Pattern Racking 9-Ball With Soft Breaking Video

[louieatienza]

Jump cues are becoming more and more banned in tournaments.

Jump cues were somewhat after my time. I remember just using the shaft of my cue to make a close jump, with the theory that the light shaft would get out of the way immediately.

But remember this is a 10' table, so the cue ball is a bit farther away at the break, so I would conclude it would be tougher to get that 1-ball to go up the long rail. But here again, the solution is simple: Put the 3 and 2 behind the 1. Break on the side of the 3. Depending on speed of break, the 2 will go to the opposite long rail or bank across. Now you have an easy 3-ball run. Or make the 2 the opposite wing ball, which will bank across the foot rail to the break side somewhere. The point is, whatever is next to the 1 on the break side, you stand a good chance to leave it there for the 9 on a combo (or maybe carom into.)

 

[CreeDo]

Or you could go with a more extreme solution that makes the tightness of the rack nearly irrelevant, like Paul Schofield's no-conflict rules.

Paul's heart is in the right place but it's a nonstarter for pro events.

The "racking roulette" solves pattern racking, but doesn't solve soft breaking,
it doesn't solve players cheating the rack to leave helpful gaps to make more balls,
and it doesn't solve the agonizing care players will put into racking their own
(there's still incentive to make balls even if it's not required).
It also doesn't solve them controlling the 1 (and probably the rest of the rack).

Look at Corey's break here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFip8UwYiI&feature=youtu.be&t=1729

Soft as hell, more than the required minimum number of balls past the sides,
nice opening shot on the 1 ball. This break still happens under no-conflict.

"ok, but what if we banned magic racks?"
That just means it takes guys like Corey even longer to rack, because
their livelihood still depends on making the easiest runout possible,
which means making more balls on the break than the rest of the field.
If it takes forever to freeze the balls, then it takes forever.

For local events where everyone is still employed even if they consistently make zero
balls on the break, no conflict is fine. They'll probably smash them and hope for the best.

But the coreys of the world will figure out how to game the system and
soft break no-conflict to death, removing the entertainment value for spectators
(and it's already lost some entertainment value knowing who's shooting after the break).

Just a thought... since he's already killed one sacred cow, paul should
take out the requirement to put the 1 at the top. Let it be random.
It might still get gamed, but it will at least force players to learn a variety
of breaks to ensure their shot on the 1 ball.

 

[louieatienza]

Paul's heart is in the right place but it's a nonstarter for pro events.

The "racking roulette" solves pattern racking, but doesn't solve soft breaking,
it doesn't solve players cheating the rack to leave helpful gaps to make more balls,
and it doesn't solve the agonizing care players will put into racking their own
(there's still incentive to make balls even if it's not required).
It also doesn't solve them controlling the 1 (and probably the rest of the rack).

Look at Corey's break here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFip8UwYiI&feature=youtu.be&t=1729

Soft as hell, more than the required minimum number of balls past the sides,
nice opening shot on the 1 ball. This break still happens under no-conflict.

"ok, but what if we banned magic racks?"
That just means it takes guys like Corey even longer to rack, because
their livelihood still depends on making the easiest runout possible,
which means making more balls on the break than the rest of the field.
If it takes forever to freeze the balls, then it takes forever.

For local events where everyone is still employed even if they consistently make zero
balls on the break, no conflict is fine. They'll probably smash them and hope for the best.

But the coreys of the world will figure out how to game the system and
soft break no-conflict to death, removing the entertainment value for spectators
(and it's already lost some entertainment value knowing who's shooting after the break).

Just a thought... since he's already killed one sacred cow, paul should
take out the requirement to put the 1 at the top. Let it be random.
It might still get gamed, but it will at least force players to learn a variety
of breaks to ensure their shot on the 1 ball.

Corey and Co. got them all figured out... even if their opponent or a neutral party racks.

Really, though, as far as I see, a quick look asto the 2 ball position on the rack should determine which side you break from. And to me it looks that you break on thesame side as the 2, unless it's the wing ball, in which case you break the opposite side. Unless the 3 is also a wing ball, then you have have a choice. If the 2 is in the back, then you need to make a decision based onthe wing balls and balls behind the 1.