Question about one of At Large's stats

[AtLarge]

... I do have one question though, why when you take the info broken down into winners and loses does it come up to greater than 100%?

With alternating breaks, the sum of the two players' percentages could be as high as 200% (if each player won every game he broke).

With winner breaks, if both players get to play, it could be close to 200%.

The combined percentage is the weighted average (weighted by the number of breaks) of the individual percentages (not the sum of those individual percentages). The event mentioned above was alternating breaks, so winners and losers broke almost the same number of times, and the combined percentage (55%) is pretty much the mean (average) of the individual percentages (69% and 42%).

 

[ceebee]

At Large, which format do you like best, Winner Breaks or Alternating breaks..? I have always liked Winner Breaks, but don't shy away from the Alternating Break venues. With a good Break Shot, the players has a chance to run a few Racks, putting the opponent into a stress condition.

In the Alternating Break Format, having a good Break Shot is omnipotent, in order to maintain a competitive level of play. I watched a match in Olathe where both players had 7 break & runs. Then the one Breaking Opponent came up dry in his break, his opponent broke & ran out. Then he broke & run out the next rack to win the match.

One component that we don't see in Break Shot stats is this. If the Breaker didn't have a shot after the break, because of no ball made, bad Cue Ball position, Cue Ball getting kicked into a bad position or Scratching or this or that or..., plays havoc with their stats. Making a Ball & Cue Ball control after impact is very important, but only a few players have that much control.

At Large, thanks for all that you do in collecting this info, it is a very valuable service to the folks that use this kind of info...

 

[nine_ball6970]

So first of all thanks Large, as always. So after reviewing his stats for the recent MIH, I noticed something. It's the same thing that I always seem to notice and am curious about. In regards to the " break and won game " stats. Regardless of the game, players , tables, venues, it seems like the overall average of the breaker winning the game seems to always be around mid 50 something %. Let's just use 55% since that's what it is for the MIH. In gambling terms, sure a 10% advantage is huge. I'm not looking at it like that though, in a more real world example - the breaker is only winning 5% more than half of the time. When looking at it like that it seems like an extremely low number.

What I'm getting at is the break is supposed to be a huge advantage in all games ( except 14.1 of course ). With the level these guys ( and all pros really ) it would seem to me that the breaker should be winning way more than 5% more to heh an half of the Han he games they break. No, not all breaks will be B&R'so but at the hanger is level one would think ; 1) most of the time they will be making at least one ball on the break, 2) and as such when it's not a B&R they are still in control of the table and should be able to play good safeties etc.

I understand a B&R won't always be there nor will a chance at a good lock down safety. However in totality it seems like it would end up being much more of an advantage than what the numbers seem to show. What do yall think about this? Does the 55% average make sense to you or does it seem as if maybe you'd think it would be more in the 70% or whatever range?

I think it comes down to all of the players in MIH being close in skill. The breaker has a bigger edge if he makes a ball. That advantage is pretty much gone if he breaks dry. Whoever gets the first open opportunity will most likely win the game at that level.

What is the winning percentage for the first player to have an open shot after the break?

The 70% number would be more likely if players are vastly different in skill. The better player can break terrible or even miss a ball during the course of a rack and still win the game.

 

[AtLarge]

At Large, which format do you like best, Winner Breaks or Alternating breaks..? I have always liked Winner Breaks, but don't shy away from the Alternating Break venues. With a good Break Shot, the players has a chance to run a few Racks, putting the opponent into a stress condition.

I prefer winner breaks if the race is long and alternating breaks if the race is short. For me, exactly where the dividing line is between "long" and "short" probably depends on the game, the equipment, and the rules.

What I really want, whether I am playing or watching, is a match that gives both players ample opportunities to compete, to interact, to use their various pool skills. The winner-breaks format can completely eliminate competition from what is supposed to be a competitive event and turn it into a one-person exhibition. Actually, the alternating-breaks format can also fail to produce interaction, but at least it means both players will get to the table. For a match with lots of interaction among the players we either need lousy players, something I don't want to watch, or rules and equipment that force the interaction.

In most pro events, however, lengthy break-and-run packages are fairly rare. So for middle-length races (say, races to 8, 9, 10, 11), I'm fairly indifferent between winner breaks and alternating breaks.

... One component that we don't see in Break Shot stats is this. If the Breaker didn't have a shot after the break, because of no ball made, bad Cue Ball position, Cue Ball getting kicked into a bad position or Scratching or this or that or..., plays havoc with their stats. Making a Ball & Cue Ball control after impact is very important, but only a few players have that much control. ...

Yes. And good fortune certainly plays a role. A player can look invincible in one match, breaking successfully, running out, etc., and then can't break successfully at all in the next match on the same table; and the stats get turned upside down.

But note that I generally post more than just a couple of break stats (such as successful-break percentages, breaker-won-game percentages, and B&R percentages). In the "Miscellany from the data ..." post in many threads, I report on things like the percentage of games that ended in one inning, the percentage of games that were run out by the player at the table following the break, the percentage of games won by the player who made the first ball after the break, and the frequency of fouls, misses, and safeties. Those help to flesh out the level of performance as well as the degree of difficulty created by the rules and equipment.

 

[AtLarge]

... What is the winning percentage for the first player to have an open shot after the break? ...

One of the stats I often put in the "Miscellany from the data ..." post in my stats threads is the winning percentage for the first player to make a ball after the break. That's close to what you suggest and removes any subjectivity as to whether a shot was "open," or was a 2-way shot, or was taken foolishly (instead of playing safe or pushing).

 

[ceebee]

I prefer winner breaks if the race is long and alternating breaks if the race is short. For me, exactly where the dividing line is between "long" and "short" probably depends on the game, the equipment, and the rules.

What I really want, whether I am playing or watching, is a match that gives both players ample opportunities to compete, to interact, to use their various pool skills. The winner-breaks format can completely eliminate competition from what is supposed to be a competitive event and turn it into a one-person exhibition. Actually, the alternating-breaks format can also fail to produce interaction, but at least it means both players will get to the table. For a match with lots of interaction among the players we either need lousy players, something I don't want to watch, or rules and equipment that force the interaction.

In most pro events, however, lengthy break-and-run packages are fairly rare. So for middle-length races (say, races to 8, 9, 10, 11), I'm fairly indifferent between winner breaks and alternating breaks.



Yes. And good fortune certainly plays a role. A player can look invincible in one match, breaking successfully, running out, etc., and then can't break successfully at all in the next match on the same table; and the stats get turned upside down.

But note that I generally post more than just a couple of break stats (such as successful-break percentages, breaker-won-game percentages, and B&R percentages). In the "Miscellany from the data ..." post in many threads, I report on things like the percentage of games that ended in one inning, the percentage of games that were run out by the player at the table following the break, the percentage of games won by the player who made the first ball after the break, and the frequency of fouls, misses, and safeties. Those help to flesh out the level of performance as well as the degree of difficulty created by the rules and equipment.

In my Pool Room, Magoos in Tulsa, I never see anyone practicing their Break Shot. I can only imagine that scenario is played out across the country.. Yet, the Break Shot has proven itself to be a valuable asset in competition. Van Boening seems to be the only player that has Practiced the Break Shot a great deal.