Proposed rules for tournament slow play in One Pocket and Banks

[336Robin]

Apologies if this has already been discussed in this thread. I started reading it shortly after it was created but haven't went back through all the replies. Regardless, I've been thinking about it off and on since then and the best thing I can come up with to speed up play is to simply play with fewer balls. Why not try 11 balls instead of 15 and see how it goes?

View attachment 781665

I realize the rack looks goofy. But playing this way should speed up play noticeably without anyone having to keep track of time or how many balls are up table. So the game could be played as normal, just shorter.

That is something entirely different, from what we are talking about as an alternative.

This might have a place somewhere and heck it might be the answer, but its vastly different and
I've never played it but the point is, a weekly tournament can't take forever to finish and before we get too far,
with this the TD also has to be paid and do we allow him to play also?

16 x 40= 640

Pay the TD 140 out of that to sit there all day and do nothing
and 500 left to pay 5 places 200,120,80,60,40

Maybe pay him less and let him play also? He has to sit there even after he loses.

 

[bioactive]

At a certain match time marker set by the TD, lets say 1.75 hrs for example, a specific shot is shot over and over again until the game is won. One point is awarded for each successful shot. The current score of the game is taken into account. If in one pocket the score is 7-5, whoever has 7 only has to make 1 shot, and whoever has 5 must make 3. The shots are taken alternate shot until there is a winner.

The shots:
One Pocket: BIH behind the line spot shot (straight into your hole).

Short Rack Bank Pool: BIH behind the line spot shot "straight back" bank shot.

Possibly do equal innings, although I'm not decided on that yet. If it were equal innings, it could result in a tie score of 8-8 for one pocket, or 5-5 for banks, in which case the players would keep going in equal innings until the score was not tied. If it were not equal innings, when the time limit is called, whoever is at the table shooting takes the first spot shot. If that player needs 1 and pockets the spot shot, he wins immediately. I could potentially see some time clock manipulation in this scenario, that's why the equal innings might be worth it.

If its a race to 3 and both players are slow as molasses and they are not even on the last game, then the current game is finished out this way, and the entire remaining games are played this way.

If you were a hotshot 9-ball ball pocketer wouldn't you just always try to delay things to get to the shootout with a traditional one pocket mover? In the end, it might actually lengthen some games.

 

[iusedtoberich]

If you were a hotshot 9-ball ball pocketer wouldn't you just always try to delay things to get to the shootout with a traditional one pocket mover? In the end, it might actually lengthen some games.

A valid point. Although I don’t think a 9 ball player would have the patience to do that.

 

[bbb]

Have a 1 ball onepocket tournament !!!!!

 

[Jimmy_Betmore]

Have a 1 ball onepocket tournament !!!!!

All joking aside, and maybe I'm losing my mind, but isn't there already a game like that? The object ball is placed at the center diamond on the foot rail and the breaker "breaks" from the middle of the head string?

 

[bbb]

All joking aside, and maybe I'm losing my mind, but isn't there already a game like that? The object ball is placed at the center diamond on the foot rail and the breaker "breaks" from the middle of the head string?

yes there is a game like that
and its a great game!!!!
here are a set of rules from onepocket.org
where you place the cue ball for the break is different in different places you play
i play from anywhere in the kitchen
i have seen pros play with the cue ball frozen at the second diamond on the head rail!!!!
..............................
.......................................

 

[Jimmy_Betmore]

yes there is a game like that
and its a great game!!!!
here are a set of rules from onepocket.org
where you place the cue ball for the break is different in different places you play
i play from anywhere in the kitchen
i have seen pros play with the cue ball frozen at the second diamond on the head rail!!!!
..............................
.......................................

View attachment 781706

Hell yeah! I thought that sounded familiar. No clue where I saw it though.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Update:
The local room had a small Banks tournament this Sunday. $20 entry, $5 greens, and an optional $10 and $20 side pot. The tournament being Banks was my idea, and I added money to the pot, so the room owner let me structure the format of the event.

Most of the players in our area of Philadelphia suburbs have never played Banks, so I was expecting a lot of weaker players that would take a long time making banks. Thus, I chose 7' tables to keep the game moving. The room has 8 9' Diamonds, and 6 7' Diamonds. We did short rack banks, not full rack. We did double elimination, race to 3 on the winner's side, race to 2 on the loser's side. The finals was going to be a single race to 4, but I later changed it to a single race to 3 (1 week before the tournament started). I changed it because one of the better banks players in the area and myself played 6 games that night, and it took forever. Each game turned into a safety battle. I said to myself "we both know how to play banks, and if we took this long, IDK what the rank beginners would do".

We really didn't know if 4 people would show up, or 20 people, as Banks tournaments were a complete unknown. In 30 years of playing, I've never heard of one in Philly. One pocket, however, is popular in our area.

I didn't want to introduce a time control to this event, as it was more of a test just to see what would happen. Banks is my favorite game, and I'd like to do this again maybe every other month or so.

We ended up getting 16 players. Skill range from low 400 to high 600. The tournament was open, no handicap, no skill limit cap. A few of the players were Banks veterans and have cashed at the DCC. Half the field probably never played a game of banks in their lives, but are avid pool players and definitely bank enough during regular 9 ball to know a little.

I'm super happy we didn't have a "true double elimination". The player in the finals from the winner's side was not happy, but that was fine by me. Having a climax to the event, and half the players still there watching the finals, was way better than a true double elimination that would have taken another hour and had zero crowd. If I'm ever a full time TD, I'd ban true double elimination. The finals went hill-hill.

I kept track of the match lengths for round one, but did not afterwards. About half of the matches were under 1 hour. The 3 longest matches of round 1 took 1:35, 1:35 and 1:45 minutes. The tournament started at 3:00 pm, and ended at 11:30 pm.

In conclusion, I think the event ran smoothly and was ok without a time control. If the races were any longer, it would have been too long of a day.

If we do it again, we might try single elimination on the 9' tables. Or, keep the same format. I think double elim on the 9' would be too long, unless we made it race to 2/2.

 

[InsertCleverNameHere]

Apologies if this has already been discussed in this thread. I started reading it shortly after it was created but haven't went back through all the replies. Regardless, I've been thinking about it off and on since then and the best thing I can come up with to speed up play is to simply play with fewer balls. Why not try 11 balls instead of 15 and see how it goes?

View attachment 781665

I realize the rack looks goofy. But playing this way should speed up play noticeably without anyone having to keep track of time or how many balls are up table. So the game could be played as normal, just shorter.

I've tried this. The rack doesn't break apart in a "familiar way" and the game is changed too much imo. If this is your goal then rack all 15 like normal and have the players play to 6 balls instead of 8. Or 7 instead of 8 or whatever you like. It would change the game far less than racking 11 balls. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Jimmy_Betmore]

I've tried this. The rack doesn't break apart in a "familiar way" and the game is changed too much imo. If this is your goal then rack all 15 like normal and have the players play to 6 balls instead of 8. Or 7 instead of 8 or whatever you like. It would change the game far less than racking 11 balls. Just my 2 cents.

Yeah. That's the one thing I could think of that differs from a standard 15 ball game. I've found that breaking more like straight pool (leaving whitey up table) is more effective just because you're less likely to leave a return bank off the break. But since the overall goal in doing this is to speed up the games for tournament play, I figured it was a fair tradeoff.

Having said that, playing to a lower ball count might work just as well while keeping the game more traditional. The only minor issue I could see with this would be in handicapped tournaments where your opponent might only have to go to four or five. That would be some potentially rough action.

But when you get right down to it, changing the game is going to, well, change the game. Something is going to be different. But the goal is to maximize what you want (shorter tournament times) and minimize what you don't (changing the overall play of the game.) The trick is finding that balance.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

If you want a quick one pocket tournament, just play 3 ball one pocket.
3 balls racked in a mini triangle shape. Break however you want. (Most will figure it out)

Used to gamble with a buddy of mine this way before he passed away.
Very rarely did a game ever go over 5-10 minutes although I can see anyone stretching the time limit to infinity on any one pocket game.
Definitely better than bare ball (1 ball) and knocking the ball away as the opening shot.

 

[darmoose]

Seems to me that the single most problematic part of these games is that fouls cause the game scores to go backwards, which naturally makes the games last longer. Without changing anything about how the game is played, we can make all games go faster by not allowing the scores to go backwards,

TRY THIS
When a foul is committed a ball is ADDED the the opponents score. No balls are ever removed. You can designate the added ball by placing a coin on his rail, as we do to mark penalties today, or we could allow the player receiving the ball to remove a ball off the table. This would solve many problems for tournaments and TD's. The effect of this rule would not only keep the score from going backwards, it would actually move the score forwards and have in essence a twofold impact on the length of the game.

 

[Jimmy_Betmore]

Seems to me that the single most problematic part of these games is that fouls cause the game scores to go backwards, which naturally makes the games last longer. Without changing anything about how the game is played, we can make all games go faster by not allowing the scores to go backwards,

TRY THIS
When a foul is committed a ball is ADDED the the opponents score. No balls are ever removed. You can designate the added ball by placing a coin on his rail, as we do to mark penalties today, or we could allow the player receiving the ball to remove a ball off the table. This would solve many problems for tournaments and TD's. The effect of this rule would not only keep the score from going backwards, it would actually move the score forwards and have in essence a twofold impact on the length of the game.

That would be WILD. It would change a few fundamental aspects of strategy, but I'd absolutely be down to try it. I'm not going to sit here and say it doesn't have any potential issues. (How brutal would it be to get corner hooked when your opponent only needs one?) But, hell, I'd give it a go if for no other reason than to see if somebody could figure out a way to exploit the new rules.

Having said all that, onepocket is by far my favorite game. And I love it just the way it is. But I also understand that nothing is perfect and the only way to improve anything is revise and test it. If it doesn't work, change it back. If it does work, congratulations. The world is a better place.

 

[maha]

fouls are only in top player one pocket. average to better players hardly ever take a foul. no need to.

games go slow because of slow players. that is the problem not the rules of the games.

must be alot of slow players here as seems everyone wants to change the rules to accommodate slow players.

 

[bbb]

fouls are only in top player one pocket. average to better players hardly ever take a foul. no need to.

games go slow because of slow players. that is the problem not the rules of the games.

must be alot of slow players here as seems everyone wants to change the rules to accommodate slow players.

@darmoose
read the bolded part a few times

 

[Jimmy_Betmore]

While I'd agree that slow players are a big part of the problem, I'd also argue that one pocket by it's very nature is going to be a longer game than most others simply due to the strategy and moving involved. Hell, it wasn't that long ago there was a thread on here that went many many pages titled something to the effect of "One pocket is so slow..." and everyone weighed in with their comments and jokes. I'd also argue that the majority of folks don't really want to change the core rules to one pocket. We're simply discussing options for variations of the game. At the end of the day, it's still one pocket and the best players are going to win more often than not.

In a perfect world we'd all have unlimited time and energy to play for as long as a tournament takes. But the reality is that a lot of us have family, jobs, and whatever else going on in life and have a hard time working in practice time much less an entire day/night every week or so to play in a tournament. So, in my humble opinion, anything reasonable that can be done to make the game more inviting to more people only serves to grow the game we're all here for. And like I said before, if you make a change and it doesn't work out, just change it back.

 

[maha]

join the line at the door that wants to change the rules. you wont be alone there.

look what they did to nine ball. you cant find a game for more than 5 bucks in most any pool room.
yet one pocket action is still there.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Here's a new T-shirt design available through Nick Varner. Really.

 

[lfigueroa]

Here's a new T-shirt design available through Nick Varner. Really.

View attachment 782115

It's sad, IMO, that his exploitation the rules -- something that brings an entire tournament down to a multi-hour crawl -- is something worth celebrating by putting on a T-shirt.

Lou Figueroa
meh

 

[Bob Jewett]

It's sad, IMO, that his exploitation the rules -- something that brings an entire tournament down to a multi-hour crawl -- is something worth celebrating by putting on a T-shirt. ...

I think that rather than a celebration you can take it as a caution and as support for the Grady rule.