racking to be fair ...

Snapshot9

Snapshot9

son of 3 leg 1 eye dog ..
Silver Member
I have noticed on ESPN watching the pros, that although they use the Sardo rack, the balls are not put into any order other than the 1 ball in front and 9 in the middle.

I have also noticed that if the balls had been in an established order, that some matches might not have turned out like they did.

IMO, I think that the final 8 or 16 players in a sanctioned tournament, pro or not, should have to rack the balls in a predetermined order in order to guarantee complete fairness in racking.

I would recommend the following order:

1
23
798
45
6

Therefore, the break and running out would establish the winner, and not because if the 2 ball had been where the 6 was in the rack, I would have had
a shot on the 2 after I broke and made the 1 and 4 balls.

Rack consistency and order would completely level the playing field to be fair completely to each player.

WHAT DO ALL OF YOU THINK?

Should all racking of 9 ball be in a particular order?

Or should it apply only for the final 8 or 16 players in a sanctioned tournament?

or you are against it all the way?

Voice your opinions ....
 
Last edited:
Those aren't the rules though.

If it were the rules, it would have to be that way from the start of the tournament, not just at the end.

I personally agree with the rule considering the order of balls has a lot to do with the way game turns out.

On a side note, have any hustlers used a predetermined ball order to help their position after the break?????
 
Snapshot9, an old friend of mine who has passed away liked to racy the balls like this: 1
78
293
45
6
He claimed it spread the ball out nicely and gave ya a good chance of running out. I have been racking like this some 5 years and like it. The 4,5,& 6 do not necessarly have to be exactly as shown. These I frequently mix up.
Don
 
Well if it is rack your own and are consistently making a ball on the break there are places to put certain balls to minimize having to go up and down the table shot after shot. Just depends on how you stop the cueball.
 
I believe it should be random. But "random" racking doesn't seem to exist where players pick where each ball goes to help or hurt a run out. The easiest way to have fairness would be to simply create a randomizing computer program. You have 7 balls that need to go in 7 random positions each rack. Pre tournament the program could be run and each game of a match would have an assigned position for each ball. So rack #15 in match 12 would have a printout w/ the #'s 2-8 going into a predetermined slot. that's random. You don't know who will be breaking each rack and you just put the balls in the assigned slots. I think that is better than having each ball in the same position every time.
 
In a rack your own I saw a good young player rack the same every time and string racks together at every turn. Something like

1
23
695
87
4
So the 2 and 3 end up heading back towards the center of the table anf the 4 banks back up table as well. Then you already have a semi-easy chance at getting a leave and opening runout shots.
 
I think they should do away w/ the SARDO, play rack you own, non-racking player may dictate order within reason.

BTW, I spoke w/ Parica earlier this year and he told me that "rack your own was the worst thing to happen to pool" in recent memory. Go figger!

-pige
 
I thought I read that at a recent tournament (maybe Reno) they were racking the deuce in the back. That's a change, and it's not too extreme --- 1 in front, 9 in middle and 2 in back.

And what's this about hustlers using a predetermined rack order. I tell you what, when your doughs on the line, or your in a big match, you look for any advantage...

8/3 on top
4/5 in middle
7/2 in back

This gives the best chance for connected balls to be spread out. Also, it gives the best chance for the 8 to not be pocketed on the break. I don't know why, but I want my opponent to be shooting the 8 before the nine.

I don't see anything wrong with it either. It doesn't mean that it works, especially with a good break. It's not good for a soft break, though.
 
senor said:
I thought I read that at a recent tournament (maybe Reno) they were racking the deuce in the back. That's a change, and it's not too extreme --- 1 in front, 9 in middle and 2 in back.

At the first UPA event in Hampton, VA they were using the Sardo and racking random, except the 2 had to be behind the 9. Don't know if UPA is still specifiying this racking - sounds like they may be.

Walt in VA
Click to expand...
 
The best thing to do is practice with
the rack in order, break about 20 times from the same spot each time and write down or memorize the spread. This becomes a huge advantage becuase if u have a general idea where balls will
end up, u can substitue ball so that u already have a possible spread before u break.
 
The Florida Pro tour was using the rack your own system last season with the stipulation that the 3 had to be above or along side the 9 and the 2 below the 9.

I usually put the 3 in row 2 and the 2 in row 4. And it makes sense to put the 8 in row 2 also because a ball in row 2 seldom is made on the break. That's why the spot ball always goes in row 2.

Jake
 
piglit said:
BTW, I spoke w/ Parica earlier this year and he told me that "rack your own was the worst thing to happen to pool" in recent memory. Go figger!

-pige
Click to expand...

I'm sure he would feel that way. It takes away your ability to stop your opponents break, which Parica does quite well :rolleyes:.
 
racking ...

Of course if there is a spot, the spot ball goes on line 2, which side depends on which side the opponent breaks from.

Now, when I rack for me, I rack as stated above, because it gives a good spread for running out, but if I am racking for my opponent, I mix the balls up for a lousy spread. Doesn't always work, but seems to work > 60% of the time.
 
Jimmy M. said:
I'm sure he would feel that way. It takes away your ability to stop your opponents break, which Parica does quite well :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what that says, isn't it?!

I got the 8, last 3 & the break from a small brown man once- didn't win too many games from the snap!!

-pigy
 
I've heard it mentioned somewhere that if you put the 2 behind the 9 (either side), it increases the chances of the 2 going up table. The theory behind this is that it would make for a tougher runout if the 2 goes up table and other balls around it stay at the rack end. I've never really done any research or statistics on it, but I generally put it there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top