Shot clock/Match clock

unknownpro

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Has anybody had a chance to use chess clock type timers for pool matches that allow each player half of the match time? It seems to me a logical way to speed up matches with fewer penalties on the non offending player. If you wait till halfway through a match to put a short shot clock on both players during a slow match you are generally penalizing the player that was waiting in the chair most of the time. That really sucks.(been there, done that)

Chess style clocks could be controlled by the players without a referee. When you sit down you hit the clock to switch the timer to the other player. First one out of time loses.

I believe shorter match times could be set using this system. Players wouldn't stall long early in the matches unless in really tight spots. Playing rack your own you could just leave the clock running between games. And you wouldn't have somebody sharking you saying 10 seconds or 5 seconds. Just one buzzer that means you lost, lol.

With a normal shot clock you teach players to stall a little on each shot, even if it's a hanger, to check out the rest of the table because you can't use that time after it's gone.

Of course if there is not enough room between the tables or a lot of people walking in front of your shots you can't really have a shot clock.
 

Jude Rosenstock

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
unknownpro said:
Has anybody had a chance to use chess clock type timers for pool matches that allow each player half of the match time? It seems to me a logical way to speed up matches with fewer penalties on the non offending player. If you wait till halfway through a match to put a short shot clock on both players during a slow match you are generally penalizing the player that was waiting in the chair most of the time. That really sucks.(been there, done that)

Chess style clocks could be controlled by the players without a referee. When you sit down you hit the clock to switch the timer to the other player. First one out of time loses.

I believe shorter match times could be set using this system. Players wouldn't stall long early in the matches unless in really tight spots. Playing rack your own you could just leave the clock running between games. And you wouldn't have somebody sharking you saying 10 seconds or 5 seconds. Just one buzzer that means you lost, lol.

With a normal shot clock you teach players to stall a little on each shot, even if it's a hanger, to check out the rest of the table because you can't use that time after it's gone.

Of course if there is not enough room between the tables or a lot of people walking in front of your shots you can't really have a shot clock.


The underlying problem with cutting it in half is play isn't always cut in half. It's not uncommon that a 9-ball match will yield unbalanced results where one player will pocket the vast majority of balls even though the game count might be even. The fact is, a chess clock will not work and if you're going to have a device, something made specifically for pool will need to be invented.

If you're going to have a clock, you'll need something that rewards time when a player pockets a ball, something that's not easy to do.

I agree with something a friend said to me a short while ago - A referee shouldn't have to define slow play. It's one of those things that is perfectly evident when it's occurring. If you're slow, you run the risk of getting kicked out of the tournament and just leave it at that.
 

Derek

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A clock in APA should would be nice. I seen some painful race to 2 or 3 matches through the years that take an hour or so. That's not to mention some high-ranked players that should be ashamed of themselves for taking too long at the table.
 

lewdo26

Registered User will do
Silver Member
Jude Rosenstock said:
The underlying problem with cutting it in half is play isn't always cut in half. It's not uncommon that a 9-ball match will yield unbalanced results where one player will pocket the vast majority of balls even though the game count might be even. The fact is, a chess clock will not work and if you're going to have a device, something made specifically for pool will need to be invented.

If you're going to have a clock, you'll need something that rewards time when a player pockets a ball, something that's not easy to do.

I agree with something a friend said to me a short while ago - A referee shouldn't have to define slow play. It's one of those things that is perfectly evident when it's occurring. If you're slow, you run the risk of getting kicked out of the tournament and just leave it at that.
Yeah, I'd like to see something like a Fischer Clock: increments when you pocket a ball.
 

Rift

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Seems like to me the only place a chess clock could really apply would maybe be straight pool, maybe even one pocket and 8-ball. But for 9-ball or 10 I don't think the chess clock would work. because a player could be running 1-8 a game dog the nine and used 5 minutes to do it, and the other player just taps in the nine and puts 30 seconds on his clock? just doesn't seem fair. But when you have to get your own amount of points like straight pool, it would work well I think. And one pocket and 8-ball you have your own goal to set within a time limit .
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
unknownpro said:
Has anybody had a chance to use chess clock type timers for pool matches that allow each player half of the match time? ...
The pro carom tour was using something similar to the clock mentioned above. Each player started with a "bank" of a certain number of seconds and each time they took a shot, they would get some number of additional seconds. To do this right, you need a really good clock person.

I'd like to see a simple chess clock tried, but often the problems can be avoided by changes in scheduling or format.
 

JoeW

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
We have round robin tournaments at my house about every other week we use a chess clock and it is handicapped. We have anywhere from 4 - 7 players. There is a $10.00 get in and we pay the first three places so it is about bragging rights and the money is to make it interesting that's all. When there is $40 -$70 on the line it is difficult to say you don't care. We play on a 9' Gold Crown III.

Each player has seven minutes per game in a call shot 8-Ball game, Eight on the break is not a win. If the clock expires you lose.

The time limit is very generous and in reality it only takes about five minutes per player per game. Each player is responsible for tripping the clock. It turns out to be a great evening if you are a pool player. As someone said, no nonchalanting at the table. The extra two minutes is useful if one gets in a safety battle with the opponent. Because we use the clock we almost always play two round robin tournaments a night.

The players love it as they know they will play every 30 minutes or so. Players range from APA 3 to 7. Many of the players are 6 or 7s in APA. Because it is handicapped anyone can win. If you win twice in a row your handicap goes up one. If you do not place in the money three times in a row your handicap goes down one. Tends to keep a level playing field. At times the handicaps get extreme and one player might only need to make the 8 ball against another player. It is still fun as the better player has to really concentrate. That would be the max advantage and it does work for maintaining interest.

The winner of the last games racks and is the referee for the next game so there are always three people involved. We use the Sardo rack so there is no complaining about the rack.

To handicap the game the lower hc player's hc is subtracted from the higher handicap player's hc and that is the ball advantage for the lower hc.
when a 7 plays a 4 the four has a three ball advantage. The four has to make four (of the available seven) of their own balls and then the 8-ball. The four can take three balls off the table at the beginning of any inning (they usually do not as they can be used as blocker balls). At times the lower handicap will remove their balls at the beginnig of their inning to free up the 8-ball which they expect to make.

Because the player has to trip the shot clock it tends to keep everyone focused and the play is reasonably fast with lots of concentration. Every one knows there is plenty of time but everyone also wants to save that time for an unexpected safety battle.

In several hundred games the clock has expired on a player only a few times. None-the-less it continues to keep these reasonably good players on point. Everyone says the time is too generous But everyone concentrates and plays seriously so I have no reason to lower the time limits.

I strongly recommend the clock it contributes to a much better tournament.

A few days ago here on AZB I read some interesting ideas about how to improve the game and now I am looking forward to another way to play.

The series of 9-Ball games (alternating breaks) is one hour long for two players. Score 1 point for each ball made, 2 points for the five ball and 3 points for the nine ball. A called safety that makes your opponent foul is worth 2 points. The winner is the person with the most points at the end of one hour, timed to the second on a wall clock.
 
Last edited:

longhair

Boyd Porter-Reynolds
Silver Member
Jude Rosenstock said:
The underlying problem with cutting it in half is play isn't always cut in half. It's not uncommon that a 9-ball match will yield unbalanced results where one player will pocket the vast majority of balls even though the game count might be even. The fact is, a chess clock will not work and if you're going to have a device, something made specifically for pool will need to be invented.

If you're going to have a clock, you'll need something that rewards time when a player pockets a ball, something that's not easy to do.

I agree with something a friend said to me a short while ago - A referee shouldn't have to define slow play. It's one of those things that is perfectly evident when it's occurring. If you're slow, you run the risk of getting kicked out of the tournament and just leave it at that.
It might not work that well for nineball, but it should work OK for eightball and it's perfect for straight pool and onepocket where play is cut in half.

The advantage of this kind of clock for tournaments is that it gives a maximum time for a match. I have been to many tournaments where one slow player holds up half of the field for hours, not because he chose to, but just because he is a methodical, defensive player.
My friend Pete and I were looking at using chess clocks in a onepocket tournament a couple of years ago, but we didn't want to spend the money to get started. Darn things are expensive.
 

tucson9ball

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
timers?

The series of 9-Ball games (alternating breaks) is one hour long for two players. Score 1 point for each ball made, 2 points for the five ball and 3 points for the nine ball. A called safety that makes your opponent foul is worth 3 points. The winner is the person with the most points at the end of one hour, timed to the second on a wall clock.

I have a few friends over and I like this scoring system, although I might shorten times of matches a bit. Thanks for idea.:)
 

JoeW

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There are several places you can buy a chess clock for $30.00 on the net. I just bought one from a place called "Focus Camera" or something like that. The Excalibar is called a "Game" clock and can be used for several different games. They do not list pool as one of the games :eek:

If you have a lap top, software is available for free that will let you place a chess clock on your computer. That is what we used for several months.
 

Gregg

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've seen a three to four games of eight ball take a bit over an hour between two low skill shooters.

Believe you me it's painful to watch a shooter take excessive amounts of time just to blow a simple shot that really didn't require a lot of forethought.
 

Jude Rosenstock

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
longhair said:
It might not work that well for nineball, but it should work OK for eightball and it's perfect for straight pool and onepocket where play is cut in half.

The advantage of this kind of clock for tournaments is that it gives a maximum time for a match. I have been to many tournaments where one slow player holds up half of the field for hours, not because he chose to, but just because he is a methodical, defensive player.
My friend Pete and I were looking at using chess clocks in a onepocket tournament a couple of years ago, but we didn't want to spend the money to get started. Darn things are expensive.


I can understand your thinking - in games like 8-ball or straight pool, there is a relative ratio between balls pocketed and game score. However, I can still see there being something of a discrepancy at times. Some racks might be wide open and allow a player to breeze through while others could be very complex and require a lot of thought per shot. I don't think something as objective as a clock should necessarily be utilized. You really need a ref who is just going to say, "Okay, you're kinda slow. Speed it up!"
 

JoeW

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
tucson9ball said:
The series of 9-Ball games (alternating breaks) is one hour long for two players. Score 1 point for each ball made, 2 points for the five ball and 3 points for the nine ball. A called safety that makes your opponent foul is worth 3 points. The winner is the person with the most points at the end of one hour, timed to the second on a wall clock.

I have a few friends over and I like this scoring system, although I might shorten times of matches a bit. Thanks for idea.:)

I think this could be handicapped too by giving the lower handicap the difference in handicaps for each individual game played. There would need to be some limit. A nine ball game as described contains a minimum of 12 points (no safties) so the handicap spread whould have to stay within this range or the better player could not win!

After a few matches the lower handicaps over all total handicap points might be the average difference between players for three matches. That would be a level playing field unless one player were very good at safties. I use, and like, a moving average (using the last three as the basis for the average). This allows for overall changes in ability as one or the other player improves.
 
Last edited:

FLICKit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Jude Rosenstock said:
...However, I can still see there being something of a discrepancy at times. Some racks might be wide open and allow a player to breeze through while others could be very complex and require a lot of thought per shot. I don't think something as objective as a clock should necessarily be utilized. You really need a ref who is just going to say, "Okay, you're kinda slow. Speed it up!"
As long as a reasonable amount of time is chosen, then their clock idea seems to work. It's not like they chose the clock time so that it would be on the brink of running out, at the end of every game. They were smart. They set it so most every time, there was a couple of minutes leeway. So, most games were seemingly unaffected, EXCEPT they had to remain focused and ready (no bathroom break, or smoke break, or food break, or even lag time between end of one player's shot before the next one started,...) while they were on the clock.

In other words, it solved many of the issues without being an issue itself. In some ways that's better than a ref.

On the whole, we're not talking about perfect solution either way... It just was one simple approach which could be useful under the right conditions. They found it worked for them and even sounded like they had fun...
 

Jude Rosenstock

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
FLICKit said:
In other words, it solved many of the issues without being an issue itself. In some ways that's better than a ref.
QUOTE]


This is the absolute bottom line and my greatest concern when clocks are discussed. If you can have one that does not impact the average player, GREAT. The WPBA uses/d a shot clock and at least once a broadcast, you would hear Ewa Lawrence say, "Oh, I think you can attribute that mistake to the shot clock!" IMO, pool shouldn't be timed BUT it shouldn't be slow, either. This is why I think the decision should be subjective. If the shooter is taking 30 seconds to make a stop-shot hanger from 12 inches, someone should tell him to hurry it up. If someone needs to take an extra minute to assess a 30 degree cut from 4 feet out for the win, the last thing on his mind should be a clock (whether it be a shot clock or a match clock).

The clock cannot become an issue by itself. Its purpose is to eliminate slow play, not hurry the average player.
 

JoeW

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Here is a link to a write up for the shot clock based Round Robin format with player assignments, house rules, and a scorecard. It could be used for 9-Ball if you edit the house rules.

http://www.sunburstselect.com/PBReview/8BallRoundRobin.htm

To determine initial player assignment to slots 1,2,3 etc we use a deck of cards. One to each player who has paid $10.00

We fill in only the upper right quadrant of the score card then count the wons and losses for each player to determine the winner.

We have been playing for about six months and the 10 or so players keep coming back.
 

unknownpro

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
JoeW said:
Because the player has to trip the shot clock it tends to keep everyone focused and the play is reasonably fast with lots of concentration. Every one knows there is plenty of time but everyone also wants to save that time for an unexpected safety battle.

In several hundred games the clock has expired on a player only a few times. None-the-less it continues to keep these reasonably good players on point. Everyone says the time is too generous But everyone concentrates and plays seriously so I have no reason to lower the time limits.
Thanks for posting. In pro matches I would hope that the clock would never expire. You'd never want to see somebody forfeit their match. But this seems to me the best way to make everybody play at a reasonable pace.
 

FLICKit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Jude Rosenstock said:
This is the absolute bottom line and my greatest concern when clocks are discussed. If you can have one that does not impact the average player, GREAT.
Agreed.

Jude Rosenstock said:
The WPBA uses/d a shot clock and at least once a broadcast, you would hear Ewa Lawrence say, "Oh, I think you can attribute that mistake to the shot clock!"
I agree with you totally here as well. Resetting the clock on a per shot basis has its major fallacies as well. I hate to see a match get ruined that way.

But, the point is that's not the kind of shot clock that was mentioned by the OP.

There were some other examples of how that style clock was used in home games, and it made it flow smoothly and fun. It didn't really have the issues of the style of clock that you just mentioned.
 

Jude Rosenstock

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
FLICKit said:
Agreed.


I agree with you totally here as well. Resetting the clock on a per shot basis has its major fallacies as well. I hate to see a match get ruined that way.

But, the point is that's not the kind of shot clock that was mentioned by the OP.

There were some other examples of how that style clock was used in home games, and it made it flow smoothly and fun. It didn't really have the issues of the style of clock that you just mentioned.


No, I understand but it's the only reference we really have and it doesn't really work. The APA uses a match clock for team matches and that might be the most horrible thing ever. I admit, I have a very funny stance - I want pool to be faster but I don't want it clocked. I would NEVER think anything of my opponent taking a minute or two to measure up an important shot at hill-hill. It's when he takes a minute or two to shoot the 1-ball in the first game and the 2-ball is hanging nearby do I get irritated. How do you clock that?
 
Top