament director. However, I have NEVER seen or heard of a tournament that specified that the balls may be racked in ANY order. Usually, BCA rules are specified which would exclude "pattern" racking.

I have played pool for a long time and clearly understand the reasons that the "players" want to rack the balls in defined patterns (both offensively and defensively), but isn't this just a form of "cheating"?

I know that many of you are going to respond with, "Its impossible to enforce... how can you prove that someone is "pattern" racking?" "Everybody does it so you have to do it to stay even".

Well, NOT everybody does it... I NEVER do it, and I consider that those that do are cheating. Nobody wants to be called a "cheater", so I'm sure that there are a lot of players out there that will take great offence to my statement. However, if you are deliberately breaking the rules... you are cheating. Simple. There will be a lot of you that will think of me as stupid for not doing it, but I feel that if I have to cheat to win, why even bother playing.

You may also think that I must lose a lot. Well, you're wrong. I play very well and win my share of tournaments and matches.

There was an earlier "post" which stated that with "random" racks, the "breaker" may get a rack which results in a "tough" run-out and with alternate breaks it would be unfair when one player may get several "tough run-out" tables while another player luckily gets easier tables to run-out.

This is a legitimate concern, but the rules are the rules. If the BCA had concerns about this, they would change the rule. They haven't as yet, so tough noogies... deal with it and play by the rules.

I welcome all responses with the hope that if I am wrong in my interpretation of the rule, clarification and correction can be made.

Does anybody here speak English?<female gender>

If an action does not specifically violate the rules, it is
not cheating.
Tho one may certainly question if it is good sportsmanship.

Random - any pattern is one of the possible araingements of balls
possible within the requirements of the rule<1 on spot, 9 in center>

If the rule stated it was not legal to REPEAT the same arangement
as the previous one, then it would be a violation, but it does not
say that.

Should it?

A humble suggestion:

Many moons ago, there was an article,<in BD?> about where the
balls tend to come to rest, based on their rack position, and how much this influenced the difficultiy of running out the resulting layout.

Perhaps the most fair way to play would be to have a specific
spot for each ball.

The 'old' rules for Rotation, besides the 1-2-3 requirement
called for the higher number balls 'in the back rows'

Dale

 

[seymore15074]

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that order does not matter. Even if you could put the balls on opposite ends of the table, that doesn't nessisarily result in a "more difficult" runnout. Someone who can actually play this game is already accustomed to moving up and down table (it happens every game anyway), and will not care whatsoever.

Is it cheating? Nah, it doesn't bother me any...so it can't be. Now, if it's not tight or on the spot, that's a different story.

 

[pdcue]

I find it hard to believe people are arguing about how to interpret the word "random." I now understand why we have so many frivolous lawsuits in this country - people trying to find loopholes to gain an advantage when there's no loophole.

Pattern racking is cheating, plain and simple. The letter and spirit of the law (the rulebook) both make it clear that pattern racking for 9-ball is illegal. Clearly, pattern racking gives an advantage to one of the players or it wouldn't be done. This alone should make the intent of the rule clear.

I hadn't read this thread because I thought it was fairly self-evident that pattern racking is illegal, but apparently it isn't self-evident. Somebody earlier mentioned that it was "nitty" for a player to complain about a certain pattern. Sorry, but I think it's nitty for a player to pattern rack. Clearly, the racker is trying to gain an advantage in a cheap way - that's nitty.

For the people who pattern rack - what do you think about rack mechanics?

-djb

Which rulebook?

Could you cite the section(s) that clearly state
the illegal-ness

Dale

 

[DoomCue]

I have many different types of breaks and will choose the best option given the particular rack.

If you opt to break a certain way because I've opted to rack a certain way, I have dictated the way you break. I should not be allowed to do that. Only my actions with the CB and cue stick should dictate anything you do at the table (as well as luck and your own actions).

If I choose to break the same without checking the rack, then so be it thats my choice.

That's kind of my point - in an HONORABLE world, I shouldn't have to check the rack.

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.

My definition is anyone who does anything to the rack to gain an advantage.

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.

Flattery will get you everywhere. There are plenty on this forum who haven't seen me play who would disagree with you about my playing ability.

I can control, to a certain extent, 3 balls on the break - the CB, the wing ball, and the 1-ball. By pattern racking, the racker can take control of the other balls, which is just plain wrong. Whether it's rack your own (holy hell, I hope I don't play a pattern racker in rack your own who knows what he's doing on a soft table!) or loser racks, pattern racking leads to someone gaining an advantage. I don't believe this should be part of the game.

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 don't see this as being ambiguous at all - the very term "pattern rack" is at odds with the term "random rack."

-djb

 

[Cuebacca]

Random - any pattern is one of the possible araingements of balls
possible within the requirements of the rule<1 on spot, 9 in center>

While this statement is correct, I respectfully disagree with what you're getting at. If you choose a particular arrangement on purpose, then that order is not random. Only the racker knows for sure whether the order was randomly chosen or not. That's why the rule would be so hard to enforce.

 

[DoomCue]

Which rulebook?

Could you cite the section(s) that clearly state
the illegal-ness

Dale

You're kidding, right?

One more time, here it is, from the World Standardized Rules, 9-ball. Note the use of the word RANDOM.

5.2 RACKING THE BALLS
The object balls are racked in a diamond shape, with the 1-ball at the top of the diamond and on the foot spot, the 9-ball in the center of the diamond, and the other balls in random order, racked as tightly as possible. The game begins with cue ball in hand behind the head string.

-djb

 

[Cuebacca]

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.

At his level, do you feel that it doesn't make ANY difference? Even at the professional level, mistakes will be made a certain percentage of the time. Generally speaking, the more the cue ball has to be moved, the more likely a mistake will be made.

 

[pip9ball]

At his level, do you feel that it doesn't make ANY difference? Even at the professional level, mistakes will be made a certain percentage of the time. Generally speaking, the more the cue ball has to be moved, the more likely a mistake will be made.

Correct, I don't think it makes one bit of difference. Even with a patterned rack, the outcome is still random and chances of you having to move the cue ball around the table is about the same.

It seems like we have people on one side or the other. While I don't agree with their opinion, Im not saying that their wrong...just a difference of opinion

-Phillip

 

[GADawg]

Based on Bob Jewett's posts, the intent of the current rule is that pattern racking is not allowed. Based on the fact that some people cannot understand the wording of the current rule or choose to twist it to suit their wishes, it is planned to reword the rule in the next revision to make is clear.

It is not a question of whether you like it or not or think it gives an advantage or not. It is a question of whether the rules allow it.

I think Bob has more insight into the intent of the rule writers than the rest of us. I feel sure the writers understood the meaning of the word random and thought others would too. Obviously, they were wrong and see that they have to explain it further.

This is like Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is."

 

[Bob Jewett]

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that order does not matter. ... .

I think that Corey Deuel would disagree with you. I think he feels that the order of the balls in a 9 ball rack is very important, and he has spent a long time thinking about it.

 

[Cuebacca]

Correct, I don't think it makes one bit of difference. Even with a patterned rack, the outcome is still random and chances of you having to move the cue ball around the table is about the same.

It seems like we have people on one side or the other. While I don't agree with their opinion, Im not saying that their wrong...just a difference of opinion

-Phillip

My mistake... I thought I was quoting something else. I could have sworn that someone said that the final ball positions (after breaking) didn't matter. Now I can't find the statement I was trying to quote, so I'm not sure who said it, or if anyone even said that at all. LOL.

Anyway, based on what I DID quote, and your reply, well, I will agree to disagree with it.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I feel sure the writers understood the meaning of the word random and thought others would too. Obviously, they were wrong and see that they have to explain it further. ...

Random is a peculiar concept. The original PBA (MPBA, PBT, PBTA) rules, which I think may have been the first time a "random" order was specified, used the word "arbitrary." There was a Dilbert cartoon strip in which he was visiting the Accounting Department and the troll who generated random numbers there kept saying, "Nine, nine, nine...." which is just as likely as any other specific sequence. Similarly your opponent could argue that the 1-2-6-9-7-5-4-8-3 order that the balls have ended up in for his past 27 racks were all random.

In the 1977 BCA rules, the positions of the 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 were specified. I'd have to look to see when other changes went in.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Let's say the TD throws together a random rack, and it's my break.

If I see a familiar pattern in that rack, and I have figured out ways to break that pattern to my advantage, is that unsportsmanlike?

Ken

Amazingly enough, for a few years the breaker was not permitted to look at the rack if a referee was racking. I think that if one side is tight and the other loose, you may want to break on the tight side.

 

[Shortside K]

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 see my post has come to life again...

I do not "pattern rack"... I just throw the balls into the rack and then put the one in the front and the 9 in the middle without paying attention to where the other balls end up.
Yes, it is possible that I could repeat the same racks... BUT... there is NO DELIBERATE INTENT on the pattern... therefore I believe that they are racked "randomly".

Sometimes when I see people "arranging the balls" in the rack, I ask them if they are "pattern racking". They usually hum and haw and then sheepishly admit that they are. I ask them why they are doing it and if they know the rule regarding "pattern racking". Most of them "don't know the rule" and when informed, don't believe what I'm saying. The ones that DO know the rule get very defensive and upset and give "their interpretation" of the rule. When they get "upset", I know that they inwardly believe they are "not adhering to the rule".

I only bring it forward during "casual play", or between discussions with people "on the rail".

I agree that not much can be done to enforce this rule, but if I ask someone about it and they admit to "knowingly" breaking/bending the rule ... I learn a lot about their character.

 

[Vinnie]

...Even under the old wording, the intent was to prevent pattern racking. The problem is to figure out how to implement the rule fairly. Having a referee rack would help.

Perhaps the rule can be changed to make us rack it in a specific pattern as in 7-Ball the same way every time, then everyone would have equal fairness. Just a thought.

Vinnie
-------------
Stroke

 

[smittie1984]

I don't really pay attention to rack order.

But I do have a habit in 9ball of putting the 1 and 9 in their locations. But also putting the 8ball in the back of the rack.

In full triangle games such as 1pocket, 8ball, 14.1, etc I put the 1 in front always. I guess I consider it a consistancy.