The long race myth

[westcoast]

I think with a big disparity of talent it is unbelievably obvious that the weaker player has a better chance of winning than a long race. However the OP may have a point when it comes to closely matched players. The pressure is on right away in a short race. Some guys handle it better. Appleton comes to mind for example.

I guess it all depends on what you define as better. It is actually more nuanced than it seems on the surface

 

[TATE]

"A better player will win in a longer race"

Not true. Longer races actually favours the weaker player.

,,,the stronger potter is more likely to prevail

I agree that stronger pot results in weaker posts. But as far as pool, take your money to the Action Room and let's see how you do. We have seen many long races where the weaker player gets left in the dust and just falls further behind.

 

[trob]

Thats just nonsense and anyone with common sense knows better lol but thanks for posting I guess :thumbup:

"A better player will win in a longer race"

Not true. Longer races actually favours the weaker player.

In longer races (i.e. race to 100), a lower level of concentration is sustained as nobody can operate at maximum output for extended periods (even 100m sprinters are only at maximum effort for about 10m, according to Usain Bolt). Short races (i.e. race to 5-10) requires peak effort in all aspects; shot making and strategy. In a long race the stronger potter is more likely to prevail whereas in a shorter race the better all around player will turn down a 60-80% pot for a 95% safe. The added pressure of the increased cost of errors heightens the need to make better decisions.

Discipline, strategy and execution are more valuable than in a needlessly long race where simply making fewer potting errors in a lower quality mach will suffice, so the better player, the player better able to achieve a higher level, is more likely to succeed in a shorter race.

 

[Masayoshi]

Well, if you make it a race to a billion, I bet I can beat anyone older than me.

 

[marek]

"A better player will win in a longer race"

Not true. Longer races actually favours the weaker player.

In longer races (i.e. race to 100), a lower level of concentration is sustained as nobody can operate at maximum output for extended periods (even 100m sprinters are only at maximum effort for about 10m, according to Usain Bolt). Short races (i.e. race to 5-10) requires peak effort in all aspects; shot making and strategy. In a long race the stronger potter is more likely to prevail whereas in a shorter race the better all around player will turn down a 60-80% pot for a 95% safe. The added pressure of the increased cost of errors heightens the need to make better decisions.

Discipline, strategy and execution are more valuable than in a needlessly long race where simply making fewer potting errors in a lower quality mach will suffice, so the better player, the player better able to achieve a higher level, is more likely to succeed in a shorter race.

Reading your post I think it is pretty much save to say you have never played a long set against a really strong opponent Good luck matching up with a one :grin:

 

[KissedOut]

"A better player will win in a longer race"

Not true. Longer races actually favours the weaker player.

In longer races (i.e. race to 100), a lower level of concentration is sustained as nobody can operate at maximum output for extended periods (even 100m sprinters are only at maximum effort for about 10m, according to Usain Bolt). Short races (i.e. race to 5-10) requires peak effort in all aspects; shot making and strategy. In a long race the stronger potter is more likely to prevail whereas in a shorter race the better all around player will turn down a 60-80% pot for a 95% safe. The added pressure of the increased cost of errors heightens the need to make better decisions.

Discipline, strategy and execution are more valuable than in a needlessly long race where simply making fewer potting errors in a lower quality mach will suffice, so the better player, the player better able to achieve a higher level, is more likely to succeed in a shorter race.

Spoken like someone with no knowledge of the mega-matches played in the Mosconi era or how the structure of the 3-cushion World Championship throughout the 60s virtually assured that the best player, Ceulemans, would win.

 

[BRussell]

I have a theory about this thread.

I just looked at the original poster's previous posts, and he seems to like to get into Europe vs. US fights. My theory is that this thread is about the Mosconi Cup, which has short races. He's trying to make the point that the fact that Europe beats the US in the short races is even MORE evidence that Europeans are better.

Look Blue Jam, we Americans get it. Europe is better at pool, and always beats the Americans at the Mosconi Cup. There's no reason to come up with even more (in this case, false) reasons that is the case.

 

[KissedOut]

The OP is right, and all of you just haven't been around real pool sharks
enough to know anything about how it really works. My uncle Harry, aka
Ham Bone Harry was a pool shark and partners with the best pool shark
that ever lived, none other than Minnesota Fats. He told me many times
that real pool sharks get worse the longer they play, because they start
thinking about all the shots they have ever missed, and it starts to worry
them and drag them down. To the point that even a beginner will beat them
if they keep playing. Uncle Ham Bone told me about the time Minnesota
Fats was playing some lady, winning every game. Her boy friend kept paying
and saying "play Fat Ass another game honey". They kept playing for hours
and hours. Even though she did not start shooting any better Fats got worse
and worse, losing, and losing until she won all their money and they had
to hitch hike back to Minnesota. So there you have it someone that knows
what they are talking about.
jack

Anyone who thinks that Fats was the best at anything besides running his mouth doesn't know what he is talking about and everything he says should be viewed with extreme skepticism.

The inimitable Danny McGoorty once said that decent pool players would swim through a river of $hit for a chance to play Fats for money.

 

[Celophanewrap]

"A better player will win in a longer race"

Not true. Longer races actually favours the weaker player.

In longer races (i.e. race to 100), a lower level of concentration is sustained as nobody can operate at maximum output for extended periods (even 100m sprinters are only at maximum effort for about 10m, according to Usain Bolt). Short races (i.e. race to 5-10) requires peak effort in all aspects; shot making and strategy. In a long race the stronger potter is more likely to prevail whereas in a shorter race the better all around player will turn down a 60-80% pot for a 95% safe. The added pressure of the increased cost of errors heightens the need to make better decisions.

Discipline, strategy and execution are more valuable than in a needlessly long race where simply making fewer potting errors in a lower quality mach will suffice, so the better player, the player better able to achieve a higher level, is more likely to succeed in a shorter race.

I see our OP hasn't posted since starting this thread. I don't think he expected so much opposition.
I would also disagree and I can confidently state that I don't know anyone in Colorado that believes this.

But I'm curious - to the OP, what is it that makes you believe this?

 

[Blue Jam]

Wow, you people are crackpots if you think what I wrote means that a bar banger will topple a world beater in if the set is long enough. Get a grip.

Obviously if there is a large gap in ability, the length of race is largely irrelevant (as is gambling, but it seems impossible for a thread to omit peoples bragging regardless of topic).

When two players are closely matched, a shorter race gives the advantage to the better player, the player most able to reach a higher level of play. A longer race gives the advantage to whoever has the best stamina, which is a very minor aspect of pool ability.

How long can you play before you make a mistake through lack of application / concentration?

 

[JohnnyOzone]

"A better player will win in a longer race"

Not true. Longer races actually favours the weaker player.

In longer races (i.e. race to 100), a lower level of concentration is sustained as nobody can operate at maximum output for extended periods (even 100m sprinters are only at maximum effort for about 10m, according to Usain Bolt). Short races (i.e. race to 5-10) requires peak effort in all aspects; shot making and strategy. In a long race the stronger potter is more likely to prevail whereas in a shorter race the better all around player will turn down a 60-80% pot for a 95% safe. The added pressure of the increased cost of errors heightens the need to make better decisions.

Discipline, strategy and execution are more valuable than in a needlessly long race where simply making fewer potting errors in a lower quality mach will suffice, so the better player, the player better able to achieve a higher level, is more likely to succeed in a shorter race.

Wow. Do you create man-made global warming computer models for a living? Get cause & effect totally mixed up backwards, twist logic and ignore data so as to reach your pre-conceived conclusions?

You might want to familiarize yourself with the old adage "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while"

 

[Blue Jam]

Wow. Do you create man-made global warming computer models for a living? Get cause & effect totally mixed up backwards, twist logic and ignore data so as to reach your pre-conceived conclusions?

You might want to familiarize yourself with the old adage "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while"

No. Do you?

You might want to familiarise yourself with the old adage, "it's better to keep quiet and have people think you a fool, than open your mouth and prove them right".

If you have anything constructive to add to the thread, I'd be glad to read it, because your contribution thus far is woefully poor.

 

[Bob Jewett]

W ... the best stamina, which is a very minor aspect of pool ability. ...

Of course if you consider play in typical tournaments, this is false.

I'll ask again: Are you just stirring the pot?

 

[Blue Jam]

Of course if you consider play in typical tournaments, this is false.

I'll ask again: Are you just stirring the pot?

I don't think I said it applies to typical tournaments?

 

[deanoc]

Let the Europeans play the Filipinos Then I think they will not be so cocky

 

[Blue Jam]

Let the Europeans play the Filipinos Then I think they will not be so cocky

What do nationalities have to do with it?

The current world champion is a Filipino.

 

[PoolBum]

"A better player will win in a longer race"

Not true. Longer races actually favours the weaker player.

In longer races (i.e. race to 100), a lower level of concentration is sustained as nobody can operate at maximum output for extended periods (even 100m sprinters are only at maximum effort for about 10m, according to Usain Bolt). Short races (i.e. race to 5-10) requires peak effort in all aspects; shot making and strategy. In a long race the stronger potter is more likely to prevail whereas in a shorter race the better all around player will turn down a 60-80% pot for a 95% safe. The added pressure of the increased cost of errors heightens the need to make better decisions.

Discipline, strategy and execution are more valuable than in a needlessly long race where simply making fewer potting errors in a lower quality mach will suffice, so the better player, the player better able to achieve a higher level, is more likely to succeed in a shorter race.

EDIT:
Short version for those not able consider the merits of a proposition they don't immediately understand or agree with - I'm not saying a bar banger will topple a world beater in if the set is long enough. When two players are closely matched, a shorter race gives the advantage to the better player, the player most able to reach a higher level of play. A longer race gives the advantage to whoever has the best stamina, which is a very minor aspect of pool ability."

Is this a fair representation of your argument?

The longer the race, the more stamina plays a role in the outcome.
The more stamina plays a role in the outcome, the less the advantage of the better player becomes.
Therefore, the longer the race the more it is to the advantage of the lesser player.

 

[Swighey]

When two players are closely matched, a shorter race gives the advantage to the better player, the player most able to reach a higher level of play. A longer race gives the advantage to whoever has the best stamina, which is a very minor aspect of pool ability.

How long can you play before you make a mistake through lack of application / concentration?

It is true that some players are better at short races than other players.

 

[Swighey]

Of course if you consider play in typical tournaments, this is false.

It's certainly something to consider for organizers of pro pool tournaments. How long should a race be so that it is long enough for ample opportunity for the better all round player to ride bad luck - while being short enough for there to pressure on that same player to perform from the gun. Regardless of the OP's phrasing or intention, there is a good point to be made.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Wow, you people are crackpots if you think what I wrote means that a bar banger will topple a world beater in if the set is long enough. Get a grip.

Obviously if there is a large gap in ability, the length of race is largely irrelevant (as is gambling, but it seems impossible for a thread to omit peoples bragging regardless of topic).

When two players are closely matched, a shorter race gives the advantage to the better player, the player most able to reach a higher level of play. A longer race gives the advantage to whoever has the best stamina, which is a very minor aspect of pool ability.

How long can you play before you make a mistake through lack of application / concentration?

This thread is so stupid it is just not worth responding to, but I just can't resist. Fact - the better player always has the advantage regardless of the length of the race. The better player's chances of winning any set increases the longer the set/race is.

In an extremely long race or ahead set, as the difference in games won by the better player continues to mount, it's really not going to matter whether the better player may, out of complacency, lose a little focus. However, the weaker player is far more likely to get discouraged and desperate as his deficit mounts, and is much more likely to have their game deteriorate until the set is mercifully completed.