Me too (but it's a very short drive :thumbup!!!
Maniac
Is it a short drive, or a long putt?
{ducking}
Stevie Moore's Rules argument with Justin
- Thread starter RobertR
- Start date
Is it a short drive, or a long putt?
{ducking}
I would certainly like to see a reduction in the ways luck can intrude on a 9-ball or 10-ball match. Here are a few comments I wrote in another thread that touched on this subject.
No, you can't totally eliminate the luck element, but you can try to minimize it. The purpose of a pool competition should be to identify and reward the person (or persons) who is (are) playing the most skillfully during that event. Excitement for the audience should not be the objective in most competitions; in fact, such excitement sometimes results from ignorance. A three-rail kick safety is beautiful and exciting; a 10-on-the-break for a win is disgusting.
People often argue that "luck evens out," or winning on a lucky shot, such as a slop-in, is so rare among top players that we shouldn't worry about it. Well, luck may even out over a lifetime, but it need not do so in any given match or tournament. And it's the rareness of the lucky shot that makes it so much more critical. If it happened every second shot, then both players in a match would benefit and suffer fairly equally. But when it happens only rarely, it becomes enormous and can really mean the difference between winning and losing.
I'm sure that everyone who has played a lot has both won and lost a ton of matches because of purely lucky shots -- 9-ball or 10-ball on the break or slopping in a key ball. A loss that way is agonizing. A win that way is less than fulfilling. It would be so easy to eliminate some of the game's pernicious luck.
People often argue that "luck evens out," or winning on a lucky shot, such as a slop-in, is so rare among top players that we shouldn't worry about it. Well, luck may even out over a lifetime, but it need not do so in any given match or tournament. And it's the rareness of the lucky shot that makes it so much more critical. If it happened every second shot, then both players in a match would benefit and suffer fairly equally. But when it happens only rarely, it becomes enormous and can really mean the difference between winning and losing.
I'm sure that everyone who has played a lot has both won and lost a ton of matches because of purely lucky shots -- 9-ball or 10-ball on the break or slopping in a key ball. A loss that way is agonizing. A win that way is less than fulfilling. It would be so easy to eliminate some of the game's pernicious luck.
I'm not gonna get into te luck v skill argument. But I did love stevies
commentating. Good to hear some country folk on the air. And
evenif u disagreewith him at least he stirred things up, look
at this thread for example. IMO that's a good commentator.
Plus he was hilarious when he got all worked up. Stevies the man.
Shoot I'm gonna grow my hair out just like him.
commentating. Good to hear some country folk on the air. And
evenif u disagreewith him at least he stirred things up, look
at this thread for example. IMO that's a good commentator.
Plus he was hilarious when he got all worked up. Stevies the man.
Shoot I'm gonna grow my hair out just like him.
If the pro's decide to take luck out of it all together then they will have to play for all their own moneys ! All by themselves.
Spectators will go away and they will take the few sponsers pool has now with them, imho.
Spectators that view any type of GAME want and wait all day to see some kind of luck happen. whether it is an 64 seed playin a 1 seed or a 2 seed playing a 3 seed.
THATS WHY THEY CALL IT A GAME. THATS WHY THEY PLAY THE GAME.
10-ball express is the way to go !
The cream always rises to the top anyway. Not to worry pro's !
Spectators will go away and they will take the few sponsers pool has now with them, imho.
Spectators that view any type of GAME want and wait all day to see some kind of luck happen. whether it is an 64 seed playin a 1 seed or a 2 seed playing a 3 seed.
THATS WHY THEY CALL IT A GAME. THATS WHY THEY PLAY THE GAME.
10-ball express is the way to go !
The cream always rises to the top anyway. Not to worry pro's !
YankeeDoodleDoo
New member
Reading this thread makes my eyes bleed.
1) Have any of you heard of a shot to nothing? Gauging the expectation of a shot is the real skill in pool. You can beat a more talented player with better shot selection. It usually isn't getting lucky when you miss safe unless you are a banger.
2) The rules have nothing to do with whether there is money in the sport, or it is on television. Comparing it to the WSOP is false because poker will return to obscurity like pool has soon enough. Televised poker is almost exclusively tournament NLHE, which is about the least skillful way to play poker, but the people watching it mostly don't understand that one way or another. It is about something they relate to (the poker fad) and the ability to monday morning quarterback no matter how dumb they are. The production quality is quite good as well (at least for the WSOP) which I will get to in a bit...
3) America is a very closed and restrictive society that makes it tough for foreign business developments. Not only that, you restrict gambling like it is crack cocaine. There was some money being brought from gaming companies in until the UIGEA. The problem is bigger than just pool.
Barry Hearn tries to promote the mosconi cup and other ventures like snooker, but many factors (like the ones I named) make this show impossible to market in the US. It is ridiculous the roadblocks he has put up with.
4) The quality of television production for pool programs in America (especially the commentators) is absolutely horrendous. It is as bad as it could get, and that has a big impact on viewership and popularity. There isn't Steve Davis commenting on american pools, you always have someone clueless and unfunny. One or the other, but not both.
When you compare this to the amazing production quality of golf, tennis, Nascar, Americna Football, and baseball in America you realize how awful it is. Sports on TV are generally produced very well in the US, there is no room for boring shows.
5) My advice to everyone who thinks there is so much money in snooker...well is go where the money is. Snooker has been on a big 15 year downswing, but it is still growing in parts of the world. American pool is interesting, but there isn't a critical mass. Snooker makes for much easier tv as the strategy is more variant, and the table is easier to comprehend on television. It's very strategic, uniform, and organized. Snooker fits very well into a late night demographic.
I would love to see a major tournament of one pocket on tv, but it just isn't going to happen unfortunately.
1) Have any of you heard of a shot to nothing? Gauging the expectation of a shot is the real skill in pool. You can beat a more talented player with better shot selection. It usually isn't getting lucky when you miss safe unless you are a banger.
2) The rules have nothing to do with whether there is money in the sport, or it is on television. Comparing it to the WSOP is false because poker will return to obscurity like pool has soon enough. Televised poker is almost exclusively tournament NLHE, which is about the least skillful way to play poker, but the people watching it mostly don't understand that one way or another. It is about something they relate to (the poker fad) and the ability to monday morning quarterback no matter how dumb they are. The production quality is quite good as well (at least for the WSOP) which I will get to in a bit...
3) America is a very closed and restrictive society that makes it tough for foreign business developments. Not only that, you restrict gambling like it is crack cocaine. There was some money being brought from gaming companies in until the UIGEA. The problem is bigger than just pool.
Barry Hearn tries to promote the mosconi cup and other ventures like snooker, but many factors (like the ones I named) make this show impossible to market in the US. It is ridiculous the roadblocks he has put up with.
4) The quality of television production for pool programs in America (especially the commentators) is absolutely horrendous. It is as bad as it could get, and that has a big impact on viewership and popularity. There isn't Steve Davis commenting on american pools, you always have someone clueless and unfunny. One or the other, but not both.
When you compare this to the amazing production quality of golf, tennis, Nascar, Americna Football, and baseball in America you realize how awful it is. Sports on TV are generally produced very well in the US, there is no room for boring shows.
5) My advice to everyone who thinks there is so much money in snooker...well is go where the money is. Snooker has been on a big 15 year downswing, but it is still growing in parts of the world. American pool is interesting, but there isn't a critical mass. Snooker makes for much easier tv as the strategy is more variant, and the table is easier to comprehend on television. It's very strategic, uniform, and organized. Snooker fits very well into a late night demographic.
I would love to see a major tournament of one pocket on tv, but it just isn't going to happen unfortunately.
Last edited:
If the barriers to an established promoter like Barry Hearn are so high (so high that he doesn't fool with cue sports in America except for once every two years) why do you think it would be any easier for someone here to create well produced matches?
I often joke with a friend that someone could own pro pool in the US for a million or two. But then what the hell would you do with it?
YankeeDoodleDoo
New member
The two are related only because the people capable somehow aren't in america. American pool is a global game, but the heart of which is in America. With nobody useful in promoting it, and now the possible reasons for it to be promoted are mostly gone in America it is hard. America's economic xenophobia prevents anyone from the outside from doing much.
I don't think a quality show alone would make or break the status of pool. It is many factors.
And someone did try to own pro pool recently for 1 or 2 million, Kevin Trudeau...guys like him don't help either.
I did not read all post, but do have an opinion. How can you take all the luck out of pool.
A. a player shoots at the 3 and makes the 9 on a lucky shot.
B. a player shoots at the 9, misses but leaves the the cue ball parked in the pocket and the opponent is corner hooked. lucky shot.
How will you ever take a lucky leave out of pool, or for that matter just getting lucky and leaving an absolutly unplayable shot for the opponent.
Luck will always be in pool, Tom
A. a player shoots at the 3 and makes the 9 on a lucky shot.
B. a player shoots at the 9, misses but leaves the the cue ball parked in the pocket and the opponent is corner hooked. lucky shot.
How will you ever take a lucky leave out of pool, or for that matter just getting lucky and leaving an absolutly unplayable shot for the opponent.
Luck will always be in pool, Tom
Agreed!! There's NO WAY to eliminate luck.
I don't know what the rule is here that's named "Call Shot" I'd rather it be "Call Pocket" if we have to have this type of rule at all.
I've seen Call Shot in taverns get really ridiculous. Ball touches a cushion before dropping - No Good A ball nicking a ball before dropping - No Good Next thing we'll have to call is the cue ball action. 2 cushions, 3 cushions, carom off the 3 but not the 5 ball, hit the 5 and we spot the pocketed ball. This can go on and on but there's still luck. The guy sitting in the chair is lucky I touched the 5 ball or an unintended rail.
Silly
Last edited:
Well you obviously have never had to hit out of a divot after a 280 yard drive right down the middle of the fairway. Or play out of a bunker that someone didn't rake and your ball lies in the middle of a footprint. And before you say "you put yourself in the bunker by hitting a bad shot", not so fast. Maybe is was a par 5, and you determine your best chance for birdie is to put in the left bunker because the water on the right makes going for the green too risky.
Or , you hit a great shot only to have it hit a sprinkler head and bound high in the air right in to the hazard. Or you hit a laser right at the flag, it takes one hop, ricochets off the flag and ends up in a bunker so deep you cannot see the flag when you are standing in it.
I could go on all day. I play a lot of golf and a lot of pool, and I feel the luck factor in golf is much more brutal than the luck factor in pool.
Are you kidding me? Seriously?
Name me an instance in golf where you have to shoot from where someone else leaves you in a tournament after they make a bad shot?
Where someone else, hits the ball into the sand trap and you have to shoot from there.
Where someone else hooks you behind a tree and it's your job to shoot from there.
Where someone else shoots into some deep rough and you have to shoot from there.
Divot, sand trap, and sprinkler, is like saying there was chalk on the ball, or the table rolls off, or the slate seam is popping up.
They are all situations where you did not have to shoot from somewhere that was a result of someone else's error.
See, this makes sense to me. Since there's no money in pool (to the point where it's not worth trying to get good at it in hopes of making a living), what difference do the rules make? Since there's zilch to be made, might as well play with no luck so the best players get the crumbs that are left around.
I dunno!
It really goes to ensure a predictable winner...fukkers already play better and there is no handicap...why should the 'better players' get another advantage?
I want an underdog to snap it off.
How about Pro Rules and Amateur Rules?
When I watch a pro match I want to see skillful players rewarded for their efforts. In the pro tournaments it is more entertaining when the luck factor has been reduced
If I am playing in a league I want all the help I can get. My friends and I are thrilled when a team member lucks a few in to win his match. Lots of laughs, lots of fun.
So it depends on what I am doing, watching or playing. There is room for both approaches.
Seems to me that pros have much invested in their game and want their skill to be the determining factor. Us amateurs, well we are just having fun.
So next time you make a game with someone you ask which rules do we use – or how serious do you want to get?
We seem to do something similar in 8- Ball. Is it "call shot" or "slop," how do you wanna play?
When I watch a pro match I want to see skillful players rewarded for their efforts. In the pro tournaments it is more entertaining when the luck factor has been reduced
If I am playing in a league I want all the help I can get. My friends and I are thrilled when a team member lucks a few in to win his match. Lots of laughs, lots of fun.
So it depends on what I am doing, watching or playing. There is room for both approaches.
Seems to me that pros have much invested in their game and want their skill to be the determining factor. Us amateurs, well we are just having fun.
So next time you make a game with someone you ask which rules do we use – or how serious do you want to get?
We seem to do something similar in 8- Ball. Is it "call shot" or "slop," how do you wanna play?
Last edited:
I don't think I've ever heard professional snooker players suggesting that game should become call shot. Cliff Thorburn shot a famous televised 147 starting with a fluke .... a pot that turned into a bank-combo !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh2NOS9HH-w
Dave
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh2NOS9HH-w
Dave
Everyone seems to be studiously ignoring Johnnyt's post regarding Vegas sportsbook betting. If you are old enough to know what and who he is referring to, then you probably know he's right. Do you suppose that snooker would have ever reached the pinnacle it did in England if all those fans couln't go down to the local betshop and wager on their favorite players? It will be a real cold day in hell before the oddsmakers in Vegas get dumped by a bunch of pool players again. In England, even the suspicion of cheating, drug use, etc, is thoroughly investigated and penalties are meted out. Check the careers of Ronnie O'Sullivan and John Higgins if you don't believe me. I used to stake small time players, but the dump has been refined into an art form over the years. Why wager on a match with a predetermined outcome? Give the sanctioning bodies some real power, figure out a way to bet online, and pool stands a chance to at least become a minor sport.
I am not talking about decisions one makes during the game.
You deliberately playing towards a bunker is on par with someone pocketing a ball and accepting a longer shot on the next ball, because position is too hard.
Divots and sprinklers are on par with chalk on the table and slates popping up, i .e. conditions of play.
NONE of those in any way shape or form, represent you having to take a shot from a terrible position that was left to you by the person you are competing against.
If you don't understand this concept, i cannot help you.
All you points have been off target.
I am not discussing playing conditions or luck that happens to an individual WHILE they are playing as a result of their own execution.
I am specifically talking about you having to play from a crappy lie that was the result of someone else's bad shot.
Example please.