I get it that you can compensate for it but it changes positional play quite a bit & limits choices.
The wildcard spots have been announced
- Thread starter CBuck
- Start date
I get it that you can compensate for it but it changes positional play quite a bit & limits choices.
Funny my lobbying against the corruption and manipulation in previous years when the young players were getting hosed help the new young guns get their opportunities so it is not archer, Morris,strickland, wiliams, hatch every year with no merit of selection.
After all the guff , new general and new set of bs.
You have been the recipient 2 times and it is not enough. Even though fell short.
People fought for your opportunity to earn a spot on the team.
Do a search on my post history and you will see it is not stirring the pot for the last 15 years.
Kd
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
After all the guff , new general and new set of bs.
You have been the recipient 2 times and it is not enough. Even though fell short.
People fought for your opportunity to earn a spot on the team.
Do a search on my post history and you will see it is not stirring the pot for the last 15 years.
Kd
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4314250&postcount=113
+
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3802105&postcount=35
+
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3796779&postcount=53
+
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3751753&postcount=19
+
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2631437&postcount=37
+
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2631356&postcount=30
Figured do the search and post the results for anyone that thinks its stirring the pot and don't know its been "YEARS" of lobbying for changes and merit based selection. Just check the dates of these.
KD
+
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3802105&postcount=35
+
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3796779&postcount=53
+
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3751753&postcount=19
+
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2631437&postcount=37
+
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2631356&postcount=30
Figured do the search and post the results for anyone that thinks its stirring the pot and don't know its been "YEARS" of lobbying for changes and merit based selection. Just check the dates of these.
KD
It actually makes me a little sad I picked 4 out of 4 wildcard picks correctly lol
Justin is making the point I have made several times.
The lesser player is more likely to win a race to 9 on the 7-foot table. Absolutely true.
The subtlety is the REASON for this is not what people frequently claim.
Everybody knows that on a 9-foot table a lesser player is more likely to win the shorter the race. Race to 3 I might beat Justin on the 9-foot. Race to 9 I never will.
What people don't understand is that I might beat Justin playing a race to 5 9-ball on the 7-foot table. The REASON is not that I am closer to Justin on the 7-foot table. He is just as much better than me as he is on the 9-foot table.
But the race-to-5 on the 7-foot table ACTS STATISTICALLY like a shorter race. I am about equally likely to run out either set.
We call this the run length issue.
I still don't understand it. Are you more likely to beat Justin in one game on a 7-footer than a 9-footer? If so, then he is not equally better than you on 9-footers and 7-footers. And if it doesn't apply in one game, how does it apply in multiple-game races?
Congratulations on your selection, which was hard earned and well deserved.
As an American hoping we win I'm glad Alcaide wasnt picked over Appleton imo Darren is a legend and hall of famer but as of late his game has looked very weak especially compared to himself from recent years and I'm not bashing Darren I'm a fan/supporter of him but I truly think with his tournament and wife/girl and Chinese 8 ball all on his mind practicing and playing 9 ball took a back seat and his game has suffered tremendously.
On the flip side Alcaide has looked amazing in the last few big tournys and I believe is playing multiple speeds ahead of Darren currently and again as an American fan I truly believe picking Darren over Alcaide will hurt there chances and help ours.
I look for Appleton to struggle...
On the flip side Alcaide has looked amazing in the last few big tournys and I believe is playing multiple speeds ahead of Darren currently and again as an American fan I truly believe picking Darren over Alcaide will hurt there chances and help ours.
I look for Appleton to struggle...
This is the crux of the issue. I am NOT more likely to beat Justin 1 game on a 7-footer than a 9-footer. My chance of winning a game is about the same.
He will beat me about 100 to 31 on either table. I will win about 24% of the games.
The difference is more of these 131 games on the 7-foot table will be part of "packages," games that one of us won without any back-and-forth, without any changes in control. Justin will have about four times as many of these "package" games as me. In other words they happen in about the same ratio as do game wins overall. These exist whether it is winner breaks or alternate breaks.
These "package games" need to be subtracted out to get an understanding of the statistics of the match.
So suppose Justin and I are playing 9-ball on a 7-foot table. On ten occasions during the match I win a game and then run the next one. Also on ten occasions, Justin wins a game and runs the next four. If we subtract out these package games, it is no longer Justin 100 me 31. It is now Justin 60 me 21. Games are in the same ratio but it is a shorter race. Because it is effectively a shorter race, there will be greater fluctuations about the expectation.
I've brought up this analogy many times, but if you look at a single POINT of straight pool as a GAME, then these issues become more clear. In other words it exaggerates the effect and makes it more apparent.
Justin will beat me about 100 to 31 playing straight pool too. If he gives me 70 points on the wire to 100 I will play him.
So compare Justin and me playing a dozen races to 100 9-Ball on a 9-foot table to Justin and me playing a dozen races to 100 in straight pool.
9-Ball --He wins them all. I get between 23 and 39
14.1 -- He wins them all. I get between -1 and 63
There is a lot more fluctuation in the straight-pool scores, even though I will get to 31 on average in either case.
If we played an even-up straight pool race to 25, I might actually win it. This is the fluctuation again. I would never win a 9-ball race to 25.
This is true even though he still scores straight-pool points at a 4 to 1 ratio over me.
Just wanted to throw this in since nobody else is...
it's not a trivial thing to go to Kuwait for this tournament.
If I'm reading this right they had a qualifier stage that lasted 8 days,
then another 5 days or so to whittle down the final 64, and it's single elimination.
Who wants to spend $600 airfare + a couple weeks food and lodging,
trying to beat Jayson and Shane and Wu, in a single elim race?
You're like $2000 in the hole before you hit a ball.
I'm happy Bergman got his pick but neither he nor Oscar are in the same weight class
as the top guys at this event. It absolutely makes sense to stay home.
Congrats on making the team, Justin, and good luck in London.
Your memory of the SVB/Feijen match is a bit off, though. Shane won the first and fifth games, so he had 2 when Niels got to 4. But I agree that Niels was the "more fortunate" player in that match (e.g., he fluked the 2-ball in Game 3, leading to a B&R).
Justin - good to see a top player post on here, not a lot of pros spend time on AZ
but for every 1 guy making jackass comments, 10 of us are happy to hear a pro's perspective.
Glad to see you on the team, and hope you can be part of our first win in a long time.
That being said, I hope you don't get too hung up on the short race format.
The number of races evens out a lot of the luck.
If the format made it too lucky, like a coin flip,
then there's no way one team comes up heads 8 out of 9 times.
mike: appreciate what you do too breaking it down, stats are tedious
to track but tell us a lot.
but for every 1 guy making jackass comments, 10 of us are happy to hear a pro's perspective.
Glad to see you on the team, and hope you can be part of our first win in a long time.
That being said, I hope you don't get too hung up on the short race format.
The number of races evens out a lot of the luck.
If the format made it too lucky, like a coin flip,
then there's no way one team comes up heads 8 out of 9 times.
mike: appreciate what you do too breaking it down, stats are tedious
to track but tell us a lot.
Not quite that bad. All 8 players who went from the USA were placed directly into Stage 2 (the group double-elimination stage to take it from 128 players to 64). None had to play in the qualifiers. The group stage lasted 2 days, and then the 64-player single-elimination stage lasted another 2 days.
But if the USA had sent more than 8 players, perhaps one or more would have had to play in the qualifiers.
Agreed. I hate to say it but Appleton the last couple of years has reached the level of a...hasbeen. He can still produce a good performance on a single match but it's highly unlikely he can maintain that sort of form for long. In last year's MC he was absolutely dreadful and I fear he'll be the Europe's weak link this year too. I also don't buy the excuses on why he's not performing, the only truth is that other players have improved a lot more than he did and left him far behind. Not picking Alcaide is a mistake, as I consider him the far better player between the two but it will be probably go unnoticed due to Europe's overall superiority. Alcaide deserved that spot, but the fact Appleton being British is more important to Matchroom than actual ability. They need to sell tickets too. Meh...
You can easily lose a match in tennis with less unforced errors if your oppents serve is much better happens all the time players with less of a serve might ask for the ball to be thrown out by a line judge like pool player wanting a push out , the serve and the break are part of the game
If you keep loosing short sets to the same player it goes beyond luck and into a pattern ,
You might beat that same player in any long race however I'm not buying this notion that makes you the better player, it simply means your better in long sets ,
The makeup mentally in short races is different than long races , players who succeed time and time again in short races do so because they are trained to do so the pressure of a short race loser go home far exceeds long matches where there is time to shoot yourself in stroke
1
Huh
So your saying if someone wins 5-3, 5-4, and you win 5-2, and then lose 5-4. By your logic that person is just a better player. Sounds about right.
So your saying if someone wins 5-3, 5-4, and you win 5-2, and then lose 5-4. By your logic that person is just a better player. Sounds about right.
Just to help you out keeps losing means you don't win however if your sample was tripled . So it's 9-3 I'd say the player with 9 is a better player in short sets ,,
1
Well if you each won 2 sets, that would make it even.
I think it would depend on who won the deciding 5th set.
It would also need to be more than one match. If you played, say, 100 matches (race to 5/best of 5 format). Then you could safely declare the person who won the most matches the better player. Even if they only won 51 matches to 49.
Good luck in London and shoot the lights out!