Somebody prove to me that pros lose when they break.

[Luxury]

I've read on this forum somewhere that pros do not win the majority of the time they break. I think the claim was that according to accustats the person who did not break won slightly more often.

I have been pondering this for over a month and I just can't grasp it. Shouldn't the breaker have control of the table more often? Shouldn't the breaker be able to play safe?

Did I read something wrong?

 

[Blackjack]

If the balls aren't dropping on the break - you're just splattering them for someone else to run 'em.

That's life.

 

[jason]

I've read on this forum somewhere that pros do not win the majority of the time they break. I think the claim was that according to accustats the person who did not break won slightly more often.

I have been pondering this for over a month and I just can't grasp it. Shouldn't the breaker have control of the table more often? Shouldn't the breaker be able to play safe?

Did I read something wrong?

I'm assuming your talking about 9-ball. As far as the stats go, I don't know, but it sure sounds funny to me also.

P.S. These new Smilies are a bit much.

 

[Luxury]

I'm assuming your talking about 9-ball. As far as the stats go, I don't know, but it sure sounds funny to me also.

P.S. These new Smilies are a bit much.

Yes it was 9 ball. Can someone remember where that post came from?

 

[Black-Balled]

Yes it was 9 ball. Can someone remember where that post came from?

C'mon! Use the search: search for 'break' :yikes:!

I think it was in that long/ recent ghost thread (among others)

With the new SVB/ Lion video, maybe someone could do the stats. Hell, I'll do the honors for a free set. I'll even throw in b/ run #s too.

 

[jason]

If the balls aren't dropping on the break - you're just splattering them for someone else to run 'em.

That's life.

What are the odds are of making a ball on the break?

 

[Blackjack]

What are the odds are of making a ball on the break?

It depends on the playing conditions and the table.

Not too long ago I made a post about Allen Hopkins and how he and his road partner would find the table with the tightest corner pockets and then offer anybody in the world the break.

Hopkins did that to Scotty Townsend when Scotty basically was drilling everybody that came through Monroe, Louisiana. I still believe that Allen is the only person that ever beat Scotty on his home turf. In that scenario, the break was not an advantage.

Sometimes the break is an advantage and sometimes it's not. I think there are too many factors to accurately come up with statistics - which IMO will vary from player to player as well from table to table.

 

[Luxury]

What are the odds are of making a ball on the break?

A recent thread had multiple players doing tests and reporting that making a ball on the break in nine ball is the easiest thing in the world.

 

[Johnnyt]

Accustats doesn't have every pro match. Not even close to it. So the math is on a very small percentage of all the games played by pros. Plus most are on TV tables that aren't known for making a lot of balls on the break.

Next time you play someone even for Money just say, "oh what the hell, I'll break."
I bet the other guy says something like, not in this lifetime, we'll flip or lag for it."

Johnnyt

 

[Luxury]

Accustats doesn't have every pro match. Not even close to it. So the math is on a very small percentage of all the games played by pros. Plus most are on TV tables that aren't known for making a lot of balls on the break.

Next time you play someone even for Money just say, "oh what the hell, I'll break."
I bet the other guy says something like, not in this lifetime, we'll flip or lag for it."

Johnnyt

That was good.

 

[GMAC]

I've read on this forum somewhere that pros do not win the majority of the time they break. I think the claim was that according to accustats the person who did not break won slightly more often.

I have been pondering this for over a month and I just can't grasp it. Shouldn't the breaker have control of the table more often? Shouldn't the breaker be able to play safe?

Did I read something wrong?

I dont think the quote was about the pros losing on the break it was about the percentage of time they break and run out which was around 30% of the time. If you don't break and runout it doesn't mean you lose it just means your opponent got to the table. I could be wrong but I think this is what was discussed in the ghost thread.

BTW - the last thing I want is for a pro to be on the hill and breaking against me

 

[JCIN]

You match up any two pros of a similiar skill level and I will go busted betting on the one who gets the break.

The biggest advantage is not so much the break itself it is the fact that the guy giving it up can't run a package, and the other guy KNOWS he is going to get his chances. It is huge.

I can't remember the last time I saw two pro's matched up and someone got the break.

As for break and run I have no idea but if anyone wants to do the numbers on Alex and Shane I will post them on the site and give you full credit.

(Sorry Black Balled we have to pay for gas, hotel, food and camera crap )

 

[Luxury]

I dont think the quote was about the pros losing on the break it was about the percentage of time they break and run out which was around 30% of the time. If you don't break and runout it doesn't mean you lose it just means your opponent got to the table. I could be wrong but I think this is what was discussed in the ghost thread.

BTW - the last thing I want is for a pro to be on the hill and breaking against me

No I'm not talking about that at all. It was about break and win percentage. I found this quote from the poll for winner breaks or alternate breaks thread:

I think it depends heavily on which game you speak of. In 1-pocket and 8-ball, the breaker has a huge advantage so alternating breaks is almost necessary. In fact, it's usually assumed in 1-pocket that alternating breaks apply. In 8-ball, sets are often very short since games can take a while. However, if someone has their break working, putting a package together is not that uncommon. Assuming the set is relatively short, ANY multi-rack run is going to be devastating to the other player so for this reason, I think alternating breaks is more fair.

However, in 9-ball, something like 51% of the time, the breaker wins. I don't see it as an overwhelming advantage for most players. I'll admit, no matter who I'm playing, if they're breaking, I expect to get to the table at some point in nearly every game. Although making a ball, getting position on the 1-ball and having no (or manageable) problems doesn't seem that uncommon, it's far more common to not make a ball on the break at all! So, if the game is 9-ball, I would probably favor winner-breaks simply because that's the traditional way 9-ball is played.
__________________
Name: Jude M. Rosenstock

But I still can't find the one that claimed the stats showed the breaker winning less that fifty percent of the time.

 

[thoffen]

That's one guy's opinion. Not worth a dime.

 

[Drawman623]

Hohmann vs Owen

Thorsten Hohmann faced Gabe in the US Open finals. Before the start, I spoke to Hohmann about how he felt and he explained that he had been unable to pocket balls on the break...he practiced for some 50 racks on the TV table and could not get comfortable with a speed or location that would work consistently. When he met Owen, Gabe's break was working and even though Hohmann ran out when he needed to, he never got anywhere because his break failed him.

I saw Parica lose to Tony Ellin on a rainy finals in Akron one year. Ellin had that 19 oz cue with 300 pounds of hurricane power behind it. Parica won his share but never continued his runs because he didn't pocket balls on the break. He admitted as much after the match.

All this being said... both of my examples describe a player losing due to his break, but also one winning because of theirs. This is why I oppose alternating break format. I want to see the 9-rack package put on by sombody who is in stroke and hot. Taking away the break with a break box or alternating format may lead to more hill-hill stuff or a more even measure of player talent but I will never support it. I want the break, for better or worse, to be an advantage to the better breaker and/or a handicap to the weaker one.

 

[DoubleA]

No I'm not talking about that at all. It was about break and win percentage. I found this quote from the poll for winner breaks or alternate breaks thread:

I think it depends heavily on which game you speak of. In 1-pocket and 8-ball, the breaker has a huge advantage so alternating breaks is almost necessary. In fact, it's usually assumed in 1-pocket that alternating breaks apply. In 8-ball, sets are often very short since games can take a while. However, if someone has their break working, putting a package together is not that uncommon. Assuming the set is relatively short, ANY multi-rack run is going to be devastating to the other player so for this reason, I think alternating breaks is more fair.

However, in 9-ball, something like 51% of the time, the breaker wins. I don't see it as an overwhelming advantage for most players. I'll admit, no matter who I'm playing, if they're breaking, I expect to get to the table at some point in nearly every game. Although making a ball, getting position on the 1-ball and having no (or manageable) problems doesn't seem that uncommon, it's far more common to not make a ball on the break at all! So, if the game is 9-ball, I would probably favor winner-breaks simply because that's the traditional way 9-ball is played.
__________________
Name: Jude M. Rosenstock

But I still can't find the one that claimed the stats showed the breaker winning less that fifty percent of the time.

Enlighten me--if you are playing winner breaks, how could the winner break less than the loser? Would we assume that every match went hill hill with the match winner winning on the other players break?

 

[BillPorter]

I think it was from an article on Pat Fleming in the most recent Billiards Digest. I read the article, but don't recall every detail. I do recall that in the games that were analyzed, and there were many, many games, a ball was made on only about 60% of the breaks. Countering that was the fact that the breaker scratched on a fair percentage of the breaks, something like 5-8%?. I recall that the 9 went on the break 3% of the time. As has been pointed out, these matches were all on the "TV table" and that table didn't really favor making balls on the break. As has also been pointed out, you've got to bet on the player getting all the breaks if the players are otherwise evenly matched.

 

[Jaden]

I think he's referencing what I stated.

I stated that my friend Chip Klein who is a really good player used to go around and record matches and do statistics on the top players, and he stated that the top players only win 47% of the games that they break, of course in a given set The player who breaks the most is most likely to win when you're playing winner breaks, but in the overall is what he was talking about.

Jaden

 

[Scott Lee]

Bill is right on the money here. In statistics kept for more than 20 yrs, the average pro player makes a ball on the break, at best, 60% of the time. I know...there are lots of guys here who will say, "I saw Busty make a ball 12 games in a row." My response to that is, the same as what Blackjack said...on any given day that is possible, but nobody does it all the time. But the same player, moving to another table, even on the same day, might experience a several game dryspell with his/her break. As an instructor, I can't tell you how many times I've heard an "experienced" player say, "If you don't make a ball on the break, your break sucks!" Nothing could be further from the truth. Making a ball on the break is the very LAST variable I use to judge the quality (or lack thereof) of a student's break.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I think it was from an article on Pat Fleming in the most recent Billiards Digest. I read the article, but don't recall every detail. I do recall that in the games that were analyzed, and there were many, many games, a ball was made on only about 60% of the breaks. Countering that was the fact that the breaker scratched on a fair percentage of the breaks, something like 5-8%?. I recall that the 9 went on the break 3% of the time. As has been pointed out, these matches were all on the "TV table" and that table didn't really favor making balls on the break. As has also been pointed out, you've got to bet on the player getting all the breaks if the players are otherwise evenly matched.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I've read on this forum somewhere that pros do not win the majority of the time they break. I think the claim was that according to accustats the person who did not break won slightly more often.

I have been pondering this for over a month and I just can't grasp it. Shouldn't the breaker have control of the table more often? Shouldn't the breaker be able to play safe?

Did I read something wrong?

If you want it from the horse's mouth, call Pat Fleming. He has an 800 number.

All of the Accu-Stats newsletters are available for free on-line. It's about three years worth, covering many, many tournaments from the 1980's. I don't remember that particular statistic, but maybe it's in an article I didn't read.

One interesting statistic from those newsletters is that the players used to scratch about 10% of the time on the break. Another was that they made the nine about 3% of the time, but of course that's before tight racks prevented the nine from going so much.