Why is it the worst? Because it's hard?
Please Fix POOL LEAGUE RULES ... Here Are Some Suggestions
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
dquarasr
Registered
When I snap the 9 on the break I win the rack but I didn’t (necessarily) make 1 through 8 yet I win the rack…..
Gaff rack on a second ball break?
9 ball is a special case since the rules specify that you can make the 9 on a combination and win. Since that isn't the case in 8 ball there is no reason other than coin op concerns for the 8 on the break to be a win
I agree 100%. It's ridiculous that we have all of these different rules for different leagues.
I am not a fan of the individual ball count and how it detracts from regular 9 ball, as everyone else knows it. I would much prefer to see it as a race to a set number of games, just like in 8 ball. I don't find the format hard, but the ball counting becomes tedious.
I can only assume that they tested both methods and found that this constitutes to closer matches between low level and high level players, but that doesn't mean I have to like it
There was always a key handy for that.
I do have the "obvious" "fix" for you all, been an enlightening year,
FargoRate - League Management System
lms.fargorate.com
Just caught up to this thread. I agree with pretty much everything in the video. I think VNEA has some nonsensical rules. APA has far too abridged of rules (with many scenarios handled by tradition).
I only disagree with blanket adopting of WPA rules. My opinion is that CSI rules are the best in their detail. The applied rulings explain things like “affect the outcome of the shot” in definitive ways. I’d support adopting WPA rules across the board if they defined applied rulings as well.
Because otherwise I find WPA rules to sometimes also be a bit abridged for what ought to be the worldwide official rules. Usually WPA honors the same applied rulings as CSI in practice via ref training but they don’t always take the time to put it in writing. I find that to be a shame.
I only disagree with blanket adopting of WPA rules. My opinion is that CSI rules are the best in their detail. The applied rulings explain things like “affect the outcome of the shot” in definitive ways. I’d support adopting WPA rules across the board if they defined applied rulings as well.
Because otherwise I find WPA rules to sometimes also be a bit abridged for what ought to be the worldwide official rules. Usually WPA honors the same applied rulings as CSI in practice via ref training but they don’t always take the time to put it in writing. I find that to be a shame.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
I agree. You have an open table and some liberty in ball placement. Most of the balls are on the table. And it's very easy to lose the cue ball on the break.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
I hate rules that question intent. How do you know if I missed intentionally? Then again, bar rules seem designed to handicap a strong player and allow a weak player to stay in the game while avoiding arguments. (was there a rail after contact?)
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
Be careful, you might break the game and we'll all have to find a new hobby.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
Don't think of it as 9 ball, think of it as a game where you get a point for each ball you make (like 14.1), but have to shoot in rotation, and the final ball is worth double. I've never actually played that way, but it could be a fun game. If you prefer Texas Express, that's a great game, too. If you ask me, unless you can consistently run 3 balls in rotation, Texas Express is a waste of time. There's nothing at stake for the first five balls. There needs be the threat of a runout. By playing to different point levels, I think the game might handicap a little better.I am not a fan of the individual ball count and how it detracts from regular 9 ball, as everyone else knows it. I would much prefer to see it as a race to a set number of games, just like in 8 ball. I don't find the format hard, but the ball counting becomes tedious.
I can only assume that they tested both methods and found that this constitutes to closer matches between low level and high level players, but that doesn't mean I have to like it
APA ratings are highly arbitrary, and sandbagging is rewarded.
I also like the detail and examples provided in the CSI rules. I also like some of the improvements they have made.
Arbitrary ratings? Seems just like an opinion of yours
Ratings can be manipulated in every league
Sandbagging happens in every league as well
how is it rewarded in apa?
soyale
Well-known member
i dont think theres anything wrong with “call shot” in wpa 8ball. You don't have to tell your opponent which pocket you are shooting at every single turn, i always took it as “call shot” just means you can’t fluke one in and keep shooting, like in 9ball.
For the most part, “calling” a shot is only necessary when you are doing some tricky shit (see dr daves post) that could easily be observed as a fluke by your potentially less than intelligent opponent.
When you say call shot doesn’t belong in 10 ball i have to disagree wholeheartedly. Ive said this on here many times before but i dont even really see the point of 10ball unless it is a call shot game. Since its already a nitpicky bastardized 9b i even advocate for callshot/callsafe to be played in 10b, just to give it a reason to exist.
9ball is the perfect game for flukes and randomness, and for those guys that dont like that aspect of it they can just go and play 10ball. In 8ball i dont think you should be able to shoot after a fluke and the answer to that is making it a “call shot” game.
i dont see why jumping a ball off table on the break should penalize you harder than scratching? I cant think of another time when jumping a ball off table is more detrimental than a normal foul aside from jumping the 8ball. Unless, you feel any foul on the break should be ball in hand instead of ball in kitchen?
Most real Sports have one scantioning body, one set of standardized rules, people find one stet of rules easier to comply with.
It's not the handicapping you don't like, it's the scoring. 9-Ball can't be handicapped well because there's too much variance in winning, but ball counts are easy to handicap. When you match up with someone in 9-Ball, you usually don't negotiate games on the wire as a spot, and that makes it hard to deterministically create a "fair" spot all the time. But with everyone except the very best and the very worst, the 9-Ball handicap in APA really does level the playing field. Here's an interesting tidbit - why doesn't APA have a straight pool handicap? Just speculation, but handicapping straight pool would be so straightforward that there's really nothing they could make proprietary and the game's not popular enough with their target audience, so there's no "bang for the buck".I am not a fan of the individual ball count and how it detracts from regular 9 ball, as everyone else knows it. I would much prefer to see it as a race to a set number of games, just like in 8 ball. I don't find the format hard, but the ball counting becomes tedious.
I can only assume that they tested both methods and found that this constitutes to closer matches between low level and high level players, but that doesn't mean I have to like it
The rules of the game itself aren't that different from the numerous variations of 9-Ball rules, just some stuff about push outs, jumping, and three fouls. So if you just play it like 9-Ball and can separate the scoring, you'll find that as your handicap improves, so does your "regular" 9-Ball game.
And you're right - you don't have to like whatever part of it you don't like.
It is much easier in some leagues. It is especially easy in leagues where they pay attention to "total misses before you win the rack". Just miss close when you can also leave it safe.
And then there is the room where the TD filled in the score sheets for the players. Lots of "missed a ball" turns. Or the room where the players have figured out the "marks-a-lot" strategy of scorekeeping on their own. I have seen both of those around here in a non-APA league.
In leagues where only won/loss is recorded, it's much harder and expensive to sandbag.
I think sandbagging largely depends on the local attitudes and the LO. Your league may vary.
As for APA "9-ball" which is not really 9 ball, I think it is a much better fit to the average APA player than standard 9 ball. Players at the level of APA 4 and under don't really have the skills to play 9 ball in run-out style. The alternative style -- smash and pray until you get on the 8 -- is fun but probably not what they want to encourage.
Anyone that's played any amount of apa has seen that smash and pray never works out as much as people that like to say it does.
The same people will go and play regular 9ball which is it self a sloppy game, go figure
The same people will go and play regular 9ball which is it self a sloppy game, go figure
I suppose I should make it clear that there are many things in the rules for which there is no "because". It's just the way the rule is. A choice had to be made between one way of doing things and another. A choice was made. Usually you have to live with that choice even though you think it was wrong.
And in the end win/no-win on an eight on the break is a choice someone made. It was not an unreasonable choice.