Loser-breaks format can be tough to fade

macguy said:
The break is a pretty good advantage regardless of skill level. First, you take it away from you opponent so they doing with the break is no longer a factor. You also have the first possession on the table. Should you make a ball on the break you can at the very least play the first defensive shot. It is possable even though you don't break and run out, as a result of the break you keep your opponent out of the game even though it went a few innings. I have to say, if asked few players will like just giving up the break every rack.
Click to expand...

Oh, there's no doubt in some matches, the break can serve as a huge advantage but the question is, should that advantage automatically go to the winner? There are so many other sports like basketball and football where once the offense scores, the opposing team gets the ball.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Oh, there's no doubt in some matches, the break can serve as a huge advantage but the question is, should that advantage automatically go to the winner? There are so many other sports like basketball and football where once the offense scores, the opposing team gets the ball.
Click to expand...

You also gotta figure that the "better" player should still win. Unless it's just a race to two, the one that wins either does better on their breaks or does better on their opponent's breaks. I think it sucks to give up the breaks, but if you want to attract a bigger field then you have to give them incentives.
 
Banks said:
You also gotta figure that the "better" player should still win. Unless it's just a race to two, the one that wins either does better on their breaks or does better on their opponent's breaks. I think it sucks to give up the breaks, but if you want to attract a bigger field then you have to give them incentives.
Click to expand...

You're picking-up what I'm putting down. I think it would attract more players but here's the amazing catch, I don't think the weaker player has much of a chance. With every back-and-forth match this break-format produces, there's going to be twice as many matches were the better player gets a big lead and he's able to protect it because of the format. Remember, reach the hill first and you're guaranteed to break all but one of the remaining games.
 
Collective again

Jude Rosenstock said:
Oh, there's no doubt in some matches, the break can serve as a huge advantage but the question is, should that advantage automatically go to the winner? There are so many other sports like basketball and football where once the offense scores, the opposing team gets the ball.
Click to expand...

All sports and schools should operate winner advantage like golf first to tee off next hole.
 
the kidd said:
All sports and schools should operate winner advantage like golf first to tee off next hole.
Click to expand...

I think if that were the case, both football and basketball would be ruined. Really, when you think about it, loser-breaks is not a huge advantage. It may seem that way in a close match but if the match isn't close, it becomes more and more difficult to mount any sort of comeback.
 
All I know is alternate breaks was a very exciting format for USO 8-ball.
There's tons of pressure to run out, you must play absolutely perfect and that includes
never dry breaking. You dog it just once you probably lose that rack and the next one.
2 rack down, and comebacks are hard in alternate break format.

As a spectator I was definitely riveted, waiting to see who would be the first player
to flinch and drop the ball. Every little thing (like getting stuck to the head rail after the break),
had huge importance.

Winner breaks is entertaining and reasonably fair in 9b and 10b because most players
will not run out the set, 3 is a typical package and more than that is kind of rare.
And mistakes don't always get punished in those games, there's more room for good rolls.

Loser breaks never made much sense to me, it's artificially trying to keep the match close.
It's fine if the match is close because both players make the best possible use out of their opportunities.
It's not really fair that playing badly = you get extra opportunities.
 
I guess it all depejnds on the motivation behind the choice...Jude's proposed comparison is quite telling, IMO an I am somewhat inclined to believe that loser breaks is actually more appropriate than winner breaks.

Of course, I do like to break/ run a couple games in a row every few years or so...

We seem to be discussing it in the context of 8/9/10b...what thinks ye abou tit in 1p? It is more appropriate there, IMO.
 
CreeDo said:
All I know is alternate breaks was a very exciting format for USO 8-ball.
There's tons of pressure to run out, you must play absolutely perfect and that includes
never dry breaking. You dog it just once you probably lose that rack and the next one.
2 rack down, and comebacks are hard in alternate break format.

As a spectator I was definitely riveted, waiting to see who would be the first player
to flinch and drop the ball. Every little thing (like getting stuck to the head rail after the break),
had huge importance.

Winner breaks is entertaining and reasonably fair in 9b and 10b because most players
will not run out the set, 3 is a typical package and more than that is kind of rare.
And mistakes don't always get punished in those games, there's more room for good rolls.

Loser breaks never made much sense to me, it's artificially trying to keep the match close.
It's fine if the match is close because both players make the best possible use out of their opportunities.
It's not really fair that playing badly = you get extra opportunities.
Click to expand...

There are games like tennis where an alternating format is used and, it's been used for so long, nobody thinks about what the raw scores are. Everything is broken into sets and games and points with alternating serves. Do you ever stop to wonder what the total points scored was? Certainly, a blow-out is far more likely to occur if we're only counting the raw score. Tennis, probably the world's most popular mano-y-mano competitions, deliberately tries to keep it close. I think pool can learn something from that.

I do think alternating breaks is also a fair format. In fact, I think I could be convinced that it's the most fair format. It's either alternating breaks or loser breaks but IMO, for strong-amateurs and professionals, winner breaks has gotta go.
 
the better players still will win in the long run. short run too.
but loser breaks keeps everyone in the game or at least getting shots at winning a rack here and there.

everyone complains pool is dying but wants to slaughter their opponents. if it isnt fun with them getting lots of chances then they dont come back.
 
maha said:
the better players still will win in the long run. short run too.
but loser breaks keeps everyone in the game or at least getting shots at winning a rack here and there.

everyone complains pool is dying but wants to slaughter their opponents. if it isnt fun with them getting lots of chances then they dont come back.
Click to expand...

Well said and precisely my point.
 
i like winner break best but when to equally good players face off it favors lucky breaks. especially in the short run. this is the problem with winner breaks, not that it favors the better player bcs he/she will win anyway.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
There are games like tennis where an alternating format is used and, it's been used for so long, nobody thinks about what the raw scores are.
...Tennis, probably the world's most popular mano-y-mano competitions, deliberately tries to keep it close. I think pool can learn something from that.
Click to expand...

Eh, the more I see sports analogies on AZ, the less I can play along with them.
I can't criticise really, I've done it too. But It's too easy to cherrypick
some successful sport to support an opinion -

The NBA is successful so shot clocks are good. Golf is successful so shot clocks are bad.
Tennis uses loser breaks. Baseball evenly alternates scoring opportunities.
Bowling and golf switch up playing conditions so different playing conditions are good.
Pro basketball is always played in the same conditions so different playing conditions are bad.

Tennis is tennis, and who knows how much role 'break format' plays in its popularity.
Maybe it'd be just as popular if the winner served every time, or even more popular.

Pool is not very successful and odds are there are 500 things we need to address
to fix that before we play with break format.

The main point I wanted to make is that alternating break is not as boring
as people assume... and there's no question it's fair.
 
Last edited:
fully agree

maha said:
the better players still will win in the long run. short run too.
but loser breaks keeps everyone in the game or at least getting shots at winning a rack here and there.

everyone complains pool is dying but wants to slaughter their opponents. if it isnt fun with them getting lots of chances then they dont come back.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%

Also according accu stats the breaker is at a disadvantage & will lose more often :-) If you don't believe me ask Pat Flemming. !

Don't kill me i'm only the messenger :-)
 
ignomirello said:
I agree 100%

Also according accu stats the breaker is at a disadvantage & will lose more often :-) If you don't believe me ask Pat Flemming. !

Don't kill me i'm only the messenger :-)
Click to expand...

I've seen this old stat too, 51% vs. 49% ...however I think this stat was taken long ago using a wide
mix of players, maybe some worldbeaters and maybe some not-so-much. The racks have gotten
better and making balls on the break is less random than it used to be.

According to some newer AtLarge break stats (thanks as always AtLarge):

US Open 9 ball 2012: Breaker wins 55%
That's with a wide mix of guys.

TAR 31 - SVB vs. Mike Dechaine: Breaker wins 69%
With a very narrow mix of guys who both break great.

DCC 10 ball 2012: 55%
Accustats 8 Ball Invitational, final day: 61%
Tunica 10 ft 10 ball: 53%
Tar 34: 63%
Turning Stone XX 9b: 51%
Jay Swanson Memorial: 59%

I didn't cherrypick these, it's just the first results google brought up.
These days, breaking is an advantage, no question... well, among the pros.
I'm sure in everyday league play the breaker may still be a slight underdog.
 
skogstokig said:
i like winner break best but when to equally good players face off it favors lucky breaks. especially in the short run. this is the problem with winner breaks, not that it favors the better player bcs he/she will win anyway.
Click to expand...
Rotating the break may be the most fair. I put on quite a few tournaments with this format. I also added an equal number of breaks rule in hill hill games. If the breaking player either makes the 9 on the break of breaks and runs out, the sitting player get a one time free break to tie the game. It is actually easy to keep track of whose break it is. The first player to break always breaks when the score is an even number. I think I explained this correctly it has been a long time.
 
CreeDo said:
I've seen this old stat too, 51% vs. 49% ...however I think this stat was taken long ago using a wide
mix of players, maybe some worldbeaters and maybe some not-so-much. The racks have gotten
better and making balls on the break is less random than it used to be.

According to some newer AtLarge break stats (thanks as always AtLarge):

US Open 9 ball 2012: Breaker wins 55%
That's with a wide mix of guys.

TAR 31 - SVB vs. Mike Dechaine: Breaker wins 69%
With a very narrow mix of guys who both break great.

DCC 10 ball 2012: 55%
Accustats 8 Ball Invitational, final day: 61%
Tunica 10 ft 10 ball: 53%
Tar 34: 63%
Turning Stone XX 9b: 51%
Jay Swanson Memorial: 59%

I didn't cherrypick these, it's just the first results google brought up.
These days, breaking is an advantage, no question... well, among the pros.
I'm sure in everyday league play the breaker may still be a slight underdog.
Click to expand...
I sat and watched Pat play Nick Varner in a 9 ball tournament and every time Pat won a game he gave the break to Nick. It seemed crazy but Pat ended up winning. If you know Pat ask him about this. He had just worked out that on that table the break was not an advantage for some reason. I didn't even know the rule let you do that. I guess if you win the game you have the choice to break or not.
 
I am a HUGE fan of this format.

It helps from getting ran over, as it almost guarentees that each player gets a chance every other game.

For all of you guys not in favor of it. Think of this. How would like football if the team scores and then you immediately give them the ball again? Sounds silly doesn't it?

I was doing an interview for a magazine and I interviewed Allen Hopkins. He made that example and I had never thought of it that way.

Best of rolls,

Ken Strain
 
sammspocket said:
Great feedback. Thanks for all the responses.

Winner-break is my personal favorite. Even if I get steamrolled, I always believe the game-winner deserves the next break.

As for mixed-field tournaments, alternate breaks guarantee the weaker player a chance at the table. Whether or not they capitalize is up to them.

I guess I just thought it was silly to take the extra measures to 'level the playing field' when there were already separate divisions in the singles and then the scotch-doubles was handicapped.

Oh well.
Click to expand...


You didn't mention in your initial question that it was already a handicapped tournament. I believe that the stronger player will normally win in the loser/alternate break situation.

The place I like to see it is when you have a tournament where a few pro players come to crash the party. Yes it is fun to watch someone that knows what to do on the table, but I am not the kind of guy that is willing to drop one or two hundred just to see it. Anytime you get a player like Van Boening, Archer, or similar talent, they are automatically the favorite anyway. But how many local players would put up a couple hundred knowing they don't have a chance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top