The true beauty of 1 pocket is ....

chalkdust said:
Who wants to give people a chance to win, what competitor does this? Do your homework and put in your time and take advantage of the handicap.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking you don't understand what I posted,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
measureman said:
For quite awhile a real good player would stay on table #1(brutal tight pockets) all day at Felt and take on all comers playing one pocket,he played the game so good that he hid his true speed very well.
He never booked a loser and always played for low stakes.
He would play me 9-6 and I donated a few $20's his way now and then.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of playing as a younster in local bars. Put a quarter up an challenge whoever held the able for a beer, which was like 50 cent at the time. If you win and hold the table you get drunk for 50 cent eventually. This was always playing 8 ball on 8 ft barbox tables. I had never heard of 1 pocket at the time. To day, I think it would be extreme fun to relive that scenerio while playing 1 pocket. I'm curious though, was the weight adjusted per the incoming player or was the standing matchup at 9-6 based on who held the table.
 
philly said:
If you think about it, one pocket is the game with the least amount of rules.
Each player has a pocket.
Make the required amount of balls in your pocket and you win.
Doesn't matter how the ball goes in a players pocket, it counts.
Click to expand...

I like this. It really is true. Simple.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Copied from the Schmidt/Oscar thread:

My main takeaway from this match and after reviewing a bit of the Barton/Figueroa match (or is it Figueroa/Barton ;) ) is that one-pocket is practically -- exponentially more difficult to play correctly, the further DOWN the food chain you go. At the top, the shot percentages are so ridiculously high that it's way easier to calculate what shots you should actually shoot. But if you take a good amateur player, he'll have to constantly run the percentages, making the calculations so much more complicated, and possibly more mentally exhausting.

That's probably pretty obvious stuff there, but I hadn't really thought about it until just the other day.
 
Renegade_56 said:
I'm thinking you don't understand what I posted,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

This reminds me of playing as a younster in local bars. Put a quarter up an challenge whoever held the able for a beer, which was like 50 cent at the time. If you win and hold the table you get drunk for 50 cent eventually. This was always playing 8 ball on 8 ft barbox tables. I had never heard of 1 pocket at the time. To day, I think it would be extreme fun to relive that scenerio while playing 1 pocket. I'm curious though, was the weight adjusted per the incoming player or was the standing matchup at 9-6 based on who held the table.
Click to expand...
there you go.
 
BasementDweller said:
Copied from the Schmidt/Oscar thread:

My main takeaway from this match and after reviewing a bit of the Barton/Figueroa match (or is it Figueroa/Barton ;) ) is that one-pocket is practically -- exponentially more difficult to play correctly, the further DOWN the food chain you go. At the top, the shot percentages are so ridiculously high that it's way easier to calculate what shots you should actually shoot. But if you take a good amateur player, he'll have to constantly run the percentages, making the calculations so much more complicated, and possibly more mentally exhausting.

That's probably pretty obvious stuff there, but I hadn't really thought about it until just the other day.
Click to expand...

This is very insightful.

At the amateur level you have to throw out a lot of the pro stuff you see streamed. You don't shoot that well and neither does your opponent. So you're constantly doing probability assessment in terms of what you can/might be able to execute vs the same for your opponent. What might be the wrong shot for a pro playing another pro may in fact be the right shot for an amateur because you know the udder guy isn't going to inflict that much damage even if you screw up.

Lou Figueroa
 
Vahmurka said:
Oh that's a nice one!
Genuine straight pool and one pocket are to played in two-dimensional world of pool slate framed by the rubber cushions :)
Click to expand...
Nope, it's to be played with one cue. :) I'd be surprised if anyone on earth has played a full game of any pool discipline and never had the cb leave the bed of the table. Don't believe me... put a dime in front of your CB while you break a rack.

Full cue jumping is a skill to master, even if it's not a traditional jump type shot. "Popping" the ball for stun? Jump shot. Most table length stop shots? Jump shot. Manufacturing angles when too straight in? Jump shot. Masse? Yep, you guessed it, jump shots. Unless you call up @justnum and have him make you a magnetic table the game of pool isn't played in 2D, it only appears that way.
 
lfigueroa said:
This is very insightful.

At the amateur level you have to throw out a lot of the pro stuff you see streamed. You don't shoot that well and neither does your opponent. So you're constantly doing probability assessment in terms of what you can/might be able to execute vs the same for your opponent. What might be the wrong shot for a pro playing another pro may in fact be the right shot for an amateur because you know the udder guy isn't going to inflict that much damage even if you screw up.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Correct thinking. Usually, the best defense is leaving your opponent a shot he "thinks" he can make (stealing a quote from my brother).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pin
boogieman said:
Nope, it's to be played with one cue. :) I'd be surprised if anyone on earth has played a full game of any pool discipline and never had the cb leave the bed of the table. Don't believe me... put a dime in front of your CB while you break a rack.
Click to expand...
Or any firm shot...

boogieman said:
...the game of pool isn't played in 2D, it only appears that way.
Click to expand...
Yep - I think of it as it doesn't really happen in 2D even though we play it that way. Fortunately our limited view is usually enough.

pj
chgo
 
Pin said:
Out of interest, what specifically are you thinking of here?
Click to expand...
There's a few, The one where both balls are basically straight on the end rail and have to force the CB up and into the rail to get a bit down table. The ones where you have to hit it in the air, kind of pop into the OB, bounce it a bit before your spin takes. Using extreme throw to cheat a pocket and kill the CB. They are mainly "trick" shots but can bail you out. PJ said it better, but it's mostly firm shots. They are kind of fiddly when you get straight in and super easy to miss, but sometimes you have to do them. You can often just do a stop shot (or draw) and take a longer shot at the next ball, but not always.
 
There are banks that many experienced 8ball- rotation-14.1 players don't know or shoot until they have played some 1 pocket.


The same applies to safety play and escaping safes.

So 1 pocket can help one play better in the other games.
 
Kobachi said:
I have always been attracted to the terminology used with one pocket for some reason:
“Rearranging the furniture”
Wedge
Jail
“Moving day”
Double up
Trap

Etc…. I really love the game.
Click to expand...
Danny used to say a guy would be sleepin in his car if he shot a really low chance shot. I say 'rearrange the deck' all the time.
 
Kobachi said:
I have always been attracted to the terminology used with one pocket for some reason:
“Rearranging the furniture”
Wedge
Jail
“Moving day”
Double up
Trap

Etc…. I really love the game.
Click to expand...
Yeah the terminology is a part of the game.

Bury them.

Hit them with a broom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top