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

[rexus31]

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 posted the results from MR WNT 2023 season and your theory doesn't apply there.

I've got a 4.125" corners; 4.875" sides Gold Crown I. My table plays tough but fair; very easy to rattle a ball. One of the players in the league I used to run worked for Cuetec and knew Shane personally. Shane came over to play one night before doing a promo event at the pool hall for our league. I'm a decent player; Fargo has ranged from 586-600. Shane had never played on my table before and hit 3-4 balls before we played a Race to 10. He drilled me 10-3. He ran a 5 pack to start and only rattled one ball, a 2B in a corner. If he got out of line he locked me down. I don't know your speed, but you are delusional if you think you have a better shot on a tight table against a Shane or Filler. You'd get drilled on any table.

 

[Jobear]

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 definitely agree

 

[garczar]

I posted the results from MR WNT 2023 season and your theory doesn't apply there.

I've got a 4.125" corners; 4.875" sides Gold Crown I. My table plays tough but fair; very easy to rattle a ball. One of the players in the league I used to run worked for Cuetec and knew Shane personally. Shane came over to play one night before doing a promo event at the pool hall for our league. I'm a decent player; Fargo has ranged from 586-600. Shane had never played on my table before and hit 3-4 balls before we played a Race to 10. He drilled me 10-3. He ran a 5 pack to start and only rattled one ball, a 2B in a corner. If he got out of line he locked me down. I don't know your speed, but you are delusional if you think you have a better shot on a tight table against a Shane or Filler. You'd get drilled on any table.

Yep. The best players will win regardless of pocket size. Sure a lower player or even a total unknown will eke out a win here-n-there but over any length of time the W/L ratio will ALWAYS favor the superior player. People, its not DEEP and its easy to SEE.

 

[Ghost of OBC]

the only part of the op's rambling hypothesy i might agree with is there are no real dominant players anymore. BUT, having just said i also think that pocket size has nothing to do with it. Today's talent pool is SO deep compared to say the glory days of the Camel Tour. Unless pool's version of Tiger Woods shows up i think it will be tough for any player to really distance himself from the field.

I think this is precisely OP's point: that small pockets hide actual differences between the extremely good and the once-in-a-generation talents. If no one, even the best in the world, can consistently break and run more than a rack or three, the results get spread around to more extremely talented players. If the NBA doubled the hoop height and halved it's diameter, Steph Curry would still be great but his quality would be obscured by the increased luck required for anyone to make three pointers.

 

[rexus31]

I think this is precisely OP's point: that small pockets hide actual differences between the extremely good and the once-in-a-generation talents. If no one, even the best in the world, can consistently break and run more than a rack or three, the results get spread around to more extremely talented players. If the NBA doubled the hoop height and halved it's diameter, Steph Curry would still be great but his quality would be obscured by the increased luck required for anyone to make three pointers.

Among World Class players, it's not the pocket size that's halting packages it's breaking with the 9B on the spot and the smaller break box. There's no longer a wired ball or easy shape on the 1B. The break is far more random.

 

[jbart65]

Among World Class players, it's not the pocket size that's halting packages it's breaking with the 9B on the spot and the smaller break box. There's no longer a wired ball or easy shape on the 1B. The break is far more random.

To some extent. But the best players in the world have become pretty good at getting the one ball in on the break and at least controlling the table if they have no open shot.

The new rules are forcing top players to become more strategic and better at safeties and kicking. Not a bad thing. But it does open up the game to far more "upsets."

 

[rexus31]

To some extent. But the best players in the world have become pretty good at getting the one ball in on the break and at least controlling the table if they have no open shot.

The new rules are forcing top players to become more strategic and better at safeties and kicking. Not a bad thing. But it does open up the game to far more "upsets."

I would argue the wild cue ball on the break shot results in more scratches and far less break and runs. There have been many examples of players letting their strokes out since MR went with 4" pockets for Majors. I would wager a fair amount we would be seeing packages run if the break restrictions were lifted. The break is the single most important shot in 9B and MR has seriously handicapped it.

 

[The_JV]

Keep in mind the "wild ball" on the break these days is the head ball (1). The 2 is now a variable within the rack. It's meant to be randomly placed and not always in a pre-determined position. I have zero doubt any extremely serious player will practice the break with the 2 in all rack positions to determine how to work the CB off the set carom angle while potting that 1 in the side. However there's so many random collisions going on that truly nailing down a repeatable pattern is near impossible.

In the olde' days... The wing was wired and the smart player would strike the pack in such a manner to get the 1 to the top corners. Easy peasy...

 

[smiling_Hans]

Keep in mind the "wild ball" on the break these days is the head ball (1). The 2 is now a variable within the rack. It's meant to be randomly placed and not always in a pre-determined position. I have zero doubt any extremely serious player will practice the break with the 2 in all rack positions to determine how to work the CB off the set carom angle while potting that 1 in the side. However there's so many random collisions going on that truly nailing down a repeatable pattern is near impossible.

In the olde' days... The wing was wired and the smart player would strike the pack in such a manner to get the 1 to the top corners. Easy peasy...

Wing ball goes in and get the 1b near the side pocket. I can consistently do this and you go from there. My friend is constantly reminding me to do this because he taught it to me.

We use the turtle racks in my local tournament but when we don't then that's another story. Break away!

 

[jsp]

Yep. The best players will win regardless of pocket size. Sure a lower player or even a total unknown will eke out a win here-n-there but over any length of time the W/L ratio will ALWAYS favor the superior player. People, its not DEEP and its easy to SEE.

To be fair I don't think anyone in this thread, OP included, ever argued that the stronger player will cease being the favorite with tighter pockets.

 

[garczar]

To be fair I don't think anyone in this thread, OP included, ever argued that the stronger player will cease being the favorite with tighter pockets.

I know what he said and this 'in the hands of the pool gods' crap is total bs. His whole dream/vision is ludicrous.

 

[rexus31]

To be fair I don't think anyone in this thread, OP included, ever argued that the stronger player will cease being the favorite with tighter pockets.

You better go back and read his post. Better yet, here you go, "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."

 

[jsp]

I know what he said and this 'in the hands of the pool gods' crap is total bs. His whole dream/vision is ludicrous.

To me that means the luck factor increases, and to a certain extent I agree.

 

[AtLarge]

Keep in mind the "wild ball" on the break these days is the head ball (1). The 2 is now a variable within the rack. It's meant to be randomly placed and not always in a pre-determined position. I have zero doubt any extremely serious player will practice the break with the 2 in all rack positions to determine how to work the CB off the set carom angle while potting that 1 in the side. ...

The Matchroom racking requirement now is that the 2-ball goes on one of the wings or in the back (i.e., in one of three locations) and must be varied from rack to rack (i.e., not always in the same location).

The WNT Rules document doesn't seem to include that yet.

 

[maha]

read what lou said a page or so back.

tight pockets make you change your game in some respects. so it also means it changes the way everyone in the past played the game. and will change it in the way we play in the future. those that adapt will do better. but remember you are playing differently but maybe properly for the equipment you are on.

as far as top players they adjust and beat anyone else in any conditions.
for average players it changes greatly what they need to do to win.

 

[The_JV]

Wing ball goes in and get the 1b near the side pocket. I can consistently do this and you go from there. My friend is constantly reminding me to do this because he taught it to me.

We use the turtle racks in my local tournament but when we don't then that's another story. Break away!

If you're keeping the 1 near a side then you breaking soft. Which is fine IF you can get away with it. However "pace of break" has been a thing in MR events for longer then the current break configuration.

 

[maha]

break is important if you can run out . if you cant, then your break needs to be adjusted for a way to give you an edge in another factor.

 

[Cameron Smith]

If you're keeping the 1 near a side then you breaking soft. Which is fine IF you can get away with it. However "pace of break" has been a thing in MR events for longer then the current break configuration.

One exception is doing a draw break where you play to draw cue ball back two rails tends to leave the 1 near the side. It’s not a soft break but it would fail the 3 point rule often if it were applied. I remember Shane practicing this few years ago before the break box was implemented.

I posted the results from MR WNT 2023 season and your theory doesn't apply there.

I've got a 4.125" corners; 4.875" sides Gold Crown I. My table plays tough but fair; very easy to rattle a ball. One of the players in the league I used to run worked for Cuetec and knew Shane personally. Shane came over to play one night before doing a promo event at the pool hall for our league. I'm a decent player; Fargo has ranged from 586-600. Shane had never played on my table before and hit 3-4 balls before we played a Race to 10. He drilled me 10-3. He ran a 5 pack to start and only rattled one ball, a 2B in a corner. If he got out of line he locked me down. I don't know your speed, but you are delusional if you think you have a better shot on a tight table against a Shane or Filler. You'd get drilled on any table.

Thats thing about top players and tight pockets. Our run out percentages drop and they are more or less unaffected. This idea that all of our runout percentages drop equally is largely incorrect.

 

[smoochie]

With time some of you will see it but let me remind everyone as I've seen some previous posts about a GUY going into some certain poolhall and beating bangers on his SMALL POCKETS.

This isn't about you going to a POOLHALL beating some bangers or winning local tournaments thus PROVING that you being better than them and still winning on smaller pockets therefore my theory is wrong.

I'm here SPEAKING about world class players VERSUS the top 5 ELITES.......we had top 5 elites but with these smaller pockets we completely REMOVED the TOP 5 elites and made all world class players a same. So lets just roll a dice next tournaments and pick a winner shall we? why would we bother when we completely and utterly removed what the top 5 or top 10 ELITES have worked for over the years.

And by the way just so you know even if you asked the top 5 elite players about the small pockets they'll tell you that THEY LOVE IT....do you know why? because either 1) PRIDE, or 2) just don't want to admit it....some of the elite players will never tell you they prefer bigger pockets because inside of their brains they must believe they can outshoot everybody and I'm sure they can, I'm 100% sure they can outshoot everybody this is not up for debate.

But in pool it so often happens that everybody misses we're all human even the top 5 elites right? but they probably will miss less, but will that matter? NOT 100% of the time, do you know why?

Because the top 5 elites can miss 2 times.....and the world class pro (non elite) can miss 7 times..........and YET in a race to 9 the world class pro will win, do you know why? I hate to keep repeating myself but here we go.

THE MISS ITSELF DOESNT MATTER, again for the 100 times, when somebody misses we gotta ask ourself "WHAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THE MISS" this is so so so crucial guys, I need you to write this in a paper & the next tournament you watch when a pro player or elite player misses, I want you to keep your eyes on the cueball + object ball, because this is all on the hand of pool gods (don't bring up 2way shots alright), pros have one thing in their mind is to run out.

So again elite can miss 2 times, and pro can miss 7 times & still the non-elite will win, why? it so happens that the pool gods put every scenario after the miss into the non-elite guy and that's it.

Now you'll tell me, but its all "if if if if" well come on guys, isn't this what will happen with smaller pockets? now you might start seeing a point here, next tournament just keep all of this info in your mind when you see a fargo top5 elite player versus a new pro guy alright.

Also some of you may say "well, the miss & what happens after the miss" also happens with default sized pockets, ill tell you true but the elite pro's will miss way less that it can give the world pro player maybe one rack, but once the elites get into a good rhythm, they're 6packing it out.

Guys, you will not agree now....and I don't expect you to, but next 3.5 inch pockets you see just remember this one sentence.

When a miss <-- is not important, keep an eye on "what happens after a miss" and write it down, this will conclude the outcome of the match and your elite player is in the hand of god, sometimes they'll win if the god wants them to......which is why I am really mad at this smaller pocket change, it completely ADDED MORE LUCK....

I said it before we already are dealing with the friggin rolls of the BREAK SHOT & the layout after the break........now they added this problem by introding smaller pockets, so now you have to deal with 3 problems.

1- break shot, where will the Cueball go when kicked? we saw what happened to SVB.
2- layout after the break, all matter of luck (i can put to you a layout that 13 yr old can run, then i can put to you a layout not even SVB can run, its dumb)
3- Now new instruction of smaller pockets causing more misses which isn't a problem but main problem is the rolls/luck that are associated with "What will happen after the miss, am i gonna come out like roses or what?".

Now that's what we're dealing with.

 

[straightline]

I wouldn't preclude the hot marksmen on that bus. So far you can take it to schnookuh on them but that doesn't have to be the Rosetta tactic either. Gareth Potts anyone?
Marksmanship will evolve.
Step one:
Quit missing all dem ducks. Liberate all the dependencies between speed, accuracy, and all the control ratios required. Lots of detailed study for many.
TS
The label says, World Class Pool.