Simple 9ball question

P

predator

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Ok, this is the situation:

You just won one game, it's now your turn to break. However, you don't feel confident about your break at all, and you know that your opponent rarely runs out. So you leave the break shot to him.

I've never done this myself, but someone recently suggested to me to do just that against weaker opponents when my break isn't working. I wonder if that move is legal? I'm pretty sure it is, but are there any unsportsmanlike conduct issues perhaps? If there are, then I wouldn't do it.

Thanks.
 
Do you really think, that makes sense??

Why not breaking and then missing a ball intentionaly, if you know that your opponent is not able to run a rack. Or try to force a breakfoul. :rolleyes:
When the other guy can not run out it should make no difference if he or you breaks? He will miss a ball sooner or later.
Then its up to your abilities.

mhhhh
 
Even if your break isn't working, you never know what rack it's going to kick in. Why would you want to eliminate your chance to snap the 9 in on the break? Why would you want to eliminate your chance to make one ball and have the 9 sitting right on the lip for an easy carom or combo? Why would you want to give your opponent a chance to do both of the above? If anything, why not a controlled easy Sardo rack break to just spread the balls some. Why would anyone want to lose control of possibly the most important shot in 9 ball...straight pool is different.
 
I agree it's too much of a risk to let your opponent break because anything can happen. One guy in our local league won a hill-hill match by letting his opponent break in the last rack. Nothing went in on the break, and the guy ran out. Now most people think his move was tactical brilliance just because he did something unusual and got away with it. Personally I think it was very tentative play. I'll continue to take the break every time, no matter how awful it may be.
 
predator said:
Ok, this is the situation:

You just won one game, it's now your turn to break. However, you don't feel confident about your break at all, and you know that your opponent rarely runs out. So you leave the break shot to him.

I've never done this myself, but someone recently suggested to me to do just that against weaker opponents when my break isn't working. I wonder if that move is legal? I'm pretty sure it is, but are there any unsportsmanlike conduct issues perhaps? If there are, then I wouldn't do it.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

In competition, you should never give up the break. The statistics show that it's a slight advantage to break. If you are struggling with your break, take a little speed off to ensure that you get a square hit on the one.

If you are playing a practice match, and you are struggling with your break, continuing to take the break when you've earned it is your best chance at recapturing your magic. If your opponent is so weak that giving up the break makles no difference at all, then either spot them or get another opponent, for you are not giving your game a sufficient test.

Predator, not long ago, our esteemed forum colleague CaptainJR was the author of an interesting thread about playing with and without a spot. If you want to check it out, here's the link: http://azbilliards.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=5889
 
In competition, you should never give up the break. The statistics show that it's a slight advantage to break. If you are struggling with your break, take a little speed off to ensure that you get a square hit on the one.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, Pat Fleming of AccuStats took some statistics on hill-hill matches by the pros. The player breaking actually lost more often.
Billy Incardona said this on one of the videos.
 
JoeyInCali said:
Oddly enough, Pat Fleming of AccuStats took some statistics on hill-hill matches by the pros. The player breaking actually lost more often.
Billy Incardona said this on one of the videos.
Click to expand...

You are correct as far as taped matches, Joey, but Pat's statistics for all matches in which Accu-stats performance percentages were computed show the breaking player to have a 52% chance of winning a given rack. Pat has told me this in person. This, however, Pat noted, is also a little misleading, because most of the stats were computed based on PBT matches in the mid to late 1990's, at which time tighter tables (than those typically used in competition today) were being used. Loosen the pockets and the breaking player has a significant edge, and Pat has said as much.
 
sjm said:
... Loosen the pockets and the breaking player has a significant edge, and Pat has said as much.
Click to expand...
These are not easy statistics to calculate. Suppose all the matches were Earl against Shirley Temple. The breaker would win nearly 100% of the time. Any time you're playing winner breaks, and the players are significantly mismatched, there will be a bias towards the break looking like an advantage. I think it is possible to extract the advantage/disadvantage of the break even if the players are mismatched, but you have to be careful.
 
Bob Jewett said:
These are not easy statistics to calculate. Suppose all the matches were Earl against Shirley Temple. The breaker would win nearly 100% of the time. Any time you're playing winner breaks, and the players are significantly mismatched, there will be a bias towards the break looking like an advantage. I think it is possible to extract the advantage/disadvantage of the break even if the players are mismatched, but you have to be careful.
Click to expand...

That's a really good point, Bob. Even at pro level, unless alternate break is in use, the better players are breaking more racks than the weaker ones, so there's a bias in the stats towards overestimating the likely success rate of the breaker. More important is what percentage of racks are won by the breaker when players of equal ability (and comparable breaks) match up.

Your Shirley Temple example reminded me of a sketch on the old "Burns and Allen" sitcom of the 1950's. Back then, when only some families had a telephone in the home, Gracie related to George that she had determined that 100% of all households have telephones. George found this surpirsing and challenged her finding, but she reassured him that she had done a survey and "everybody she called had one." Ah, the scientific method!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top