Should we change the rule of One Pocket ?
- Thread starter HelloBaby-
- Start date
Runnels and Appleton are both reasonably skilled, right? Would you enjoy watching them play 3 games in 2½ hours? I didn't -- 2013 Derby City Classic. After 2½ hours, the total number of points scored by Runnels was 4.
Well for me length of rack has nothing to do with entertainment value. Since I didn't see that match I can't really say one way or the other. I watched a match with Scott frost and John Schmidt with a rack that lasted well over an hour and it was a fascinating rack. Some great shots were played.
Instead of switching out the chairs, you could just get some easels and a brush, so you
can paint something and watch it dry.
Another way to go would be to get a male and a female fly>:sorry:
Or I could watch a plant grow: "Hey, look at this. I planted this tomato seed after the lag and now I've got a bushel of ripe tomatoes!"
Seriously, I like the Grady rule; not just to speed up the game but because it introduces an interesting strategic element.
I watched a tournament somewhere they played when the third ball goes behind the head string, the ball closest to the head rail, of the three, spots. It most definitely adds a different dimension to the game. For you could shoot a ball behind the head string and by it getting spotted it could block a shot he would have had.
That is how they play at Hard Times in Bellflower. It speeds the game up quite a bit since you can't send all of the balls up table.
Well, Ike Runnels is a bad example, because he plays that Chicago "bunt/endurance" moving style of one pocket, which I despise. I mean, if you have a clear shot at your hole and it's reasonably high-percentaged to score / reasonably low-percentaged to sell out, why on earth would you bunt? But yet, that's the Chicago style. Watch Ike, and that's what you'll see.
That's not the style of one pocket I play, and when I encounter a mover like that, I'll do what I need to do to go for the W, but I won't play that guy again. That's the type of player that 1.) needs a shot clock; 2.) needs a modification to the game to spot excess balls that end up in the kitchen area / head rail; 3.) negotiate ahead of time to play Freddy the Beard's "Speedo One Pocket" instead of the regular rules.
Don't get me wrong; I *love* a good moving game where the percentages are intelligently taken into account. But moving just for the sake of moving / trying to wear the opponent out to extract mistakes? Not my cup of tea.
-Sean
So, not a fan of Nick Varner are we?
But seriously folks, all us corn farmers out here in the Midwest understand that
the roll-em-all-uptable stratagem effectively changes the game to Bank Pool.
Dale(did I mention One Pocket is a game for Gambling, Not for watching)
When all the balls are up table to me that is when you really get deep into the game of One Pocket.---Smitty
We often use the four ball rule in California. As soon as four balls are inside the head string, one ball (the one closest to the end rail) spots up. This really speeds up the game and stops the "wedge play" that can extend a game for hours. It works and adds another dimension to the game and the best player still wins!
That could be fun.
Never heard of that, played a lot of 1p in the 70s NYC.
I like it.
MCP
I Think
WHY?
If you don't like the game of one pocket the way it is played now then just don't watch it. I'm am thinking (would have used "assume" but we all know where that can lead) that your only referring to the viewing pleasure rather then the actual playing of the game.
For your playing pleasure you can come with any rule you and your opponent can think of.
Problem Solved.
Grand Old game is left as is and your happy also.
I have been left with this thinking for a while.
Imo, one pocket is an amazing game, I love playing this game. But sometimes things got sleepy and the game involved many safeties, passive plays, intentional fouls, etc. A game could last for hours. I think thats a flaw of the game.
A few small change in the rule can fix it.
I suggest :
- 3rd foul in one game ( doesn't need to be consecutive ) = minus 3 points + ball in hand for the opponent. This rule will reduce the intentional fouls bullshit, reward a good safety and speed up the game.
- just play two pocket : the corner and the side. Well this a whole new game
What do you think ? What do you suggest ?
WHY?
If you don't like the game of one pocket the way it is played now then just don't watch it. I'm am thinking (would have used "assume" but we all know where that can lead) that your only referring to the viewing pleasure rather then the actual playing of the game.
For your playing pleasure you can come with any rule you and your opponent can think of.
Problem Solved.
Grand Old game is left as is and your happy also.
I have been left with this thinking for a while.
Imo, one pocket is an amazing game, I love playing this game. But sometimes things got sleepy and the game involved many safeties, passive plays, intentional fouls, etc. A game could last for hours. I think thats a flaw of the game.
A few small change in the rule can fix it.
I suggest :
- 3rd foul in one game ( doesn't need to be consecutive ) = minus 3 points + ball in hand for the opponent. This rule will reduce the intentional fouls bullshit, reward a good safety and speed up the game.
- just play two pocket : the corner and the side
What do you think ? What do you suggest ?
Why not 1 foul ball in hand? haha
Because it's not in the rules, and the rules work as they are.
I recently watched a match with John Schmidt and Scott Frost where John kept covering Scott up and Scott kept taking shots to get out, some were intentional fouls, a few were fouls that were almost perfect safeties, but at any rate Scott was down as much as -7 I think due to fouls. He eventually fought back to 6 balls but lost 8-6. That is the kind of situation the rules of one pocket provide,,,,,,, you are never out of the game until the last point is scored. It's a matter of using the rules and the strategies they provide, the knowledge of the game, and the skills to implement them that make 1 pocket the great game it is. People who do not appreciate the magnitude of that probably shouldn't play the game maybe, but they also shouldn't try to change the game in spite of those who do.
I have been left with this thinking for a while.
Imo, one pocket is an amazing game, I love playing this game. But sometimes things got sleepy and the game involved many safeties, passive plays, intentional fouls, etc. A game could last for hours. I think thats a flaw of the game.
A few small change in the rule can fix it.
I suggest :
- 3rd foul in one game ( doesn't need to be consecutive ) = minus 3 points + ball in hand for the opponent. This rule will reduce the intentional fouls bullshit, reward a good safety and speed up the game.
- just play two pocket : the corner and the side
What do you think ? What do you suggest ?
I like the idea of 3 fouls=minus 3 and ball in hand. I don't like any of the other methods I have ever heard for speeding up the game because it usually takes away from the mover or cueball controller more than the straight shooter.
If the game gets sleepy , it may be that you are not doing all that is possible in those situations.
"Nothing" shots cost people many games, but they don't realise it, because it usually happens after the fact.
Making the corner ball on the break
Sometimes the table / racking / player racking abilities allows the corner ball to go in the pocket on your break.
IMO that ruins the whole game, its not one-pocket if you run out from your break...
It should be rerack and open again if the corner ball goes into your pocket
I also play with the rule of spotting a ball when five are behind the line, three is a bit extreme
Sometimes the table / racking / player racking abilities allows the corner ball to go in the pocket on your break.
IMO that ruins the whole game, its not one-pocket if you run out from your break...
It should be rerack and open again if the corner ball goes into your pocket
I also play with the rule of spotting a ball when five are behind the line, three is a bit extreme
Old Nine Baller
Banned
I have been left with this thinking for a while.
Imo, one pocket is an amazing game, I love playing this game. But sometimes things got sleepy and the game involved many safeties, passive plays, intentional fouls, etc. A game could last for hours. I think thats a flaw of the game.
A few small change in the rule can fix it.
I suggest :
- 3rd foul in one game ( doesn't need to be consecutive ) = minus 3 points + ball in hand for the opponent. This rule will reduce the intentional fouls bullshit, reward a good safety and speed up the game.
- just play two pocket : the corner and the side
What do you think ? What do you suggest ?
When "things get sleepy" all you have to do is quintuple the bet. That will wake you up. Problem solved.
The game has no flaws, only flawed players.
ONB
Why?
If they were playing so slow why didn't you just leave? Why punish yourself if the game is to slow.
If they were playing so slow why didn't you just leave? Why punish yourself if the game is to slow.