The long race myth

[Blue Jam]

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.

Yes that is a fair interpretation.

 

[Blue Jam]

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.

If the better player is far enough ahead that after their game deteriorates they remain the favourite over a player with better stamina in a long race, then these players are not closely matched enough and the result is foregone conclusion as you describe.

 

[Black-Balled]

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.

Direct.

One must acknowledge that the primary determinant of 'who is going to win?' is the skill level of the players.

Length of competition has far less bearing on the matter.

 

[PoolBum]

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.

Yes that is a fair interpretation.

Ok, so a couple of questions:

1. Are you assuming that stamina is not part of what makes a good player a good player?

2. Why would a longer race be more likely to adversely affect the better player's game than the lesser player's game?

 

[JB Cases]

"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."

How do you figure that stamina is a "very minor" aspect of pool ability? Pool is a game of dexterity and concentration and is often contested with players having to play many matches in a single day. So it seems logical that being able to sustain a high level of concentration and dexterity so as to be able to use all of one's physical skills and knowledge at close to peak performance is a valuable trait. In fact, it is one of the major reasons that pool players often use drugs and other stimulants.

But beyond that aspect, if two players are equally fit but one is better than the other one then the better player has the advantage in races of any length but that advantage is less when the races get shorter.

The easiest way to think of this is unforced errors. The stronger player simply has less unforced errors. So while a weaker player may well be able to play five games perfectly he is unlikely to be able to play ten games perfectly. The stronger player is likley to be able to play more streaks of games without error than the weaker player. Thus your contention is simply not true. Shorter sets provide more opportunity for weaker players to play at a higher level in short bursts. Shorter sets will tend to have more opportunity for variance where a few rolls can have a bigger impact on the results. Shorter sets also more opportunity for the better player to play below his average for a number of games with little room to recover.

A long race allows for the better player to assess their opponent's strengths and weaknesses. The better player can settle down and relax while maintaining control and focus.

I regularly play races to 15 and much prefer them to races to 5,7, or 9. Quite often I have found myself behind through silly mistakes and been able to catch up and win the set when I start to really focus.

So based on my experiences I am fully convinced that your assertion is incorrect. In pool, long races favor the stronger player. And the "stronger" player is the one who has all of the characteristics that make them stronger including more stamina.

 

[Swighey]

I regularly play races to 15 and much prefer them to races to 5,7, or 9. Quite often I have found myself behind through silly mistakes and been able to catch up and win the set when I start to really focus.

I like races in that ball park too. Likewise, I am prone to making silly mistakes in the shorter races. I know players who hate the shorter races with a vengeance and make every excuse under the sun when they lose in them - largely blaming the short race format for being unfair to the better player. But playing cold and not making mistakes is also a skill. Yes, luck plays a bigger role the shorter the race and you can play almost perfectly and still lose - but the short race format should be given more respect as it tests all players of all abilities - just in a different way than the longer race.

 

[jackpot]

oh yeah

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.

Well did any of them swim through a river of $hit ? What were their names ?
jack

 

[JB Cases]

With the advent of Fargo Ratings the disparity in skill levels is now highly quantifiable. I have personally been playing and keeping track of my results against Fargo Rated opponents and find that it tracks pretty accurately along expectations.

So with that in mind the OP is entirely incorrect. Even a 20 point fargo rating difference makes a bigger difference as the sets get longer as can been seen in the match odds in the attached three screenshots.

 

[BRussell]

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.

lol I love how this guy makes a mind-numbingly incorrect post, not as something to think about or asking for opinions, but as absolute fact:

Myth: A better player will win in a longer race.

Not true. Longer races actually favours the weaker player.

... and then insults people as “crackpots” who point out that his completely wrong post is completely wrong.

 

[jasonlaus]

With the advent of Fargo Ratings the disparity in skill levels is now highly quantifiable. I have personally been playing and keeping track of my results against Fargo Rated opponents and find that it tracks pretty accurately along expectations.

So with that in mind the OP is entirely incorrect. Even a 20 point fargo rating difference makes a bigger difference as the sets get longer as can been seen in the match odds in the attached three screenshots.

Where were you 6 pages ago? Nicely done!
Jason

 

[Bob Jewett]

... but the short race format should be given more respect as it tests all players of all abilities - just in a different way than the longer race.

Well, no, I don't think so. A short race is a less accurate determiner of who is the better player than a longer race. It may be a good format for other reasons and purposes, but it is not a better winnower of chaff.

As for the OP's point, the fatigue factor would have to reduce the ability of the nominally stronger player to below the ability of the weaker player for it to turn the tide. If the stronger player still has an advantage, but just not as much of an advantage, his lead and chance of winning will continue to increase (on average).

 

[Bob Jewett]

... So with that in mind the OP is entirely incorrect. Even a 20 point fargo rating difference makes a bigger difference as the sets get longer as can been seen in the match odds in the attached three screenshots.

I think you missed the OP's point, John, which seems to be that as fatigue sets in the stronger player is somehow going to be reduced to mush while the weaker player justs keeps plugging along at his 680 rate. He is saying that there is something at work that simple averages do not tell us.

He hasn't presented any data to support this, so at this point he is just flapping his fingers on his keyboard, but there might be some such effect. No one has presented data to the contrary.

 

[jackpot]

The answer is so easy to prove

The OP is right. All you have to do is watch the documentary movie
The Hustler. The first time Eddie Felson (a good friend of mine) played
Minnesota Fats he was clearly the best player, but they played a long
time and weaker player Minnesota Fats won. He then played that guy
at his house some weird game, and that guy was much better than
Eddie but they also played a long time and the weaker player Eddie
won. Now if that's not enough, he plays Minnesota Fats again, but
this time they play a short time and the best player EDDIE WINS.
For crying out loud, how much more proof do you need . you people
that think the OP is wrong should watch this documentary, and I
suspect you'll be singing a different tune.
jack

 

[deanoc]

There are a few exceptions
say a young fella plays Billy Incardone
a race to 100 might tire Billy out these days

I am only able to play about 7 games without tiring
so race to 4 is best for me,plus I like the added pressure
playing short races

I might prefer races to 3,but only so I could win two bets

that is,if i were still playing

actually when i was younger,i preferred to play by the game

i always thought it gave me an edge because i knew when to quit
or thought i did,it always hurts to go off by playing after everyone but you knows
you are in a trap

this alone enabled me to take a shot at the money

however if I am playing with a fella that tends to quit,which
I prefer not to play at all,but if I play I
make him freeze up more than he is comfortable with

i like the flexibility of raising the bet also

not that my ideas are unique,but since i no longer play
I don't mind sharing

but as a rule the longer the set,the more likely the guy with
the best of the bet will win,not necessarily the best player

 

[Celophanewrap]

This is really beginning to remind me of one of the “Ram Shot” threads.
What ever happened to that guy?
No chance that “Blue Jam” is actually “Ram Shot” guy, is there?

 

[Swighey]

Well, no, I don't think so. A short race is a less accurate determiner of who is the better player than a longer race. It may be a good format for other reasons and purposes, but it is not a better winnower of chaff.

As for the OP's point, the fatigue factor would have to reduce the ability of the nominally stronger player to below the ability of the weaker player for it to turn the tide. If the stronger player still has an advantage, but just not as much of an advantage, his lead and chance of winning will continue to increase (on average).

I think the OP is wrong. The OP has clarified the post and said it's about players who are of similar but different levels of ability. I still think the OP is wrong. I'm just making the point that some players are better at shorter races than others and that shorter races should be given more respect. I understand where the OP is coming from even though I think the OP is wrong.

If Fargo ratings (or whatever ratings) suggest players with x rating should beat players with y rating 80-20 in a specified longer race but 60-40 in a specified shorter race but a player with y rating is coming out consistently a little above 40% in the latter (or a x is coming out consistently a little below 60%) then we can all of a sudden ignore the data that we have been using all the time. Well we can't if we just go by raw data - but if that player is also displaying skills (or lack of) that contribute to winning short races more or less often than expected then we have a match and that player is most likely better suited to either short or long races.

Yes, long races are better for determining who is the better player (that's obvious) in general. But they are not the only factor. You can get an equally large sample of data with a greater number of shorter races. If "stamina" suddenly becomes more important than sample size at the expense of other qualitative factors then the argument becomes rather weak (I.e long races being the only determining factor of who is the better player).

 

[Black-Balled]

This is really beginning to remind me of one of the “Ram Shot” threads.
What ever happened to that guy?
No chance that “Blue Jam” is actually “Ram Shot” guy, is there?

If not the same, they definitely attended the same school.

 

[hang-the-9]

"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."

If your premise is that the better player will fall asleep before the weaker player in a long race, and thus will lose, that would be true, if the better player's game dropped more than the weaker players. But that is a very long stretch. It's like saying a worse driver can win the Indy 500 if all the tires of the better drivers popped or they crashed. Or that you can outrun Bolt, because in a long race he may break a leg and you may not.

What you need to say is that if a match is long enough, then some things aside from pure skill may have an affect on the outcome, if the players are close to even in the first place. A great 80yr old player can lose to a very good 60 yr player simply because the 80 yr old will just not be able to play longer, in general, if you let them play long enough.

The way your statement is, it's very wrong. If you add in a bunch of additional factors, it may be correct in some cases. What you wrote and what is the case are not the same. I can say in a long race a Corvette will lose to a Prius because the Prius will just be able to run longer. Does not mean it's a faster car or that it is an even match. If you know the Vette has a range of 300 miles, you just need to say the race will be 310 and no gas fill-ups allowed. But i won't say "in a long race the Prius is favored" because in a normal race you can have stops for fuel and changing tires.

 

[KissedOut]

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.

I would make a comment about this - but it is really necessary?

 

[hang-the-9]

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".

Hold on, you do know that you were the one that started this thread right? Thus were the first mouth opener.

You may want to re-edit your thread and put in all the extra stipulations you have, such as the players being closely matched, and the better player not being able to play as long without getting tired. A lot of "IFs" there. IF the players are close to same speed, IF the better player can't play for long, IF the weaker player can, IF the weaker player can overcome the lead the better player may or may not have, IF they can't take a break or IF it's not a several day match.