When you are talking about using no doze to keep you awake while watching the finals you are a viewer. And I brought up those things because a any 3 foul loss is just as silly. Nothing subtle about that ridiculous rule.
Time to Revise 1Pocket Rules
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
When you are talking about using no doze to keep you awake while watching the finals you are a viewer. And I brought up those things because a any 3 foul loss is just as silly. Nothing subtle about that ridiculous rule.
I know you are a professional "viewer" but as someone who actually steps out of the bleachers now and then, I'm going to claim "player" status, even when I need the No-Doz.
It all looks different from the seats. At least when you've screwed your cue together and played in more than a few big tournament matches, you know what it feels like when you're sitting ringside. And it has been the tournament play that I've been talking about. Admittedly, one-on-one is different and guys can agree to whatever rules they want, from traditional spots, to scratches don't count, to using the cube, to the hand span, to no-count, and on and on
Lou Figueroa
what is a professional viewer is that like an unpublished novelist?
Wait is that a personal put down? Did I call you a professional unpublished novelist? Come on get off yourself, aficionado=non professional=hobbyist=dilettante. I know you have a career as a contrarian but why you attacking me personal. When you came to House of Billiards in Santa Monica I didn't see you screw up your stick then? No you sat as a viewer.
Look I was not attacking you personally. I said you were speaking as someone who is bored at viewing the game. Don't give me lectures about how experienced you are. Next youre going to tell me where you've dined in the world and with what wine and what company you keep. Who cares.
You keep talking about those of us who....So what are the rest of us? Peons? Not good enough for you? Ive entered $10,000 Poker tournaments and many $1000 ones. I have played in many one pocket ones as well but don't because I don't think I qualify to play with an Efren Reyes or Shannon Daultan who I totally respect and admire. I wouldn't think Im worthy enough to. Though I will play them privately for experience and learning. I don't go around thinking my do don't stink.
Keone Young
I know you are a professional "viewer" but as someone who actually steps out of the bleachers now and then, I'm going to claim "player" status, even when I need the No-Doz.
It all looks different from the seats. At least when you've screwed your cue together and played in more than a few big tournament matches, you know what it feels like when you're sitting ringside. And it has been the tournament play that I've been talking about. Admittedly, one-on-one is different and guys can agree to whatever rules they want, from traditional spots, to scratches don't count, to using the cube, to the hand span, to no-count, and on and on
Lou Figueroa
Wait is that a personal put down? Did I call you a professional unpublished novelist? Come on get off yourself, aficionado=non professional=hobbyist=dilettante. I know you have a career as a contrarian but why you attacking me personal. When you came to House of Billiards in Santa Monica I didn't see you screw up your stick then? No you sat as a viewer.
Look I was not attacking you personally. I said you were speaking as someone who is bored at viewing the game. Don't give me lectures about how experienced you are. Next youre going to tell me where you've dined in the world and with what wine and what company you keep. Who cares.
You keep talking about those of us who....So what are the rest of us? Peons? Not good enough for you? Ive entered $10,000 Poker tournaments and many $1000 ones. I have played in many one pocket ones as well but don't because I don't think I qualify to play with an Efren Reyes or Shannon Daultan who I totally respect and admire. I wouldn't think Im worthy enough to. Though I will play them privately for experience and learning. I don't go around thinking my do don't stink.
Keone Young
I've played one pocket for about eight years now and I can't watch people play rotation games anymore. Those are the boring games. One pocket is the game to watch if you've actually played it much.
It is still more fun to play though.
If you want people to stop taking fouls and going backwards, make the pockets tighter so they can send the cue ball up table and be somewhat safe when they get stuck in those situations. The top pros make the table look easy with new felt.
It is still more fun to play though.
If you want people to stop taking fouls and going backwards, make the pockets tighter so they can send the cue ball up table and be somewhat safe when they get stuck in those situations. The top pros make the table look easy with new felt.
Imagine you are in a pool hall and rented table number two. The guys who rented table number one and table number three are playing one pocket game. These guys standing between the tables and studying the balls and taking forever to shoot a ball. You want to shoot your shot but you are blocked by the Einsteins studying the table for several minutes. Is it fair? Is it right?
Any place I've ever played pool a simple, "Excuse me," would do the trick.
It wasn't a put down. I just seem to recall of your posts that you always mention being ring side at events like the DCC and the US Open, going back to Kalamazoo. No offense meant, I just don't recall you ever mention playing in one of these, you're always a viewer in your posts.
Lou Figueroa
Two ideas.
1. A combination chess clock / shot clock approach. Each player starts with a bank of time on the chess clock. When the chess clock time runs out, the player goes on a 30 second shot clock. This gives players an incentive to shoot quickly whenever the situation allows, in order to bank their time for when they really need it. But it avoids the dynamic of trying to stretch out games strategically, since you can't win that way, just put your opponent on a clock.
2. Play to a point total that carries over from match to match. So a race to 3 becomes a race to 24 (you go to the next rack when either player reaches 8; you could speed it up by making that 7). Why does this help? Because the single remaining ball at the end of the game is 1/24th of what you need to win instead of 1/3rd. I guess a real grinder would still play that the same way at the end, but I think most players would be more aggressive.
I used the point totals in a handicapped one pocket tournament I used to run, because it was the only way I could come up with a handicap system that was fair but didn't take all night. I couldn't have 5-3 races and get people home, and I didn't want to ever have anyone only needing one game. With ball totals, I could make a match 20-12, 16-16, whatever.
Cory
1. A combination chess clock / shot clock approach. Each player starts with a bank of time on the chess clock. When the chess clock time runs out, the player goes on a 30 second shot clock. This gives players an incentive to shoot quickly whenever the situation allows, in order to bank their time for when they really need it. But it avoids the dynamic of trying to stretch out games strategically, since you can't win that way, just put your opponent on a clock.
2. Play to a point total that carries over from match to match. So a race to 3 becomes a race to 24 (you go to the next rack when either player reaches 8; you could speed it up by making that 7). Why does this help? Because the single remaining ball at the end of the game is 1/24th of what you need to win instead of 1/3rd. I guess a real grinder would still play that the same way at the end, but I think most players would be more aggressive.
I used the point totals in a handicapped one pocket tournament I used to run, because it was the only way I could come up with a handicap system that was fair but didn't take all night. I couldn't have 5-3 races and get people home, and I didn't want to ever have anyone only needing one game. With ball totals, I could make a match 20-12, 16-16, whatever.
Cory
Well then I misconstrued your intent and apologize if I responded in kind. But "professional viewer" I am not. There are many of us here who are fans and love the game and find the best way we can support it is buy a ticket to an event. For example, I don't recall SJM ever entering into a major one pocket event or many same kinds of events but yet I see him ringside at many. I would not disparage his intelligence and skill level of the game. As a matter of fact since I live part of the year in New York seen him play a pretty sporty game.
Oops here I am as a viewer again. But you see my point. (If I am wrong here SJM as to your "player" status I apologize but I don't follow every tournament).
I think one of the best ways to improve the game is to bring more prize money into it. That is why I attend a lot of these events, buy dvds, and give promotional money like the Make It Happen accu-stat projects. The more fan support, the more money, and the improved game comes out of it. But we also have to have education about the game. You see comments like "watching paint dry" and "boring uptable game" but you as a practitioner of the game know that it is that those comments come from a total misunderstanding of the game itself. I don't know jack about cricket but just because it has a ball and a bat doesn't make it right that I can make critical comments about it and try to correct its appeal as a game. I try to learn about it before I sit through a 3 hour match of god knows what the heck they are doing.
Lets go back to your original theme of your post. First I agree for tournament play there should be a shot clock. But let the players call for it like they do in poker. Let referees have the strict authority to make rulings like they do in snooker for infractions like stalling. As for the "any 3 foul you lose" rule I am against it because if Hero is at 2 fouls and Villain misses a shot but leaves it deep in his hole Hero cannot take a scratch with it without losing the game. Thus rewarding Villain for a miss.
The bottom line Lou is you love the game as I do. In this we are united.
Last edited:
didn't have time to read all the posts but something needs to be done if it is to continue as a spectator sport
absolutely the best pool game ever and totally love the game as it is ... but too many with somewhat of an interest say 'like watching grass grow' or 'waiting for paint to dry'
wishing the entire pool world shared our interest. nice thread Lou
You are 100% correct Billy, but truthfully playing very slow player suck at times, or when up table game comes up!, it can remain exactly the same, but instead of owing a ball, simply reduce the other players balls needed to win if the other player fouls, this way they do not force the game to 12 -12 or 12- 10, also this way will force aggressive play of which could lead to shorter game, after all the "lucky" will win the game, ops! i mean the good and smart like you!!
Heres an idea
Reading the last few posts made me think of this. I dont want to see the game changed much as to strategy or rules or up table game or anything else.
But I do agree that things need to be sped up,and that taking fouls and accumulating coins by your hole is not good, so how bout this.....
When one fouls or scratches instead of spotting a ball or owing a ball, how about you transfer a ball from your tray to your opponents tray. I realize this puts a greater emphasis on fouls, but so what, fouls become worth two balls instead of one. That will stop the intentional fouls and speed the game up with no other changes, I would bet.:thumbup:
P.S. For those that play on tables with drop pockets that don't have trays to keep your balls, you would, upon committing a foul, simply reach into your pocket, remove a ball and drop it into your opponents pocket. If you have no ball, you would place a coin by your hole denoting that when you do make a ball it belongs to your opponent.
Reading the last few posts made me think of this. I dont want to see the game changed much as to strategy or rules or up table game or anything else.
But I do agree that things need to be sped up,and that taking fouls and accumulating coins by your hole is not good, so how bout this.....
When one fouls or scratches instead of spotting a ball or owing a ball, how about you transfer a ball from your tray to your opponents tray. I realize this puts a greater emphasis on fouls, but so what, fouls become worth two balls instead of one. That will stop the intentional fouls and speed the game up with no other changes, I would bet.:thumbup:
P.S. For those that play on tables with drop pockets that don't have trays to keep your balls, you would, upon committing a foul, simply reach into your pocket, remove a ball and drop it into your opponents pocket. If you have no ball, you would place a coin by your hole denoting that when you do make a ball it belongs to your opponent.
Last edited:
Your idea on the shot clock is pretty good. Not sure I like the point total carry over though.
Lou Figueroa
Yes. More prize money would be good. But as long as they have to pass out No-Doz, that is not going to happen and that's why I believe something needs to be done to keep the game moving (no pun intended).
And your proposal for having a shot clock on demand is problematic. Here's why: I don't know how many dozens of times I have been in a tournament and thought the other guy was taking way too long. (*Only one time* has a TD come over and put a clock on a match I was involved in, and it wasn't my fault.)
I mean, I'm talking about players who repeatedly take forever on shots where even a drunk Girl Scout knows there's only one possible shot and still, the other guy will study and chalk and walk around the table and chalk some more get down on the shot get back up get down get up and finally pul the trigger. My philosophy for tournament play is that: you paid your entry fee -- do what you gotta do. And so I have never called for a shot clock, though I do believe that on many occasions it would have been appropriate. And that's the thing -- no player wants to be the bad guy, call for the clock, and have the other guy be pissed and think you're a nit. So the shot clock needs to be a tournament universal, IMO.
Lastly, you are right. We both love the game. I think it's a fabulous thing to compete at, but the tournament version needs a tweak (or two).
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
It is a great, great game, as you say Billy.
And thanks about the thread. They even ripped it off and it is thriving on the one pocket.org site (AND they ripped off my US Open trip report too!). Who knew I was so popular.
Lou Figueroa
wow. That's not bad, but kinda radical. I think we need to move in smaller steps.
Lou Figueroa
Here we go Lou you have two persons saying same thing do not owe balls , just reduce winning ball count by number of fouls of other player, i also as i said in earlier post, balls reduction could start after one or both owe a ball or two so they do not owe 4 or 6 balls
60 second shot clock with two time outs, for streaming. Your all a bunch of one-pocket sicko's for making me sit there for over five hours to watch the finals.
At least the commentary was worth the price.
At least the commentary was worth the price.