i personally favor the mover in general. put somebody like an in stroke artie (who posts here from time to time) up against a player like say pagulayan and it would literally just be a total slaughter..... shooter's, in general, would just get too frustrated. all conjecture of course.
The age old 1P debate - The shooter v/s The moover
- Thread starter Cannonball55
- Start date
I prefer to mover as long as he has at least reasonable skills. I've seen many a guy who could never make a ball or do any damage once he out moved his opponent. Now the advantage goes to the shooter. He just needs to leave him toughish while he fires at something.
Nick
Nick
For fun, people like to debate questions like this, but if you want the true answer, then you have to get more specific, because there is no black or white answer to mover vs. shooter - there's too much variance in each individual One Pocket Players moving and shooting skills - the answer is...it's a matter of degree - for examples....
Let's say 2 guys are going to play, and Player A , on a scale of 1-10 is a 10 as a mover and an 8.5 as a shooter --- Player B is an 8 as a mover and a 9 as a shooter.....Well, here the mover is the favorite because his combined score of moving and shooting abilities is significantly higher.
Next two guys....Player C is a 9 as a mover and a 7 as a shooter --- Player D is an 8 as a mover and a 9.5 as a shooter.....Here, I make the shooter the favorite because his combined score of moving and shooting abilities is significantly higher.
- Ghost
Let's say 2 guys are going to play, and Player A , on a scale of 1-10 is a 10 as a mover and an 8.5 as a shooter --- Player B is an 8 as a mover and a 9 as a shooter.....Well, here the mover is the favorite because his combined score of moving and shooting abilities is significantly higher.
Next two guys....Player C is a 9 as a mover and a 7 as a shooter --- Player D is an 8 as a mover and a 9.5 as a shooter.....Here, I make the shooter the favorite because his combined score of moving and shooting abilities is significantly higher.
- Ghost
I agree and so do......
Nick Varner, Cliff Joyner, and I'm sure all of the best one pocket players in the country. I've heard the two mentioned say it specifically.nyjoe14.1 said:
1 Pocket Ghost said:
Ok, after thinking about this some more, I'm going to contradict myself a little...
....Here's an exacting way that you CAN debate mover vs. shooter > use these 2 guys for the question >Player A, on a scale of 1-10 is a 10 as a mover and a 9 as a shooter --- Player B is just the reverse of that, a 10 as a shooter and a 9 as a mover.........Now, who's the favorite here - I don't know, it's a tough question/close call.
You have to be able to shoot, able to move, and wise enough to know which one you should be doing on any given inning. Anyone who favors their shooting over their moving, or who favors their moving over their shooting, will eventually lose to the player who does not favor either style, and on each turn makes the correct choice as to which one the particular situation calls for.
Just like in poker, you could ask the question about which style wins more in the long run: fearless aggressive players like Gus Hansen, or tight and methodical players like Minh Ly. Well, both those two players win a lot of money, and so you could argue for either one. But if their first instict is always towards on or the other of those gears, they're not playing optimal poker. The better player will be very ready to re-evaluate and change gears whenever the situation calls for it, and will be disciplined about playing with the right style for the table situation, without relying on a comfort zone at one end of the spectrum or the other.
-Andrew
Just like in poker, you could ask the question about which style wins more in the long run: fearless aggressive players like Gus Hansen, or tight and methodical players like Minh Ly. Well, both those two players win a lot of money, and so you could argue for either one. But if their first instict is always towards on or the other of those gears, they're not playing optimal poker. The better player will be very ready to re-evaluate and change gears whenever the situation calls for it, and will be disciplined about playing with the right style for the table situation, without relying on a comfort zone at one end of the spectrum or the other.
-Andrew
It's hard to disagree with all the valid comments on both sides.
I believe I've learned at least one good lesson from watching, arguably the best 1P player the game will ever see.
Even if it is not apparant why, Efren's game is superior to other "top" 1P players in that he has the ability to draw you into a series of shots that you, as his opponent, believe you are shooting because it is the "right" shot. The unaware player, in my opinion does not realize that Efren is actually predicting what you are going to shoot, sometimes many shots in advance.
Inevitably, in one, two or however many shots later, you end up providing that chink in the armor that Efren will leverage.
My whole point is to suggest that by mixing up your game between moving and shooting, with the goal of not playing a predictable game, you will go a long way to take away that advantage from a strong strategic player.
Bernie P.
I believe I've learned at least one good lesson from watching, arguably the best 1P player the game will ever see.
Even if it is not apparant why, Efren's game is superior to other "top" 1P players in that he has the ability to draw you into a series of shots that you, as his opponent, believe you are shooting because it is the "right" shot. The unaware player, in my opinion does not realize that Efren is actually predicting what you are going to shoot, sometimes many shots in advance.
Inevitably, in one, two or however many shots later, you end up providing that chink in the armor that Efren will leverage.
My whole point is to suggest that by mixing up your game between moving and shooting, with the goal of not playing a predictable game, you will go a long way to take away that advantage from a strong strategic player.
Bernie P.
I remember about 6 or 7 years ago when I REALLY did not know the game, I was asked to play some friendly sets with one of the old-timers at a now-closed poolroom. During the second set he made a comment that he had to change the way he played because I play the game "different".Andrew Manning said:
We were playing races to 3 for the table time, which was decent practice, and I won the first set 3-0. I was a much better shooter than him, and his movement was poor by 1P standards, so I was left with several table-length bank shots, most of which I made. Plus, when I had a shot at my hole with the possibility of nudging a ball or two to get another shot I would go for it. This guy, and his buddies, all played "one ball at a time." In my opinion, they were overly cautious players. I am not saying be reckless and fast and loose, but I thought they NEVER took any risk, even when they had clear opportunities to run 4 or 5 balls and then play safe. So yeah, he had to play "different" too. My point is that a shooter will beat a mover if he can't move well...LOL. And I suppose the converse is true. One of the posters said it best, there is no clear cut answer.
One man's safe can be another man's bread-and-butter two rail bank shot! Ultimately, know your opponent, as suggested by Sun Tzu.
