The long race myth

Blue Jam said:
"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.
Click to expand...


Are you from WA. State? or perhaps Colorado?
 
Blue Jam said:
"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.
Click to expand...
Ummmmm no.
 
There is probably a point of diminishing returns where longer sessions begin to favor the player with the most stamina, who may or may not be the better player. But that really depends on how many sessions the match is broken up into.

But I am fairly confident that a tour with race 21 matches would produce fairly consistent winners. The World Snooker Championships features long races and there are far fewer surprises in that tournament than other events.
 
Blue Jam said:
"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.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO!! Not in the 50+ years I've been playing!
 
LeonD123 said:
A solid pro tennis player can beat Federer on a match, but will lose 95% of the time.

Length reduce variance.
Click to expand...

I dunno...i might agree, if you are talking a too 50 pro, maybe a top 100.

Top college or top local club pro? No way.. Federer prob her lose to those guys (barring broken leg or diarreah, in which cases he doesn't play anyway),

That's why pool is a a hack sport. And an awesome sport. It is not that hard.
 
I don't know what's going on with them other guys. I think you're on to something.

That explains why I keep losing them long sets. Every time I pay off that guy that's obviously not as good as me,even he says I'm a better player and I'm sure to win next time. He feels so bad he makes appointments with me to play him again.
 
gesan said:
I don't know what's going on with them other guys. I think you're on to something.

That explains why I keep losing them long sets. Every time I pay off that guy that's obviously not as good as me,even he says I'm a better player and I'm sure to win next time. He feels so bad he makes appointments with me to play him again.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a great guy....lol

Chuck Fields said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...
 
Blue Jam said:
"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.
Click to expand...
I’ll go with false. My best shot at beating a pro is a race to 1, and I want to win the lag. Every game that makes the set longer makes it less and less likely for me to win.

I also want the toughest conditions to make it a crap shoot: slow cloth, undulating greens, super tight pockets, throw in a windmill and two gophers...
 
Last edited:
Some players handle the pressure of shorter races better. The longer a race gets, the more likely that a "better" player can play him or herself in and get "in the zone" and ride any bad luck. So while I agree with everyone here who says that the OP is wrong, I thinks the stats will be skewed (a little, a tiny amount overall and probably insignificant with a large sample of players) by players who are mentally suited to shorter races.
 
Cornerman said:
I’ll go with false. My best shot at beating a pro is a race to 1, and I want to win the lag. Every game that makes the set longer makes it less and less likely for me to win.

I also want the toughest conditions to make it a crap shoot: slow cloth, undulating greens, super tight pockets, thrown in windmill a two gophers...
Click to expand...

Me too. I'd even take a race to 2 but then its already getting much tougher. In a long, long race there may well be a time when I get in the zone and put several racks on a pro - but that will be a blip - he or she will crush me overall.
 
The OP obviously isn't a pool player or has never gambled for long sessions.

I'll take the longer races any day. Short races are a crap shoot.
 
I call BS!! Short races are like playing a game of basketball where the first team to score 6 points wins! If my life depended on beating a world class player, the shorter the race, the better my odds. I would need some serious rolls, and some serious luck. longer races eliminate the luck and good/bad roll effect.

dave
 
Boy oh boy

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
 
I have never played a long race....but I won a lotta long sessions.
 
blue jam said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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

Troll.jpg
 
pt109 said:
I have never played a long race....but I won a lotta long sessions.
Click to expand...

I like long sessions. Fortunately, I have won nearly all the really long sessions I have played. Long sessions allow you to even out bad rolls or periods where you maybe haven't quite hit your "groove" yet. My stamina is quite good, even as old as I am now. I have no problem playing for 20, or so, hours straight, with no breaks (other than potty breaks).
 
iF I PLAY JACKPOT A RACE TO 30 I NEVER GET 10 GAMES
tHAT MAKES ME A 100 TO 1 DOG

HOWEVER IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ME 100 TO 1 i WILL RACE HIM TO 1

I ONCE BEAT VAN OVER IN A RACE TO 3,IN A LONGER RACE HE GAVE ME THE BREAK,THE 6 AND THE BALL IN HAND

RESPECTIVELY SPEAKING
THIS IS A STUPID IDEA,
THE LONG RACE TAKES THE LUCK OUT OF THE GAME


I ONCE BET $1000 WITH A CAR SALESMAN PLAYING GOLF
ON THE WAY TO THE COURSE HE LET OUT THAT HE WAS THE CITY CHAMPION


I INSISTED WE PLAY ONLY 9 HOLES, I KNEW I WAS DEAD IF I PLAYED 18,SURE ENOUGH I WON THE 9 HOLE BET

I ALSO INSISTED ON BETTING ALL HIS FRIENDS $10 TO $50 SIDE BETS TO DRAW A CROWD
WITH THE HOPE THAT HE WOULD FEEL THE PRESSURE

AT ANY RATE I KNEW A LONG GAME FAVORED THE BETTER PLAYER


I THINK ALL THE OTHER STUFF ABOUT LETTING DOWN IS BALONEY,MOST PEOPLE GET BETTER AND FREE STROKE IF THEY GET AHEAD
 
Blue Jam said:
"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.
Click to expand...

I have a better chance in a race to 1 than a race to 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top