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

Mike Page just posted an interesting thread about results, implied vs actual, of single racks between players with large FargoRate gaps: it points to how this argument should have been stated.

If there was data, we should be able to see how tighter pockets effect results on a rack by rack basis. One set of data that may apply is @AtLarge 's break data. It has break and runs from the TV table.

If he can separate out tables with corner pockets greater than 4 1/2" from those with less, my guess is there are fewer as pocket size diminishes. SVB running a 6pack becomes him running a 3pack. The Dominating player becomes a dominant player.

I have seen several references to Joshua Filler, and his less dominant play, recently. Any JF fan have his record by pocket size.
 
SEB said:
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.
Click to expand...
From a 9-2 asswhipping to a 'coin flip'????? ridiculous. pocket size will never narrow the gap like that. lower players might win certain close sets but in the long run they're still getting beat. 50pt FR difference is a 2-1 ratio over any length of time. pocket size is not going to change that. please people. be real here.
 
NathanDetroit said:
...
If there was data, we should be able to see how tighter pockets effect results on a rack by rack basis. One set of data that may apply is @AtLarge 's break data. It has break and runs from the TV table.
...
Click to expand...
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?
 
smoochie said:
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
Click to expand...
You are correct and it’s happening on the local level too. I play on tight pockets and short races at my local tournaments. It gives lesser players a chance to win no doubt.

I haven’t read the entire thread but I’m sure someone explained why. I won’t elaborate any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEB
Played in a little bar box 8 ball tournament this past Fri & Saturday on Valley tables. Saw many of the lower level player banging balls straight into the rail missing the pocket entirely. I fail to see how making the pockets smaller are going to help remedy this situation.
 
NathanDetroit said:
Win the rack, or the match? ..
Click to expand...
If you know the chances for each player to win the next rack, you can figure out the chance that the better player will win the match. It is a relatively simple calculation from the study of probability and statistics. Fargo ratings are based on the % chance in each rack.
 
Gambling, Bob.

How many here made Shane the favorite over Johan? If you bet Chua, how many racks did you get?

Favorite does not win every match. And, dominating players do not always dominate. More so with smaller pockets.
 
Got caught up watching “The Color of Money” again a few nights ago, some real buckets on those tables!
 
I watched the entire quarters, semis and finals (miracle of fast forward between shots).

I have a different theory: pressure.

MR events have become big. They are big production events. The lights are bright, the crowds are pretty good, the matches are being viewed all over the world.

The pressure of these events is getting to the big players, much like the Mosconi. The pressure is especially felt by older players and those with high rankings.

The very young players or the middling players with little expectation are playing looser, especially earlier in the tournaments. They do tighten up in the quarters or semis.

I saw the pressure get to SVB, Sky and Chua today. It got to Krause yesterday, too, a bit. I saw it get to Filler, Ouschan, Chung.

It’s a new world for the players, the constant pressure of the top tourneys. Yet unlike in other sports, there is no home court advantage or really much advantage of being a higher seed. Everyone has to go the the gauntlet.

If I am right, we are going to see more of this parity in big finals. Until a mental giant comes about. I don’t see any now.
 
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.

1723415828430.png


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.
 
sjm said:
I feel there is some validity in the initial post. I'll consider what I believe to be the two major assertions separately:

1. The Super-tight Pockets Make it Almost Impossible for Anybody to Dominate the Sport
I believe this to be largely true. The formula for winning has changed and those that tended to dominate with their break are no longer doing it. The 4" pocket, nine on the spot with a break box version of 9ball has been in use in the "field of 256 Matchroom majors" since August 2022. This equipment and rule set tend to bring more tactical play into the mix, and those unable to grind are not enjoying as much success as in the past. At Large stats show time and again that the break is less of an advantage than it ever has been. Even the three pack has become a very rare commodity and everybody is getting to shoot. Underdogs no longer have to sit in the chair for several racks at a time.

2. Super-Tight Pockets Favor the Weaker Player
With this suggestion, I disagree, but I would agree that a slightly less skilled cueist with very solid tactical skills has a better chance than in the past and, as the original post suggests, Cinderella stories are more likely than in the past because of it. Hence, these super-tight pockets CAN favor the weaker player, if the weaker player has a skill set that befits these conditions.

In short, while I can't accept the strong blanket statements made by Smoochie, I find some wisdom in the original post.
Click to expand...
Finally someone who gets it, ill convince you on #2 soon - just give me a moment to write it down, but here's the thing, when I say favors the weaker player it does not mean the weaker will always win, thats not what I meant. Rather what I meant is, the weaker player will have an increased margin % of winning as opposed to if he played that BEAST player in a default 4.5 inch pockets.
 
smoochie said:
what I meant is, the weaker player will have an increased margin % of winning as opposed to if he played that BEAST player in a default 4.5 inch pockets.
Click to expand...
... and it is with this assertion that I disagree, subject to the one exception that I noted.
 
trob said:
Yeah that’s why the top players in the world are still dominating. Because it helps the weaker players. 😂 thanks for the laugh though
Click to expand...
But they are not, thats the thing...we need more data and years to see this play out but I am sure the more tournaments the more of this you will see....a new face, a new guy who would never win a major normally, he would in these conditions.
 
garczar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Far from the truth, but the smaller pockets made you think that we have large amount of talents meanwhile I know for fact that we have 3-4 PLAYERS who are FAR BETTER THAN MOST, i.e. domination, but these 3-4 cannot shine because of the smaller pockets....bring back the old table conditions and the 3-4 will win 90% of the tournaments.
 
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...
... so pool produces two champions, one of them 22 years old and the other 23 years old, and you wonder why they are under your radar. Neither was under my radar, or even close to it. Capito has had some high finishes, and I saw him run a seven-pack vs Albin Ouschan when he was just 19. Within the last three months, Krause won the Bucharest Open, came third in the Matchroom rankings event in Dubai and was 9th at the UK Open, so he has been in great form, although it seems you didn't know.

Nobody knows what the future holds for either, but to assume they are both flashes in the pan is unreasonable.
 
SEB said:
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.
Click to expand...
This guy gets it, but once I explain it...some of you might see the bigger picture....playing on tight pockets with lesser opponent than you is a suicidal...because you get normal out that you'll get out 95% of the time but because the pockets are very tight there's a big chance where you miss the 8 or 9 and if pool gods loves your WEAK oppoenent it will rattle and stay in the jaw of the pocket for him to take the game, meanwhile on games he's trying to runout he'll miss the 8 or 9 again similar to you but pool gods decided to put them safe because he missed the 8 a mile away from the pocket, it pings' pong's into a stupid safe where you then try to play a very difficult safe but scratch.....ill explain more in details why smaller pockets are so bad but you may get the gist of it, you gave everything to the pool gods.....

Now not only you have to worry about the break shot which has so much luck its insane (look at recent semi-final of shane) two scratches that wasn't his fault, maybe more? I didn't see the whole thing.....but now you also have to put up with "Oh what happens after player A misses, or player B misses" will it rattle stay in the pocket? or will it by chance/luck go into a safety thats insane just by CHANCE...pool gods decide, its bad...

Add more of those into the game and you make it worse, this is exactly what matchroom did with these smaller pockets.
 
garczar said:
From a 9-2 asswhipping to a 'coin flip'????? ridiculous. pocket size will never narrow the gap like that. lower players might win certain close sets but in the long run they're still getting beat. 50pt FR difference is a 2-1 ratio over any length of time. pocket size is not going to change that. please people. be real here.
Click to expand...
Oh it can, don't just think about it...go test it out with numbers and statistics you'll be amazed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top