three pocket !!!

oldzilla

Accu-Stats Messenger
Silver Member
i really don't care for one pocket. to me it is to slow. rotation players can feel that way. with that being said how about a new concept.
each player having three pockets. one side of the table vs the other.
what do you think ? has anyone ever tried this ?

talk amongst yourselfs !:grin:
 
I think this would be like playing straight pool but at 50% capacity. You would only have to make 8 balls and that's it on one side of the table.

One way to make the one pocket game more interesting would be to pocket the balls o the side pockets instead of the two bottom pockets.
 
i really don't care for one pocket. to me it is to slow. rotation players can feel that way. with that being said how about a new concept.
each player having three pockets. one side of the table vs the other.
what do you think ? has anyone ever tried this ?

talk amongst yourselfs !:grin:

Once, way back in college a guy spotted me all three holes on one side of the table in a game of one pocket. It might have been the first game of one pocket that I ever played, and I lost. I'd take that spot now from just about anyone though.

Even though I used to dislike one pocket for the first 15 years or so that I played pool, I find it hard to relate to pool players that don't like it now. I like the game that much. I guess I'm becoming a one pocket snob... it's the best game, I'll argue that as long and as hard as I will argue that Tiger Woods is the best golfer to ever swing a club.

I think it comes down to players equating "slow" with a lack of making balls or safety play. The reality of it is you are shooting back and forth much more often in a one pocket game than you do in other games. Once you grasp the idea that you can accomplish something without having to make a ball, it all opens up to you. Plus, 8 and outs into one pocket, when they happen, is fun.

So, no, I've never seen it played where each player has 3 holes each to play for but I imagine that a lot of the strategy would be lost in a game like that.
 
Last edited:
3 Pocket = Skim milk, tastless, diluted and dull
1 Pocket = Whipping Cream, rich and with some work rewarding
 
I think the game is perfect as is, but if 1-hole is too slow for you, you should check out the rules for speed 1-pocket on Freddy The Beards website.
 
Try a set of 7-ball?!

And, after one person breaks, their opponent chooses which side of the table that they want to make the 7-ball in (and you get the other side of the table). Quick game and combines rotation with your 3-pocket concept.
 
i really don't care for one pocket. to me it is to slow. rotation players can feel that way. with that being said how about a new concept.
each player having three pockets. one side of the table vs the other.
what do you think ? has anyone ever tried this ?

talk amongst yourselfs !:grin:

3-pocket = Stupid

Ranks right up there with cut-throat.
 
I would rather just play 14.1 in that case (i usually prefer that over one hole anyways). 3 pocket would take away a lot of the game.

if you get bored of the one pocket, then maybe find a golf game on a snooker table? at least you rotate pockets there...although it is a bit of a sacrilege to the snooker players
 
I'm curious what your definition of slow is? Do you equate the speed of the game with how quickly it is over? Do you equate the speed of the game with how often balls are pocketed?

If so, I think you need to change your mindset to play the game. The game is rich in strategy and defense and goes far beyond pocketing balls.

Imagine how slow 3 cushion billiard players would think their game was if it were measured on balls pocketed!
 
While I dont like the sounds of using 3 pockets, I dont think theres any need to give the guy a lesson on the definition of 'slow' games for pool. Regardless of strategy/etc we all know that by nature one pocket is a 'slow' game to watch. which is why we'll never see it on tv. its far to complex for the average joe to understand the great shots that dont pocket a ball.
 
Back
Top