The One Ball Into the Side Pocket? Really?

[Bobkitty]

Have you had a chance to look at the videos I posted links of?

Yes I did. What is the "3 ball rule"? I thought 3 balls had to hit the rails but it must be something different.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Yes I did. What is the "3 ball rule"? I thought 3 balls had to hit the rails but it must be something different.

At least three balls must each do at least one of two things: be pocketed or touch the kitchen.

By "touch the kitchen" I mean that edge (rather than the center) of the ball must reach the headstring.

If a ball is pocketed in a head pocket it counts as only one point towards the requirement even though it qualified twice.

 

[AtLarge]

If the 1 ball is on the spot, I try to make the cornerball and not make the 1ball - rather play for position to have a first shot after the break to make it in the corner where I break from. However, the break can't be too soft - in order to comply with the 3-point rule

If the 9 is on the spot, I try to make the 1-ball in the side and comply with the 3-point rule. On this break, there is also some room for trying to play position on the 2-ball, but the outcome can be very unpredictable

Good advice.

In the Mosconi Cup, an illegal-break rule (3-point rule) has not been used since 2012.

 

[AtLarge]

So.... the one ball was on the spot for the 2017 Mosconi Cup. Was hard to tell from the matches I watched. Still, breaking with the wing ball going into the corner makes sense.

Yes, it seemed like the wing ball was the primary target for most breakers. And it went in nearly two-thirds of the time.

 

[philly]

At least three balls must each do at least one of two things: be pocketed or touch the kitchen.

By "touch the kitchen" I mean that edge (rather than the center) of the ball must reach the headstring.

If a ball is pocketed in a head pocket it counts as only one point towards the requirement even though it qualified twice.

Can't say I soft break but I do not even come close to smashing them. Control of the cue ball is more important to me. A tight rack must be hit pretty softly to violate that rule.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Can't say I soft break but I do not even come close to smashing them. Control of the cue ball is more important to me. A tight rack must be hit pretty softly to violate that rule.

Mostly that's true but sometimes even with a hard break the balls will bounce off the side pockets funny or be hit by a ball coming back out of the kitchen and you only get one ball behind the line.

 

[spktur]

Why do the pros think that driving the One ball into the side pocket is the best they can do in 9 ball? Seems to me, the CB goes off to unknown territory, the one ball only goes in about 1/3rd of a time, the CB gets hooked by some off known table location.. Just amazing to me. I'm just an A player but isn't there a way to get the wing ball to go into the corner pocket and the one ball up near the opposite corner pocket from where we broke from. Surely, there is a spot where every table will pocket the wing ball into the corner time after time with a location between the 2X and 1Y spot and the side rail. Here is a video of me running a rack of nine ball. I have learned how to hit the rack where the wing ball goes in on my table and it depends on humidity. I hit the rack softly where the one ball is heading toward the corner pocket. If I hit it too hard, it will go up against the end rail so that is the judgement of how hard to hit the rack. I failed to keep the CB into the middle on this break but it's still usable.
I'm not even good but I can pocket the wing ball time after time into my corner pocket and sometimes I can continue, why don't the pros do this?
Remember; this is not about me (I suck) but why don't the pros break this way?

Do you think it might be because the one in the side is the only 'controllable' ball on the break shot. just look at the 2001 US Open finals when Corey Deuel took out Mika Immonen 11-0 by making the one ball and keeping it a half table game. They adjusted the rules to keep him fom doing it again

 

[smashmouth]

agree with op, it's weak sauce

breaking peaked when guys like wu and de luna were smashing the rack and parking whitey

Shaw might have an even better break game

all of the above have downshifted

personally I think they see it as taking too much practice time away from the rest of their game, especially when you consider a monster perfect break only gives you a minimal advantage, stats have proven this

template racks, tv lights and non familiar chinese cardboard tables can also lead you to stray from your "A" game and take a more conservative approach

break creativity is gone too, I remember Alcano in one world championship figuring out a backspin two rails back to centre break, thing of beauty, not to mention Corey's soft break revolution that transformed the frickin rules of the game....god damn hall of fame material right there imo

 

[AtLarge]

... a monster perfect break only gives you a minimal advantage, stats have proven this ...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Your use of the word "perfect" must be different from "successful." Perhaps you're just indicating that a break shot can be hit well and still turn out dry or fouled or with no good shot?

It's true that in some events it's close to an even split between the breaker winning the game and losing the game.

But on successful breaks -- broke legally (e.g., if a 3-point rule is in effect), made at least one ball, and did not foul -- the breaker wins considerably more often than he loses, regardless of game or table size or rules. So, in that sense, a perfect breaks gives the breaker a significant advantage.

 

[barrymuch90]

Bobjewit I watched your video and thought it was very inshightful.

And back to the op regardless what's racked where the pros will study the break and go with whatever they believe is working best at that time one that particular table. A rule of thumb though if you see the pros playing the one in the side(especially say Shane) it's because he's making the 1 in the side like easily 2/3 more like 3/4 or better of the time and maybe came up dry or saw his opponent or players before him coming up dry and the cut break playing the one in the side is the most skillful break as far as being able to basically shoot the one in the side as opposed to break and "hope". Clearly the break is going to be pertainant to many variables and the best breakers will choose whichever break they feel will give them the best possible chance at getting a shot after the break but more importantly pocketing at least one ball or complying with whichever break rule is in effect.

So my moral is there are many many reasons why you witnessed the pros breaking the way they were and it was a calculated decision on their part. Basically they believed they were giving themselves the best chance at keeping control of the table and that's the stripped down answer.

 

[hang-the-9]

Earl vs Efren Hong Kong Challenge, 1 on the spot, both were playing the 1 in the side. Both had multiple racks strung. If someone can run 3-4-5-6 racks, I do not wonder why they do what they do. I do wonder why a lot of D and C players do what they do though LOL