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

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...
Yes 100%, moving to a tighter table will increase the likelihood that the weaker player wins, period. He wont win the game 100% but his chance will increase against a better opponent.

If I play against Fedor Gorst on a 4.5 inch pockets my chance of beating him is ZEROOOOOOO, he'll run out 3-4 packs on me nonstop and ill be sitting in the chair for a long time, i wouldnt be able to run 5 balls, he might beat me 9 to zero.

but If I tell fedor gorst to play on 3.6 inch pockets I will have a chance to beat him, maybeeeee just maybe he rattle the 9ball being scared of that size, and it sits in the pocket? Maybe he does that few times on the 8 or 7 ball? I'm not sayihng ill beat him 100%, but i got a chance, also maybe if we make it RACE to 3, and a POCKET size of 3.6 inch, then my chance is faaaaaaaaar higher, he rattle one nine ball, he rattle one eight ball, then he's down 2-0 and scared, I shoot easy shots to win the game. It can happen.

But do you think this above scenario can happen on 4.5 inch pocket? forget it he'll make everything and take me out like its nothing.
 
smoochie said:
but If I tell fedor gorst to play on 3.6 inch pockets I will have a chance to beat him, maybeeeee just maybe he rattle the 9ball being scared of that size, and it sits in the pocket? Maybe he does that few times on the 8 or 7 ball? I'm not sayihng ill beat him 100%, but i got a chance, also maybe if we make it RACE to 3, and a POCKET size of 3.6 inch, then my chance is faaaaaaaaar higher, he rattle one nine ball, he rattle one eight ball, then he's down 2-0 and scared, I shoot easy shots to win the game. It can happen.

But do you think this above scenario can happen on 4.5 inch pocket? forget it he'll make everything and take me out like its nothing.
Click to expand...
Now this above scenario that I've wrote doesn't paint the whole picture because who am I? a nobody when it comes to these guys....but now think of it when comparing a TOP 5 dominant player the likes of Joshua Filler against a PRO. The fact that he's playing on tighter pocket wouldn't help Filler at all, even if he tells you in an interview that he likes it... it giving up his advantage against the other avg PRO. Even tho Jushua is better but now it doesn't matter, now you've made it more about who between the two will get better rolls, better layouts. AND if someone misses, what will happen next? Thats the most important question, i.e. if Jushua misses will it sit in the pocket? if the avg PRO misses will the ball just fly around and become a DEFAULT safe? If this happens 2-3 times in a set to 9 then Jushua filler is doomed against a weaker player than him. The fact that they missed a shot isn't important anymore, whats more important is what happens AFTER THE MISS.

Matchroom basically opened a new issue when introducing these pockets because not only pro's have to deal with the break now, but they gota deal with WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE MISS. Will i be lucky? or will my opponent get all the luck? if a weaker player gets all the safeties after missing, and the TOP DOMINANCE player rattles too good where the ball sits in the pocket, then he's gona lose and out.

Simple as this.
 
a weaker player in 9 ball exclusively will win more games if he cant run out the balls as then he will get more chances late in the game.
that is a fact. but he will lose anyway in a set most times.

tighter pockets do help weak players immensely. as they never make any balls and find the game no fun. so move on to other things and dont waste their life hitting balls with little reward for the future.
 
smoochie said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is worth considering as a junction rather than an obstacle. Fact is you learn to hit 5" from anywhere, you can learn to hit 3.5" from anywhere and so on down into the far end of infinity. Nobody spends the time honing consistency to that degree; IMO the only obstacle.
 
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...
I've never seen more psychobabble bullshit in any thread before this one.

Just tell us you know nothing about pool and more on.

Jesus chr8st
 
spliced said:
The only way I could see tighter pockets helping the weaker player, would be that in high pressure situations with very tight pockets, a player who would consistently run out on loose pockets has a greater chance of rattling the last couple balls, leaving the weaker player easy outs.
Click to expand...
only problem they arent as easy on tighter pockets
just sayin...;)
 
smoochie said:
Oh it can, don't just think about it...go test it out with numbers and statistics you'll be amazed.
Click to expand...
What i'm amazed at is the depth of the bullshit being slung here. Going from 9-2 drubbing to coin toss by making pockets smaller is ludicrous. A local place replaced bucket Valley's with ProCut 4.5" Diamonds. It has NOT changed the outcome of ANY tournament they've had. In fact the better players are beating them even worse now. And you can drop all this 'you have to think deeply' bullshit. Anyone with half a brain can see this nonsense for what it is. Bye.
 
bbb said:
only problem they arent as easy on tighter pockets
just sayin...;)
Click to expand...
Exactly. Just what does an 'easy out' entail?? It all depends on the player. The lower players are going to win a few games regardless of pocket size. On tighter equipment they WILL miss more leaving the better player the 'easy out' more often.
 
garczar said:
What i'm amazed at is the depth of the bullshit being slung here. Going from 9-2 drubbing to coin toss by making pockets smaller is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

If the pockets are only 1", it seems like you'd have to flip a coin.

smoochie said:
Yes 100%, moving to a tighter table will increase the likelihood that the weaker player wins, period. He wont win the game 100% but his chance will increase against a better opponent.

If I play against Fedor Gorst on a 4.5 inch pockets my chance of beating him is ZEROOOOOOO, he'll run out 3-4 packs on me nonstop and ill be sitting in the chair for a long time, i wouldnt be able to run 5 balls, he might beat me 9 to zero.

but If I tell fedor gorst to play on 3.6 inch pockets I will have a chance to beat him, maybeeeee just maybe he rattle the 9ball being scared of that size, and it sits in the pocket? Maybe he does that few times on the 8 or 7 ball? I'm not sayihng ill beat him 100%, but i got a chance, also maybe if we make it RACE to 3, and a POCKET size of 3.6 inch, then my chance is faaaaaaaaar higher, he rattle one nine ball, he rattle one eight ball, then he's down 2-0 and scared, I shoot easy shots to win the game. It can happen.

But do you think this above scenario can happen on 4.5 inch pocket? forget it he'll make everything and take me out like its nothing.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm. Ronnie O plays snooker on pockets smaller than 3.6". Granted, the balls are a bit smaller, also, but I expect you wouldn't win a thing against him.

So, basically, we have evidence of your ridiculous premise if we just look at snooker. The same ten guys are at the top almost every time.
 
ShootingArts said:
Any weaker player who has the advantage over me on tight pockets is welcome to play for cash. Even though they have the edge I won't even make them give me a spot!

I am pretty sure that recent meteor shower explains this thread.

Hu
Click to expand...
they wont have the edge you're missing the point, but their chance of beating you has increased, significantly.
 
DeeDeeCues said:
If the pockets are only 1", it seems like you'd have to flip a coin.



Hmmmmm. Ronnie O plays snooker on pockets smaller than 3.6". Granted, the balls are a bit smaller, also, but I expect you wouldn't win a thing against him.

So, basically, we have evidence of your ridiculous premise if we just look at snooker. The same ten guys are at the top almost every time.
Click to expand...
If you comparing snooker to pool, its about ratio not pocket size. But I do believe if they made snooker pockets bigger Ronnie would dominate even more. But the ratio of the snooker ball to pockets are decent, but when they tighten them Ronnie would start be at almost the same level as others, they do sometimes tighten the pockets in snooker and it's not a good thing for their sport either. It's the same exact thing.
 
garczar said:
What i'm amazed at is the depth of the bullshit being slung here. Going from 9-2 drubbing to coin toss by making pockets smaller is ludicrous. A local place replaced bucket Valley's with ProCut 4.5" Diamonds. It has NOT changed the outcome of ANY tournament they've had. In fact the better players are beating them even worse now. And you can drop all this 'you have to think deeply' bullshit. Anyone with half a brain can see this nonsense for what it is. Bye.
Click to expand...
4.5 arent tight enough. to me thats default and good pocket size, ask them to make it 4 inch pockets like these matchroom tables, or 4.25 I think they make them sometimes, then you'll see a new winner of tournaments each time, you will never see one or two guys dominating ever again .I am not only convinced about this, i know i'm 100% right, you guys just need time to see it reveal itself, its still a new thing.

I think 4 inches is when things would go haywire. In fact, make them 4 inches and ask them to make tournaments short races, i.e. race to 4 or something, and I guarantee you'll keep seeing random results every time, sometimes the better player wins sometimes the weaker player wins, it will be just like paper rock scissors, literally.

Now please understand that if the skill-gap is massive, then that's obviously not what I am talking about, in my initial post example I'm talking about DOMINANCE pros', vs just normal pro's, all of which can run racks, do you see it yet?
 
smoochie said:
If you comparing snooker to pool, its about ratio not pocket size. But I do believe if they made snooker pockets bigger Ronnie would dominate even more. But the ratio of the snooker ball to pockets are decent, but when they tighten them Ronnie would start be at almost the same level as others, they do sometimes tighten the pockets in snooker and it's not a good thing for their sport either. It's the same exact thing.
Click to expand...

Snooker ball is 2.0625". 3.5/2.0625=1.70

4.5/2.25=2

Your ratio argument is proven false.

Snooker is doing something right, they have an actual audience and large monetary prizes. You can't possibly put a coherent argument against that.
 
smoochie said:
Yes 100%, moving to a tighter table will increase the likelihood that the weaker player wins, period. He wont win the game 100% but his chance will increase against a better opponent.

If I play against Fedor Gorst on a 4.5 inch pockets my chance of beating him is ZEROOOOOOO, he'll run out 3-4 packs on me nonstop and ill be sitting in the chair for a long time, i wouldnt be able to run 5 balls, he might beat me 9 to zero.

but If I tell fedor gorst to play on 3.6 inch pockets I will have a chance to beat him, maybeeeee just maybe he rattle the 9ball being scared of that size, and it sits in the pocket? Maybe he does that few times on the 8 or 7 ball? I'm not sayihng ill beat him 100%, but i got a chance, also maybe if we make it RACE to 3, and a POCKET size of 3.6 inch, then my chance is faaaaaaaaar higher, he rattle one nine ball, he rattle one eight ball, then he's down 2-0 and scared, I shoot easy shots to win the game. It can happen.

But do you think this above scenario can happen on 4.5 inch pocket? forget it he'll make everything and take me out like its nothing.
Click to expand...
So what you are trying to sell us is that Fedor Gorst would be scared on 3.6 inch pockets & you wouldn't?

What happens if you get to the 8 and/or 9 ball first?
 
Acceptimg the premise as true (not sure it is), if a Fargo 795 is slightly less of a dog to a Fargo 820 at 4.0 inch pockets than on 4.5 inch pockets, does it really matter? At some point there needs to be a sweet spot where the number of potential winners of any event is high enough to create drama, but exclusive enough that you have to be elite to win it. EVERY sport has elements of luck to it.

Ultimately what matters is how much $$ is being pulled in from the outside world that isn't just pool players handing the same $20 bill back and forth.

I would think "too narrow" would occur when players start opting for APA-3/Snooker safeties instead of taking long thin cuts down the rail or full table banks. But watching some of the European Open, players were still taking the aggressive shots and making them at a decent enough clip, even if there were more rattled balls than there use to be.
 
DeeDeeCues said:
Snooker ball is 2.0625". 3.5/2.0625=1.70

4.5/2.25=2

Your ratio argument is proven false.

Snooker is doing something right, they have an actual audience and large monetary prizes. You can't possibly put a coherent argument against that.
Click to expand...
Snooker is a completely different game, it flourished because of its style and class. It's also a game which has repetitive layout, positioning, its superb in terms of making you practice same layouts and becoming good at it because you keep pocketing the same localized colors over and over which is very smart of the designer of that game. But why are we switching topics, it wasn't a thread about comparing snooker v pool, yet I do also believe if pockets were bigger Ronnie and Stephen hendry would of dominated the game ever more.
 
Seeing stuff like this:

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com

Really ends this conversation for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top