It seems to me they are playing 9ball Texas Express the way it has been played for the last 30 years. I don't see a need for that to change.
Watching professional pool, do you prefer winner break or alternate break?
- Thread starter Smutzc
- Start date
middleofnowhere
Registered
No, just that game has changed over the years. Some for the better and many would say some not for the better.
I hear the lot, like the recent SVB back from the Dead against Mika. But did Mika get ahead by 7 racks BECAUSE of winner breaks?
middleofnowhere
Registered
You don't have to run out racks to benefit from the break.
Races to 9 or more, winner breaks, though I think all pro tournaments should have races to 11 even in the first rounds.
Mosconi Cup or any races to 7 or less, alternate breaks. Winner breaks in shorter races gives too much advantage to an early hot hand, whereas with longer races winner breaks allows for more comebacks.
Mosconi Cup or any races to 7 or less, alternate breaks. Winner breaks in shorter races gives too much advantage to an early hot hand, whereas with longer races winner breaks allows for more comebacks.
I agree with you. But when it WAS ball in hand behind the head string, your scenario wouldn't have applied. Because the lowest numbered ball on the table would be spotted if necessary. I think the rules were dumb, and I like it the way it is now.
He laid down a 5-pack to extend his lead.
If playing alternate break, there will be far fewer needs for comebacks. I like differing between short and long sets though, that's what I'd prefer too.
middleofnowhere
Registered
Does the incoming player have an advantage when a player missed and leaves him safe? Many times a player will miss and become the favorite. Do you think there should be a rule to fix this? How about if a player missed and leaves you safe you can push out.
I'm not at all against the push out rule. I think it would be neat if you could push out at any part of the rack.
Winner breaks, push out only way play pool! As spectator make game way more fun to watch, even as a player I prefer play this way. Pool today is like watching grass grow. Different flare, seams everyone is dodging pins and needles and the task at hand is robotic. Danger Danger.
My last thought is pool a Obama plan. Everyone gets a fair shot? Winners become losers.
My last thought is pool a Obama plan. Everyone gets a fair shot? Winners become losers.Because each rack is a separate game. Rotation games are not straight pool; it's not continuous.
An inning begins when you get a shot at the cue ball (because of a miss, a foul, the match begins).
An inning ends when you miss or foul or win the match.
They chose the work inning so that it would span racks (14.1, 8-ball, 9-ball, 10-ball,...)
They would have used the term "turn" if it was not supposed to span racks.
An inning ends when you miss or foul or win the match.
They chose the work inning so that it would span racks (14.1, 8-ball, 9-ball, 10-ball,...)
They would have used the term "turn" if it was not supposed to span racks.
middleofnowhere
Registered
That's not true. The fact that the balls are re-racked does not end the inning. It is in fact continuous. Before 14.1, straight pool was played like that, one rack at a time.
Correct, in continuous pool (forerunner to straight pool), innings carried across racks. The full 15 balls were re-racked and the player continued to either do a safety break or an open break.
Early in pools history players believed that a players ability to extend runs and control the table was a significant differentiating factor between skill levels.
The fundamental difference is that continuous pool (14.1 or older full-rack) has an entirely different winning condition, namely whoever reaches the agreed number of points first. Only then is the game over. Whereas in rotation games (and 8-ball, for that matter) legally sinking the money ball is the winning condition. Once that's done that game is over. Whether one long race to X or in sets, matches are made up of multiple discrete and separate games, not one continuous game.
Last edited:
Exactly. I keep seeing people say SVB wouldn't have had any chance to make a comeback from down 11-4 if there were alternate break. But there being a 11-4 score in the first place is exceedingly unlikely in alternate break in the first place.
Guy Manges
Registered
As an 81 year old viewer, I enjoy alternate, seems to give some weaker players a better chance, Many times I'm for the underdog...
middleofnowhere
Registered
I would say it does the opposite. The best chance the weaker player has is for some magic to happen. Playing one rack and stop doesn't let that happen. I have beaten top players in tournaments like Miz, Jersey Red, Jimmy Reid, Danny DiLiberto, Louie Roberts and more. I would have a much harder time winning if the game was tit for tat. Jersey Red had me 8 to 2 race to 11 and he only shot one more time at a safety before I won the set. While the better player is certainly more likely to beat the weaker player playing in any format, as it should be. Winner breaks gives the weaker player at least the opportunity to go nuts and win against the odds.
Truth is that neither of you are correct and it has been proven beyond all doubt that whether it is winner or alternate break format does not in any way change the rate at which the better player will win (although what it does change is how close the score line is going to look).
I agree with middleofnowhere on what would seem to make the most intuitive sense though as wrong as it is. If I'm playing SVB I would intuitively want to be playing winner breaks I think. He is the better player so I have little chance of trading racks and keeping up with him when we both have equal breaking opportunities, whereas with winner breaks I could catch a gear and put a pack on him at the right time that takes me over the finish line first, or I could put together several smaller two packs or so here and there along the way where he just wasn't able to because the balls didn't lay as good for him.
Also, alternate break is way more pressure and the better player generally handles the pressure better, and for sure SVB is going to deal with the pressure better than I do, so I want to take away some of his pressure handling advantage by playing the format that has less pressure, winner breaks.
The facts are that SVB is going to beat me the same percentage of the time either way, but if I were to somehow get weak in the mind and allow myself to use my intuition and feeling rather than my logic and knowledge then in such case I'm going to erroneously feel I have a better chance playing winner breaks because it gives the false appearance of giving the underdog more of a chance for an upset.
Last edited: