The smaller pockets are helping the weak players, its very deep and people don't see it.

maha said:
betting your ass on something doesn't mean you are guaranteed to win. it means you have way the best of the bet.

ill bet on just one game with that bet. or each game whatever. and i am a huge favorite over it in a set.

what you wont bet on has nothing to do with the accuracy of my post. just your perception of what you would bet on and that is a personal choice.. i will bet on anything anywhere for most any amount i believe i have an advantage on the bet. and i am very good at that and some here call that being a nit.
  • :)
Click to expand...
Any hill-hill match, regardless of the race, makes the winner of that match close to 50-50 that he shot the least number of balls. Even the Shane vs. Gorst match (which was 120-116 in favor of Shane), are you willing to bet BIG that Shane pocketed more balls than Gorst? Despite it being a race to 120, it's a coin flip that Shane pocketed more balls than Fedor. It would actually be very interesting to find out, if someone is bored enough.
 
tomatoshooter said:
I guess luck is the best way to describe it. It seems like the top pros miss rarely enough that it's like rolling dice. You have a one in 36 chance of rolling snake eyes. If I roll snake eyes soon after you are back in the game. If it takes a while, and then you roll them quickly, you might be done.
Click to expand...
The more players miss, the more luck is involved. As the pocket tightens below 4", then the chances both players miss, even routine shots, increases. And again, as misses increase, so does the luck factor.
 
jsp said:
Any hill-hill match, regardless of the race, makes the winner of that match close to 50-50 that he shot the least number of balls. Even the Shane vs. Gorst match (which was 120-116 in favor of Shane), are you willing to bet BIG that Shane pocketed more balls than Gorst? Despite it being a race to 120, it's a coin flip that Shane pocketed more balls than Fedor. It would actually be very interesting to find out, if someone is bored enough.
Click to expand...
Balls Pocketed:
Van Boening -- 176 on the break, 1,053 not on the break, 1,229 in total​
Gorst -- 161 on the break, 970 not on the break, 1,131 in total​
[Includes balls pocketed on breaking fouls (5 by Van Boening and 6 by Gorst) and on fouls after the break and balls not called after the break (4 by Van Boening and 9 by Gorst).]​
​

Stats -- Shane Van Boening vs. Fedor Gorst 10-Ball Race to 120, August 2024

Here are some results from the Shane Van Boening vs. Fedor Gorst 10-ball match played at Railyard Billiards & Sports Pub in Louisville, KY on August 15-17, 2024. Pay-per-view streaming was provided by Xpool. Van Boening won the match 120 - 116, going from a 10-game deficit after Game 206 to the...
forums.azbilliards.com

But in the famous Reyes/Strickland race to 120 in 1996, Reyes won 120-117, but Strickland pocketed more balls.
 
AtLarge said:
Balls Pocketed:
Van Boening -- 176 on the break, 1,053 not on the break, 1,229 in total​
Gorst -- 161 on the break, 970 not on the break, 1,131 in total​
[Includes balls pocketed on breaking fouls (5 by Van Boening and 6 by Gorst) and on fouls after the break and balls not called after the break (4 by Van Boening and 9 by Gorst).]​
​

Stats -- Shane Van Boening vs. Fedor Gorst 10-Ball Race to 120, August 2024

Here are some results from the Shane Van Boening vs. Fedor Gorst 10-ball match played at Railyard Billiards & Sports Pub in Louisville, KY on August 15-17, 2024. Pay-per-view streaming was provided by Xpool. Van Boening won the match 120 - 116, going from a 10-game deficit after Game 206 to the...
forums.azbilliards.com

But in the famous Reyes/Strickland race to 120 in 1996, Reyes won 120-117, but Strickland pocketed more balls.
Click to expand...
I knew I could count on you! You're an incredible asset to this community.
 
jsp said:
The more players miss, the more luck is involved. As the pocket tightens below 4", then the chances both players miss, even routine shots, increases. And again, as misses increase, so does the luck factor.
Click to expand...
WTF???? the better player is still going to miss LESS thus will win MORE games. the luck factor 'might' come into play more at lower skill levels but at hi-level its rarely the winning factor.
 
garczar said:
WTF???? the better player is still going to miss LESS thus will win MORE games. the luck factor 'might' come into play more at lower skill levels but at hi-level its rarely the winning factor.
Click to expand...
You don't think "hi-level" players miss shots? Look at how many missed 9-balls there were in the European Open. The FB video clips were littered with them...by top players (cough cough...Filler).
 
jsp said:
The more players miss, the more luck is involved. As the pocket tightens below 4", then the chances both players miss, even routine shots, increases. And again, as misses increase, so does the luck factor.
Click to expand...
Shane and Fedor missed once in every 4 games and 4.1 games, respectively. Your theory might hold water with bangers, but not for top players. If you check the stats for WNT events, it’s much of the same.
 
rexus31 said:
Shane and Fedor missed once in every 4 games and 4.1 games, respectively. Your theory might hold water with bangers, but not for top players. If you check the stats for WNT events, it’s much of the same.
Click to expand...
According to AtLarge, that match was played with 4.25" pockets. Let's see how much they miss on 3.875" pockets. This entire thread is all about the what happens with smaller pockets.
 
jsp said:
According to AtLarge, that match was played with 4.25" pockets. Let's see how much they miss on 3.875" pockets. This entire thread is all about the what happens with smaller pockets.
Click to expand...
4.25” pockets are still tight. Will top players miss more often on 4” (or sub) pockets? Maybe, but not by much. Shane missed one ball in 6 racks on my 4.125” pockets. Everyone continues to look at this through the lense of an amateur. The top players in the world are scary good and consistent. They are not phased by tight equipment like amateurs are.
 
rexus31 said:
The results are not exclusive to tight pockets. The break rules and event format are more responsible for the parity, IMO.
Click to expand...

also increased participation must be added to that equation. much more asian players with high fargos are playing now than 2-3 years ago because of the covid stuff. even if the likes of raga, chang and chua haven't won a major, they knock out big names along the way and open up the fields in doing so.

another factor is of course improvement. krause may be a mainstay in years to come, we don't know that.

other factors are the increased travel and how it affects players differently in different events, and illness related to travel and big fields. snooker players don't travel near as much, have smaller fields, but still the "trending" players can be completely under the ice because of colds or food poisoning etc.

there are just too many factors, and too deep fields, for any player to "dominate".
 
jsp said:
According to AtLarge, that match was played with 4.25" pockets. Let's see how much they miss on 3.875" pockets. This entire thread is all about the what happens with smaller pockets.
Click to expand...
3.8 pockets are nothing but a gaff table. completely ruins any flow the game needs to be both fun to watch or play. doesn't matter at the top level, the best player is going to win. only chance a lower speed player would have is if the sets were really short. hell, i could beat a few monsters if it was only race to five. short sets of 9ball is like throwing dice.
 
AtLarge said:
Balls Pocketed:
Van Boening -- 176 on the break, 1,053 not on the break, 1,229 in total​
Gorst -- 161 on the break, 970 not on the break, 1,131 in total​
[Includes balls pocketed on breaking fouls (5 by Van Boening and 6 by Gorst) and on fouls after the break and balls not called after the break (4 by Van Boening and 9 by Gorst).]​
​

Stats -- Shane Van Boening vs. Fedor Gorst 10-Ball Race to 120, August 2024

Here are some results from the Shane Van Boening vs. Fedor Gorst 10-ball match played at Railyard Billiards & Sports Pub in Louisville, KY on August 15-17, 2024. Pay-per-view streaming was provided by Xpool. Van Boening won the match 120 - 116, going from a 10-game deficit after Game 206 to the...
forums.azbilliards.com

But in the famous Reyes/Strickland race to 120 in 1996, Reyes won 120-117, but Strickland pocketed more balls.
Click to expand...
So Gorst won a game for every 9.75 balls pocketed and Shane won a game for every 10.24 balls pocketed. I guess that 0.01 ball was the one Gorst sent off the table. I'm surprised the difference in balls pocketed is that great. I don't know what that really means from a performance or strategy perspective.

Yeah, in a long race where the margin of victory is 2.5% difference in score, or 1.25% of the total games played, it's certainly much more likely for the loser to pocket more balls.

If Shane and Fedor kept their 10.24 and 9.75 balls per game won and pocketed the same number of balls (1170) Fedor would win 120-114.

The shortest race that Fedor could pocket an equal number of balls and still win would be a race to 21 that he wins 21-20.

At least those are the numbers I'm coming up with. I know the math is correct but I may be misunderstanding the best way to apply it to these sorts of things. Because of the stricter rules in 10 ball, there could be more variation in 9 ball. I still see losing a match with more balls pocketed as being relatively uncommon at the higher level of the sport.
 
A physics teacher I had once said, “if you’re having a difficult time with a concept, take it to an extreme value and it usually becomes more clear.”

Have Filler play a drunk biker broad who can hardly make a ball… and put her on a 3” pocket table. I promise you that chick isn’t making a ball. Yes, the scenario is laughable, but it demonstrates the fallacy of the argument.
 
rexus31 said:
The current SVB (840) vs. Francesco Candela (747) US Open match YouTube should put this to bed. Candela (the underdog) has missed many more shots than Shane and is currently down 8-2. Lesser players do not have an advantage on tight equipment.
Click to expand...

I picked up on this match from this thread and no doubt didn't see every shot even once I started watching. I can report I saw one ball jawed. It was by Candela. A ball jawed in a corner is a wonderful thing because barring a row of blocking balls there is almost no place on the table that can't be reached by hitting a ball jawed in a corner.

The score went from 8-2 to 9-6 as I watched. Shane didn't turn a hair. I think he played more safeties than Candela about 3-1, maybe a few less. Thing is Shane didn't try to force anything and I am almost certain Candela pocketed more balls down the stretch. Shane was content to let him pocket balls and for Candela to be the one getting in trouble.

One thing I noticed. Shane points at where he wants the cue ball. However, he is pointing at where he wants the cue ball several shots ahead. The shots in between are just to reach that goal.

Hu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top