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

[jsp]

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.

As I mentioned before, the winner of a 9-ball match isn't determined by who pockets the most balls total throughout the entire match. Rather, the winner is determined by who sinks the most 9 balls (which is the last ball on the table for the vast majority of the time). It's possible to sink more 9 balls than your opponent and yet sink less total balls. (We've all been there...on both sides!) So it's not as straightforward as simply looking at the differences in absolute potting percentages.

Look at it this way. Let's say you are a potting god for balls 1 through 8, meaning you can pocket those balls at a 100% percentage. But you are an absolute choke-artist on the 9 and could only make the 9 ball 50% of the time. Your opponent, on the other hand, shoots every single ball at 50%. It doesn't matter if your overall net potting percentage is around 90% and your opponent's overall potting percentage is 50%, for the game of 9-ball you guys are matched absolutely evenly. On average opponent will win the amount of games as you, because every single rack will come down to the coinflip of the 9-ball.

Of course, playing straight pool or 8-ball would be a much different story.

...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.

Again, not as straightforward as you think. For simplicity's sake, let's focus only on hanging the 9 (instead of both the 8 or 9). Yes, given the same amount of chances, the weaker player by definition would hang the 9 ball more often. But again, that assumes the same amount of chances on the 9. But you would expect the stronger player to have more chances on the 9...simply because he's the stronger player. So depending on the percentages, the stronger player could hang more total 9 balls in a given match compared to the weaker player. (Again, we've all been there...on both sides!)

To be clear, I'm not attempting to argue that tighter pockets will ALWAYS means the weaker player increases his chances of winning. Rather, I can see how it is possible.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... To be clear, I'm not attempting to argue that tighter pockets will ALWAYS means the weaker player increases his chances of winning. Rather, I can see how it is possible.

And so, for a particular pair of players, tighter pockets might favor the stronger player?

I can see how changing conditions might change the balance in either direction. I don't see that it will change much, and I don't see that one direction is guaranteed to dominate.

I find it remarkable the the OP is so incredibly invested in his dubious premise.

 

[AtLarge]

... Look at it this way. Let's say you are a potting god for balls 1 through 8, meaning you can pocket those balls at a 100% percentage. But you are an absolute choke-artist on the 9 and could only make the 9 ball 50% of the time. Your opponent, on the other hand, shoots every single ball at 50%. It doesn't matter if your overall net potting percentage is around 90% and your opponent's overall potting percentage is 50%, for the game of 9-ball you guys are matched absolutely evenly. On average opponent will win the amount of games as you, because every single rack will come down to the coinflip of the 9-ball. ...

That would be true if missing the 9-ball meant the other guy automatically won the game. But he doesn't, because he, too, is just 50% successful on the next shot. So the guy who shoots first at the 9-ball (and 3rd, and 5th, etc. on successive misses) will make it more times than the guy who shoots second (and 4th, 6th, etc.) at it. And I think the guy who shoots at 100% on the other balls will usually get to the 9-ball more often than the other guy, so he will win the match more often.

 

[maha]

jsp

your math is terrible. the guy who chokes will be close to a 2 to 3 to 1 favorite to win every game.
depending that on a few other factors such as how good he may break the nine in etc.

 

[maha]

ive made more money using grade school math with gamblers than most of them ever made.
math is the basis of every good decision you make even if you dont realize it.

 

[sammylane12]

I’d have to agree with OP’s premise.

I would NEVER gamble 9 ball on the tightest table in the room against a guy 50 fargo points lower than me.

Why would I???

I run out better…why take away my advantage by allowing him to take seize upon my newly found misses on routine runouts? I’d never miss or get out of line on a normal table…and on the off chance i do…i can also play recovery shots that actually go in instead of hang!

The same guy i can crush 9-2 on a normal table now is a coin flip on these gaffy tight tables.

The tighter the table, the more even the playing field.

It’s not good for the game.

Just quit dogging the 9

 

[sammylane12]

I’d have to agree with OP’s premise.

I would NEVER gamble 9 ball on the tightest table in the room against a guy 50 fargo points lower than me.

Why would I???

I run out better…why take away my advantage by allowing him to take seize upon my newly found misses on routine runouts? I’d never miss or get out of line on a normal table…and on the off chance i do…i can also play recovery shots that actually go in instead of hang!

The same guy i can crush 9-2 on a normal table now is a coin flip on these gaffy tight tables.

The tighter the table, the more even the playing field.

It’s not good for the game.

I just have to comment: You "never miss or get out of line a normal table". That makes you better than Filler, Gorst and Shane.
But the really weird thing is that you are afraid to play a guy you can beat 9-2. If I can beat a guy 9-2 I don`t give a shit how tight the pockets are I`m still going to beat him 9-2. He is going to hang more balls than me.

 

[lfigueroa]

Years ago I played at a room with a wide variety of tables.

And any time I was "feeling jiggy with it" and giving up a big spot to an obviously weaker player (like 13-6) I would only do so on a tighter table. Udder than that, I've had two experiences playing on ridiculously tight equipment. One was at the lamentably long closed Comet Billiards in NJ, and a room across the river near St. Louis. I won money from the regulars at Comet and won a tournament across the river. And the reason was -- and what I think the OP is missing -- the better player is also likely to be the smarter player and beyond ball pocketing will adjust his strategy to accommodate the altered odds the equipment presents for both himself and his opponent.

IOWs, you don't necessarily play the same game you might usually when the pockets are itty-bitty. So it's not just a question of who is more accurate.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Badpenguin]

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

When and which of these events were using the 3 7/8" pockets? I don't think they have been in use for all events, nor during the entirety of 2023, but I could be wrong.

I can see what Smoochie is saying. The bottom line is that with these absurdly tight pockets, along with the rail cuts that are already tuned to make pocketing balls more difficult on a diamond table with 4 1/2" pockets (much less 3 7/8"), and along with the break changes, the "lesser" players will get more opportunities at the table than they had before. But on the flip side of that coin, the "lesser" players should be giving the better players more opportunities also.

I'm curious what stats would bear Smoochie's theory out one way or another.

My question is... Isn't the entire point to what matchroom has done with the pockets and breaking rules to make it more random and take away the advantage to the top X players? Isn't that exactly what we are seeing? Otherwise, why would those changes have been made?

 

[rexus31]

Let's get back on topic. We are talking about the players on the MR WNT, not the local bangers down at the pool hall. All of the regular touring pros are capable of snapping off an event. Every single one, regardless of pocket size. They are all World Class players in their own right. Top players lose all the time. They miss. They're human. At the World Class level, 4" pockets do not affect their games. Did you happen to catch Chua vs SVB over the weekend? The guy was firing balls in and spinning his cueball 3-4 rails when he needed to. Sure, Shane dogged a couple 9B's. Those 9B's wouldn't have gone on a 4.5" pocket. He didn't miss because he was afraid of the pocket size or it got in his head. He just missed. More times than not the stronger payer on that day will win. That's how it's always been and how it always will be. Mike Page will tell you every player is capable of playing 50-100 points above their Fargo or 50-100 points below their Fargo on any given day. The format is very difficult when it gets to the single elimination stage. I think this is more responsible for the parity we've seen on the WNT. It is hard (as it should be) to string together several consecutive matches against World Class players. As for the OP's "no name" comment: When Rafael Nadal, one of the greatest tennis players of all time, won his first ATP event he was ranked 762, He was a nobody. Gotta start somewhere. Who's to say Mickey Krause won't win more WNT events?

 

[rexus31]

When and which of these events were using the 3 7/8" pockets? I don't think they have been in use for all events, nor during the entirety of 2023, but I could be wrong.

I can see what Smoochie is saying. The bottom line is that with these absurdly tight pockets, along with the rail cuts that are already tuned to make pocketing balls more difficult on a diamond table with 4 1/2" pockets (much less 3 7/8"), and along with the break changes, the "lesser" players will get more opportunities at the table than they had before. But on the flip side of that coin, the "lesser" players should be giving the better players more opportunities also.

I'm curious what stats would bear Smoochie's theory out one way or another.

My question is... Isn't the entire point to what matchroom has done with the pockets and breaking rules to make it more random and take away the advantage to the top X players? Isn't that exactly what we are seeing? Otherwise, why would those changes have been made?

All the Majors were played on 4" pockets in 2023, as far as I know.

Changes were made to make the game more challenging for World Class players. We all know, breaking 9B from the rail with the 1B on the spot and a template rack, the wing ball (and 1B to a certain extent) is wired. It turns into a BNR contest. The WNT break format calls for a cut break with a ton of draw to make a ball (1B usually). This causes more opportunity for scratches. I think the format is the equalizer. Shifting to single elimination is tough, especially in the final stages of an event where the cream of the crop is left. Then in the Majors in 2023 they changed from the template rack to the triangle for the Final 16. This is a major adjustment. You aren't always going to get a tight rack with the triangle which results in inconsistent breaks. This results in parity, which is good for the sport, IMO.

 

[The_JV]

All tight pockets have done on the pro level, is highlight the best player of the moment. You don't need to be a dominate force on the tour to win a major. Just be the best guy on that day.

Gorst, Filler, etc, and if you want to include SVB. All are on the average the best on the planet. However they're also guilty of being human. Weak performances these days get punished. "Elite slop" play in yester year wasn't "rewarded" but moot, because the looser equipment didn't shed light on the lack of accuracy.

So, is tighter equipment an advantage for weaker players..?.., imo no. All players will suffer the same penalty. ...but at the same time it's a disadvantage to the elite when experiencing a less than elite day. It's up to the elite to smooth out the dips in play.

 

[skogstokig]

My question is... Isn't the entire point to what matchroom has done with the pockets and breaking rules to make it more random and take away the advantage to the top X players? Isn't that exactly what we are seeing? Otherwise, why would those changes have been made?

focusing on the pockets, since rexus describes the break rules so well, i would say it's a way to have reasonably short races - with winner break format - but still weed out a winner in a decisive way. the best player at that tournament will win.

in eurotours for example i would say this is not always the case, although it's a feat to win one. filler playing mario and both are on their A game, the lag may actually determine the winner.

why MR went from the 4" to sub-4" is beyond my comprehension though. emily said in an interview it was to make the diamond (which they use in european and US majors) play more equal to the rasson with 4" pockets (asian events). but i think it's obvious that diamond is tougher than rasson with the same pocket specs, so that reasoning is wrong imo. last year's events were great, so why change..

 

[smiling_Hans]

Alternate breaks will solve all problems.

 

[9BallKY]

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

You just posted why the better player has a better chance of winning on tighter pockets. It’s simple they do everything better than weaker players and it adds up over time.

 

[bdaumueller]

I've said this years ago, probably the first time they introduced the smaller pockets into pool, then I've said it again in another post here a year or months ago I can't remember.

Now I'll say it again. The introduction of smaller pockets in pool is not good for the sport, it removes SPORT DOMINANCE where you have 2-3 players who can dominate because of their skill. This is absolutely removed and lifted and now its all about who gets the better rolls, literally.

People often don't think deeply about this because they think in a simple manner which would go something like this "Smaller pocket, means player must focus to pot balls, ergo better player wins" and this is veery very far from the truth. In fact smaller pockets will often yields to the winning of the weaker player and most of the time it is randomize. A better player can win if he gets the better end of things but its mostly up to the pool gods now.

We know in all circumstances that the pool gods play a huge part in pool even with larger pockets, but imagine that now with smaller pockets you added like 10x in the hands of pool gods. This is not good cause it will result in more randomness and what I said here you can literally see it in the pool brackets & results, literally I remembeer that one filipino guy who has fargo of 700 or even lower won a major event few months ago in this same small pocket situation, it wasn't like he got really good all of a sudden, but the randomness & rolls helped it because of those small pockets.

I still haven't explained how smaller pockets will add more randomness & luck, but ill leave you think about it deeply then ill post again to elaborate & explain whats happening....cause I don't want this one post to be long.

Just look for results, here's the thing...I am not a pro but if you ever asked me to play against jushua or shane etc, I will ask them to play me in a small pocket & ask for short race i.e. race to 2 or 3 - this will give me the highest chance of beating them. Just think about this

I Agee with you. Smaller pockets are making the game more safety oriented and boring due to players not going for difficult shots. It makes the same amount of sense as changing the 4 and 5 ball color. Of course if you like watching balls rattling in the pocket and sitting there for the next player you'll love it. Perhaps we should put bumpers on the table to add even more luck to the game.

 

[JolietJames]

It cuts both ways.
If I'm playing a lesser skilled opponent, I can run more balls than they can and am therefore favored to win the match.
If the pockets are real tight, I am more prone to fail finishing the rack and may leave a few 1-2-3 ball outs. With tight pockets, they still may not get there.
If the pockets are 5", the lesser player may be able to run more balls than on a tight table, but I'm not going to give them many chances at the table since I won't be missing much at all.
I don't believe the score will change much regardless of pocket size. Just my .02.

 

[jsp]

That would be true if missing the 9-ball meant the other guy automatically won the game. But he doesn't, because he, too, is just 50% successful on the next shot. So the guy who shoots first at the 9-ball (and 3rd, and 5th, etc. on successive misses) will make it more times than the guy who shoots second (and 4th, 6th, etc.) at it. And I think the guy who shoots at 100% on the other balls will usually get to the 9-ball more often than the other guy, so he will win the match more often.

The way I worded it, you're correct. My assumption, which I never stated, is that the 9-ball would be a hanger after initially being missed.

 

[jsp]

And so, for a particular pair of players, tighter pockets might favor the stronger player?

I can see how changing conditions might change the balance in either direction. I don't see that it will change much, and I don't see that one direction is guaranteed to dominate.

Totally agree.

 

[smiling_Hans]

Pro tournaments have had new cloth with some slide forever. I don't see that as any kind of problem peculiar to MR. I think it gives the top players an edge as they see those conditions a lot while the typical room player hasn't seen new cloth in a year.

Well said.