Sorry, posted 2x
Last edited:
Pattern-racking? Is there such a thing?
- Thread starter inside_english
- Start date
The entire pool culture has been chasing its tail for decades where this is concerned. I solved it. It works perfect. I am a room owner and I care very little what anybody else does. I am going to do what I do and everyone else can continue to talk about it.
Repost from 4-26-2011 Pattern Racking thread:
On Saturday I ran my sixth regional event with the No Conflict Rules which include the Random Racking Process. There were 64 players from PA, OH, WV, NY, and MI. We turned players away. There was a total of $8500 in prizes and calcutta, race to 7 on the winner's side and race to 6 on the loser's side, and it was completed in one day.
http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/noconflict.html
Here it is:
There was not even one pattern rack.
There were no strange racking gadgets.
There was not one case of the studying of little spaces between balls.
There was not one rack checked.
There was not one rack rejected.
There was not one case of rack manipulating.
There was not one soft break.
There was not one complaint.
There was not even one argument.
Mission accomplished!
The matches and the tournament moved along without getting bogged down at the front end of the game. You can random rack faster than you can pattern rack. As I stated previously: If you can shuffle a deck of cards for 8 seconds and you can shake the dice for 3 seconds, all in the name of randomization, you can spend 2 seconds and randomize a rack of Nine or Ten-Ball.
Repost from 4-26-2011 Pattern Racking thread:
On Saturday I ran my sixth regional event with the No Conflict Rules which include the Random Racking Process. There were 64 players from PA, OH, WV, NY, and MI. We turned players away. There was a total of $8500 in prizes and calcutta, race to 7 on the winner's side and race to 6 on the loser's side, and it was completed in one day.
http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/noconflict.html
Here it is:
There was not even one pattern rack.
There were no strange racking gadgets.
There was not one case of the studying of little spaces between balls.
There was not one rack checked.
There was not one rack rejected.
There was not one case of rack manipulating.
There was not one soft break.
There was not one complaint.
There was not even one argument.
Mission accomplished!
The matches and the tournament moved along without getting bogged down at the front end of the game. You can random rack faster than you can pattern rack. As I stated previously: If you can shuffle a deck of cards for 8 seconds and you can shake the dice for 3 seconds, all in the name of randomization, you can spend 2 seconds and randomize a rack of Nine or Ten-Ball.
Last edited:
OOh, this question would make me uncomfortable, that must make it a good one. Let me answer your question like this (notice nobody ever answers yes or no questions with a yes or no): if somebody told me they'd give me a million dollars if i could walk 10 feet and not think about bananas, i'd walk the 10 feet. At the end the guy would say, did you think about bananas? I'd say "Como? que es un 'banana'?" I think things that go on in my head are private, and we need to keep them as such many times. When enforcing pool rules comes down to "what were you thinking when..." I think we have gone in the wrong direction. What is pattern racking anyway? I didn't think there was such a thing
In short, you would deny it?
Last edited:
In short, you would deny it?
Dogs, if I did deny it (assuming I was doing it) it would be in the same way i'd deny people the access to my true thoughts in a semi-formal situation if Kim Kardashian walked past me in a bikini. There are certain things we just all need to keep private
Dogs, if I did deny it (assuming I was doing it) it would be in the same way i'd deny people the access to my true thoughts in a semi-formal situation if Kim Kardashian walked past me in a bikini. There are certain things we just all need to keep private
There is no assuming, in the scenario I described the player IS pattern racking. That's the analogy to answering a direct question from a TD about a possible rule infraction, LOL? It's really simple, he's asking you a question of fact, were you pattern racking or not? It's no different than him asking "did you foul the cue ball?"
I don't get the problem but never mind, I guess. I wasn't trying to get at your innermost private thoughts.:grin: Let's just forget it, and I'll simply explain why I ask. If a player feels there is nothing wrong with the practice then there is no reason to deny it to the TD - simply say, "Yes, I was." But if a player denies it then he has no argument that it's OK to do. It is apparent that he knows it's wrong and against the rules, otherwise why deny it?
That's all I was getting at.
Good point
I guess my point is, I don't really think any reasonbly thinking TD has the right to ask me that question. If he is going to base his decision off of something I say (considering the mood i'm in, the person I am etc.), and not what is going on at the table, that is a flawed system for enforcing rules in my estimation. What happens to the opponent if the player gives a "good" answer relative to another palyer who happens to give a "bad" answer. Unequal enforcement (to the detriment or benefit of let's assume an innocent party), yet everything else is effectively equal as far as physicalities on the table go.
I guess my point is, I don't really think any reasonbly thinking TD has the right to ask me that question. If he is going to base his decision off of something I say (considering the mood i'm in, the person I am etc.), and not what is going on at the table, that is a flawed system for enforcing rules in my estimation. What happens to the opponent if the player gives a "good" answer relative to another palyer who happens to give a "bad" answer. Unequal enforcement (to the detriment or benefit of let's assume an innocent party), yet everything else is effectively equal as far as physicalities on the table go.
Last edited:
Good point
I guess my point is, I don't really think any reasonbly thinking TD has the right to ask me that question. If he is going to base his decision off of something I say (considering the mood i'm in, the person I am etc.), and not what is going on at the table, that is a flawed system for enforcing rules in my estimation. What happens to the opponent if the player gives a "good" answer relative to another palyer who happens to give a "bad" answer. Unequal enforcement (to the detriment or benefit of let's assume an innocent party), yet everything else is effectively equal as far as physicalities on the table go.
I don't disagree with the problems of enforcing the rules, but certainly a TD called over to a table may ask questions of both players to ascertain the facts. It doesn't mean he will make his call solely based on the responses. He may ask him that to determine if he needs to now oversee the racking or if simply informing the player that it is against the rules will suffice.
But in any event, I wasn't trying to solve the problem of enforcing it - that may not be possible. The only point I was getting at is that a player that SAYS it is OK to pattern rack but would deny it to the referee if asked knows that it really isn't.