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

I think there is some validity to your hypothesis, but you are missing something. The top guys you are referring to, will adjust. Do you think they won’t figure out how to win?
 
jsp said:
I think what many are forgetting is that we're talking about the game of 9-ball. It is very possible to win a match while pocketing the least amount of total balls and/or spending the fewest overall time at the table.

I think there is an argument that a tougher table could actually increase the luck factor...simply because tighter pockets will result in more misses for both players. And when you do miss, does your opponent have an easy shot (especially concerning the last 2-3 balls)? That is where luck creeps in.

Yes...luck goes both ways, but if you're the superior player you want the luck factor to approach zero. As the superior player, luck on your side can help you beat an inferior player by an even greater of margin than normal. But luck NOT on your side can make the inferior player that much closer to being able to beat you.
Click to expand...
This guy also gets it....at least I saw 3 people who can see this issue deep enough, with that I am happy.

I'll convince the rest of you when we have 20 tournaments played on this tight pockets, I hope you see it more, note that second paragraph which I highlighted from jsp, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

and to @Bob Jewett, with all due respect I don't think if you make bucket pockets that majority of people will put packs in, ONLY THE CRUSADER top5 players will dominate and ill tell you why....these guys excel at everything, break, position, stroke, power strokes, fundamental, they also have sneaky things that they could do legally, like studying which break will work on which table and etc. So giving the standard length pocket or if you want as per your example a bucket POCKETS, these guys will dominate PLUS with momentum even dominate further....you said that Joe Mooch will run packs and dominate too? to this I say no....the non-crusader player will not dominate simply because they don't got everything covered, at one area maybe the break or fundamental? maybe if they stroke hard on the cueball to do a power stroke they'll twist their arm? missing balls by a MILE. I know for fact cause I've seen it multiple times, these guys will f up at some point, causing the crusader player to run away with the whole game/set.
 
Jimmorrison said:
I think there is some validity to your hypothesis, but you are missing something. The top guys you are referring to, will adjust. Do you think they won’t figure out how to win?
Click to expand...
They will never adjust making pockets like this, its unplayable....you gave them big disadvantage meanwhile the weaker pro's nothing changed to them except for the fact that they rely on the misses and LEAVES of their opponents, and will runout when LAYOUTS are easy which is again relying on the pool gods for leaves & layouts, on a short race if the weaker pro's gets this 5 times, its done deal.
 
smoochie said:
Mickey Krause? who is that? its the first time ever I've seen that name or that guy.s face...ever in my life, and I've been following and watching pool since the 80s.

Okay, and months ago on similar condition I saw this guy won a major tournament, again who is he? I don't know.

View attachment 772545

You'll never see him again, neither of them....and more to come in the future when more tournaments are played in these small pockets you'll see new names. I am sure some of you know these guys but I am speaking generally in the big picture they are unknown, probably known locally by people but that's what I am meaning.

We will lose sport domination, there will be no one dominating pool which is a necessity of any sport in the world to thrive. We will never have a Roger Federer, a Nadal, a Ronnie O'Sullivan, a Tigers Woods, a Messi, a Djokovic, a Mohammed Ali....

In the 90s we had domination which was beautiful, we a top Earl Strickland versus Efren Reyes domination with few others in different eras like Mike Sigel, Buddy Hall etc. This will fade with these new pockets.

Any sport require domination, look at tennis, golf, boxing, football, any sport you could name you'll find 3-4 dominating names and it pulls more fans into the sport. meanwhile we're with small pockets in this sport you'll see new name and a new face every new major tournament if they're played on these conditions.

I'm here hoping that people see results and statistics, then try to think outside of the box as to HOW a smaller pockets could help/assist a guy with lesser skill to have a chance of winning, I know I said i will explain next post, but I waited....again ill elaborate and explain to you in my next post, it is clear as day to me and I can't believe people don't see it.

Good bye pool domination, we'll have new player win every single time, even if Chua won he's a good player but where is our 2-3 names who will dominate the sport? We don't have, and probably some of you may think "Oh its because we got so many good players" and no that's just wrong, its not the reason....we got 3-4 people who are BETTER THAN ALL and I could name them, but the only way for them to shine is to go back to the old equipment, default length pockets...otherwise they're doomed and will be relying so much more on luck than skill. In todays condition they need so much luck to overcome weaker pro's than them "By weaker, i don't mean they're weak, they're still pro's but they are weaker than those 3-4 dominant players". yet the dominant players will struggle and need luck to beat them.

I gave few clues, just for you think deeply about it.
Click to expand...
Well thought out post. I get your point but personally I like when some no name underdog comes in and beats the piss out of well known pros. It gives me hope. It also lets you see different play styles and just how good the players of a region are. It's exciting, my pool playing buddies and I get interested when there's a new player playing at a very high level.

Right now we have a dozen or two well known pros that everyone knows. I see how good they are but if they want a closed circuit where they can dominate for years... they need to make it invitational only.

We could do pool tournaments just like many sports but we don't. Every tom dick and harry can compete. Wait... isn't that the best part of pool? Anyone can do it? Pool players are actually strong on equality. If Joe Schmoe from Timbuktu can drop his $500 entry into the pot and beat up on the pros, I see that as a major plus.
 
You got it right in post 123 Smoochie. Leveling the playing field by making conditions unplayable is not the way to get it done.
 
If a pro who dominates can't adjust to different conditions, did they really dominate, or was the equipment too easy back then?
 
smoochie said:
Think of it like this alright.

The weaker PRO (Not bad player he runs out but I'm talking about the non top 20 players, these guys are good enough but not as good as Fedor/SVB/Jushua etc):

These guys will miss shots on big pockets due to fundemental or whatever, as well will miss shots on smaller pockets.

The TOP crusader players (TOP 10 or TOP 5, the likes of Efren/Earl in the 90s, and the likes of Fedor/SVB/Jushua NOW)

These guys will run packs on big pockets, if they get momentum they destroy.... however in smaller pockets they will miss shots similarly than the weaker PRO.

Now, I ask you who's got the advantage moving to smaller pockets? Please think hard about this....because here's the point I'm trying to get to you

If weak pro's miss on smaller pockets and TOP crusader pro's miss on smaller pockets now we're at the game of "WHAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THE MISS" and lets not go to the 2way shot because you and I both know that pro's have the mindset of running out. Now as I said if both miss on smaller pockets, and we're at the hand of POOL GODS due the question I keep asking "Where the balls will land after the miss" if the weaker player gets the good end of the story here, in a race to 9 and they get 3-4 games due to this, THATS IT, the game is done. your Crusader PRO player the likes of SVB will not win simply put, he literally lost to a weaker pro player due to these smaller pockets.

Look guys, the next time you watch a tournament on these smaller pockets and when a Crusader PRO misses or a Weaker PRO misses, dont think about the miss (as most of you do), LOOK AT THE CUEBALL AND OBJECT BALL and say "Smoochie said lets look what happens next" because thats the most chaotic part of pool and people don't realize it, if most of these stories helped the weaker pro then he'll win.....sometimes it lands safe, sometimes in the pocket jaw, sometimes a long difficult shot which can result in a help of the opposite player because then the long shot will be executed badly and missed but right after this you gona have to ask again "WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE MISS" until one lucky guy gets it easy inside of a pocket just Chua got on the 9ball against SVB.

Literally saw a match where both players kept missing and all its in my head is that "Oh whoever will get the final easy roll will win" and my thinking was correct, at the end after couple of misses Chua got the easy nine ball into the side pocket with a stop shot, is that skill? No, its just pool god decided this.

Listen you can argue all you want about "why didnt he play safe if its hard" and etc, but these crusader pro's can make shots, but not always on these pockets which will result in the infamous question I kept bringing you "What will happen after the miss, am I gona park the ball easy to my opponent by luck or is it gona be safe" this is crazy that you guys dont see this.

In fact most of you have lived this while playing pool in the poolhall, most of you missed tons of shots and never realize that the most important thing is WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE MISS, the thing about this is most of you will see it when it happens against you....but never feel bad or gutted when it happens FOR YOU...meanwhile I myself see the complete picture, for me and against me.

So going back to the original default pockets 4.5 inch or 5 inch, this will happen yes, but MUUUUCH LESS....and the CRUSADER Pro's will run the normal pro's over, thats the whole point.....then we have dominance the likes of which we seen with Earl in the 90s and Efren the 95's and start of 2000, also the likes of which we seen with the almighty Mike Sigel.......

In fact if you brought back Earl in his prime, and Efren in his prime....they won't dominate, they literally will be a victim of "Hey my opponent miss, what will happen after ths miss.....or the other way around, HEY I MISSED, i hope it gets safe"

its a big problem guys.
Click to expand...
You're wrong! Just stop
 
smoochie said:
This guy also gets it....at least I saw 3 people who can see this issue deep enough, with that I am happy.

I'll convince the rest of you when we have 20 tournaments played on this tight pockets, I hope you see it more, note that second paragraph which I highlighted from jsp, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

and to @Bob Jewett, with all due respect I don't think if you make bucket pockets that majority of people will put packs in, ONLY THE CRUSADER top5 players will dominate and ill tell you why....these guys excel at everything, break, position, stroke, power strokes, fundamental, they also have sneaky things that they could do legally, like studying which break will work on which table and etc. So giving the standard length pocket or if you want as per your example a bucket POCKETS, these guys will dominate PLUS with momentum even dominate further....you said that Joe Mooch will run packs and dominate too? to this I say no....the non-crusader player will not dominate simply because they don't got everything covered, at one area maybe the break or fundamental? maybe if they stroke hard on the cueball to do a power stroke they'll twist their arm? missing balls by a MILE. I know for fact cause I've seen it multiple times, these guys will f up at some point, causing the crusader player to run away with the whole game/set.
Click to expand...
No, there's just 3 other people who are just as ignorant as you when it comes to pool
 
smoochie said:
They will never adjust making pockets like this, its unplayable....you gave them big disadvantage meanwhile the weaker pro's nothing changed to them except for the fact that they rely on the misses and LEAVES of their opponents, and will runout when LAYOUTS are easy which is again relying on the pool gods for leaves & layouts, on a short race if the weaker pro's gets this 5 times, its done deal.
Click to expand...
And if I make the 9 on the break 5 times it's done. If, if, if. Jesus chr8st.

Somehow the best are going to play worse and the lesser player is going to play the same.

You sound like a 15 year old dreaming about winning the US Open while never missing a ball and winning every lag. GROW UP!!!
 
Bob Jewett said:
I think you want to look at all of the wins/losses, not just B&Rs. Does moving to a tighter table increase the likelihood that the weaker player will win?
Click to expand...
I have to feel like more turns at the table has to favour the better player. It seems as though the games that have the most consistency in its winners are snooker, 3 cushion and one pocket which consequently also tend to have more back and forth.
 
Looking specifically at the 4” pockets, I don’t have exhaustive data on all of the matches but in terms of winners we‘ve been getting mostly the expected faces winning. Shaw, Kaci, Gorst, SVB, Filler etc. If anything it seems like many of format changes has narrowed the winners pool.

What is curious is that in our two events on 3.9-3.8” pockets we’ve had two surprise winners. But you can’t rule out impact of novel and uncomfortable equipment. That size plays much different than even 4” in my experience and unless you set up a practice table with those specs, it’s tough to prepare for that. If all events were tuned those specs you’d probably see some normalcy resume in terms of match outcomes as players got accustomed to it.
 
Cameron Smith said:
Looking specifically at the 4” pockets, I don’t have exhaustive data on all of the matches but in terms of winners we‘ve been getting mostly the expected faces winning. Shaw, Kaci, Gorst, SVB, Filler etc. If anything it seems like many of format changes has narrowed the winners pool.

What is curious is that in our two events on 3.9-3.8” pockets we’ve had two surprise winners. But you can’t rule out impact of novel and uncomfortable equipment. That size plays much different than even 4” in my experience and unless you set up a practice table with those specs, it’s tough to prepare for that. If all events were tuned those specs you’d probably see some normalcy resume in terms of match outcomes as players got accustomed to it.
Click to expand...
Pockets that tight turn pool into a pure 'gaff' game. Unless you're a TOP pro all you can play is boring 'cinch' pool where all you're trying to do is make the ball. Takes he flow/creativity out of the game. Even on 4" Diamonds the style of play, imo, is restrictive and boring to watch at times.
 
Long as it doesn't turn into schnookuh, tight pockets is the future. I think the smoochie effect is mostly lighting and the real issue is incompetence during the transition. Also, much as I admire the hyper guns - see my admiration lol? They aren't a universal constant. From beginner on through the whole system, the operative function is
SKILL.

Yeah yeah, there's this, that, and the other thing, veteran crap to learn blah blah, but the pool remains the same and it's still mostly dog show. If the kids can take it up a magnitude, then TS on the field for blowing their turn.
 
Yup. Only the weak won in 2023. Gimme a break.

WNT Majors:

World Pool Championship - Francisco Sanchez Ruiz
Premier League Pool - Francisco Sanchez Ruiz
World Pool Masters: Ko Pin Yi
UK Open Eklent Kaci
Spanish Open - Dang Jin Hu
World Cup of Pool - Team Philippines (James Aranas, Johann Chua)
European Open - David Alcaide
US Open - Ko Ping Chung
Hanoi Open - Jayson Shaw

WNT Ranking Events:

Screenshot 2024-08-12 at 5.22.15 PM.png
 
I think the format of the events and the changing of equipment (the rack) during an event had more of an effect on the tournament outcomes than the pocket size.
 
Last edited:
C'mon, let's use our brains! Let's say a pro misses 5% of his/her shots, and the slightly lesser player misses 8%. That's a 95% make rate vs a 92% rate.

Now tighten the pockets. The better pro now misses 7% but now also the lesser player misses more as well, 10%. The numbers might not be correct, but it is undeniable that the lesser player will miss more often than the better player. Either miss a pot, or miss shape.

Statistically over long runs, who do you think will win more often?!? Forget about the onesy-twosy fluke matches. In races to 7 or more, statistically, it is inevitable that the better players will win as often as they did on larger pockets, perhaps even more because strategy and safety play, escapes from safeties, banking, kicking, jumping, etc. is better by a certain factor. True, the innings count might go up a little, but statistically the lesser player will be missing more often and, as smoochie has mentioned more than once, the lesser player will likely hang the 8 or 9 much more often than he/she would have on larger pockets, so it goes both ways.
 
There is a possible break point. The underdog could easily be a deadly shooter. Normally those guys go cold before the champs gotta worry but now you have a zone where the champ is in range and vulnerable. Now what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top