John Schmidt 14.1 High Run attempts

G

gerryf

Well-known member
I've been asked to compare John Schmidt's runs at the Leather Pocket to the runs held at Street Light Billiards last winter.

For the data below, I haven't included Ruslan Chinakhov since he only played for one day.

After two days, it's pretty clear that even with the tighter table, John Schmidt is playing at a world-class level. High-runs are well understood to be a numbers game, and it's pretty clear that if John continues to play at this level, he can easily set a new record given enough attempts.


Day 1​
Day 2​
Balls per inning Schmidt
99.2​
89.3​
Shaw
92.3​
52.2​
SVB
56.3​
62.0​
Earl
28.1​
35.3​
1653064584571.png
Day 1​
Day 2​
Ball %Schmidt
99.0%​
98.9%​
Shaw
98.9%​
98.1%​
SVB
98.3%​
98.4%​
Earl
96.6%​
97.2%​
1653064651044.png
Day 1​
Day 2​
Rack %Schmidt
87.2%​
85.7%​
Shaw
86.4%​
77.9%​
SVB
78.7%​
80.5%​
Earl
61.1%​
69.4%​
1653064639201.png
 
I think this is cool.

If JS beats JS then JS will try again.

Pool fans win, kinda cool departure from sweating tourneys or race to a billion money matches over 3-4 days.

As I stated before the equipment don’t matter, the fact is who ever runs the most has the record. If someone can out smart the other guy with easier equipment, good for him.

At some point the easiest possible table will be come a reality. Once that table has been created then the race is on a level playing field for ALL players.

There absolutely is the easiest table spec and yet nobody knows what it is. Any guesses?

There’s a limit to how easy a table can be until it’s not. Simple logic.

Fatboy🤓
 
These stats would suggest that if John played under similar conditions as Jayson, he would likely run similar numbers as Jayson. I think the lack of the template rack is what may stop him from getting 400+ in the next couple days.
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett had done some analysis of John Schmid't 626 series, and he said that back then he found that Schmidt was typically running > 50 balls about half the time, and > 100 balls about a quarter of the time.

After two days:

SchmidtShawSVBEarl
Run > 50 balls58%42%
​
45%​
​
55%​
Run > 100 balls42%22%
​
13%​
​
14%​

Edit: I had 526 instead of 626. Geez!!? Thanks for the heads-up, IF.
 
Last edited:
gerryf said:
Bob Jewett had done some analysis of John Schmid't 526 series, and he said that back then he found that Schmidt was typically running > 50 balls about half the time, and > 100 balls about a quarter of the time.


After two days,
  • Shaw ran more than 50 balls about 42% of the time, and more than 100 balls, 22% of the time.
  • This time, Schmidt is running more than 50 balls about 58% of the time, and more than 100 balls, 42% of the time.
Click to expand...

Great data, thank you. Is this data for Schmidt's run on the GC with 4.75in corners?
 
Nothing really to add, but to wish John well. I was fortunate to be in the area of Easy Street for the US Open at Pebble in 2019. Stopped in and took this not very clear picture and stayed for a beer. Great room. Really nice folks there on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Still hard to believe, 626!JS626.jpg
 
Fatboy said:
At some point the easiest possible table will be come a reality. Once that table has been created then the race is on a level playing field for ALL players.
There absolutely is the easiest table spec and yet nobody knows what it is. Any guesses?
Click to expand...
8-inch corner pockets :)

Arnaldo
 
Fatboy said:
I think this is cool.

If JS beats JS then JS will try again.

Pool fans win, kinda cool departure from sweating tourneys or race to a billion money matches over 3-4 days.

As I stated before the equipment don’t matter, the fact is who ever runs the most has the record. If someone can out smart the other guy with easier equipment, good for him.

At some point the easiest possible table will be come a reality. Once that table has been created then the race is on a level playing field for ALL players.

There absolutely is the easiest table spec and yet nobody knows what it is. Any guesses?

There’s a limit to how easy a table can be until it’s not. Simple logic.

Fatboy🤓
Click to expand...
I would think that from a logic standpoint there must be a point where pocket size interferes with the ability to get CB position off a rail just because there is pocket space where you need rail position space.
 
I just was viewing the live stream on his run attempt- the side pocket is so big, with such shallow slate pocket shelves, almost impossible for anyone of John's caliber to miss an attempt into those pockets; and they add to the ability to cut a ball into them from anything but the most severe angles.
 
mikemosconi said:
I would think that from a logic standpoint there must be a point where pocket size interferes with the ability to get CB position off a rail just because there is pocket space where you need rail position space.
Click to expand...
When the pockets are too big you can’t double out to the middle of the table again. That’s my point exactly.

Best Fatboy😃
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top