Secrets to Racking the balls loose

Sam L said:
Don't shoot the messenger, I was just answering what looked like a question from you.

"... there is no order to rack in 9-ball except the one and the nine, right?"

I expected a response like "yawn, somebody posted the rules."

"Newbie" is obviously referring to me. As in I have 7 posts, you have 50-something. And as in I posted the rules.
Click to expand...
ok, sorry, then please disreagard my statement then.
Jordan
 
bud green said:
I think it's unavailable now unless you actually reach the author
Click to expand...

For those interested it seems Racking Secrets is available in photocopy form through the publisher. He will send a new copy after the next printing takes place:

"Racking Secrets is out of print although I have a goal to bring it back sometime next year. What we have been doing for folks is making them a copy of the last one we have. We charge you the same, and if it comes back, we'll send you a copy and make sure the author gets paid royalties on it. If you want a copy, just order on the web site and note in the comment section that you understand you'll be recieving a copy."

www.bebobpublishing.com/order1.htm

I have the book and it seems that it should be useful. I have not yet tried anything from the book, however. If you do a search in the newsgroups you will find it recommended there.
Ken
 
The rule on racking randomly

Wally in Cincy said:
Mike Sigel recommends this in his video. Nothing illegal about it. It qualifies as "random" as far as I'm concerned.

BTW If anyone ever noticed, Steve Tipton racks the balls in the exact same order for every game.
Click to expand...
Then Steve Tipton is not playing by the rules.

In Cardiff the last time I was there for the World Nine Ball Championships, they were in fact following the rule which is to rack with no apparent, observable order. If a player is racking the balls in a specific order, whether he is racking for his opponent or himself, he is guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct.

Whether this should be the rule is another matter, but the original intent of rule was to have random racks in the "no predictable order" sense, not in the "I'll put them where I feel they are best" sense. Different people have different views on randomness.
 
I believe that the Florida Pro Tour, which uses the rack your own format, requires the 3 to be above the 9 and the 2 to be even or below the 9.

And when you ae looking at the balls when you rack them how can the selection truly be random? I think the writers of the rules used the word random to mean that it really does not matter where you rack the other balls and not that they must strictly be randomly selected.

Jake
 
jjinfla said:
... I think the writers of the rules used the word random to mean that it really does not matter where you rack the other balls and not that they must strictly be randomly selected.

Jake
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure they meant it to be in random order. I'm not saying that it's a good rule, or that it is worded very well, but the rule doesn't permit a deliberate ordering of the balls.

If the order were preset, what should it be?
 
Bob Jewett said:
I'm pretty sure they meant it to be in random order. I'm not saying that it's a good rule, or that it is worded very well, but the rule doesn't permit a deliberate ordering of the balls.
Click to expand...

And when was the last time a pool player demanded a re-rack because the balls were not racked randomly? Especially since placing the 2 & 3 seems to be very critical for a lot of players.

To be truly random the selection of the balls would have to be blind, as in drawing them from a bag or box where the balls were hidden from view.

Or they would have to use a random generator for the selection process.

And since that would be ridiculous that is why I suggested that they really just meant that it made no real difference to them as to the placement of the other balls.

But then along came Mike Sigel and proved to everyone that the placement of the other balls does make a difference.

Jake
 
racking ...

Racking is the other half of breaking ... and part of the game (that is if you have played for awhile) ... That is part of how a player will level the playing field against a better player ....
The Breaking player can inspect the rack and call for a rerack if he wants to.

I can rack the balls where you won't see anything wrong with them at all, and you will not make a ball on the break 8 out of 10 times... (8 or 9 ball) and I do not cheat when I rack them, but optimize within a legal rack ...

Most good players will not give away their good break shots or their racking secrets .... Cory Deuel is known for his racking ability ...

It is just part of the game .... its leveraging your talents ... and let the buyer beware .... how many times do you see 'rack your own' in a money matchup..

not very often ...
 
jjinfla said:
And when was the last time a pool player demanded a re-rack because the balls were not racked randomly? Especially since placing the 2 & 3 seems to be very critical for a lot of players.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not exactly the same, but Corey Deuel got very upset, so I'm told, when the referees in Cardiff (2002), would not rack the two ball in back, but instead racked them randomly. In 2000, they were racking the 2 in back and the 9 on the spot.

I think it would be better to have a fixed order. I don't think it should be up to the racker to place the balls to his advantage. But the real leveler, which would make the tightness a moot point, would be to let the breaker have the second shot, regardless of balls made, and no push-out.
 
Anyone who doesn't do his best to give an an honest rack is a piece of shit and should be taken out back and given a beating. Karma is a funny thing, if you are a cheat then I guarantee your life sucks. You probably live check to check, bet to bet, and have no real future.
 
Mr. Jewett:
I usually read your post with respect. But you can't really be serious out racking the balls the same order for every player. How about if you make a ball on the break you get ball in hand. (just kidding)
I think individualism is what sets the great players apart.
 
Cheats, slackers and liars

I'm with 'Chalks' on this - ANYONE who doesn't give their best effort at a tight rack (if you think a Sardo is an unbiased mechanical alternative, then you should try to achieve its results) is a conniving scalawag and they deserve all the bad rolls that could befall them. These types must not be able to compete on their skill alone. I always do my best to give the tightest rack I can manage on any given table.

I noticed a guy in our league a few weeks ago, racking for me, really working over the rack, trying to make it seem that he was doing his best to get 'em tight. I stepped closer and noticed he had his hands pressing the balls on either side and along the back of the rack but never touched the back center ball. My break was not weak but the rack didn't spread. This guy is a very good player, has a very high average, and I have to wonder if he pulls that shit on everyone. I've just decided to watch those I can't trust and ask them to re-rack if it looks bad.
 
UWPoolGod1 said:
I had an APA 7 mud rack me twice in our set a few weeks ago. I hit the center consistenly center and solid. It got me thinking about what it takes to do that. I don't have Racking Secrets by Tucker but thought about this the other day. I was talking to someone and he said that all you have to do it put the whites touching on any pair of balls and it will break less strong. (i.e. the white on the stripes or the numbers on the solids) He said that because there was no colored coat on that spot it was softer there and wouldn't break at hard. And the more you get lined up that way the softer it'll break. He was dead serious. I figure him for a retard anyway, but just wanted to hear your thoughts on that.
Click to expand...

Mud racks aside, how's that new cue working for you Todd?

-CM
 
Always the same..

Usually in the tourneys I run , I have the "referees" rack the 1-2-3-4 on the 4 points and the other balls wherever. This seems to satisfy the participants.
 
Hey highsea, good to see you back around. How was the boat? A friend of mine is heading up there to work in a few weeks. The cue is doing very well, love it but still need a tad stiffer shaft. Gonna have the maker make me a new one when he gets a chance. You can take a look at it here if you want..

http://groups.msn.com/APAPoolLeague/shoebox.msnw
 
crawdaddio said:
U-dub~~~what kind of cue is that? It looks really sweet.
Click to expand...

Its by a small local maker in Vancouver, WA named Larry Schavè. He has made about 30 cues I am guessing. I talked to him a few weeks ago and he had moved. His equipment was still at his parents. Sounded like he'd make only special orders...might be getting out of it. He got his equipment and alot of advise and teaching from Sheldon LeBow out of Eugene, OR. Another Northwest maker.
 
Michael Webb said:
Mr. Jewett:
I usually read your post with respect. But you can't really be serious out racking the balls the same order for every player. How about if you make a ball on the break you get ball in hand. (just kidding)
I think individualism is what sets the great players apart.
Click to expand...
Then what is the alternative? "The racker may choose the order of the balls. If a referee is racking, he must use the order specified by the breaker (1 and 9 excepted, of course)."

Would that be a better rule?

Is Steve Tipton doing something bad by always racking in the same order?

One thing is clear: a specified order would avoid arguments.
 
I thought it might be useful to drag up this old thread to show how long we've been discussing a solution to the nine ball rack problem. Also, you get some tips on slug racking.:)
 
Why isn't there a standard pattern for 9ball? It seems so simple to inforce ? Everybody uses a magic rack in pre-determined order. Problem solved....right????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top