luck factor: 9-ball vs one pocket

[enzo]

First, i'll admit, this is probably more of a sematic argument than anything, but...

go out and play a game of nine ball with a good player and tell me how many times he got lucky. you can go 10 games (ie an entire set) in 9 ball and the players are just running out, or playing strong safties and then running out.

two very good players are playing one pocket, watch how much luck you see...... a guy hits a ball softly into the stack an a ball happens to scrap off and end up 2 inches from his hole thus solidifying his position and the game. or a guy sends a ball three rails around the table near his side pocket and it ties three balls up (yet if it rolled another 1/4 inch they'd all be open). so many examples.

i watched a great match the other night; the legends final with shannon vs mizerak which went hill-hill. i'll tell you what, daulton had COMPLETE give up stroke for like 3 shots in a row after miz got in the one hole. he just threw his stick at the ball 2 or 3 times, he was like a 5 to 1 favorite to give up a bank on either shot (which would have probably ended the match), yet the balls just so happened to line up twice so miz couldnt bank a thing. not taking anything away, but this happened, and it was REALLY lucky. and shannon went on to win.

so, im starting to think there is actually more luck in one pocket when thinking about good players, yet i realize it's a better game to play to figure who is playing best? isn't that weird?

so, what do you guys think?

 

[cincyman]

First, i'll admit, this is probably more of a sematic argument than anything, but...

go out and play a game of nine ball with a good player and tell me how many times he got lucky. you can go 10 games (ie an entire set) in 9 ball and the players are just running out, or playing strong safties and then running out.

two very good players are playing one pocket, watch how much luck you see...... a guy hits a ball softly into the stack an a ball happens to scrap off and end up 2 inches from his hole thus solidifying his position and the game. or a guy sends a ball three rails around the table near his side pocket and it ties three balls up (yet if it rolled another 1/4 inch they'd all be open). so many examples.

i watched a great match the other night; the legends final with shannon vs mizerak which went hill-hill. i'll tell you what, daulton had COMPLETE give up stroke for like 3 shots in a row after miz got in the one hole. he just threw his stick at the ball 2 or 3 times, he was like a 5 to 1 favorite to give up a bank on either shot (which would have probably ended the match), yet the balls just so happened to line up twice so miz couldnt bank a thing. not taking anything away, but this happened, and it was REALLY lucky. and shannon went on to win.

so, im starting to think there is actually more luck in one pocket when thinking about good players, yet i realize it's a better game to play to figure who is playing best? isn't that weird?

so, what do you guys think?

I touched on this in a thread a longggggggg time ago and i completely wholeheartedly, 100%%%%% AGREE with you. People only look at the obvious, and yes the rolls are easier to see to the untrained eye in 9 ball but trust me THEY happen a lot in one pocket as well.

And your right i have the shannon miz match and he does give up and if you remember in the hill game he shoots a couple weird shots at the upper right corner and he EASILY could have left a simple straight back and he never did. If i remember correctly the commentator even say those shots were just weird lol

 

[alstl]

No comparison. The best player is far more likely to win a one pocket tournament than a nine ball tournament.

Efren has entered the Derby City one pocket tournament six times and won it five times and that's a 400+ player tournament. Nobody will ever do that in the Nine Ball tournament there.

 

[enzo]

I touched on this in a thread a longggggggg time ago and i completely wholeheartedly, 100%%%%% AGREE with you. People only look at the obvious, and yes the rolls are easier to see to the untrained eye in 9 ball but trust me THEY happen a lot in one pocket as well.

And your right i have the shannon miz match and he does give up and if you remember in the hill game he shoots a couple weird shots at the upper right corner and he EASILY could have left a simple straight back and he never did. If i remember correctly the commentator even say those shots were just weird lol

YEP! those are the shots im talking about where he got lucky not to leave strait backs. REAL lucky. total give up stroke if you ask me, i think he did it twice, but maybe you could say three times because on the one before those two he pockets i think the five, but if he overcuts it by 1/4 of an inch more it would hit that ball and there would have been a strait in bank there too, i didn't like that shot at all. thanks for commenting

 

[enzo]

No comparison. The best player is far more likely to win a one pocket tournament than a nine ball tournament.

Efren has entered the Derby City one pocket tournament six times and won it five times and that's a 400+ player tournament. Nobody will ever do that in the Nine Ball tournament there.

yeah, this is the point of my thread. that is, i agree with you, but i actually "see" more luck in one pocket (ie the number of lucky shots), especially if you consider it on a per game basis. go figure?

 

[cincyman]

No comparison. The best player is far more likely to win a one pocket tournament than a nine ball tournament.

Efren has entered the Derby City one pocket tournament six times and won it five times and that's a 400+ player tournament. Nobody will ever do that in the Nine Ball tournament there.

That doesn't mean they're aren't rolls and this is the normal argument people always come up with. Do you think its maybe because people are more capable beating a better player in 9 ball because the game is easier and not cause they luck a ball in:scratchhead:

the answer is yes.... is a race to 7 nine ball comparable to a race to 3 one pocket??? you tell me

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Thnik One Pocket has less of a "luck' factor than 9 Ball. IMHO.

 

[JXMIKE]

9ball is way more of a luck game.

 

[alstl]

That doesn't mean they're aren't rolls and this is the normal argument people always come up with. Do you think its maybe because people are more capable beating a better player in 9 ball because the game is easier and not cause they luck a ball in:scratchhead:

the answer is yes.... is a race to 7 nine ball comparable to a race to 3 one pocket??? you tell me

I don't understand your argument so it is difficult to respond. Luck is less of a factor in one pocket and Efren's performance at Derby City is proof.

 

[1 Pocket Ghost]

enzo and cincyman, you guys are right, and it's not even close.....when good players are playing each other, there's way, way more luck involved in One Pocket - that question is a no-brainer.

Think about it, the methodology and shot objectives of each game illustrate it clearly........In 9ball your objective is to clearly shoot to make the next ball or play a safety, no induced luck implied.........Conversely, in One Pocket, sometimes half of your shots in the course of a game consist of your shooting a ball, or balls, into other balls, trying to knock them towards your pocket, or away from your opponents pocket....how exactly these balls collide, and where they eventually end up is just arbitrary luck !

Also, on the other side of the coin, I think the two games with the least luck of all would be: snooker #1 and bank pool #2.


- Ghost

 

[Alex Kanapilly]

enzo and cincyman, you guys are right, and it's not even close.....when good players are playing each other, there's way, way more luck involved in One Pocket - that question is a no-brainer.

Think about it, the methodology and shot objectives of each game illustrate it clearly........In 9ball your objective is to clearly shoot to make the next ball or play a safety, no induced luck implied.........Conversely, in One Pocket, sometimes half of your shots in the course of a game consist of your shooting a ball, or balls, into other balls, trying to knock them towards your pocket, or away from your opponents pocket....how exactly these balls collide, and where they eventually end up is just arbitrary luck !

Also, on the other side of the coin, I think the two games with the least luck of all would be: snooker #1 and bank pool #2.


- Ghost

While I agree with you, the better player still wins any one game of 1p more than any one game of 9b. I think it's because even though you may see more "rolls" in 1p, you still have to put 8 balls in your pocket to win. But, as Jay Helfert once put it in another thread, "in 9b the closer you get to winning, the closer you are to losing". It's a simpler game so one roll will often mean a loss in 9b.

I think someone else was on the right track, you have to play much longer races in 9b to allow the cream to rise to the top than you do in 1p.

I still think 1p is the ultimate pocket billiards game, I know that has nothing to do with this thread but I just like saying it (and arguing about it).

 

[dabarbr]

While I agree with you, the better player still wins any one game of 1p more than any one game of 9b. I think it's because even though you may see more "rolls" in 1p, you still have to put 8 balls in your pocket to win. But, as Jay Helfert once put it in another thread, "in 9b the closer you get to winning, the closer you are to losing". It's a simpler game so one roll will often mean a loss in 9b.

I think someone else was on the right track, you have to play much longer races in 9b to allow the cream to rise to the top than you do in 1p.

I still think 1p is the ultimate pocket billiards game, I know that has nothing to do with this thread but I just like saying it (and arguing about it).

You make a lot of sense. When one gets a roll in one pocket it's usually not critical. The opponent can usually work themselves out of it and not necessarily lose that game because of that roll. Of course in one pocket we shoot shots that we hope will result into good rolls, while guarding against a bad rolls.

In 9 ball a roll many times will be the difference between winning or losing that game.

 

[cincyman]

I don't understand your argument so it is difficult to respond. Luck is less of a factor in one pocket and Efren's performance at Derby City is proof.

I dont understand your argument?? read the other replies Efren is THAT much better than the world at one pocket, it has nothing to do with luck. Because someone wins one tournament doesn't necessarily mean they got lucky. Maybe just maybe they played good .

 

[Aaron_S]

I think that there's a valid argument to be made on both sides of this discussion.

One way to look at it is that every single shot we shoot at the table has an element of luck to it. A matter of a few millimeters here and there can make quite a bit of difference, and those things add up. That combined with the fact that a player generally shoots many, many more shots in a game of one-pocket than they do in a game of 9-ball obviously means that there are many more opportunities for luck to play a part in a game of 1p.

That being said, I think that 1p requires more skill and knowledge than any other pocket billiard game out there. I also think that when great 1p players like Efren pull off shots that require millimeter precision, it's mostly due to their amazing skill, and, contrary to Efren's mantra of "I got lucky", is not normally attributable to good fortune. The fact that Efren does these things over and over (and over ) again seems to support that theory.

I do tend to agree (as does Billy I., if I'm not mistaken) that the ability of one player to dominate a sport for an extended period of time definitely says something about the ratio of luck to skill involved in that sport. I don't really follow poker, but I'm not aware of there being a "Tiger Woods of Texas Hold 'em". I know that there is a lot of skill involved in poker, but I think most would agree that the skill/luck ratio is much different in that game than in a game like golf or pool.

BUT, Just as Tiger Woods' ball will occasionally bounce off a spectator's head and end up in the fairway, we will occasionally shoot shots in pool that end up much better than they should, and that is not a factor that is unique to one particular pool game, but is persistent throughout all cuesports.

As always, JMHO

Aaron

 

[Andrew Manning]

While I agree with you, the better player still wins any one game of 1p more than any one game of 9b. I think it's because even though you may see more "rolls" in 1p, you still have to put 8 balls in your pocket to win. But, as Jay Helfert once put it in another thread, "in 9b the closer you get to winning, the closer you are to losing". It's a simpler game so one roll will often mean a loss in 9b.

I think someone else was on the right track, you have to play much longer races in 9b to allow the cream to rise to the top than you do in 1p.

I still think 1p is the ultimate pocket billiards game, I know that has nothing to do with this thread but I just like saying it (and arguing about it).

I agree with everything in this post, and would like to add another reason the better player wins more often in 1pocket than 9ball:

The role of strategy on 1pocket is larger than in 9ball. There is NO LUCK in strategy. So even if both games are full of lucky/unlucky rolls, in 1pocket, there is still one player who makes better decisions and will benefit from them more often in the end. The strategic side of the game is not really subject to the chaotic rolls, and furthermore not really subject to a player having an "off" day. Sometimes, for whatever reason, physically we just don't hit the balls well. This is the largest reason for the variance in winning 9-ball, I think; it's not about who is the better shot-maker, it's about who's the better shot-maker that day (or subsitute cue ball control for shotmaking and the point is still the same).

Whereas on the strategic side, the player with the better tactics that day is much more often the same as the player with the better tactics overall. There's just not as much variance in "moving" ability from one day to the next as there is in shot-making or position play ability from one day to the next. Even totally apart from "luck", the any-given-Sunday factor in 9-ball is larger due to the fickleness of the physical side of the game.

-Andrew

 

[1 Pocket Ghost]

The role of strategy on 1pocket is larger than in 9ball. There is NO LUCK in strategy. So even if both games are full of lucky/unlucky rolls, in 1pocket, there is still one player who makes better decisions and will benefit from them more often in the end. The strategic side of the game is not really subject to the chaotic rolls, and furthermore not really subject to a player having an "off" day. Sometimes, for whatever reason, physically we just don't hit the balls well. This is the largest reason for the variance in winning 9-ball, I think; it's not about who is the better shot-maker, it's about who's the better shot-maker that day (or subsitute cue ball control for shotmaking and the point is still the same).

Whereas on the strategic side, the player with the better tactics that day is much more often the same as the player with the better tactics overall. There's just not as much variance in "moving" ability from one day to the next as there is in shot-making or position play ability from one day to the next. Even totally apart from "luck", the any-given-Sunday factor in 9-ball is larger due to the fickleness of the physical side of the game.

-Andrew

Bingo - exactly right........Glad you posted this, I was going to include this same thought/point to my post last night, but I was too tired/lazy to write it out......anyway, you made the point perfectly.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I agree with everything in this post, and would like to add another reason the better player wins more often in 1pocket than 9ball:

The role of strategy on 1pocket is larger than in 9ball. There is NO LUCK in strategy. So even if both games are full of lucky/unlucky rolls, in 1pocket, there is still one player who makes better decisions and will benefit from them more often in the end. The strategic side of the game is not really subject to the chaotic rolls, and furthermore not really subject to a player having an "off" day. Sometimes, for whatever reason, physically we just don't hit the balls well. This is the largest reason for the variance in winning 9-ball, I think; it's not about who is the better shot-maker, it's about who's the better shot-maker that day (or subsitute cue ball control for shotmaking and the point is still the same).

Whereas on the strategic side, the player with the better tactics that day is much more often the same as the player with the better tactics overall. There's just not as much variance in "moving" ability from one day to the next as there is in shot-making or position play ability from one day to the next. Even totally apart from "luck", the any-given-Sunday factor in 9-ball is larger due to the fickleness of the physical side of the game.

-Andrew

One of the biggest differences between 1-pocket and other games is the huge potential in 1-pocket for unexpected kisses, caroms, etc. because of the much higher likelihood that a shot will involve multiple object balls, kicks, banks, etc. in heavy traffic and because the desired outcome is often measured in inches and millimeters with a slight difference in the final position of any one of multiple balls making a big difference. Another big difference is the potential for a big penalty for what might seem like a small mistake.

This is why one of the most important skills in 1-pocket (among the many that I lack) is being able to (1) see all the risks that a given shot or strategy presents, (2) weigh the potential loss against the potential gain and (3) make smart choices. Often the smart choice goes bad but the penalty is limited because the risk/reward calculation was correct - so the "unlucky" outcome was really one of the calculated possibilities.

In my view this is one of the things that makes 1-pocket a superior game for superior players, and the increased "luck factor" should be seen in this light as a feature, not a flaw (at least for qualified players).

pj <- 1-pocket wannabe
chgo

 

[Alex Kanapilly]

One of the biggest differences between 1-pocket and other games is the huge potential in 1-pocket for unexpected kisses, caroms, etc. because of the much higher likelihood that a shot will involve multiple object balls, kicks, banks, etc. in heavy traffic and because the desired outcome is often measured in inches and millimeters with a slight difference in the final position of any one of multiple balls making a big difference. Another big difference is the potential for a big penalty for what might seem like a small mistake.

This is why one of the most important skills in 1-pocket (among the many that I lack) is being able to (1) see all the risks that a given shot or strategy presents, (2) weigh the potential loss against the potential gain and (3) make smart choices. Often the smart choice goes bad but the penalty is limited because the risk/reward calculation was correct - so the "unlucky" outcome was really one of the calculated possibilities.

In my view this is one of the things that makes 1-pocket a superior game for superior players, and the increased "luck factor" should be seen in this light as a feature, not a flaw (at least for qualified players).

pj <- 1-pocket wannabe
chgo

This is a good analysis. I struggle with all three of your important skils, mosly with #3 which should be the easiest one to control it would seem.

It drives me crazy how many people I think I could beat playing 9b but give me weight playing 1p. Well to be honest, that's changing since now all I play is 1p, I can't seem to play 9b worth a crap anymore.

 

[enzo]

enzo and cincyman, you guys are right, and it's not even close.....when good players are playing each other, there's way, way more luck involved in One Pocket - that question is a no-brainer.

Think about it, the methodology and shot objectives of each game illustrate it clearly........In 9ball your objective is to clearly shoot to make the next ball or play a safety, no induced luck implied.........Conversely, in One Pocket, sometimes half of your shots in the course of a game consist of your shooting a ball, or balls, into other balls, trying to knock them towards your pocket, or away from your opponents pocket....how exactly these balls collide, and where they eventually end up is just arbitrary luck !

Also, on the other side of the coin, I think the two games with the least luck of all would be: snooker #1 and bank pool #2.


- Ghost

yeah, it's so weird to think that there is way more luck in one pocket, yet the better player wins way more often in one pocket.

it was just a fun question, but as i see it now, i think good way to look at it is innings. if a better player is able to come to the table 50 times in a game of one pocket, as opposed to say 2 times in a game of nine ball, well his skills are allowed to come through in those 50 innings even if he and his oppenent are lucky (or unlucky) it is able to average out and things then lean toward the better player.

9 ball the two aformentioned innings become so crucial and what happens during them is not a true representation of that players skills. thus i agree more games are required in a 9 ball match, MANY more games.... that is if you want the better player to win.

thanks all!

 

[philw]

I agree with everything in this post, and would like to add another reason the better player wins more often in 1pocket than 9ball:

The role of strategy on 1pocket is larger than in 9ball. There is NO LUCK in strategy. So even if both games are full of lucky/unlucky rolls, in 1pocket, there is still one player who makes better decisions and will benefit from them more often in the end. The strategic side of the game is not really subject to the chaotic rolls, and furthermore not really subject to a player having an "off" day. Sometimes, for whatever reason, physically we just don't hit the balls well. This is the largest reason for the variance in winning 9-ball, I think; it's not about who is the better shot-maker, it's about who's the better shot-maker that day (or subsitute cue ball control for shotmaking and the point is still the same).

Whereas on the strategic side, the player with the better tactics that day is much more often the same as the player with the better tactics overall. There's just not as much variance in "moving" ability from one day to the next as there is in shot-making or position play ability from one day to the next. Even totally apart from "luck", the any-given-Sunday factor in 9-ball is larger due to the fickleness of the physical side of the game.

-Andrew

I like this answer the best. What he said.