Poll: Winner Break, Loser Break, Alternate Break?

[buckshotshoey]

I'm afraid I don't agree. If you choose to insult me, well, that's on you. I've probably played a hell of a lot more than you have so if I don't play that's ok by me. If we played, I can pretty much guarantee you wouldn't like it either way. Whoever said it was supposed to be fair, hmm? Until recently, I never heard anything about pool having to be fair.
When the rules changed in the late seventies/early eighties, I didn't like them and still don't but I adapted well enough to play the game for a long time. About 10 years ago, I pretty much gave up competitive 9 ball. Oh, you can't break from there any more, oh, you can't make the 9 in a corner pocket and win, oh, you can't "pattern rack" any more, oh, you have to put the 2 in the back of the rack, oh, what bullshit! I choose not to adapt, not because I can't.

I insulted you? Old fart? Youv've got to be kidding. Omg.

 

[Pidge]

How are these changes to the advantage of the weaker players?

As far as the sardo and magic racks are concerned it doesn't benefit the worst player in the slightest. They are designed to freeze every ball to give a good, even spread of balls around the table. If anything they benefit the better players.

A little story....i had a cash game against a guy who was better than me, not just a bit but a big favorite. I wanted the race to be short in the hope I could string a rack or two together and put up a fighting chance. We raced to 7, started even and it was tied at 2-2. He broke dry and I ran out then made the 9 on every break after. Winning 7-2. The rules were loser racks, with a crappy triangle. No one should be making the 9 four times in a row. If we had a decent rack where all the balls were frozen I would have lost.

I think debates like this are down to people either being afraid of change or not liking change. Some people are too stubborn for their own good.

 

[Pushout]

I insulted you? Old fart? Youv've got to be kidding. Omg.

Sigh. If that's what you got out of that, well, forget it.

 

[Pushout]

Most of us have never seen a highly competitive match with players trading break and runs and its much better than many would think, tons more pressure.

Thanks, Joe, always glad to have your input, whatever the topic!

 

[Nine ... corner]

I am one of the few who voted for loser breaks. Not talking about league play, pro tournies but rather my one main opponent/friend and we match up very well. If we played winner breaks it would just be one man at the table continually breaking and running out!! OK, seriously, even though there are some breaks and run outs we just decided it would be fairer for our big matches. P.S. there are no trophies or $$$ involved. :thumbup:

 

[buckshotshoey]

Sigh. If that's what you got out of that, well, forget it.

Ok. Sorry. I was a little sensitive that moment. I am trying to get to the reason you think different rule sets make things unfair. I don't remember mentioning anything about fairness. As long as both players are following the same rules, it fair.

What is your feeling on Mosconi Cup rules? 9 ball on the spot. 2013 used the break box. 3 balls In or past the head string. And alternating break!
I think the Mosconi cup is the most exciting pool that can be watched on the planet BECAUSE of the rules! And who, at most Mosconi cups, is at the advantage using alternating breaks? The better player of course.

Ok. Let me try it this way..... Longer races, like race to 7 or more, could be better played as winner breaks. Shorter race games might better served by alternating break or some other form. I think that's a fair assessment. And how many Mosconi Cups have you seen where it was actually a disadvantage to break! I love it!

 

[Black-Balled]

That's really it. The better players want to play winner break to increase their advantage; the lesser players want alternate breaks to slow down the runaway train.

The only biggish tourney win I have had was alternate break and I beat a few good players that I might not have, by holding my serve and breaking theirs.

 

[Black-Balled]

I am one of the few who voted for loser breaks. Not talking about league play, pro tournies but rather my one main opponent/friend and we match up very well. If we played winner breaks it would just be one man at the table continually breaking and running out!! OK, seriously, even though there are some breaks and run outs we just decided it would be fairer for our big matches. P.S. there are no trophies or $$$ involved. :thumbup:

I think one pocket should be loser break...but that is a thought for a different poll.

 

[Pushout]

Well, the thread seems to have run itself out. Thanks, everybody who participated! I confess I'm somewhat surprised by the results. The game continues to change, in ways some of us are not happy with. Though I've been considering competing again at the local level I doubt my physical condition will allow it and, in a way, I'm glad.
Thanks, again!

 

[lorider]

if i am playing a lesser player i am ok with winner breaks.
if i am playing an equal player i am ok with alternating break.

if i am playing a better player i want loser breaks...at least i will get to the table every other rack . :grin-square:

 

[itsfroze]

Alternate break

When Ko Pin YI was down 14-4 to Dennis Orcollo at the Bangkok Brunswick Open in 2008 and ran 11 racks to win, 15-14. It would have never happened with alternate break.

That's why I like winner breaks, Joe. Maybe that's why the poll is 60% to 36% in favor of winner breaks, at the time of this post.
Guess I have to disagree on this one. Hope you're AMRO is is working out well, with some new rooms signing up!!!

 

[tony frank]

The game / sport / art has enough bad rep ! Alternate breaks - opposition racks - get rid of rack mechanics !!!! or 9 ball farce game ! Just great to watch one cheating player have the run of the show - I guess for those who love cheating. By pure skill or/and luck and/or cheating one can leave the best of them sitting throughout the match HUH ? Why not basketball / football, etc. if you make a first down every 4 or score you get to keep the the ball. WOULDN'T that be a fun game ?

 

[Poolplaya9]

The better players want to play winner break to increase their advantage

No, they want to play winner breaks because they think it increases their advantage (even though it really doesn't, and in fact probably decreases their advantage a bit). It seems naturally intuitive to feel like winner breaks would favor the stronger player but the facts don't seem to support that at all. A format where both opponents always have the same amount of opportunities to score will always favor a stronger player more than any other format where the weaker player will occasionally have more opportunities to score than the stronger opponent (such as with winner breaks).

Alternate breaks without a doubt makes for closer scores (a good thing from every perspective including putting more pressure on the players and also more exciting matches for the viewers), but the better player will actually win more often than with winner breaks.

the lesser players want alternate breaks to slow down the runaway train.

Again, some lesser players want alternate breaks because it seems intuitive that it would give them a better chance even though they would be wrong. For starters there is more pressure under that format. You feel like every single game is much more important and lesser players almost certainly don't deal with pressure as well as a better player. But most importantly, any format that requires equal opportunities for scoring will always favor the superior player more than a format than sometimes allows for the inferior player to have more opportunities to score than the better player had.

There is nothing more fair or accurate in measuring performance than comparing the performances of people that had equal scoring opportunities. As soon as you have unequal scoring opportunities the waters of who was actually superior become much more cloudy.

If you are having a free throw competition with your buddy and you each shoot 15 free throws, and you make 12 out of 15, and he makes 8 out of 15, there is no way that it can be argued that your friend was the better free throw shooter (at least during that time period) because you each had the same amount of tries and you did better.

If instead it was a race to 15, keep shooting until you miss, and the score ends with you winning 15 to his 12, then that really tells you nothing other than who hit that arbitrary and meaningless number first because in that format the person than won had had more scoring opportunities than his opponent had. Maybe your friend was up 11 to 9 at one point in the race to 15, so if it had been a race to 11 instead he would have won since he had the most scoring opportunities up to that point in time. And maybe if you had kept playing to a race to 21 he would have ended up winning 21 to 17 because he would have had more scoring opportunities at that point as well. So who is really better? You don't know because you didn't have equal opportunities to score. But because you had chosen 15 as your arbitrary and meaningless number, and because you were the one that happened to have had the most scoring opportunities at that point in time and happened to be ahead at that moment, you get credit for the win. You still don't really know who was better though.

ALL major sports use some format that allows both sides equal opportunities to score, and they do it because it is the most fair and the most accurate way of determining who is best. For some reason pool decided to be the lone exception and do things in a way that is not as logical and not as accurate in determining who the best is.

In [American] football, if one team scores, then the ball goes to the other team for them to attempt to score next. Why isn't football a race to 31 points, and when one team scores they get to receive the kickoff so they can attempt to score again over and over until they finally fail to score on one of their drives? One team could win the game without the other team ever even having had possession of the ball. It's dumb, that's why it isn't done. The far more accurate way to determine who is best is for each team to have an equal amount of scoring opportunities. I don't hear anybody crying about how boring football is because of this either, or how much more exciting it would be if you got to see packages instead of the alternating possessions.

In basketball, if one team scores, then the ball goes to the other team to attempt to score next. Why isn't basketball a race to 100 points, and whenever a team scores they get the ball back so they can attempt to score again and they don't ever have to turn over the ball until they fail to score before the shot clock runs out? It's dumb, that's why it isn't done. The far more accurate way to determine who is best is to have each side get equal scoring opportunities by alternating possession. I don't hear anybody arguing about how boring basketball is because of this either, or how much more exciting it would be if you got to see packages instead of the alternating possessions.

In baseball they alternate possessions and have the same number of innings for each team to ensure that each team gets the same amount of opportunities to score, and whoever has scored more (from their equal number of scoring opportunities) is the winner of the game. What if instead baseball was a race to 6 runs and each time a team scored, however many outs they were on was erased and reset back to zero and they can keep scoring indefinitely until they finally have three consecutive outs without any runs having been scored in between? It isn't done because it is dumb and isn't the fairest or most accurate indicator of who the better team is.

In tennis why doesn't the winner of every volley get a point and then get to serve again indefinitely until they finally lose a volley and then have to turn over the serve to the opponent?

Wouldn't football, basketball, baseball, tennis, and every other major sport in existence be so much more exciting if you got to see big packages and the possibility that one of the opponents may not get to play or attempt to score much or maybe even not at all?

So is it that pool is the lone sport that has it right and every other sport in existence is using the dumb format? Or is it that pool is the one with the dumb format and we just never stopped to really think about it and never realized it simply because we are so used to it and that is the way it has always been done?

 

[Joe T]

No, they want to play winner breaks because they think it increases their advantage (even though it really doesn't, and in fact probably decreases their advantage a bit). It seems naturally intuitive to feel like winner breaks would favor the stronger player but the facts don't seem to support that at all. A format where both opponents always have the same amount of opportunities to score will always favor a stronger player more than any other format where the weaker player will occasionally have more opportunities to score than the stronger opponent (such as with winner breaks).

Alternate breaks without a doubt makes for closer scores (a good thing from every perspective including putting more pressure on the players and also more exciting matches for the viewers), but the better player will actually win more often than with winner breaks.



Again, some lesser players want alternate breaks because it seems intuitive that it would give them a better chance even though they would be wrong. For starters there is more pressure under that format. You feel like every single game is much more important and lesser players almost certainly don't deal with pressure as well as a better player. But most importantly, any format that requires equal opportunities for scoring will always favor the superior player more than a format than sometimes allows for the inferior player to have more opportunities to score than the better player had.

There is nothing more fair or accurate in measuring performance than comparing the performances of people that had equal scoring opportunities. As soon as you have unequal scoring opportunities the waters of who was actually superior become much more cloudy.

If you are having a free throw competition with your buddy and you each shoot 15 free throws, and you make 12 out of 15, and he makes 8 out of 15, there is no way that it can be argued that your friend was the better free throw shooter (at least during that time period) because you each had the same amount of tries and you did better.

If instead it was a race to 15, keep shooting until you miss, and the score ends with you winning 15 to his 12, then that really tells you nothing other than who hit that arbitrary and meaningless number first because in that format the person than won had had more scoring opportunities than his opponent had. Maybe your friend was up 11 to 9 at one point in the race to 15, so if it had been a race to 11 instead he would have won since he had the most scoring opportunities up to that point in time. And maybe if you had kept playing to a race to 21 he would have ended up winning 21 to 17 because he would have had more scoring opportunities at that point as well. So who is really better? You don't know because you didn't have equal opportunities to score. But because you had chosen 15 as your arbitrary and meaningless number, and because you were the one that happened to have had the most scoring opportunities at that point in time and happened to be ahead at that moment, you get credit for the win. You still don't really know who was better though.

ALL major sports use some format that allows both sides equal opportunities to score, and they do it because it is the most fair and the most accurate way of determining who is best. For some reason pool decided to be the lone exception and do things in a way that is not as logical and not as accurate in determining who the best is.

In [American] football, if one team scores, then the ball goes to the other team for them to attempt to score next. Why isn't football a race to 31 points, and when one team scores they get to receive the kickoff so they can attempt to score again over and over until they finally fail to score on one of their drives? One team could win the game without the other team ever even having had possession of the ball. It's dumb, that's why it isn't done. The far more accurate way to determine who is best is for each team to have an equal amount of scoring opportunities. I don't hear anybody crying about how boring football is because of this either, or how much more exciting it would be if you got to see packages instead of the alternating possessions.

In basketball, if one team scores, then the ball goes to the other team to attempt to score next. Why isn't basketball a race to 100 points, and whenever a team scores they get the ball back so they can attempt to score again and they don't ever have to turn over the ball until they fail to score before the shot clock runs out? It's dumb, that's why it isn't done. The far more accurate way to determine who is best is to have each side get equal scoring opportunities by alternating possession. I don't hear anybody arguing about how boring basketball is because of this either, or how much more exciting it would be if you got to see packages instead of the alternating possessions.

In baseball they alternate possessions and have the same number of innings for each team to ensure that each team gets the same amount of opportunities to score, and whoever has scored more (from their equal number of scoring opportunities) is the winner of the game. What if instead baseball was a race to 6 runs and each time a team scored, however many outs they were on was erased and reset back to zero and they can keep scoring indefinitely until they finally have three consecutive outs without any runs having been scored in between? It isn't done because it is dumb and isn't the fairest or most accurate indicator of who the better team is.

In tennis why doesn't the winner of every volley get a point and then get to serve again indefinitely until they finally lose a volley and then have to turn over the serve to the opponent?

Wouldn't football, basketball, baseball, tennis, and every other major sport in existence be so much more exciting if you got to see big packages and the possibility that one of the opponents may not get to play or attempt to score much or maybe even not at all?

So is it that pool is the lone sport that has it right and every other sport in existence is using the dumb format? Or is it that pool is the one with the dumb format and we just never stopped to really think about it and never realized it simply because we are so used to it and that is the way it has always been done?

TY
Winner breaks probably came from those long lines of quarters on the tables when winner stayed on.

If I'm playing anyone better than me I think I have a better chance playing winner breaks.

 

[tony frank]

This is entirely different from tourney / serious competition head to head. I agree on this bar box reality for sure !! WINNER BREAKS

 

[parvus1202]

Why is weaker players are always mentioned in pro pool? Pro pool are all equals hence must acquire equal rules regardless of who breaks first. As long as the rule on break is set before the start tournament then it's anyone's ballgame. If one player don't like the rules then he can always withdraw or forfeit. It's just very annoying that you will hear complaints after the tournament that it should be like this or like that when they agree before they play.