SVB and Dennis score.

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Two negative things about this otherwise memorable match stand out to me:

1) Drunken commentators, whether or not some find it amusing, are unacceptable in a pay per view stream. On a free stream, it's something you, sadly, sometimes have to live with.

2) Only in pool do you get a smoking break at the very moment a match has built to a climax. Why must Dennis take a smoking break just after Shane scratches on the break less than five minutes from the end of the match? I, for one, agree with Mike Zuglan's go-to line at Joss events: "There's no such thing as a smoking break. If you have to go to the bathroom, go." Player timeouts in our sport have a way of reducing the excitement level when it ought to be at its highest.
What’s even more concerning is that those two commentators represent the recent past, present and future of our US Mosconi Cup team.
 

Danimal

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I, for one, agree with Mike Zuglan's go-to line at Joss events: "There's no such thing as a smoking break. If you have to go to the bathroom, go." Player timeouts in our sport have a way of reducing the excitement level when it ought to be at its highest.

My favorite Zuglan line was at a player’s meeting one TS when he said:

“Players are allowed one 5 minute break per match, and there is no smoking allowed. If you take your 5 minute break and are caught smoking, you might was well smoke another one because you just forfeit your match.”
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
...snip...

2) Only in pool do you get a smoking break at the very moment a match has built to a climax. Why must Dennis take a smoking break just after Shane scratches on the break less than five minutes from the end of the match? I, for one, agree with Mike Zuglan's go-to line at Joss events: "There's no such thing as a smoking break. If you have to go to the bathroom, go." Player timeouts in our sport have a way of reducing the excitement level when it ought to be at its highest.

I was watching the stream on Omega Billiards' Mike (I think) iphone stream on FB for the last few games. When the timeout happened, he (or whoever was holding the phone) switcher to a closeup of Shane and then followed Dennis out the building and showed the scene outside. I thought it was kind of fun seeing that. I understand watching the main stream there would be nothing to see. But this side show camera brought some more of the human element to the broadcast. IMO:)
 

pwd72s

recreational banger
Silver Member
Two negative things about this otherwise memorable match stand out to me:

1) Drunken commentators, whether or not some find it amusing, are unacceptable in a pay per view stream. On a free stream, it's something you, sadly, sometimes have to live with.

2) Only in pool do you get a smoking break at the very moment a match has built to a climax. Why must Dennis take a smoking break just after Shane scratches on the break less than five minutes from the end of the match? I, for one, agree with Mike Zuglan's go-to line at Joss events: "There's no such thing as a smoking break. If you have to go to the bathroom, go." Player timeouts in our sport have a way of reducing the excitement level when it ought to be at its highest.

No comment on the drunk commentating.

However, in tournament play, I will lobby that all men over 50 be allowed an extra break. If the tournament has a seniors division...two breaks at least. I'm pretty certain I can find others who agree.
 

Charlie Hustle

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was watching the stream on Omega Billiards' Mike (I think) iphone stream on FB for the last few games. When the timeout happened, he (or whoever was holding the phone) switcher to a closeup of Shane and then followed Dennis out the building and showed the scene outside. I thought it was kind of fun seeing that. I understand watching the main stream there would be nothing to see. But this side show camera brought some more of the human element to the broadcast. IMO:)

I agree with this. Unless we were there, this would be something we would never get to see on a stream!
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Yes. But, first, I'm hoping to see a replay of a game I missed when the stream was down. I'd like the stats to be complete. But I can tell you that the aggregate stats for the 3 days were just about as close as the final score.

The recording posted on rackemtv does not include the game I missed, so I went ahead and posted stats excluding that game: https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=519923
 

justnum

TesticularCancer Survivor
Silver Member
Shane is a great champion and no one wins all the time.

He will be back.

Congratulations, to Dennis for a great comeback.

I didn't see the match but it sounds like one for the ages.

what are chances a race to 120 over 3 days goes hill hill?

Billy posed a math question.

get Billy Thorpe some math books.let him solve it himself.
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
what are chances a race to 120 over 3 days goes hill hill?

Billy posed a math question.

get Billy Thorpe some math books let him solve it himself.

If each rack is viewed as a coin toss, it's about a 5% chance that a race to 120 goes double hill based on the binomial probability function.
 
Last edited:

justnum

TesticularCancer Survivor
Silver Member
If each rack is viewed as a coin toss, it's about a 5% chance that a race to 120 goes double hill.

conditioning plays a factor Billy makes it sound impossible

while Dennis and SVB pulled it off

is the theoretical model for average players or world class pros?

WCP is my preference
 

raise1

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was watching the stream on Omega Billiards' Mike (I think) iphone stream on FB for the last few games. When the timeout happened, he (or whoever was holding the phone) switcher to a closeup of Shane and then followed Dennis out the building and showed the scene outside. I thought it was kind of fun seeing that. I understand watching the main stream there would be nothing to see. But this side show camera brought some more of the human element to the broadcast. IMO:)

You liked that, huh? :smile: It was very spontaneous, but I thought it would bring a different touch, different angle to the fans, so I decided to do it on the fly. lol.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
You liked that, huh? :smile: It was very spontaneous, but I thought it would bring a different touch, different angle to the fans, so I decided to do it on the fly. lol.

Yeah, that was good. Were you the camera man? I liked how when Dennis went outside, it seemed everyone wanted to talk to him. Everyone, including Dennis, was super hyper and buzzing like a bee. Shane was the only one that was low energy. But the outside people left Dennis alone and he smoked by himself walking back and forth slightly.
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
conditioning plays a factor Billy makes it sound impossible

while Dennis and SVB pulled it off

is the theoretical model for average players or world class pros?

WCP is my preference

The binomial model is nothing to do with level of play and nothing to do with pool. It simply answers the question of "what is the probability of exactly 119 successes in 238 trials when the probability of success on each trial is 0.5?".

Mind you, based on their head-to-head track record in previous long races, one could argue that the odds of SVB winning any given rack is closer to .6 than to .5, and if that's the probability you use, the chance of a double hill match drops to 0.04%, just 1 chance in 2,500, but if the probability is .5, it just 5%, or 1 chance in 20.
 

justnum

TesticularCancer Survivor
Silver Member
The binomial model is nothing to do with level of play and nothing to do with pool. It simply answers the question of "what is the probability of exactly 119 successes in 238 trials when the probability of success on each trial is 0.5?".

Mind you, based on their head-to-head track record in previous long races, one could argue that the odds of SVB winning any given rack is closer to .6 than to .5, and if that's the probability you use, the chance of a double hill match drops to 0.04%, just 1 chance in 2,500, but if the probability is .5, it just 5%, or 1 chance in 20.

Its a nice calculation.

I subscribe to the theory great pool players can will themselves into higher skill levels when needed. SVB and DO have a huge playing base.

When Dennis was down by 14, then it became neck and neck
and the final race to 3.

to me it felt like DO was not playing odds but keeping SVB on a distant leash until it was time to put him down.

Statistics can't explain greatness.

In math speak I am saying if they played that race to 120 ten more times.
The outcome would depend on the intentions of the players.
Binomial Distribution is out the window, a top tier match usually goes the distance. There are many cases in many sports proving such.
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
Statistics can't explain greatness.

In math speak I am saying if they played that race to 120 ten more times.
The outcome would depend on the intentions of the players.
Binomial Distribution is out the window, a top tier match usually goes the distance. There are many cases in many sports proving such.

Certainly a reasonable point, but a bit shortsighted. What you are saying, essentially, is that momentum invalidates one key assumption of the binomial distribution, specifically the assumption that successive trials/racks are statistically independent. Statistics, as you seem to understand, only measure what will happen on average, not in this very moment.

Of course, most well-known probability theory is based on the assumption that successive trials are statistically independent, even though the assumption is often not quite right. Fargo Rate works this way, basing your rating and your implied win probability against an opponent on average performance, ignoring qualitative factors like rivalry, momentum, etc.

So no, binomial distribution methods are not out the window at all here, as they represent the best estimates available given well-known statistical methods, but equally true is that the limitations of using probability theory in this, or any other, way need to be understood.
 

justnum

TesticularCancer Survivor
Silver Member
Certainly a reasonable point, but a bit shortsighted. What you are saying, essentially, is that momentum invalidates one key assumption of the binomial distribution, specifically the assumption that successive trials/racks are statistically independent. Statistics, as you seem to understand, only measure what will happen on average, not in this very moment.

Of course, most well-known probability theory is based on the assumption that successive trials are statistically independent, even though the assumption is often not quite right. Fargo Rate works this way, basing your rating and your implied win probability against an opponent on average performance, ignoring qualitative factors like rivalry, momentum, etc.

So no, binomial distribution methods are not out the window at all here, as they represent the best estimates available given well-known statistical methods, but equally true is that the limitations of using probability theory in this, or any other, way need to be understood.

fancy way of saying we can both be right, just depends on the players.
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
I root for Billy and Sky when they play. I admire their ability on the table and their dedication to the game.

As for commentary, I prefer people that are absorbed in the game. I've seen this before too, when commentators lose focus on the match and start talking about other stuff, playing around in the chat, multi-tasking, it just makes it hard for me. Maybe this is a new age where people are used to streaming and entertaining the audience themselves, but the only entertainment I want is on the screen. And I focus really hard on the match at hand, and find it very disruptive when people's attention lapses continuously. I find it like surfing a cell phone while at an opera.

While both players had ups and downs the level of play achieved at times on both ends was extraordinary. Both players ran through difficult racks with problem balls, clusters, banks, tough shots, tricky cue ball maneuvers and dicey layouts. They did it so continuously I can see why the untrained eye could lose interest thinking it's easy. That is why commentators should be there to keep people focused on the game and on the key parts of the game, mental and physical. Sure they can add some color and mix it up a hair, but it should be a spice, not the main dish. In my opinion.

I'd like the chance to do some commentary someday. I anticipate it will happen at some point. I have no formal training and background, but I can tell you this- I would be laser focused on the match, hanging on every ball, and would be talking about the challenges on the table and how the players responded to them.

Tap! Tap! Tap!
 
Top