The long race myth

[BRussell]

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 matches, 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.

Right, but "If one player is slightly better but the slightly worse player has more stamina then the slightly worse player is slightly favored in long races" just doesn't troll as well as "The long races myth" does.

 

[Tooler]

Derrrrrrrrrrrrr

DiiiiiiiiaDerrrrr

 

[Bavafongoul]

The Old Days.....That's Why Those Guys Are True Legends.

I guess everyone could, and often do, argue about which game of pocket billiards is the hardest to play or the best test of a player's pool skills.
Personally, I think 14.1 embodies just about everything for a test of one's skills, presuming that the competitive play was of sufficient duration.

Nowadays most of us think of a tournament bracket and a field that narrows down to the last two standing and the field is not handicapped.
I'm sure everyone will have a favorite game and what the determining number of games to be played in order to decide whom thw winner is.....right?

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the original format of the U. S. Open Championship in straight pool was the best test of a player's skills and a behemoth too.
The format was the last two players in the field would play a series of individual games of 150 points in a race to 2500 points.

Now that's the ballsy way to play because momentum is going to change and no one gets hot and stays that way for that many games,
They played two matches a day.....one in the AM and one in the PM. The matches were held in different cities across the USA, usually in large settings.

Say what you will about which game of pool is the hardest, or the best test of skills, or what's the best way to measure who's the best player.
The one thing you can be absolutely certain of is that "luck"....that dreaded thing that seems to come and go....can be a factor sometimes.

Well, go play a race to 2500 points in straight pool & I guarantee that luck does not affect or contribute in any way to determining the final outcome, i.e., winner.


Matt B.

 

[Alex Kanapilly]

"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."

I haven't read the responses yet but I think you're wrong. You make an assumption that the better player is somehow working harder mentally in order to play better (that's my interpretation of what you wrote). I would say that not true. Better players are able to play at a higher level and maintain it, that's a big part of what makes them "better". I'm also going to assume that actual match statistics will prove your theory incorrect.

 

[Alex Kanapilly]

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?

What makes a player better than someone else is the rate at which they make errors (in a general sense). The better player makes less errors per hour, for discussion's sake, than the weaker player. You are assuming that the better player will somehow start making more errors per hour than they normally would due to fatigue. It's just a bad assumption to think that the better player will begin to make errors at a higher rate than the weaker player when he/she gets tired, it doesn't prove out in real life.

I think you're trying to say that in order to play at their best, the better players are concentrating more or putting more mental effort into it so that's why their performance will degrade more than compared to someone who plays a notch or two below them, but again, i think think that's just a bad assumption. They play at that high level but put in close to the same amount of "mental effort" than the lesser player, they just do it better than most.

I just re-read what I wrote and I don't think I'm articulating what I'm trying to say very well, maybe someone who understands the point I'm trying to make can better explain it.

 

[$TAKE HOR$E]

How about this, a best of 11 races to 10...similar to other sports. Player A wins 6 sets and is 1 game winner overall, after 209 total games. Thats about as close as it can get to the races to 100 in total game count. After that Player A and B play a race to 100 and player B wins 100-99 so theyre back to even. The tie breaker is a 10 ahead set and player B wins.

Player A - 10 Player B - 9
Player A - 9 Player B - 10
Player A - 10 Player B - 9
Player A - 9 Player B - 10
Player A - 10 Player B - 9
Player A - 9 Player B - 10
Player A - 10 Player B - 9
Player A - 9 Player B - 10
Player A - 10 Player B - 9
Player A - 9 Player B - 10
Player A - 10 Player B - 9

Player A - 99 Player B - 100

Player B - 10 ahead after ??? hours

Is any of that even relative to the topic at hand...now my head hurts :thud:

 

[rbcraig]

The best way to beat a better player s in a single game or very short race. The better player is more consistent, that favors him in long races.

 

[9andout]

You are kidding yourself. Let a real power player zone in his break and run a bunch of packages and you have zero chance to catch up.

Your best chance vs. a stronger opponent is race to one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly..........

 

[dbgordie]

..................

View attachment 486723

Too Funny!! LMAO!!

 

[Straightpool_99]

I kind of think the whole "long race" thing is rather silly.

Yes, it's true that over time, the better player will usually prevail, but as we all know, pool isn't really a game where your ability stays static. You can have great days and not so great days. Beating someone in a race to 100 over 3 days, may mean you were the better player, but next time the score may reverse. The long race does kind of mess with your mind a bit, and no doubt the psychology of the player plays a bigger role in these. Some players can wear you down with their playing style and antics, more than they actually outplay you physically. I used to play a lot of long races with regular playing partners, and let me tell you: They didn't all go in the favour of the stronger player. Sometimes someone just got on a roll and won tons of games in a row, and it became impossible for the other to catch up. Some people just give up when they are behind by 20 in a race to 100. Doesn't mean their raw shooting ability is bad, but some people don't love to grind.

A long race is a test of stamina, psyche and also ability. Nobody can keep their consentration at peak levels for that long, so usually it's also a test of physical conditioning. The player who is maybe a little chubby, not well trained, may find him or herself at a disadvantage from that alone, as he or she may not be able to keep their game up to it's normal base level over a long period of time.

I'm really not all that interested in those aspects of the game. I like to watch people play at the peak of their ability, not watching their B-games over 12-14 hours. A race to 15 is more than adequate to let rolls even out, IMO. I don't want to watch Usain Bolt jog! I want to see him sprint!

 

[dbgordie]

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.

You should look up your quotes first.

 

[dbgordie]

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.

you might want to apply this to you

 

[pro]

For anybody interested in the mathematics of the situation,here are some figures.
Suppose I am playing somebody just slighter better than me, and I estimate that I have a 45% chance of beating this person in any one game. If I play a match of one game I obviously have a 45% chance of winning. If the match is a race to 7, I have only a 36% chance of winning, a little over a third . For a race to 13, my chance of winning drops to 31% , and for a race to 100, it drops drastically , to only 8%, less than one chance in 10.