I think you finally found you a role model. HAHA Think he is hiring a cue caddy.
**SVB - wins both rotation events at Derby **
- Thread starter JumpinJoe
- Start date
I think you finally found you a role model. HAHA Think he is hiring a cue caddy.
CoreyD
Baller, Shot Caller
Hear the explanation from the horse's mouth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhpCOzEFhec&feature=player_detailpage#t=1918
Not necessarily. Some skills, like endurance, the ability to put packages together over the course of a day, staying power, are particularly well suited to long set play. Some skills, like consistency, the ability to deal with pressure, coming out of the blocks strongly, are particularly well suited to short set play.
The best player racing to 100 isn't necessarily the best overall player. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about that.
The point he's making, and that I've tried to make too, is that 'short' races aren't as unfair
as people make them out to be, and that really long races are probably overrated/overkill.
Say you have two guys who play REALLY close.
One player has only a 4% edge on the other, in terms of skill.
Say they play an oldschool TAR-type, race to 100.
IF you have the players clocked correctly, the underdog still has a 28.6% chance of winning the set.
Definitely enough chance for an upset. Even racing to 100 doesn't GUARANTEE the best player wins.
Now let's drop it to a real short race to 11.
now it's 42.6% for the underdog to win.
But almost no tournament involves playing just one dude for a single race to 11.
But even if it were, is that really unfair compared to the race to 100?
The difference between race to 100 (28.6%) and race to 11 (42.6%) is just 14%.
In other words, you're increasing the length of the race by 9 times, just to give the better
player a 14% better chance of winning, when he's probably going to win anyway.
All those extra hours just to give the better player that slight 1-in-7 edge.
Now factor in the intangibles. Mood, momentum, jetlag, and the biggest one of all...
ROLLS. Those things, added together, probably have much more impact than race length,
in terms of whether the better player might get beat by a weaker one.
spot on creedo, and in addition I dont see any of the oher top players struggling with anything when they play? daz and mika are good examples before anyone starts because daz for sure maybe not mika didnt live is US when they were wolrd dominant. Reyes , orcullo, earl, archer, souquet, hohmann, ortmann all seemed to do well regardless of where the tournament is. bottom line svb is one of the top players in the world no doubt, but he cannot be in same breath as the others who have won a world championship or more. when he does he will join an elite group an get all respect he deserves.
But rolls tend to even out in a much longer race, and that's the biggest reason most guys will only gamble big money if the race is a long one.
Rolls, are in fact, the only reason I would ever be able to beat Shane in a race to 11. Now if I played him in a race to 100, I would never get enough rolls to win that match.
Now I actually hate races to 100. I think they're stupid and a waste of time. A lot of people think it evens out the rolls (true), and is a test of endurance (false). It's not a test of endurance, because there's never been (to my knowledge) a race to 100 completed in one session. It's usually over a 3 day period, and each player has a chance to rest after each session.
If you really want to play a long enough set to even the rolls, but short enough that it could be completed within a 24 hour period. Then play a race to 50/75 (win by 2).
you just proved mine and others points to some extent. If player A (Shane) is matched up against another player B that, in theory, he has only a 4% edge on, the difference is HUGE in switching from race to 11 to 100. Lets say Player B is Orcullo since that is about the best comparison here. Shane is a slight favorite, 4% is probably close in a 9 or 10 ball match. If that advantage holds true given the variance of rolls, table conditions, equipment set up, and outside factors (player moods, how they feel, confidence at the time, etc...) then Shane should win a race to 11 around 5.8 out of 10 times. Now change that to a race to 100 and Shane wins it 7.2 out of 10 times. That difference is HUGE.
Last time I checked no turneys are a race to 100 so it proves nothing ,, a dragster is set up to run a 1/4 mile if they race a stock car in 100 mile race they have no shot,,because thier not geared that way ,, same with turney players the mind set is to come out of the box ready to play
Shane has played many more races to 100 by far than any other player,, look what happend to him when Earl smoked him on the 10ft table,, why because he was out of his element;; but again its not even close to the playing conditions at turneys
where many factors constantly change including the players
The real fact is based on these findings its harder to win in a short race Turny,, does that not mean that you have to play that much better to win one ,,,you dont see many scrubs with world titles to thier name
1
Last edited:
I give up. Some people simply don't have the brain capacity to understand simple math. Further, they won't even do the necessary research even when given the terms to do the research on. How do you make it through every day life?
You also have to get that much luckier to win one, which is why the best player doesn't always win, and only one player has ever won back to back titles (World 9 Ball).
For the last 6 or 7 years, Shane has been at the top of the money list. So him not winning a World Title, has nothing to do with skill, but luck.
Don't bother. You're dealing with a tool that laughs in the face of science and statistics.
I do it by proving guys like you wrong everyday ,,, not that its any big feat
when they start raceing to 100 come on back with your stats, but in this coversation there meaningless ,,
1
Please explain how any player is to adjust to their opponent getting more rolls.
Lol, that is just one variance. Rolls do not last forever. In a longer race, the better player will usually outrun the rolls. Why do you think most gamblers play ahead sets? Because players getting rolls do not mean as much as they do In a standard race because they can be overcome.
Last edited:
That's exactly what most of us have been saying.
You must have missed the part where most here are arguing that the shorter races (especially those in world events) are full of variance.
So I'd like to know how a player is supposed to outrun variance, of any sort, in a short race format event?
I guessed you missed the part that I was agreeing with "most" of you. Please re read post #74 and let me know,where you got stumped.
Last edited:
Potts basicly has won 4 world 8 ball titles and the world juinors ,, The guy should probaly play the lottery being he is so lucky
I guess if a golf major was 5 weeks long Tiger would have won almost every event or Roger on the Tennis court,, maybe Payton would have 10 SuperBowl wins if they went by the regular season,,, ,,the best dont always win and thier are players who shine in the biggest moments better than others regardless of so called variances
thats why they play the games
1
I guess if a golf major was 5 weeks long Tiger would have won almost every event or Roger on the Tennis court,, maybe Payton would have 10 SuperBowl wins if they went by the regular season,,, ,,the best dont always win and thier are players who shine in the biggest moments better than others regardless of so called variances
thats why they play the games
1
Last edited: