The sad state of winner break, big table pool.

Drop The Rock

Drop The Rock

1652nd on AZ Money List
Silver Member
If I have to watch any more alternate break bar table pool I'm gonna lose my mind. It is not entertaining to me at all. The little table does require some finesse but I'm sorry watch two guys pocket speed most every shot if the stay in line is worse than watching pain dry.

Some of the best pool highlights ever come from big table tournaments and matches. Please for the love of God bring back the 9 ft table. If we are consider what separates a lot of the pros these days to be running rack after rack, then can't we watch somebody run a 6 pack one rack after the other rather than wait for his opponent to run out.

On the one hand I understand the concept of alternate break. It forces players to win on their serve and if they don't, there is a good chance they will lose the race. Meanwhile 3 games up in alternate break is very difficult to recover from even if you win on your serve every rack afterwards. It takes a lot of the drama of comebacks and strings of 9 in a row. Alternate break is talked about as being the equalizer, but essentially long winner break races do the same thing. I play terrible but some combos, rolls and few good shots in an alternate break race on a bar table and I can go Hill Hill with a shortstop who could absolutely destroy me. That is what rotation pool is all about, running the **** out and never letting your opponent get to the table. I want to get better at this game and I don't believe in handicapping good players or trying to give an extra chance/edge to bad players.

8 ball on a bar table is another story because things get always get funny navigating clusters and safeties. So keep 8 ball there but can be play on some tables that require stroke please?!
 
8 ball on any table for the pros is pretty much a joke. They just break out the clusters like it was nothing.

10 ball on a bar table is actually quite challenging- to get a good shot after the break is not guaranteed and after there are tie ups that need to be broken up as well. I doubt that the break and run % is that much higher if at all on bar table vs. a 9 footer for 10 ball.

I agree,however, with your overall point. Most pro tournaments should be on a 9 or 10 footer. It is a disturbing trend that so many tourneys are on the bar table now.
 
I'm just not a fan of alternate break period. I personally like seeing when a player is down 3 and runs a 4 or 5 pack. It's cool knowing one bad shot could be their last chance at the table. Once someone is down 2 or 3 on an alternate break you just can't get that same momentum swing.
 
Completely agree, running out sets are too rare to be concerned about them. Even then, just make matches races to 11 or 15. I just don't find alternating breaks interesting, the most exciting thing that can happen is someone holds their break. For someone to make a comeback, it's reliant on the other player falling to pieces.
 
Last edited:
And nothing feel so good as running the set out from hole.
I still remember those games even after 15 years. I gave 1 rack handicap to pretty strong opponent. Race to seven 200€. He plays great and go quickly 6-0 lead and then shoot one shot carelessly and he is forced to play safety. I kick ball in and ran out set from there.. He did lose more sets after that and was so pissed he did not talk to me afterwards for years..
You can't do those kind hero play with alternative break and for me all about what I love on pool is stringing racks.. It just feels so good.
 
I agree 100% I refuse to watch matches played on a barbox regardless of who's playing. Pros playing on anything less than a 9fter is a joke.
 
Here's a thought: Why don't today's top players always play tournaments on ten foot tables? With all the "advancements" in pool shouldn't this be the case? Greenleaf, Babe Cranfield, Irving Crane, Lassiter, etc. had no problem with it, so wouldn't that show once and for all how much skills have advanced? Not to mention Mosconi who like the rest started on ten footers. Today there seems to be way too much talk about checking the rack, alternating/winner breaks, etc. The cushions and cloth along with everything else is so much better today. I'd love to be able to see Harold Worst competing today also........
 
Until this "new" age of pool seemingly brought on by the Europeans, this game that we all love had a premise, that when you stepped to the table & your inning began, it remained your inning until you missed, fouled or played safe, period.

This brought a certain dynamic to the game that you had to apply pressure & control the table while at the table. Also it tested your mental mettle when you were in the chair. Can you maintain your composure? When you get an opportunity after having someone put a package on you & you've been on ice do you have the heart to step up and fire back or do you go on tilt and fade?

Alternate break removes this dynamic from the game & brings it into the "everybody gets a trophy" realm.

Now bar boxes, that's a rant for a different time. I'll just say it's a good name for them, they belong in league bars with league players, not in elite level pool.
 
Pro pool just doesn't get it. The standard of play has never been higher, and yet pool has not come to the realization that the conditions must be toughened give the current crop of pros a sufficiently rigid test of their skills.

Contrastingly, pro golf gets it. When the level of play rose in golf, the courses got longer. The pros used to play on 6800 yard courses, today 7,200 yards is more typical. The putting greens have more undulations than the greens of yesteryear, too.

Breaking from anywhere in the kitchen, long ago deemed too easy for top pros when playing nine ball, was shockingly used in both the 2014 Mosconi and also at the just-completed China Open. At each event, the pockets were loose, too. Dry breaks were few.

Loose pockets and break from the kitchen make alternate break absolutely necessary, but when will pro pool realize that such conditions do not befit the best players in the world? Tighten the pockets and mandate the use of the break box and winner's break is fine, whether it is nine ball or ten ball.
 
jwh1942 said:
Here's a thought: Why don't today's top players always play tournaments on ten foot tables? With all the "advancements" in pool shouldn't this be the case? Greenleaf, Babe Cranfield, Irving Crane, Lassiter, etc. had no problem with it, so wouldn't that show once and for all how much skills have advanced? Not to mention Mosconi who like the rest started on ten footers. Today there seems to be way too much talk about checking the rack, alternating/winner breaks, etc. The cushions and cloth along with everything else is so much better today. I'd love to be able to see Harold Worst competing today also........
Click to expand...

Those players also played on slow nap cloth.

You needed a stroke. That's why I'm against the idea that the skill of today's players is any better than the past players. Equipment is just much more user friendly.

Case in point. Ernesto Dominguez making a run at the 2014 US Open, which is always a deep field. Ernesto is indeed an all time great player, but a 60 year old probably doesn't crack the top ten of a major 9 ball (a young man's game) tournament playing on older conditions. And Ernesto is a part time player! And Reyes and Earl are still very competitive despite being far past their prime.
 
sjm said:
Pro pool just doesn't get it. The standard of play has never been higher, and yet pool has not come to the realization that the conditions must be toughened give the current crop of pros a sufficiently rigid test of their skills.

Contrastingly, pro golf gets it. When the level of play rose in golf, the courses got longer. The pros used to play on 6800 yard courses, today 7,200 yards is more typical. The putting greens have more undulations than the greens of yesteryear, too.

Breaking from anywhere in the kitchen, long ago deemed too easy for top pros when playing nine ball, was shockingly used in both the 2014 Mosconi and also at the just-completed China Open. At each event, the pockets were loose, too. Dry breaks were few.

Loose pockets and break from the kitchen make alternate break absolutely necessary, but when will pro pool realize that such conditions do not befit the best players in the world? Tighten the pockets and mandate the use of the break box and winner's break is fine, whether it is nine ball or ten ball.
Click to expand...

I agree with that assessment, although I would like to see this extend to the game played as well. With no mainstream coverage of the pool, it can be a blessing in disguise as it is an opportunity to repackage the game entirely.

If we want to continue playing rotation games, I would like to see American Rotation or any form of Rotation become the primary game and I don't understand why our professionals aren't playing the most challenging game available. I understand that 9 ball allows for quick racks, but to maintain interest it's not the individual games that need to move quickly but the pace of play.

Alternatively, I really like Chinese 8 Ball. It's a new spin on an old familiar game that doesn't feel too gimicky. I liked that it seemed to have it's own identity separate from snooker or orthodox pool games. But they need to play that as winner breaks not alternate breaks. The table looks sufficiently tough that I doubt anyone will be running 11 racks, at least not often.
 
Cameron Smith said:
I agree with that assessment, although I would like to see this extend to the game played as well. With no mainstream coverage of the pool, it can be a blessing in disguise as it is an opportunity to repackage the game entirely.

If we want to continue playing rotation games, I would like to see American Rotation or any form of Rotation become the primary game and I don't understand why our professionals aren't playing the most challenging game available. I understand that 9 ball allows for quick racks, but to maintain interest it's not the individual games that need to move quickly but the pace of play.

Alternatively, I really like Chinese 8 Ball. It's a new spin on an old familiar game that doesn't feel too gimicky. I liked that it seemed to have it's own identity separate from snooker or orthodox pool games. But they need to play that as winner breaks not alternate breaks. The table looks sufficiently tough that I doubt anyone will be running 11 racks, at least not often.
Click to expand...

Problem is the heated tables and magic racking. In the matches I've watched, I didn't see a lot clusters after the break. I also think (per AtLarge's statistical breakdown) that the break-and-run % wasn't that dramatically different from 8 ball played on standard tables. I could be wrong,
 
midnightpulp said:
Problem is the heated tables and magic racking. In the matches I've watched, I didn't see a lot clusters after the break. I also think (per AtLarge's statistical breakdown) that the break-and-run % wasn't that dramatically different from 8 ball played on standard tables. I could be wrong,
Click to expand...

Went back and double checked. You are correct, there was a 1% difference in the break and run percentage. Perhaps it would be better without the magic rack and heater? Still like the game though.
 
Here we go:

AtLarge said:
Here are some aggregate break statistics from several of the matches of the 2015 World Chinese 8-Ball Masters event, played this week in Qinhuangdao, China with free streaming.

This was a 24-player invitational event, with 12 players from China and 12 from elsewhere. Stage 1 was round-robin play in 4 groups of 6 (3 from China, 3 from elsewhere). The top 2 from each group formed an 8-player modified-single-elimination bracket competing for the event title and positions 2 through 8. The 3rd- and 4th-place players from each group formed a similar second 8-player bracket, competing for positions 9 through 16 (different prize money for each spot).

The conditions for this call-shot event included: 9-foot table with fairly tight pockets and rounded pocket jaws, Andy green cloth, Super Aramith Pro balls, measles cue ball, jump cues allowed, referee racks using a template, alternate breaks, foul on all balls, table open after the break, ball in hand behind the line after a foul on the break, making an 8-ball on the break does not count as a win, races to 13 subject to a 130-minute match clock, 45-second time clock (one extension allowed per game) with losing player at halftime having the option to reduce it to 30 seconds, and an illegal break unless at least 3 balls are pocketed or reach the head string.

These stats are for 4 full matches and the tail end of 3 other matches, as follows:


Mon., Jan. 5 (in China)
  • • Gareth Potts def. Wang Yun 13-12 (stats collected for last 3 games only)

Tues., Jan. 6
  • • Earl Strickland d. Stephen Hendry 13-10 (last 9 games only)

Wed., Jan. 7
  • • Chen Qiang d. Daryl Peach 13-10 (last 7 games only)
  • • Chris Melling d. Yang Fan 13-6

Thurs., Jan. 8
  • • Yang Fan d. Gareth Potts 13-7
  • • Gareth Potts d. Wang Peng 13-10 (3rd and 4th places)
  • • Yang Fan d. Zheng Yubo 13-9 (finals)

​


Overall results -- The breaker made at least one ball and did not foul 70% of the time (72 of 103), won 66% of the games (68 of 103), and broke and ran 49% of the games (50 of 103).

Here's a more detailed breakdown of the 103 games.

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:
  • • Breaker won the game: 54 (52% of the 103 games)
  • • Breaker lost the game: 18 (17%)

Breaker fouled on the break:
  • • Breaker won the game: 3 (3%)
  • • Breaker lost the game: 3 (3%)

Breaker broke dry (without fouling):
  • • Breaker won the game: 11 (11%)
  • • Breaker lost the game: 14 (14%)

Therefore, whereas the breaker won 66% (68) of all 103 games,
  • • He won 75% (54 of 72) of the games in which he made at least one ball on the break and did not foul.
  • • He won 50% (3 of 6) of the games in which he fouled on the break.
  • • He won 44% (11 of 25) of the games in which he broke dry but did not foul.
  • • He won 45% (14 of 31) of the games in which he either fouled on the break or broke dry without fouling.

Break-and-run games: The 50 break-and-run games represented 49% of all 103 games, 74% of the 68 games won by the breaker, and 69% of the 72 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

With alternating breaks, B&R "packages" of the normal type are not possible. But we can still look at the breaks of a given player and see how many he ran on his own successive breaks, and we can call these "alternate-break packages." The 50 break-and-run games consisted of 2 alternate-break 7-packs (by Melling and Yang Fan), 1 alternate-break 5-pack (by Zheng), 4 alternate-break 3-packs, 4 alternate-break 2-packs, and 11 singles. Yang Fan's 7-pack was preceded by a 3-pack at the end of his previous match, so he essentially had an alternate-break 10-pack.

8-balls on the break: The 8-ball was made on the break twice (1.9% of all 103 breaks), but did not count as a win.
Click to expand...

So about a 50% break-and-run percentage.

In the IPT, Efren played 73 matches and made 130 break and runs. Let's say he averaged 11 games per match (meaning he won or lost every match 9 to 2, so it's a conservative estimate) for a total of 803 games played. That translates into a b'n'r percentage of about 16%.

And with the easier safety play in Chinese 8 ball, it doesn't look like the harder game, statistically speaking, than regular 8 ball, despite the tighter pockets.

Hopefully Atlarge can more in depth. Maybe the players were just hot during that particular tourney he examined. But I think the heated tables + magic rack gives much easier spreads after the break, even if the pockets are smaller.
 
I always heard pro players and very talented amateur players don't like a winner break format because its possible after all of their expenses they might sit in the chair watching their opponent break and run the match especially on a bar table.

Any truth to it?

If they don't like alternate the break or winner breaks why don't they lag for break winner of the lag in a race to 7 gets the first three breaks then turns it over to his opponent for his or her three breaks, after that they lag for break and finish the match winner breaks.

Something like that anyway
 
here's what the pro game should be.

9ft tables.
race to 3.
9-ball, never have to call anything, magic rack, break from anywhere
flip a coin.
run a 3-pack.
on to the next guy.

perfectly fair for all parties involved. if you can run a 3-pack and accurately flip coins (or lag), you can be the next world champion!
 
Thats why its done...,

accustatsfan said:
I always heard pro players and very talented amateur players don't like a winner break format because its possible after all of their expenses they might sit in the chair watching their opponent break and run the match especially on a bar table.
Click to expand...

Alternate break is the correct way to play any rotation game. Nobody wants to fly into town/country and play Shan and Ko back to back and go home with out shooting once in the game or shooting after the score is 7-0 going to 9.

Winner break gambling, of course, winner break when I paid $1500 to get to a tournament and I don't shoot, not so much.
 
King T said:
Alternate break is the correct way to play any rotation game. Nobody wants to fly into town/country and play Shan and Ko back to back and go home with out shooting once in the game or shooting after the score is 7-0 going to 9.

Winner break gambling, of course, winner break when I paid $1500 to get to a tournament and I don't shoot, not so much.
Click to expand...

Don't blame you those of us watching just want entertainment, but those of you in the arena should get their vote its a lot of money to spend especially if its your money.

I don't have favorites I just want to see a skillful match
 
Thats my only point...,

accustatsfan said:
Don't blame you those of us watching just want entertainment, but those of you in the arena should get their vote its a lot of money to spend especially if its your money.

I don't have favorites I just want to see a skillful match
Click to expand...

If all the tournaments were round-robin I would care what the break format was because there is no two and out, but in a typical single bracket tournament its to easy to go home quick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top