Should we change the rule of One Pocket ?

ineedaspot said:
The post about chess got me thinking. Chess has a 50-move rule: if 50 moves pass with neither player taking a piece or moving a pawn, the game is a draw.

Something like this might work in 1-pocket, to cut off those games where all the balls are clumped together uptable and the players just play safe back-and-forth. If, say, 20 innings go by and neither player has made a ball, then do something.

Do what? Maybe restart the game. Maybe rack the remaining balls and start playing from there. Maybe something else. Either way, it will probably give one player incentive to avoid the 20-innings and play more aggressively.
Click to expand...

If I need one ball and my oponent needs a bunch, it's to my advantage to move everything uptable and out of play. It's part of the game. To speed it up from there the player who can move and bank the best have the greatest opportunity for the next point. That also, is part of the game. If these aspects of 1 pocket do not appeal to a person they should probably be playing 9 or 10 ball,,,,,at least they don't have to waste time deciding which ball to shoot next.

thintowin said:
i agree. the way i learned to play the game in my home pool room was as you stated.
Click to expand...

Also part of the game,,,,,,,, which does not require tweeking.

BasementDweller said:
The one rule I would consider adding would be -- once a certain number or balls are up table, the ball closest to the rail (at head of table) gets spotted. This would speed up those up table games and maybe even add MORE strategy.
Click to expand...

This has been done online quite a bit, at Colby's or Red Shoes, somewhere, but I don't recall exactly which stream. I don't recall it making that big a difference in the game as far as time goes.

One pocket is a strategy game for people who like to use that as part of their arsenal. If it's just shootout pool you want, then get on a small table with big pockets and see how many games of 9 ball you can bang out in an hour, but please don't try to change 1 pocket.
 
One pocker is a great game that requires all the "execution skills" as well as strategy-both physical and mental.
I am not against rule changes if.. they are for the betterment of the game.
An example is old rules object ball off the table was not a foul- now it is a foul.
Game is not played on the floor, it should be a foul!


Not resistant to change for improvement.


Grady's trnmnt idea of playing each game till all balls are gone and playing to a "total# of balls, makes for a interesting trnmnt or match.
 
HelloBaby- said:
It's so sad to have the thought that when somebody suggested something = he lost money and wanna change the rule so he could win.

What did this forum become ?

Where are the positive and constructive thinking ?

Actually I enjoy playing 2 hour game. But as I said, sometimes things became sleepy. And what I said was SUGGESTIONS.

I don't want to say this but I will. Bunch of losers go get a life. Because you are thinking like a loser that doesn't mean others do, too.
Click to expand...

It's the internet. A lot of people like flaming more than thinking.

Your question is a good one. One-pocket is a great game, imo the best on a pool table. But there's the obvious problem that sometimes it goes uptable and goes on for hours of boring safeties. Something should be done about that.

It's easier to just say "leave it the way it is", pretend there's no problem, and attack the messenger.
 
Maybe the answer is change the players not the game.
If you "eleminate" those players who refuse to shoot at their hole,soon the game will be played much quicker.

Hell getting a ball spotted is nothing compared to sleeping with the fishes right?


FOR THOSE WHO NEED HELP....I AM ONLY BEING HALF SARCASTIC.
 
sjm said:
I like one pocket rules with one exception.

If opponent knocks an object ball into your pocket, you should get the ball. Under the rules, you don't get the ball if they also scratch. This very silly rule can add an hour or more to a rack and, at least to me, it makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense, if he scratches when he knocks a ball in your pocket it's not a legal shot. So of coarse it doesn't count for you.
 
miscrewed89 said:
I suggest leaving it the "ef" alone. Patience and an attention span greater than that of a 4 year old are key traits to play the game. Players without those traits should probably stick to 9 ball or 10 ball.
Click to expand...

Agree..... Change your underwear, but leave 1P alone.
 
If you want the game to take no more than X minutes, get a chess clock. You don't need any rule changes.
 
I know what we could do... we could put a pocket in the middle of the end rails! Then, we could put a hole right smack in the middle of the table, like a cup in golf. Then we could...
Yeah, all that's been done. Tables have changed shape and size all to make the game more "interesting." What are we playing on now? The same thing we have been playing on since the beginning, half as wide as long with 6 pockets.
Take 1 pocket, tweak it to your liking, play it however you want, and call it whatever you like, but it won't be 1 pocket!
 
sjm said:
I like one pocket rules with one exception.

If opponent knocks an object ball into your pocket, you should get the ball. Under the rules, you don't get the ball if they also scratch. This very silly rule can add an hour or more to a rack and, at least to me, it makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

I agree. To blast balls off the table is too ugly for such a beautiful game and should not be rewarded. imho
 
Last edited:
Now you can make any ball in your pocket, change it to you can make any ball in any pocket !!!
That should speed it up ! Wait don't they call that something else ? :o
 
HelloBaby- said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

If I had to make up new rules for one pocket, I would start by invoking a minimum age
requirement to play the game, and I would set it at 82.
In other words you cannot play the game unless you are at least 82-years old.
The set age requirement would at least make the pace of the game seem normal.
Most retirement centers already have their golf tables, they may as well have an
82 & over one pocket Gold Crown while they're at it>:smile:
 
BasementDweller said:
The one rule I would consider adding would be -- once a certain number or balls are up table, the ball closest to the rail (at head of table) gets spotted. This would speed up those up table games and maybe even add MORE strategy.
Click to expand...

That was a Grady rule, if all the balls were in the kitchen, right?
 
Bob Jewett said:
If you want the game to take no more than X minutes, get a chess clock. You don't need any rule changes.
Click to expand...

Or a shot clock (with certain extension(s) allowed) and a game clock, if you don't want to use chess clocks. Again, no other rule changes needed.
 
No need to change the rules.

To fix one-pocket we only need to change the equipment.

Replace the chairs with beds so I can nap while my opponent contemplates his navel.

Always have a pot of strong, high-caffeine coffee available in case someone actually wants to try to stay awake.

Borrow an idea from the survivalists and stock three days worth of canned, prepared food in case the game goes uptable.

No need to change the rules.
 
AtLarge said:
That was a Grady rule, if all the balls were in the kitchen, right?
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure. I thought it was my idea, which when I think about it now seems silly of me since it's such a simple rule. I hadn't seen it implemented anywhere until recently when I saw something like it while watching a POV stream of a match at Hard Times.

Seems like a pretty simple rule change. I wonder how the players like it.

I don't really play that much 1 hole but I watch some of it.
 
Leave one pocket alone. By far the most beautiful pool game when played by skillful players regardless of how long a rack takes. I'd rather watch a moving game of one pocket than a game where some putz fires at a stupid shot and the other guy runs 8 and out anyway. The game is fine as is. There are plenty of options if you need a game with 5 minute racks.
 
The only rule change I would make would be the accustats commentators are no
longer allowed to tell us getting the "first break" of the match is the most important.

We already know that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top