I don't believe this to be a myth. Yes players make excuses but make no mistake there are rolls in a set. The way the balls lay after a break is a good example. I've been on both ends of the rolls and they are as real as the cue you play with
Pool Myths Explained
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
I don't believe this to be a myth. Yes players make excuses but make no mistake there are rolls in a set. The way the balls lay after a break is a good example. I've been on both ends of the rolls and they are as real as the cue you play with
First, I want to say that this is one of the more interesting threads we have seen on "Forums" for a while.
Then, I would like to invoke my mother. (This may be a first on AZ Billiards Forums!) Whenever my mother heard a musician who could play an instrument well or sing well, or saw one who could dance well, she would refer to him as an "accomplished" artist, not a "talented" one. Her adjective was a tip of the hat to the effort which any great performer has to put into his activity to get to the top. My skin crawls when I hear commentators on television say that someone who performs at the highest level is really "talented." Yeah, he's that and a whole lot more,and, while talent in and of itself is not anything to take pride in, the personal qualities that lead to the development of the "whole lot more" are.
Then, I would like to invoke my mother. (This may be a first on AZ Billiards Forums!) Whenever my mother heard a musician who could play an instrument well or sing well, or saw one who could dance well, she would refer to him as an "accomplished" artist, not a "talented" one. Her adjective was a tip of the hat to the effort which any great performer has to put into his activity to get to the top. My skin crawls when I hear commentators on television say that someone who performs at the highest level is really "talented." Yeah, he's that and a whole lot more,and, while talent in and of itself is not anything to take pride in, the personal qualities that lead to the development of the "whole lot more" are.
Playing alternate breaks vs winner breaks absolutely makes a difference. Playing winner breaks means that a player that is playing well and breaking well can maintain control of the match from rack to rack until they have won. Alternate breaks ensure that their opponent will get to the table without being hooked at least once every other rack. It's an even bigger deal in a handicapped tournament. In an alternate break tournament, if you are giving up games on the wire and your opponent controls (or gets lucky on) most or all of the racks that they break, you're going to lose.
A natural is defined as "a person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity"
Some players might have innate skills (better hand-eye coordination, more motivation, etc.) that allowed them to learn pool more quickly, but nobody has an innate talent for shooting pool. Everyone has to put in their time at the table to get better, and the skills required for pool can be developed at nearly any age.
To become a world-class player is a bit different though, and I will concede partially that there could be a genetic component for that. I bet if you ask any top player to play off-handed, they will not perform anywhere near their dominant hand (unless they practice both the same).
Well, that's a myth right there! Amazing how many think they are the same.
Example: Two runnout players, one is down 8-1 in a race to 9. Alt. break, the guy down has almost zero chance of a comeback win. Winner break, the guy down isn't out until the last ball drops. Been down 8-1 several times and still won because it was winner breaks. Never have made a comeback from even 4 games down in alternate break. There's a reason giving up the break is a big spot.
Mathematically it makes no difference in a non-handicapped race. The only difference is mental. Work out the math for yourself if you like. If you win the lag and win all your breaks, then you are going to win in either format. Only difference is the score.
If you are giving games on the wire, then yes. In that case winner breaks favors the guy giving the weight.
This logic never makes sense, though, because if coming back from 8-1 down playing alternate break is near impossible... how did you get 8-1 down in the first place? Someone won a bunch of games in a row, that's how.
Last edited:
Yehudi Menuhin was a talented violonist ONLY because he practiced more than others?
The same can be said, if I follow you, in their respective fields, for (for ex.) Newton, Pascal, Einstein, Darwin, Chomsky, Usain Bolt, Ronnie O'Sullivan, ...
Are you serious? Natural talent is, OF COURSE, not enough, but it helps a LOT.
Billiards, as all other sports, implies many many abilities (psychomotor skills, spatial ability, concentration, serenity, etc. etc.).
A player who is not naturally talented (the addition and emergence of a great quantity of different abilities), will attend a B level (maybe), but NEVER a A+ level.level.
Liu Shasha, 2014 woman champion of 9 ball is sixteen ...
I agree. While we all know people who just seem to have a "knack" or know-how and ability to do certain things well, you don't see those people on TV doing those things professionally. Those pros you see are highly practiced, and the upper-tier performance you witness is a direct result of the sheer number of hours that person has put into that activity.
I had musically-inclined friends who you can hand an instrument they've never touched before; they'll turn the instrument over in their hands to analyze it, and then begin playing the instrument as if they've played it before to my amazement. (That, to me, is talent.) However, I don't expect to ever see them in an orchestra or fronting a band any time soon, because they don't put the work and focus into it.
My own story of being a gawky no-rhythm white boy who couldn't keep time even by tapping his foot to music, to a journeyman bass guitarist that late great friend Richie Havens once paid the highest compliment to, is an example of what can be done with studious practice.
-Sean
Yeah, but a runout player is a lot less likely to find themselves down 8-1 in alternate breaks versus winner breaks. If you're down 8-1 that means the other guy already had either 8 or 9 breaks, and you have only had 1 or 2. So the rest of the match, if it goes the distance, you get most of the breaks.
It evens out in the end, and overall it makes no difference as to who wins. It affects the order that the racks are played, and the final score, but not the winner.
Work out the math yourself if you like.
Myth: Anyone that gambles at pool is a hustler and a degenerate.
Myth: So and so pro plays like this, so I can do it too and have the same success at it.
Myth: If someone isn't a pro player, they have nothing to offer in instruction.
Myth: Making the cb hop on the break denotes power and is a good thing to do.
Myth: A hard break is better than a softer break.
Myth: So and so tip, cue, chalk, improved my game all by itself. (you can't buy a game, you have to earn them)
Myth: Bar tables are "toy" tables, and anyone can play great on one.
Myth: Playing on tight pockets will hurt your game.
Myth: Jump cues ruined the game.
Myth: 9 ball is nothing more than a break contest.
Myth: So and so pro plays like this, so I can do it too and have the same success at it.
Myth: If someone isn't a pro player, they have nothing to offer in instruction.
Myth: Making the cb hop on the break denotes power and is a good thing to do.
Myth: A hard break is better than a softer break.
Myth: So and so tip, cue, chalk, improved my game all by itself. (you can't buy a game, you have to earn them)
Myth: Bar tables are "toy" tables, and anyone can play great on one.
Myth: Playing on tight pockets will hurt your game.
Myth: Jump cues ruined the game.
Myth: 9 ball is nothing more than a break contest.
You are leaving out of your equation that it can take a number of racks to figure out the break. One guy can luck into the right spot and speed before the other, thereby skewing the results and outcome.
You are stuck in your thinking that just because both get the same number of breaks, that makes it equal. On paper, yes. In reality, no. Not by a long shot.
Is it a myth? Twisting the wrist to get more English...
Just a little more fodder for the thread.
So do you think that TWISTING THE WRIST when using Side Spin, can add more side spin to the cue ball?
JoeyA
P.S. Great suggestions so far. Roll on Main Forum.
Just a little more fodder for the thread.
So do you think that TWISTING THE WRIST when using Side Spin, can add more side spin to the cue ball?
JoeyA
P.S. Great suggestions so far. Roll on Main Forum.
These 2 truly stand out.
I especially get bothered by players who don't practice on tight tables, but say they will hurt your game. Nothing could be further from the truth. A tight table accentuates your deficiencies.
Jump cues take a lot of skill to use well and are both an offensive and defensive tool, where kick shots are primarily defensive, vary by table, and pose difficulties in controlling the outcome. Jump cues have forced players to tighten up their safety leaves.
Last edited:
You are leaving out of your equation that it can take a number of racks to figure out the break. One guy can luck into the right spot and speed before the other, thereby skewing the results and outcome.
You are stuck in your thinking that just because both get the same number of breaks, that makes it equal. On paper, yes. In reality, no. Not by a long shot.
Actually, no, that makes no difference either. The math doesn't change, and figuring out the break early is equally beneficial in either format.
The possible exception is if we assume watching the other guy break helps you figure out where to break yourself. In this case alternate break favors the guy who can figure out the break more quickly. The guy who takes longer to figure it out will on average lose more of the earlier racks, which means that, with winner break more of his breaks will come later in the match when he has already had a chance to watch the opponent break several times. In effect he gets to postpone some of his breaks until after he's gotten to watch the other guy break a few times, which is to his advantage. But this is a pretty small secondary factor.
It can make a difference mentally, and it "feels" different, but mathematically it's the same. Neither one favors the stronger player or the better breaker or the guy that won the lag more than the other.
Last edited:
There's no doubt that those individuals practiced a LOT, and usually earlier on in life. My argument is that what looks like "natural" talent is mostly just tons of practice. There might be some innate skills, but they are not going to make a big factor for pool (other sports/areas might be different, especially olympic-type sports). For anyone interested in ground breaking scientific research on developing skills, read The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle.
Myth: Play the game, not your opponent.
Wrong! Crush your opponent and watch as his confidence evaporates until he's choking on every shot. You want the truth? I want other playas to sweat every time they see me walking into the room, knowing in their hearts that they don't stand a chance. You want the truth? Play "the game" and ask yourself why you're not able to make the shots your opponent is avoiding or missing so bad he/she might as well be blind. Yeah, that's right, play "the game" and keep telling yourself that one of these days it will all come together.
Shoot safe.
John
Wrong! Crush your opponent and watch as his confidence evaporates until he's choking on every shot. You want the truth? I want other playas to sweat every time they see me walking into the room, knowing in their hearts that they don't stand a chance. You want the truth? Play "the game" and ask yourself why you're not able to make the shots your opponent is avoiding or missing so bad he/she might as well be blind. Yeah, that's right, play "the game" and keep telling yourself that one of these days it will all come together.
Shoot safe.
John
No but a lot of players do it (including myself). You can just aim the tip to achieve the same results and have a more reliable stroke.
So that's what I'm doing wrong!
What? Preposterous.
Say a set to 11 ends up 11-1. If it was winner breaks, player 1 broke 10 or 11 times (depending on who won the lag). If it was alternate breaks, player 1 broke 6 times.
10 or 11 is not the same as 6.
Say player 1 is up 10-5, and both players are pros. It's player 2's break. In winner breaks, the number of opportunities player 1 is guaranteed to run out for the match is 0. He might not get back to the table. In alternate breaks, The number of opportunities player 1 is guaranteed to break and run for the match is at least 3, regardless of how player 2 plays.
0 is not the same as 3.
"Mathematically", this makes no sense.
-Andrew