Stats -- Predator Premier League Pool 9-Ball, February 2022

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are some aggregate stats from Matchroom's Premier League Pool 9-Ball event played February 14-21, 2022 at Stadium MK in Milton Keynes, England. Albin Ouschan won the event, defeating Joshua Filler in the final match.

This was a 16-player, 8-day event. Twelve of the players were invited based on their Matchroom rankings and 4 were wild cards. In the first 5 days, each player played each of the other players once -- a 16-player round robin of 24 matches per day (120 total). The 6 players with the worst records were then eliminated, and the remaining 10 players played another round robin during Days 6 and 7 (45 matches). The 4 players with the worst records after Day 7 were eliminated, and the remaining 6 players played another round robin on Day 8 (15 matches). The 4 players with the best records at the end of the third robin robin then played single-elimination (2 semifinal matches and a final match) to determine the event's winner. The players' records were cumulative through the 3 round-robin stages rather than starting over for each stage. All of the matches in the round-robin stages were races to 5; the semifinal and final matches were races to 7.

Two tables were used for the event, and both were being streamed. Pay-per-view streaming of the main table, with commentary, was provided in the USA by DAZN. Streaming of the second table, without commentary, was available on matchroom.live. The main commentators were Michael McMullan, Phil Yates, and Karl Boyes; several of the players also commentated on one or more matches. The referees were Marcel Eckardt, John Leyman, and Desislava Bozhilova.

The 6 players who qualified for Day 8 with the best records through the 16- and 10-player round-robin stages (Days 1-7) are shown here in their final order of finish in the event (Van Boening had a better record than Shaw, but both semifinalists received the same prize money):

1. ($20,000) -- Albin Ouschan​
2. ($12,500) -- Joshua Filler​
3. ($8,000) -- Shane Van Boening​
4. ($8,000) -- Jayson Shaw​
5. ($7,000) -- Skyler Woodward​
6. ($6,250) -- Alex Kazakis​

Conditions -- the conditions for this event included the following:
- Rasson OX 9-foot table with 4" corner pockets;​
- gray Simonis cloth;​
- Aramith Tournament Black balls with a black-spots cue ball;​
- referee racks using a triangle rack with the 1-ball on the foot spot (2-ball not necessarily in back location);​
- alternate breaks from anywhere behind the head string;​
- no illegal-break rule;​
- 30-sec. shot clock (60 sec. after the break), with one 30-sec. extension per player per game;​
- foul on all balls;​
- jump cues allowed;​
- lag for the break in each match; and​
- all slop counts.​

The matches each day were played in two sessions, a day session (starting at 10:00 am in London) and an evening session (starting at 5:00 pm). These stats are from the 47 matches (26% of the event's total of 183 matches) that I watched, which were all of the evening-session matches being streamed in full on DAZN. These 47 matches totaled 358 games. All 16 players in the event appeared in the matches I tracked, ranging from 1 appearance (Naoyuki Oi) to 15 appearances (Shane Van Boening). These 47 matches are all listed on Matchroom's Premier Pool League website (but I don't know how long that will be true).

Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Day 1 -- 72% (33 of 46)​
Day 2 -- 76% (35 of 46)​
Day 3 -- 78% (31 of 40)​
Day 4 -- 84% (38 of 45)​
Day 5 -- 86% (37 of 43)​
Day 6 -- 100% (42 of 42)​
Day 7 -- 92% (44 of 48)​
Day 8 -- 88% (42 of 48)​
Total -- 84% (302 of 358)

Breaker won game:

Day 1 -- 39% (18 of 46)​
Day 2 -- 57% (26 of 46)​
Day 3 -- 65% (26 of 40)​
Day 4 -- 64% (29 of 45)​
Day 5 -- 65% (28 of 43)​
Day 6 -- 64% (27 of 42)​
Day 7 -- 54% (26 of 48)​
Day 8 -- 77% (37 of 48)​
Total -- 61% (217 of 358)

Break-and-run games -- on all breaks:

Day 1 -- 20% (9 of 46)​
Day 2 -- 30% (14 of 46)​
Day 3 -- 33% (13 of 40)​
Day 4 -- 38% (17 of 45)​
Day 5 -- 33% (14 of 43)​
Day 6 -- 50% (21 of 42)​
Day 7 -- 25% (12 of 48)​
Day 8 -- 48% (23 of 48)​
Total -- 34% (123 of 358)

Break-and-run games -- on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):

Day 1 -- 27% (9 of 33)​
Day 2 -- 40% (14 of 35)​
Day 3 -- 42% (13 of 31)​
Day 4 -- 45% (17 of 38)​
Day 5 -- 38% (14 of 37)​
Day 6 -- 50% (21 of 42)​
Day 7 -- 27% (12 of 44)​
Day 8 -- 55% (23 of 42)​
Total -- 41% (123 of 302)

One-inning games (B&Rs plus non-breaker runouts on first visit to table)

Day 1 -- 59% (27 of 46)​
Day 2 -- 52% (24 of 46)​
Day 3 -- 48% (19 of 40)​
Day 4 -- 58% (26 of 45)​
Day 5 -- 51% (22 of 43)​
Day 6 -- 71% (30 of 42)​
Day 7 -- 42% (20 of 48)​
Day 8 -- 60% (29 of 48)​
Total -- 55% (197 of 358)

Match lengths:
[Note: lengths include commercial breaks of about 2 minutes after every 3rd game.]​
- Longest race to 5 in total length (58 min.) -- Al Shaheen d. Alcaide 5-4​
- Highest in average minutes per game (7.4 min.) -- Kazakis d. Filler 5-1​
- Shortest in total length (22 min.) -- Woodward d. Fisher 5-0​
- Lowest in average minutes per game (4.3 min.) -- Filler d. Al-Shaheen 5-2​
- Average match length for races to 5 -- 42 min.​
- Average minutes per game (all 47 matches) -- 5.6 min.​

Distribution of match scores for races to 5:
5-4 -- 11 times​
5-3 -- 14​
5-2 -- 8​
5-1 -- 9​
5-0 -- 3​
Total -- 45​
Average match score -- 5 - 2.5

Games with one or more safeties (est.):

37% of all games​
57% of games that were not B&R games​
 
Great stuff. Thanks!

Given that this event featured, almost exclusively, the creme de la creme of our sport, and given that 84% of the breaks were successful, the 34% break and run stat is very low, underscoring just how tough this equipment really was. About three out of every eight racks (37%) included safety play, too. Everybody's moves game was tested.

These tables really put the world's greatest players to the test, and only the worthiest players were up to the challenge. That's why we had one of the strongest final fours (SVB, Shaw, Filler, Ouschan) in the history of professional pool.
 
Minor oddity: The number of games played in the evening-session matches streamed on DAZN was exactly the same this year (in the Premier League Pool event) as last year (in the Championship League Pool event) -- 358.

[And the stats were pretty similar, despite the tighter pockets this year.]
 
[...]
Break-and-run games -- on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Day 1 -- 27% (9 of 33)​
Day 2 -- 40% (14 of 35)​
Day 3 -- 42% (13 of 31)​
Day 4 -- 45% (17 of 38)​
Day 5 -- 38% (14 of 37)​
Day 6 -- 50% (21 of 42)​
Day 7 -- 27% (12 of 44)​
Day 8 -- 55% (23 of 42)​
Total -- 41% (123 of 302)
[...]
If 41% of the successful breaks were runouts, likely close to this percent of the unsuccessful breaks were opponent runouts.
In other words in probably around 40% of the games the winner had no opponent "resistance."

Though I'm not sure what it is, there is a sweet spot for this statistic. The statistic is a function of three things: (1) player skill, (2) game rules, and (3) equipment difficulty. We are always free to fix two of them and consider the impact of changing the third.

As an example, consider template-rack 9-Ball on a big-pocket 7-foot table. This is a good game if you're near the sweet spot of player skill and a bad game otherwise. I think the sweet spot for that game is around 550 to 600. If the players are far weaker, then it makes no difference who is in control in early innings and the players exchange control several times before somebody is at risk for getting out. If the players are far stronger, then the games are mostly decided by who is the first to gain control and that often depends on chance things like whether a ball goes in on the break, whether there is a shot on the one-ball, and whether the cueball gets kicked in on the break. Importantly, it frequently doesn't depend on your opponent's skill. To be at the sweet spot, a player with control of the table in a typical early-game scenario needs to be at SOME risk of running out --but not too high a risk.

My gut is the sweet spot for the above statistic is around 10 - 20%. Matchroom modified the equipment (4" pockets) to make the equipment suitable for the elite players for the given game. Still I don't think they're at the sweet spot. I am curious what Bob Jewett thinks.
 
If 41% of the successful breaks were runouts, likely close to this percent of the unsuccessful breaks were opponent runouts.
In other words in probably around 40% of the games the winner had no opponent "resistance."

Though I'm not sure what it is, there is a sweet spot for this statistic. The statistic is a function of three things: (1) player skill, (2) game rules, and (3) equipment difficulty. We are always free to fix two of them and consider the impact of changing the third.

As an example, consider template-rack 9-Ball on a big-pocket 7-foot table. This is a good game if you're near the sweet spot of player skill and a bad game otherwise. I think the sweet spot for that game is around 550 to 600. If the players are far weaker, then it makes no difference who is in control in early innings and the players exchange control several times before somebody is at risk for getting out. If the players are far stronger, then the games are mostly decided by who is the first to gain control and that often depends on chance things like whether a ball goes in on the break, whether there is a shot on the one-ball, and whether the cueball gets kicked in on the break. Importantly, it frequently doesn't depend on your opponent's skill. To be at the sweet spot, a player with control of the table in a typical early-game scenario needs to be at SOME risk of running out --but not too high a risk.

My gut is the sweet spot for the above statistic is around 10 - 20%. Matchroom modified the equipment (4" pockets) to make the equipment suitable for the elite players for the given game. Still I don't think they're at the sweet spot. I am curious what Bob Jewett thinks.
Interesting post, Mike. I get the gist of your post, but with regard to the most elite players, I'm not sure what is meant here by the sweet spot.

In the end, the equipment used this week was praised by several of the entrants as representing a fitting test for the world's best players. It was similarly embraced by numerous viewers as being appropriate and the play was deemed very entertaining. Perhaps the equipment can be tweaked again, but to what end?
 
If 41% of the successful breaks were runouts, likely close to this percent of the unsuccessful breaks were opponent runouts.
In other words in probably around 40% of the games the winner had no opponent "resistance."

Though I'm not sure what it is, there is a sweet spot for this statistic. ... My gut is the sweet spot for the above statistic is around 10 - 20%. ...
Here's a little more info on runouts. As shown in post #1, one-inning games in the 47 matches I tracked for this PLP event were 55% of the total (197 of 358). These runouts can be separated into 4 parts:
- By the breaker after successful breaks (B&R games) -- 41% (123 of 302)​
- By the non-breaker after fouls on the break -- 60% (9 of 15)​
- By the non-breaker after dry breaks -- 22% (9 of 41)​
- By the non-breaker after the breaker broke successfully but did not then run out -- 31% (56 of 179)​

So immediate runouts by the opponent after unsuccessful breaks were 32% (18 of 56). The "after fouls" percentage is generally quite high, as the non-breaker starts with ball in hand and may have less than a full rack of balls to run. The "after dry breaks" percentage is generally somewhat lower than the percentage of runouts on successful breaks. Starting with more balls on the table is probably one contributing factor in that.

In my stats threads on the various events, I often show the percentage of one-inning games in total and the percentages of runouts after successful breaks, after fouled breaks, and after dry breaks. This info is in the "Miscellany" post, which is generally the second post in the thread.

For a little 10-Ball comparison -- In the streamed matches of the two US Pro Billiard Series events played so far this year, the runouts after successful breaks were 31% and 35% (Arizona first, then Wisconsin), the runouts after fouled breaks were 50% and 57%, and the runouts after dry breaks were 14% and 19%. Combining the fouled and dry breaks, runouts were 17% and 24% after unsuccessful breaks.
 
Last edited:
Here's a little more info on runouts. As shown in post #1, one-inning games in the 47 matches I tracked for this PLP event were 55% of the total (197 of 358). These runouts can be separated into 4 parts:
- By the breaker after successful breaks (B&R games) -- 41% (123 of 302)​
- By the non-breaker after fouls on the break -- 60% (9 of 15)​
- By the non-breaker after dry breaks -- 22% (9 of 41)​
- By the non-breaker after the breaker broke successfully but did not then run out -- 31% (56 of 179)​

So immediate runouts by the opponent after unsuccessful breaks were 32% (18 of 56). The "after fouls" percentage is generally quite high, as the non-breaker starts with ball in hand and may have less than a full rack of balls to run. The "after dry breaks" percentage is generally somewhat lower than the percentage of runouts on successful breaks. Starting with more balls on the table is probably one contributing factor in that.

In my stats threads on the various events, I often show the percentage of one-inning games in total and the percentages of runouts after successful breaks, after fouled breaks, and after dry breaks. This info is in the "Miscellany" post, which is generally the second post in the thread.

For a little 10-Ball comparison -- In the streamed matches of the two US Pro Billiard Series events played so far this year, the runouts after successful breaks were 31% and 35% (Arizona first, then Wisconsin), the runouts after fouled breaks were 50% and 57%, and the runouts after dry breaks were 14% and 19%. Combining the fouled and dry breaks, runouts were 17% and 24% after unsuccessful breaks.
Thank you for this. I estimated that 40% of the games were won with no opponent "resistance." That would be 143 of the 358 games. We can now see it was actually 141 of the 358 games.

Those 141 games were won with it not mattering whether the person in the chair was Joshua Filler or Mike Page. The basic idea of an interactive game is a stronger opponent makes it harder for you to score. In basketball, you've got the guy with his arm up in front of you. In American football, you've got the guy trying to block the pass or tackle you. In arm wrestling, you've got the other guy's arm. In each case it is harder to score if your opponent is better.

In pool, where we don't have both players on the table at the same time, we've got to structure a game where there is back & forth within the game to get this richness. For mistakes to be differentially punished (Filler would punish your lousy safety more than I would), there has to be mistakes. But if we have too many mistakes (think weak players or good players on 3-inch pockets), then your opponent can't effectively punish your mistakes until late in the game.

Contrast two different types of games.
(1) NONINTERACTIVE (golf and bowling: how you score has nothing to do with who you are competing against. You're comparing you vs the course/pins to your opponent vs the course/pins. The course/pins are not a medium to pit you against your opponent directly.)

(2) INTERACTIVE (boxing and tennis and chess: the ring and the court and the board are a medium to pit you against your opponent)

We INTEND pool to be interactive. That's why we have a particular person travel from Germany and another particular person travel from Singapore and put them at the same table at the same time. Our big obsession about how the balls are racked and the rules of the break are a sign we've allowed the game to become too noninteractive. The problem is when we force EVERY game to be interactive by putting more balls on the table and reducing the pocket size a lot, we create another problem. That problem we create is early innings that don't matter.

There is a sweet spot, and we're not at it here.

I know they've moved toward it by making the equipment tougher. I think the better way to get there is to leave the equipment the same and futz with the rules instead: either put another ball on the table or force a roll out or both
 
I know they've moved toward it by making the equipment tougher. I think the better way to get there is to leave the equipment the same and futz with the rules instead: either put another ball on the table or force a roll out or both
I would like to see mandatory push out after the break tried. It addresses your concern, but I also like it because I think the break can carry too much weight at times and it helps to alleviate that as well. Also ensures that both players have a chance to get to table every game and will increase the "interactive" nature of the game in any case. There are a number of other benefits I could foresee. It may be a case where it wouldn't end up exactly like envisioned and I may not like it as much after I saw it, but I would still like to see what a pro event would look like with mandatory push out after the break to know for sure how all the unknown nuances would play out.
 
I would like to see mandatory push out after the break tried. It addresses your concern, but I also like it because I think the break can carry too much weight at times and it helps to alleviate that as well. Also ensures that both players have a chance to get to table every game and will increase the "interactive" nature of the game in any case. There are a number of other benefits I could foresee. It may be a case where it wouldn't end up exactly like envisioned and I may not like it as much after I saw it, but I would still like to see what a pro event would look like with mandatory push out after the break to know for sure how all the unknown nuances would play out.

Another option (which I've discussed but haven't actually used) is rather than a mandatory push in every game, introduce "push cards." The idea is each player has a limited number (one or two) and they are like timeouts in football. It is a strategic decision whether to use them or save them.

In these short races, each player might have one push card. It allows them anytime opponent has a push available to force it. In races to 9 or 11, each player might have two.

Do you save your push card to have it available when your opponent is on the hill and either you break dry or your opponent breaks and has an easy table? Or do you use it earlier on?
 
Thank you for this. I estimated that 40% of the games were won with no opponent "resistance." That would be 143 of the 358 games. We can now see it was actually 141 of the 358 games.

Those 141 games were won with it not mattering whether the person in the chair was Joshua Filler or Mike Page. The basic idea of an interactive game is a stronger opponent makes it harder for you to score. In basketball, you've got the guy with his arm up in front of you. In American football, you've got the guy trying to block the pass or tackle you. In arm wrestling, you've got the other guy's arm. In each case it is harder to score if your opponent is better.

In pool, where we don't have both players on the table at the same time, we've got to structure a game where there is back & forth within the game to get this richness. For mistakes to be differentially punished (Filler would punish your lousy safety more than I would), there has to be mistakes. But if we have too many mistakes (think weak players or good players on 3-inch pockets), then your opponent can't effectively punish your mistakes until late in the game.

Contrast two different types of games.
(1) NONINTERACTIVE (golf and bowling: how you score has nothing to do with who you are competing against. You're comparing you vs the course/pins to your opponent vs the course/pins. The course/pins are not a medium to pit you against your opponent directly.)

(2) INTERACTIVE (boxing and tennis and chess: the ring and the court and the board are a medium to pit you against your opponent)

We INTEND pool to be interactive. That's why we have a particular person travel from Germany and another particular person travel from Singapore and put them at the same table at the same time. Our big obsession about how the balls are racked and the rules of the break are a sign we've allowed the game to become too noninteractive. The problem is when we force EVERY game to be interactive by putting more balls on the table and reducing the pocket size a lot, we create another problem. That problem we create is early innings that don't matter.

There is a sweet spot, and we're not at it here.

I know they've moved toward it by making the equipment tougher. I think the better way to get there is to leave the equipment the same and futz with the rules instead: either put another ball on the table or force a roll out or both

totally agree with the premise of an interactive game, but would like to add another factor than rule changes and pocket sizes: pressure.

world 9-ball championship 2007, manila, daryl peach is playing roberto gomez, home crowd favorite. winner prize is 100 000 $. all seats filled, people are literally climbing on stuff to watch the very tense final match, which is also aired on TV all over the world. now they were playing on brunswick tables with 5 inch buckets. but they were still missing balls and playing themselves out of position probably more than filler or albin did on the 4 inch pockets, deep shelf rasson tables.

there is a skill difference but gomez and peach are very, very good pool players. my point is add a crowd and a bigger financial reward and those 4 inch pockets will tighten up pretty fast. this last event was like a bunch of friends playing in their basement with a couple of cameras streaming. not taking anything away from albin, it was impressive for sure, but the game needs more tension than what this event provided.
 
I would like to see mandatory push out after the break tried.
It has been tried in a version of the game developed by Pat Fleming called "the accu-stats game show." They even had an event playing this way one year at Derby City, sixteen players, single elimination and races to one! It was good fun, but I'd never want to see it replace nine ball as played today.
 
Some excellent points were made in this thread about the joys of an interactive game.

Right now, we have a game that is interactive in some racks and not so in other racks. I'd hate to litigate out the racks in which there is a first inning runout by either player, but too many of them makes for boring pool, and denies players a chance to test/showcase all of the skills that make a great player (the break, ball pocketing, position play, defense, kicking, jumping, and general tactical conceptualization). That's the major reason tight pockets are necessary for the most elite players - it keeps the runout special and ensures that the test of cueing skills is comprehensive.
 
Back
Top