Magic Ball Rack - Negatives?

[Tin Man]

You got to love the ones who view their perception of something as fact.

I love the example given. The magic rack "magically" only helps the lesser player to equal the old timer. Thus lowering his perceived skill while raising theirs. So having a rack as it should be (tight and frozen) only assist players of a lesser skill. Explain that again, I must of missed that day of pool school.

I get your point Skippy, but allow my to explain what I think he means.

If two players play straight pool to 150 points the better player will win much more often than if they play to 100, or to 50.

Well, with a magic rack there is simply less pool to play before the game is over. It shortens the game to 8 or 7 ball rotation instead of 9 ball rotation, and eliminates much of the moving game that allows the better player to not only outshoot his opponent but to actually get more at bats than their opponent. If I can out move my guy 60%+ of the time I'd like to have a mandatory push out after the break! Instead we guarantee a wing ball and leave 7 open balls time after time. The better player simply doesn't have the same edge.

Yes, they are still better players, they will still come out ahead. But like shortening the race it absolutely does reduce their edge. This is my experience personally playing both stronger and weaker players as well.

 

[Skippy27]

I get your point Skippy, but allow my to explain what I think he means.

If two players play straight pool to 150 points the better player will win much more often than if they play to 100, or to 50.

Well, with a magic rack there is simply less pool to play before the game is over. It shortens the game to 8 or 7 ball rotation instead of 9 ball rotation, and eliminates much of the moving game that allows the better player to not only outshoot his opponent but to actually get more at bats than their opponent. If I can out move my guy 60%+ of the time I'd like to have a mandatory push out after the break! Instead we guarantee a wing ball and leave 7 open balls time after time. The better player simply doesn't have the same edge.

Yes, they are still better players, they will still come out ahead. But like shortening the race it absolutely does reduce their edge. This is my experience personally playing both stronger and weaker players as well.

How many games / rotations / ball advantage do you think new cloth, new balls, new rails or whatever else variable we can introduce would take away? Surely you have some statistical "facts" based on your experience that we should all be up in arms about.

The shear fact that you guys are here claiming that it is somehow wrong for using something so that the balls are racked how they should be EVERY SINGLE TIME is quite entertaining. You guys trying to put some "facts" forward with ball count, turns, and games is even more entertaining.

Which set of rules allow for gaps between balls during the rack so all those "elite players" can maintain their "skill" advantage?

 

[Black-Balled]

Wel suuu-weee! Ain't y'all just richer'n cold buttermilk in wood mug out there in Californi-a?!?!

Haha... templates were used for a while on the correct,err...right coast a few years ago, but I only see them now when patrons bring their own.

This is not right. Virtually all of the better tournaments we play here on the West Coast use the Magic Rack or the Turtle Rack, so those are our real world conditions. The tables here are typically tighter than what I've seen of East Coast tables, so break and runs are not exactly common even with those racks.

Even so, using a template does not significantly increase the breaker's winning percentage. Let's look at the pro break statistics in the US Open which used a template:

2016 US Open Overall Breaking results: The breaker made at least one ball (and did not break illegally or foul) 57% of the time (240 of 422), won 54% of the games (227 of 422), and broke and ran 23% of the games (96 of 422).


So even though the breaker had 23% break and runs, the breaker only won 54% of the games. Why? Dry breaks (43% were dry), not getting a shot on the one, break fouls, and not getting the rest of the time.

Templates combined with decent balls help get rid of or even eliminate slug racks, simple as that. I do think it's also good to practice with a triangle, to get the hang of racking tight with one.

 

[Maniac]

The effect on the rack is no different then if chalk dust or felt did the same thing so stop the whining, take the table as it lies and do the best you can with what you have been given.

It actually cracks me up how often "godly players" here whine about little things that their greatness should be able to overcome with ease.

Skippy, I wasn't whining in my post. FTR, I have several Magic Racks myself. I was only trying to give the OP some info for the question that he asked in his thread title. There aren't very many negatives to using a template IF you don't mind the assuredness of someone making at least one ball on the break. My wife, who has a very weak break, and I were playing 9-ball one afternoon, about ten or twelve games total. I let her break every game with the Magic Rack. She made a ball (sometimes two) on every, single break. That would very much not have happened without the template rack.

I have nothing against the templates, or those players/tournament directors that want to use them. I just find it boring to watch rack after rack of fairly easy run-outs after the pro player makes a ball (or several) and pretty much getting a wide open table. It becomes a shoot-fest with no strategy.....but each to their own.

I guess opinions are now looked at as whining on the forum.

Maniac

 

[DMM4342]

My wife, who has a very weak break, and I were playing 9-ball one afternoon, about ten or twelve games total. I let her break every game with the Magic Rack. She made a ball (sometimes two) on every, single break.

Would that have happened if you had spotted the nine ball over the spot while keeping the nine ball in the middle of the rack?
Racking as above is not new and it has been used to lower the number of times a ball is made on the break.
Dave

 

[Maniac]

The effect on the rack is no different then if chalk dust or felt did the same thing so stop the whining, take the table as it lies and do the best you can with what you have been given.

Sorry for whining some more, but there is a difference between a template and chalk dust/felt.

A template is on the table because we wanted it there. The chalk dust/felt is just there because it cannot be helped.

Big difference....IMHO.

Whiner

 

[Maniac]

Would that have happened if you had spotted the nine ball over the spot while keeping the nine ball in the middle of the rack?
Racking as above is not new and it has been used to lower the number of times a ball is made on the break.
Dave

I am certain (but who knows?) it would not have happened if I had put the 9-ball on the spot. She pretty much had the 1-ball wired into the side pocket.

Once again, IMHO, I feel like this is how pro 9-ball tournaments should be racked, template or triangle.

Maniac

 

[doctor2pi]

Would that have happened if you had spotted the nine ball over the spot while keeping the nine ball in the middle of the rack?

Racking as above is not new and it has been used to lower the number of times a ball is made on the break.

Dave

I second this. Move the nine over the spot and that's that.


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[Tin Man]

How many games / rotations / ball advantage do you think new cloth, new balls, new rails or whatever else variable we can introduce would take away? Surely you have some statistical "facts" based on your experience that we should all be up in arms about.

The shear fact that you guys are here claiming that it is somehow wrong for using something so that the balls are racked how they should be EVERY SINGLE TIME is quite entertaining. You guys trying to put some "facts" forward with ball count, turns, and games is even more entertaining.

Which set of rules allow for gaps between balls during the rack so all those "elite players" can maintain their "skill" advantage?

I am not up in arms, nor did I say that it was wrong to use a template rack.

The topic of the thread was negatives of the magic rack. I stated my opinion of those negatives.

I don't think there is any dispute that a template rack changes the game. Whether that is for better or worse comes down to personal preference. I respect your opinion and make no mistake, I will continue to play in magic rack tournaments as they come of if this becomes the preference of the masses. When I'm matching up with someone, however, and they ask which I prefer, I will get out the old triangle rack and flip it.

 

[DMM4342]

Bob Jewett in the FEBRUARY issue of "Billiards Digest" discusses manipulating the rack. He does so to educate us of what to look for when someone else is racking. And he does show how the rack can be manipulated even when the nine ball is spotted on the "spot" and in the middle of a nine-ball rack.

A kind of "HEADS-UP"!
A good article.
Dave

 

[hang-the-9]

The only good way to avoid having two top players win because of a rack is to have a neutral racker and for a template rack the 9 goes in the spot or play 10 ball. Or play on 4.25" pockets instead of 4.5". From my seat of the pants observations, tighter pockets are a bit less of a run-out change than 9 on the spot but still are enough to make a difference.

For those that like the standard old way of racking, look at some of the older matches and see how often the 9 ball went in the corner pocket off the break vs now. Or when it did not go in, it still went to the corner and hung there for an early combo. Or the ball next to it did not move and lined up a dead combo off that. Not that I'm against using standard rack, but it has it's bad points also if not used with newer ball and a newer setup table so there are no spots in the cloth where the balls will roll towards.

Many things have a benefit and a draw-back, we get LD shafts and they can't jump a ball nearly as well as the standard shafts. We get new rails and cloth and now we have tables zooming the cueball around so you need to tap them lightly more. So do we want 9 ball shooting into the corner more or trade that for having to move the 9 to the spot or play more 10 ball?

 

[Tin Man]

The only good way to avoid having two top players win because of a rack is to have a neutral racker and for a template rack the 9 goes in the spot or play 10 ball. Or play on 4.25" pockets instead of 4.5". From my seat of the pants observations, tighter pockets are a bit less of a run-out change than 9 on the spot but still are enough to make a difference.

For those that like the standard old way of racking, look at some of the older matches and see how often the 9 ball went in the corner pocket off the break vs now. Or when it did not go in, it still went to the corner and hung there for an early combo. Or the ball next to it did not move and lined up a dead combo off that. Not that I'm against using standard rack, but it has it's bad points also if not used with newer ball and a newer setup table so there are no spots in the cloth where the balls will roll towards.

Many things have a benefit and a draw-back, we get LD shafts and they can't jump a ball nearly as well as the standard shafts. We get new rails and cloth and now we have tables zooming the cueball around so you need to tap them lightly more. So do we want 9 ball shooting into the corner more or trade that for having to move the 9 to the spot or play more 10 ball?

Very good post hang. You're right. There are a lot of draw backs to the triangle rack. 9 ball movement is one of them. And the endless racking wars and games that evolved are another.

In my mind what makes the triangle preferable is that overall it decreases the importance of the break by leaving the outcome in doubt and more balls on the table. The more balls on the table after the break the less the break matters, and the less the racking matters. If everyone played 15 ball the breaker wouldn't have much of an edge. So while the triangle has it's own racking/breaking issues, what I like about it is that those issues play a slightly smaller role on the outcome of the session.

Neutral referees won't be practical anytime soon. There are other ways to avoid this whole issue, such as a mandatory push out after the break (which I think would be very pure but would be unlikely to ever gain popularity). Of course we can always migrate to games like banks and one pocket which are both gaining momentum.

In the end I will play with whatever format and conditions the masses play with and develop the skills to compete and succeed. It's definitely an interesting challenge.

I'd be curious what Mark Griffin and other pool promoters have to say on the topic.

 

[DMM4342]

I bet the tables at major events are in better condition today than in the past because of the work done by the Table Mechanics; a skill that is still not respected as it should.

I would like to hear from the older players if the tables at big events are better today than said tables were 20–50 years ago.
But maybe this is not the right thread for it.
Dave

 

[Island Drive]

Only real negative is the ''cat in the henhouse''. Letting a top player rack their own ''Exactly'' where they want it every time, takes the game outta the game.

 

[Maniac]

Only real negative is the ''cat in the henhouse''. Letting a top player rack their own ''Exactly'' where they want it every time, takes the game outta the game.

Agreed.

Maniac

 

[JMASTERJ]

I carry these, in the provided tube, on my cue case.. best rack in the business. http://www.outsville.com/accu-racks.html :thumbup:

But these dont seem to fit either in like a standard 2x2 or even 2x4 case... what case do you use to fit these?

 

[JMASTERJ]

I have one in my case rolled up, I think I used once or twice and it hasn't come out since.
I keep it just in case I run into a terrible triangle at a hall.

What kind of case do you have, and are you rolling it up like a tootsie roll or more like just a couple of times loosely? I feel like that would ruin the rack, especially after folding every week or multiple times a week.

 

[JMASTERJ]

The single biggest thing is that they are different and people don't like change.

I use to take them with me and use them and people that see them for the 1st time always freak out and have a hard time using them.

However, just about everyone loves them after they adjuse ti them.

LOL aint that the truth... but when every pro match uses it, it cant be that bad. No one's game is perfect, but I think the rack should be to take luck out, I mean, yes there is always some luck in pool, but it shouldnt be because the rack changes all the time. That means the person with lower skill can gain an advantage through no hard work or ability whatsoever, and I have a sever issue with that in games and sports unless you play the lotto or play roulette.

 

[JMASTERJ]

Yeah, there's negatives to it...

As in.. It has severely reduced the overall skill level needed to win amongst amateurs, so amateurs don't practice certain aspects of their game to be competitive. And it has pretty much destroyed the game of 9 ball as a legitimate test of skill..

Here's how that works... Historically, since you could never get all the balls frozen and in the same spot with a wood/plastic rack, the break was random, so it had to be struck extremely forcefully to have the best chance of getting a shot after the break. This force needed on the break totally randomized the location of the 1 and 2, so this now required better shotmaking, and better 3-cushion type skills to play safe off of a lowest ball that landed in the middle of the top rail with the cue ball at center table.

The magic rack has been absolutely horrible for 9 ball. To a certain extent, it has lessened the skill needed for 10-ball as well, as it wires balls in the side, as well as 4 rails in the corner. For a person with even a moderately good 10-ball break, the magic rack makes 4 balls on the break a not uncommon occurence. All that needs to be done is move the cue ball closer to mid-table the more worn the cloth is.

I might seem to be one of those old stick-in-the-muds who is against progress, but I remember in the mid-to-late 90's when NOBODY played 10-ball, because it wasn't really necessary. Now, here in Germany, when playing lagger's choice matches, the better players will NEVER choose 9 ball, as it narrows the skill gap down WAY too much.

Even on the bar boxes when I was there in Colorado, I think that magic racks have become so ubiquitous that the players don't realize that there are multiple skill levels that get pushed together by the magic rack. It becomes VERY apparent when an intelligent player insists on a wooden rack and what would have normally been a close match becomes an absolute rout.

Short Bus Russ

I understand your point but as I just wrote above, if the pros use it, I dont think anyone should be saying this makes the game too easy or gives an advantage to lesser players. That makes no sense when in fact it takes more luck out of the game. I am not sure what levels of players you are referring to but even the world's elite players dont run every rack or even more than a couple in a row, so what recreational or amateur players are running so many balls in a row that's making this too easy? I think something is being lost in translation here.

 

[JMASTERJ]

From a guy that actually plays for about 1 year with a magic rack and not post without any clue...

It absolutely NOT true that worn in balls don't work. The templates are usually made so that the balls actually lean into all of the next balls slightly, so if have used balls the fit shall still be quite good!

Well, actually a have chinese knock off and I got 5 templates of them for 6 euros incl. shipping.
Because sorry Outsville :thumbup: - I'm not shelling out that much money for a bit of plastic and it wasn't readily available in Germany back then. The chinese guys were very nice and quick and easy to order from.

The ones I have are even thinner but of high quality plastic than the usual "name brand" racks (which is good I think).

My racks are universal and work for 7, 8, 9, 10 ball.

The negatives are
- after a break if not all balls have rolled off the template the template itself will affect the rolling of the balls if you hit them. A bit, not huge, but just noticeable and they can go off a millimetre or two.
- but this is bad with the CB and even the slightest amount of spin.
- it takes a bit longer to rack because you need to roll the ball in a certain order and mostly one by one
- my racks actually degrade. I've worn out one until now that didn't really work well anymore. You can see the skid marks on the plastic due to the sliding balls.
- my racks shall be cleaned from time to time (use protecting glass cleaner and rinse off with water). This will help protect against wear a bit.
- my racks shall not be rolled, so I need to carry them in flat form. No problem for me, as I carry my balls in an aluminium case with me anyway.


But these are all things you'll accustom quickly.
And the advantages are huge - a very reproducable break you can train also and the balls spread nicely which is more fun to play with.

We even use with 14.1 and are very accustomed to it. Wouldn't want to play any other way anymore.

Can you show me what case you use that fits this without folding?

And how many racks, approx, do you think you got before it became useless... I assume its still in the hundreds?