What constitutes being a "Rack Mechanic"? (long)

[Cuebacca]

I'm curious about the whole "rack mechanic" thing. This is a negative term implying cheating by intentionally giving a bad rack to someone else, or perhaps rigging yourself a tricked-out immorally good rack when playing "rack your own". I'd like to understand this a little deeper. I have 9-ball in mind here, but feel free to post about other games as well if the mood strikes you.

I think some of the things to watch out for are obvious. For example, if someone gives you a 9-ball rack where the 1-ball rolls forward and isn't touching anything. Duh. Bad rack. There are things to watch out for that are not obvious at first. I've read Joe Tucker's "Racking Secrets" which is included in Ceebee's book "The Great Break Shot". This is a great book to read, as it goes into some very nice details. Really good information in this book.

What I am wondering about is what to watch out for in "rack your own". I prefer "rack your own" because you can make sure you get a good rack, not just the minimum acceptable rack. I want to rack myself a good rack, but I also want to make sure I'm not a cheater or a rack mechanic. I also want to know what to watch for when the other guy is racking for himself.

The obvious one to me (after reading "Racking Secrets"), is to make sure that the 9-ball is tight, so that it doesn't carom right in on the break. Is there anything else really that would make you a rack mechanic in "rack your own" 9-ball?

In "Racking Secrets", they also describe what to look for to know if the wing ball has a good chance of going in. To me, I would think that racking for yourself with the wing-ball in mind would not be considered cheating or being a rack mechanic.

Here's why: If you can get every single ball frozen in the 9-ball rack, the wing ball should naturally go in. Certainly, a person should not be blamed for getting all of the balls frozen. However, we usually cannot get all of the balls frozen in a practical situation. Well, for the wing ball to go in, you don't actually need all of the balls to be frozen, you only need certain balls to be frozen.

So, here's the question. If you rack for yourself with the intent to freeze specific balls required to make the wing ball, is that bad? I would think that it is only bad to intentionally leave gaps (correct me if I'm wrong). Conversely, I would think that it is not bad to intentionally freeze the balls that are most important for a "good rack", and basically ignore what happens to the other balls (while still making sure the 9 is racked tight). Hopefully this made sense. LOL.

Anyway, so that is one question. The next question is, are there other issues that might make you a rack mechanic in "rack your own" besides (a) the 9-ball, and (possibly) (b) trying to freeze balls required to make the wing ball?

Sorry for the long post.

 

[BVal]

When I rack I try to freeze all the balls together no matter if I am racking for me or someone else. It is my understanding that that is the correct way to rack. I don't want to beat someone because I know I gave him a "loose" rack. I want to win fair and square, otherwise you are really just cheating yourself.

BVal

 

[Cuebacca]

When I rack I try to freeze all the balls together no matter if I am racking for me or someone else. It is my understanding that that is the correct way to rack. I don't want to beat someone because I know I gave him a "loose" rack. I want to win fair and square, otherwise you are really just cheating yourself.

BVal

I totally agree. The problem is that on some equipment it is impossible to get all of the balls frozen together, at least as far as I can tell. That probably means I need to start playing on better equipment, LOL. With lesser equipment, I do my best, and usually take longer racking than my average opponent.

In fact, one time, at a well-established tournament that shall remain nameless, I took too long and the tournament director got annoyed at me and said something like, "it doesn't have to be perfect; this is how you rack." Then, he proceeded to rack for my opponent. That was really embarrassing, especially being in an otherwise quiet tournament room. The funny thing was, it was still a bad rack! Haha. IIRC, the 1 wasn't touching any numbers behind it, only the 860 below it. Some triangles are just hard to work with, and balls do wear and change size. I maintain my innocence in that case, but I don't hold it against the TD. He just likes to keep things moving, perhaps especially since it was "just" their B tourney.

Anyway, I usually end up just trying to freeze the balls that I believe are most important to establish a good rack, because it might take forever to freeze them all in some cases. This is why I prefer rack your own, because the balls that I beleive to be important might not be the same as what my opponent believes are important. Not to mention the opponents that just don't really try to give me a good rack.

 

[CrownCityCorey]

What constitutes being a "Rack Mechanic"?

To be a "Rack Mechanic" you must have completed 1000 hours of coursework from an accredited Joe Tucker University.

I have my Diploma, do you?

 

[Cuebacca]

To be a "Rack Mechanic" you must have completed 1000 hours of coursework from an accredited Joe Tucker University.

I have my Diploma, do you?

LOL. Darn it, I'd better submit my application soon. Are they taking enrollment for this Spring?

 

[Cuebacca]

Joe Tucker's Racking Secrets

For anyone who has read the book and also watched the DVD, does the DVD have any additional information that is not covered in the book?

 

[CrownCityCorey]

For anyone who has read the book and also watched the DVD, does the DVD have any additional information that is not covered in the book?

Same info, but the visual aids help a lot.

 

[desert1pocket]

One thing I look for is that both of the balls behind the 9 are either frozen or not touching. If only one of the balls behind the 9 is frozen to the 9, the 9 has a great chance of being made on the snap. I know that there are many other things to look for in 9-ball, like tilted racks etc. but I don't have my Joe Tucker diploma, and I don't play much 9-ball.

In 1-pocket, I prefer to play rack your own because it is very easy to give a bad rack, and pretty tough to give a rack that strongly favors the breaker without being obvious. If someone racks for me, I check that the rack is on the spot, not tilted, and that all the balls on the side I will be hitting are frozen.

 

[Cuebacca]

Thanks for the replies. Well, no one has said that I'd be resented for trying to rack my own such that the wing ball will go in. I guess I had a funny way of wording it, but that was my main question.

I like rack-your-own because most people won't get all the balls frozen for me. I might not be able to get all the balls frozen either, but I can probably get the four balls frozen that are helpful in making the wing ball. I don't consider that as being a rack mechanic in the negative sense, but I wanted to check what other people thought. Since no one objected, I guess I'm good to go.

 

[PlynSets]

Thanks for the replies. Well, no one has said that I'd be resented for trying to rack my own such that the wing ball will go in. I guess I had a funny way of wording it, but that was my main question.

I like rack-your-own because most people won't get all the balls frozen for me. I might not be able to get all the balls frozen either, but I can probably get the four balls frozen that are helpful in making the wing ball. I don't consider that as being a rack mechanic in the negative sense, but I wanted to check what other people thought. Since no one objected, I guess I'm good to go.

Cuebacca sorry I didn't respond earlier to this, but to answer your question "Hell yes I would mind."

Ironically enough this came up at a tournament I played in last night. 95% of the tournies around here are the opponent racks, but the one I played in last night is predominantly "Rack your own." Being that this isn't exactly my neck of the woods I'm usually pretty quiet about little things happening I don't agree with or what not. I'm playing this guy and he's racking and to be honest I don't know if he took me for an idiot, or it nobody ever says anything to him or what??

The first rack he racked and spent several minutes racking the balls. I was sipping on a beer and not really paying attention thinking this guy might be some sort of perfectionist or something.. Then I happen to look at the rack right before he's breaking and the whole back 1/2 of the rack was pretty far from tight on one side. So now I'm sitting here kinda puzzled about what to do when he up's and breaks and makes 3 balls in on the break.. WTF? OK well shit happens right?

He wins the first game proceeds to rack his own again, and he's spending several minutes on the rack. I look at the rack, and tell the guy next to me and tell him "It's pretty sad when I can call the ball going in on the break." This time a ball goes in off the break, and ironically enough it's the 6 ball (happened to be a wing ball). The very same ball I just called to the guy I was talking too. Now last I checked I don't have any future predicting abillities, so how is it I'm able to call balls pre-break on his racks? The answer becomes evidently clear in 2 seconds, it's no different then a stacked deck of cards. It's CHEATING.

So now I walk over to the guy I'm playing and politely say "I think we've had just about enough of this rack your own shit.. I'll rack from here on out, and you can inspect them if you want." The guy was so pretty put on tilt about the whole deal. I'm not sure if it's becuase he got caught, or if it's becuase it's a rack your own kinda deal and I just pretty much told him he will not be touching that wooden triangle for the rest of the match or what.. but none the less, yes it's a ridiculous advantage over someone else when you rig a rack. Most obvious reasons is that it's taking the biggest "chance" factor out of the game, and I expect if your decent at racking you can set it up where you don't have to hit them nearly as hard, still garaunteed to make a ball, and most likely play shape on the one or the two right out of the gate. If your an A (or even a good B) player, then and you can rack your own with that logic, then in theory you could run ridiculous strings of racks if your garuanteed to make a ball, and likley to play shape on the one ball (or ball of your choice depending on where your putting them and what your breaking in etc..)

There's a little more to this story, but I think the jest of it answers your question on how I feel about it. After the 1st or 2nd rack you wouldn't be racking anymore.

DJ

 

[Cuebacca]

Thanks, DJ, for the honest reply. I was hoping that the majority of people here would find the wing ball thing acceptable if I could just explain my thinking right, but my second choice was for someone to speak up if they didn't like it. So, thanks.

I still feel that what I was trying to describe is not an unfair advantage. However, there may be a point that I'm overlooking, and I certainly don't want to be a cheater. I just want to establish which aspects to racking would be cheating and which would be OK.

I don't think this is as black and white as fixing a deck of cards. When shuffling, the goal is to get every card to a random location within the deck.

It's not quite the same with a rack of 9-ball. Ignoring the numbers on the balls, the goal in racking for pool is to get all of the balls as tight as possible, for the apex ball to be on the foot spot, and for the base of the triangle to be parallel with the short rails. Ideally, every ball will be frozen to all of its neighbors, there will be no angle to the rack, and the apex ball with be perfectly on the spot. Its actually not random, but very organized.

With that said, you cannot fault someone for trying to rack perfectly (within a reasonable time frame). Whether trying to rack for yourself or your opponent, you shouldn't be faulted for trying to get all of the balls tight. I'm assuming that everyone would agree with this statement.

Now, given that we don't typically have access to a Sardo rack, and Simonis might not be 100% fresh, the ideal rack can be nearly impossible to achieve at times. I'm honestly not sure that I've EVER given a 100% *perfect* rack to myself or to an opponent. Taking for granted that we might not be able to achieve a perfect rack, what will be the next best goal to shoot for?

Well, when I first started playing pool, it was simple. Just push all the balls forward and try to get the apex ball frozen to the two balls behind it. I think a better goal though is to strive to approximate a perfect rack.

Desert1Pocket mentioned that, in 1-pocket, he tries to freeze the line of balls along the edge that he breaks on. I see nothing wrong with that. Ideally, all the balls should be frozen, but those 5 are crutial to a making the rack do what it should naturally do if its racked and broken properly in 1-hole.

In 14.1 its is the same story. In the opening break, you thin the corner ball, and that ball comes out, hits the bottom rail and comes back to the rack. At the same time, the other corner ball hits the side rail and comes back to the rack. Without the back five balls frozen, I don't think that will happen. From my limited knowledge, those are the crucial balls required to maintain the integrity of the opening rack in 14.1.

Back to 9-ball, if all of the balls are racked perfectly tight, the wing ball will naturally go in when you break from the side and hit the 1 full. That is a property of the 9-ball rack, just like the 14.1 break and the 1-pocket break can do what they do if they are racked perfectly and broken properly. Whether we like that or not, the wing ball is a naturally-pocketed ball in 9-ball when the balls are racked and broken properly.

The way I'm looking at this, there are four specific balls required to be frozen in order to approximate a perfect 9-ball rack in terms of the wing ball. There are two specific balls that are most important to be frozen in terms of keeping the 9-ball still. So by trying to get those five frozen connections, I am only trying to approximate a perfect rack. So I would actually argue that doing anything less than this is stacking the deck against the breaker.

If I am looking at this wrong, I'd like to know why. I would like to know a guideline as far as which balls are allowed/forbidden to be tight/loose. After reading Racking Secrets, I definitely have some gaps that are red flags when checking the rack. What I don't quite understand is, what am I allowed and not allowed to do when racking my own? Or can you try to strive to approximate the ideal perfect all-balls-frozen rack? If getting two balls closer to frozen means that two other balls will have a huge gap and vice versa, what should be done? Should the two gaps be averaged, or can you pick two balls to freeze and two balls to be unfroze? I don't claim to have the answers. I thought I had the fair answer worked out in my mind, but now ...

On second thought, I think we all know the answer..... 10-ball.

 

[PlynSets]

That's a long post with alot of different things to answer so I have to break it down to smaller peaces becuase honestly I don't think I could keep that train of thought long enough.

Thanks, DJ, for the honest reply. I was hoping that the majority of people here would find the wing ball thing acceptable if I could just explain my thinking right, but my second choice was for someone to speak up if they didn't like it. So, thanks.

I still feel that what I was trying to describe is not an unfair advantage. However, there may be a point that I'm overlooking, and I certainly don't want to be a cheater. I just want to establish which aspects to racking would be cheating and which would be OK.

That was exactly my point.. We're talking "shades of grey" here, but if were talking from a straight "moral" standpoint we can make it black and white.

I don't think this is as black and white as fixing a deck of cards. When shuffling, the goal is to get every card to a random location within the deck.

It's not quite the same with a rack of 9-ball. Ignoring the numbers on the balls, the goal in racking for pool is to get all of the balls as tight as possible, for the apex ball to be on the foot spot, and for the base of the triangle to be parallel with the short rails. Ideally, every ball will be frozen to all of its neighbors, there will be no angle to the rack, and the apex ball with be perfectly on the spot. Its actually not random, but very organized.

A deck of cards wasn't the best example.. but for the sake of debate, what if I were to shuffle the cards and have them complete "random" as you said, but then magically had certain cards sticking a hair out of the deck. Now if I was going to pull a card "randomly" out of the deck I'd certainly have an advantage as to which cards I was going to pull by the fact that I know which ones are sticking out even though there is no particular order they are in the deck.

With that said, you cannot fault someone for trying to rack perfectly (within a reasonable time frame). Whether trying to rack for yourself or your opponent, you shouldn't be faulted for trying to get all of the balls tight. I'm assuming that everyone would agree with this statement.

I agree

Now, given that we don't typically have access to a Sardo rack,

1st off the Sardo Rack sucks.. Not sure if you've ever used one or not, but they are a total pain in the ass and if the felt isn't perfect then they are more useless then tits on a bull.

and Simonis might not be 100% fresh, the ideal rack can be nearly impossible to achieve at times.

(Sorry just had to vent about my Sardo experience)

I'm honestly not sure that I've EVER given a 100% *perfect* rack to myself or to an opponent. Taking for granted that we might not be able to achieve a perfect rack, what will be the next best goal to shoot for?

Well the answer to that would be as good as you can make it in a reasonable amount of time. Honestly though I don't think a perfect rack is as hard to achieve as your making it out to be. That being said lets discuss for a second why a good rack is hard to achieve. The two most common problems are from the Triangle not being perfectly made or "flexing" when your racking or the felt having tiny indentations in it that the balls fall into. The first you can usually rotate the rack to find the side that is most accurate to the correct angle, and when your rolling the rack forward if you see the front half of the rack "skidding" into place then you know you have the good side. As for the flexing, time to buy a better rack. Now we can talk about the indentations, those are usually from one of two things. Some moron racking and then taking a ball and tapping the balls into place, and or just normal wear and tear of people breaking. That being said when someone breaks the cueball will usually be slightly off the felt on impact driving the one ball down into the felt, and the balls behind it having a similar reaction as well causing tiny divits. In a perfect world that's just fine becuase those divits take place in the shape of a rack which in theory the balls could fall into again in the future, and if you could put it exactly in the same spot again it would actually help you rack via the theory that the sardo is supposed to work on. In reality though every rack isn't going to be in the same spot, and people rack slightly different every time etc.. Usually if you spend a second during your racking you can push the rack forward ever so slightly and see the balls starting to roll into a set of divits. Usually you can atleast get the 1st half to get in there without too much trouble. Lets for arguments sake say you can't find a set of divots that line up for anything and it's the worst table in the world.. Well at that point I'd say if it was me I'd go the moron route, but gently tap a couple of the balls your having problems with. Honestly though I don't think it's that hard to achieve a decent rack even on the worst of tables.

Well, when I first started playing pool, it was simple. Just push all the balls forward and try to get the apex ball frozen to the two balls behind it. I think a better goal though is to strive to approximate a perfect rack.

Desert1Pocket mentioned that, in 1-pocket, he tries to freeze the line of balls along the edge that he breaks on. I see nothing wrong with that. Ideally, all the balls should be frozen, but those 5 are crutial to a making the rack do what it should naturally do if its racked and broken properly in 1-hole.

In 14.1 its is the same story. In the opening break, you thin the corner ball, and that ball comes out, hits the bottom rail and comes back to the rack. At the same time, the other corner ball hits the side rail and comes back to the rack. Without the back five balls frozen, I don't think that will happen. From my limited knowledge, those are the crucial balls required to maintain the integrity of the opening rack in 14.1.

Back to 9-ball, if all of the balls are racked perfectly tight, the wing ball will naturally go in when you break from the side and hit the 1 full.

That's what I have a problem with.. Granted it's semantics, but had the words been "the wing ball is more likely to go in" then I'd agree. when you say naturally go in then there's something wrong with the rack. When you can say it's definately going in, or in my case at the tourny the other day was able to call the ball going in before he even breaks then there's issues.

That is a property of the 9-ball rack, just like the 14.1 break and the 1-pocket break can do what they do if they are racked perfectly and broken properly. Whether we like that or not, the wing ball is a naturally-pocketed ball in 9-ball when the balls are racked and broken properly.

See above. As well I'm not saying that a rack doesn't have "properties" I'm just saying I don't think anyones break is that repeatable that we could call them "givens" by scientific terms. Just better odds.

The way I'm looking at this, there are four specific balls required to be frozen in order to approximate a perfect 9-ball rack in terms of the wing ball.

The four balls being down the side of the rack of the wing ball that your trying to make I'm assuming?

There are two specific balls that are most important to be frozen in terms of keeping the 9-ball still.

Which are? The two aft of the 9? (Please respond to this as I'm curious.. I haven't read Joe T's racking secrets yet)

So by trying to get those five frozen connections, I am only trying to approximate a perfect rack. So I would actually argue that doing anything less than this is stacking the deck against the breaker.

Doing anything less then trying to achieve a "perfect" rack is stacking the deck against a breaker.. or perhaps stacking it for him and not knowing it.

If I am looking at this wrong, I'd like to know why. I would like to know a guideline as far as which balls are allowed/forbidden to be tight/loose.

The answer is simple and you've already answered it yourself above. No balls are "allowed" to be loose.. By definition your supposed to try and give the guy a "perfect" rack, but in reality it's not a perfect world so sometimes that doesn't happen. So you do what you can do and anything less then that all of a sudden becomes black and white again.

After reading Racking Secrets, I definitely have some gaps that are red flags when checking the rack. What I don't quite understand is, what am I allowed and not allowed to do when racking my own?

See "black and white answer" above..

Or can you try to strive to approximate the ideal perfect all-balls-frozen rack? If getting two balls closer to frozen means that two other balls will have a huge gap and vice versa, what should be done?

Pull the rack back and try again.

Should the two gaps be averaged,

If your averaging gaps then that's not a divet problem on the table, there's something else going on.

or can you pick two balls to freeze and two balls to be unfroze? I don't claim to have the answers. I thought I had the fair answer worked out in my mind, but now ...

On second thought, I think we all know the answer..... 10-ball.

If the table is giving you that many problems then your going to have problems with a 10 ball rack as well.

If it's a home table and your having that many problems I would suggest racking the balls dead center on the foot spot. Taking a sharpie and running it around the rack when it's in the perfect position to the best of your abillities, and then doing a light tap across the entire rack. The outline of the rack on the felt will give you a real close idea of where your original divets are and you should be able to match them everytime, whallah home made sardo more or less..

Racking is a great topic, and I hope that we continue on with the dialoge. I've not read Joe T's Racking secrets, and on top of which I'd never claim to know more then that guy about anything regarding pool. I will point out though that the book couldn't be anything more then theories unless they were somehow scientifically proven. I have alot of theories of my own on racking that seem to hold true, and I'm going to buy that book to see how well they match up.

DJ

 

[Cuebacca]

Well, talk about abandoning my own thread. LOL. Sorry about that DJ. I've been meaning to reply, but this thread got a little hard to reply to. (that was due to my own fault, LOL)

I just want to establish which aspects to racking would be cheating and which would be OK.

That was exactly my point.. We're talking "shades of grey" here, but if were talking from a straight "moral" standpoint we can make it black and white.

True. The moral part is black and white, in that one shouldn't try to gain an unfair advantage for oneself when racking. We just need to figure out what is an unfair advantage, and what is a fair advantage for the breaker. How do you descibe that in black and white terms though. Here's a stab at it...

In my opinion, a fair advantage is getting to break a tight rack. When racking his own, it would be an unfair advantage for the breaker to put strategically-placed gaps in the rack with the intention of increasing good results on the break. When playing "rack for each other", it would be an unfair disadvantage to the breaker, if the racker put strategically-placed gaps in the rack with the intention of reducing good breaking results.

Now, given that we don't typically have access to a Sardo rack,

1st off the Sardo Rack sucks.. Not sure if you've ever used one or not, but they are a total pain in the ass and if the felt isn't perfect then they are more useless then tits on a bull.

and Simonis might not be 100% fresh, the ideal rack can be nearly impossible to achieve at times.

(Sorry just had to vent about my Sardo experience)

LOL. Still haven't decided if I will get one for my home table. I know I should before breaking in the cloth, or else it will likely become a lost cause.

Well the answer to that would be as good as you can make it in a reasonable amount of time. Honestly though I don't think a perfect rack is as hard to achieve as your making it out to be. That being said lets discuss for a second why a good rack is hard to achieve. The two most common problems are from the Triangle not being perfectly made or "flexing" when your racking or the felt having tiny indentations in it that the balls fall into. The first you can usually rotate the rack to find the side that is most accurate to the correct angle, and when your rolling the rack forward if you see the front half of the rack "skidding" into place then you know you have the good side. As for the flexing, time to buy a better rack. Now we can talk about the indentations, those are usually from one of two things. Some moron racking and then taking a ball and tapping the balls into place, and or just normal wear and tear of people breaking. That being said when someone breaks the cueball will usually be slightly off the felt on impact driving the one ball down into the felt, and the balls behind it having a similar reaction as well causing tiny divits. In a perfect world that's just fine becuase those divits take place in the shape of a rack which in theory the balls could fall into again in the future, and if you could put it exactly in the same spot again it would actually help you rack via the theory that the sardo is supposed to work on. In reality though every rack isn't going to be in the same spot, and people rack slightly different every time etc.. Usually if you spend a second during your racking you can push the rack forward ever so slightly and see the balls starting to roll into a set of divits. Usually you can atleast get the 1st half to get in there without too much trouble. Lets for arguments sake say you can't find a set of divots that line up for anything and it's the worst table in the world.. Well at that point I'd say if it was me I'd go the moron route, but gently tap a couple of the balls your having problems with. Honestly though I don't think it's that hard to achieve a decent rack even on the worst of tables.

I totally agree with all of that, except that I think getting a 100% perfect rack isn't that easy in general. It could be that I just don't play on pristine or well-trained cloth that often. I do try to give a perfect rack, no matter who I am racking for, and I do always give at least a decent rack, even on junk equipment. You're right, decent's easy. But I think perfect's another story. All I know is, on average, I rack far better racks for my opponents than they do for me, which is why I prefer rack-your-own.

Back to 9-ball, if all of the balls are racked perfectly tight, the wing ball will naturally go in when you break from the side and hit the 1 full.

That's what I have a problem with.. Granted it's semantics, but had the words been "the wing ball is more likely to go in" then I'd agree. when you say naturally go in then there's something wrong with the rack.

There IS something wrong with it; its a 9-ball rack. LOL.

When you can say it's definately going in, or in my case at the tourny the other day was able to call the ball going in before he even breaks then there's issues.

True, there are no definites in pool. Maybe naturally isn't the right word, but what I mean to say is that if the balls are racked 100% perfectly tight, and you hit the correct area of the 1-ball, that wing ball is going to carom straight into the corner more often than not. I don't know the statistics, so I'm not trying to state that as fact or as scientifically-backed. It's just an observation. Once you read or watch Racking Secrets, I think you may agree that its simply a characteristic of a tight 9-ball rack. It's kind of like a trick shot I guess.

See above. As well I'm not saying that a rack doesn't have "properties" I'm just saying I don't think anyones break is that repeatable that we could call them "givens" by scientific terms. Just better odds.

Definitely, but I guess we just disagree on what those odds are. I think the odds are higher than you do. Unfortunately, I'm not willing to spit out a number. Maybe once you check out the book, you should do an experiment, and maybe once I set up my table, I should too.

The four balls being down the side of the rack of the wing ball that your trying to make I'm assuming?

It's not those. I apologize, but I don't want to describe it on the forum because I'd feel like I'm taking things right out of Joe T's book and copying it to the internet. Once you read it though, it was make perfect sense.

There are two specific balls that are most important to be frozen in terms of keeping the 9-ball still.

Which are? The two aft of the 9? (Please respond to this as I'm curious.. I haven't read Joe T's racking secrets yet)

Well, this I had known before reading the book so I don't mind sharing. The two balls I'm talking about, are as you suspected, the two behind the 9. If one of those two balls is not touching the 9, but the other one is, then the 9 can be pushed towards the gap and the ball that's not frozen to it won't block it from rolling towards the corner.

So by trying to get those five (oops, I meant 3) frozen connections, I am only trying to approximate a perfect rack. So I would actually argue that doing anything less than this is stacking the deck against the breaker.

Doing anything less then trying to achieve a "perfect" rack is stacking the deck against a breaker.. or perhaps stacking it for him and not knowing it.

What if some gaps don't really make a difference one way or another?

Should the two gaps be averaged,

If your averaging gaps then that's not a divet problem on the table, there's something else going on.

LMAO!! That's so true. LOL. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I've actually ever averaged gaps. I didn't make it clear, but I was just brainstorming on what the ground rules are. Thinking back, what actually made me wonder about averaging gaps was the funky rack your opponent made where the back half of the rack super loose. As I pictured it in my head, those gaps were big enough to average with some other frozen balls to make smaller gaps. LOL.

I honestly don't know what that guy was up to, since I wasn't there. I have no clue why the back half of the rack was like that. I'm not saying he wasn't trying to cheat you; maybe he was. If he spent THAT long racking (literally several minutes) and he made 3 balls on the break, I can understand your concern for sure. On the other hand, making 4 balls on 2 breaks and calling the wing ball doesn't convince me if I'm on the jury. Either way, in rack your own, you should have the right to inspect the guy's rack and tell him to re-rack if you see gaps that look suspicious to you.

On second thought, I think we all know the answer..... 10-ball.

If the table is giving you that many problems then your going to have problems with a 10 ball rack as well.

True, but in a 10-ball rack, the wing ball doesn't come into play and the money-ball goes in on the break a lot less. In Racking Secrets, you'll see that there are a couple of balls in a 10-ball rack that you can try to play on the break, but they're banks, so I think it takes more skill than making the wing-ball in 9-ball.

Racking is a great topic, and I hope that we continue on with the dialoge. I've not read Joe T's Racking secrets, and on top of which I'd never claim to know more then that guy about anything regarding pool. I will point out though that the book couldn't be anything more then theories unless they were somehow scientifically proven. I have alot of theories of my own on racking that seem to hold true, and I'm going to buy that book to see how well they match up.

DJ

You should check it out! Hopefully I lagged so long in responding that you have it by now. LOL. When I first read it, the biggest eye-opener for me was that, when the 1-ball's only frozen to one ball and not the other, then there's a specific side of the table that you'd rather break from. I was doing the wrong side, and felt really stupid for not figuring that out myself. LOL. ...and I had wondered why my break stank so much. LOL

Cuebacca

 

[deadstroke7]

My .02

Good topic.

First, Joe's book is a great read.

I just thought to add a couple thoughts...

Is knowledge an advantage? I don't think there is anything wrong with 'reading' a rack. Quarterbacks read the defense? Motorsports read the track conditions... yada yada. If you can understand how the balls will react in given conditions, I think that is just the knowledge of the game.

Knowledge is power --- so, that being said. I don't think it is right to intentionally try to rig a rack. Maybe this is where rack your own came from. Loose 1 balls, loose bottom tiers, etc. Then, everyone figured out that you can make balls from certain functions. Tight here, but not so tight there, etc. But really, it is increadibly difficult to get 'all' the balls tight (frozen) in game conditions without a lot of effort. Most folks don't pay that much attention to the details, but it seems a lot of racks are not 'tight' or 'perfect'.

I will agree that certain qualities of a 9-ball rack will give up certian percentages of balls made. I wouldn't be too mad about the guy making three balls on the break, nor making the wing ball most of the time. ALL of the time, might be a different story. Making balls on the break in 9 ball should be a given, shouldn't it? wing ball or otherwise?

Given certain situations, racks, etc. , balls 'should' react the same way every time.

Good thread, and just the ramblings from an insomniac.

FWIW

 

[Snapshot9]

Well ....

any real good player is going to be hesitant to share any breaking or racking secrets that he has learned over time, me included.

But, I will share one little insight with you. If you are playing a money match, and yiou run a couple of racks, whether off the break or just run out. On the 3rd rack, miscue the break, and let your opponent break his own rack. They never make a ball off their 3rd rack for you after you have ran 2. It pays to know a little about psychology too. You see, 1 is a oops, 2 is a no-no, and the 3rd is a stopper.

 

[JAM]

Don't forget about the finger-lickers.

When you see the rack removed from the balls, as if the racking process is complete, and then the breaking player comes forth and picks up the 1-ball, after licking his finger, and then sets 1-ball back in the stack, it should send up a red flag.

When the rack is removed, there should be no more touching the balls. If the balls are touched after the rack is removed, it should be re-racked.

JMHO, FWIW.

JAM

 

[kevin s]

Don't forget about the finger-lickers.

When you see the rack removed from the balls, as if the racking process is complete, and then the breaking player comes forth and picks up the 1-ball, after licking his finger, and then sets 1-ball back in the stack, it should send up a red flag.

When the rack is removed, there should be no more touching the balls. If the balls are touched after the rack is removed, it should be re-racked.

JMHO, FWIW.

JAM

How about fingers through hair with gel in it!!! Palming the one ball is also a old school trick. It is very easy to load your palm with something that with work against a good rack.

 

[Terry Erdman]

Well I've gone through Joe's DVD and learned a lot of 9 ball knowledge. Intentionally being a rack mechanic for an advantage on your own break when racking your own is not above board. Looking at the rack and accepting it is a choice when the opponent is racking for you. Just like the other example of the guy racking his own and taking a lot of time to get the rack right for himself is intentionally cheating. At the Reno Open a few years ago in the semi Corey Duell was playing Danny Medina and it was rack your own. Danny runs a rack and then snaps the 9 the next break and racks for his next break (taking a long time on each rack like he is having trouble getting them tight). Corey now checks the rack before Danny breaks and says "bull shit the nine is wired to go in the right corner pocket" and says "this doesn't count I will break and make the nine" which he did and called the pocket the nine went in and says something like "thats why you were having so much trouble getting the rack tight! So Scott came over and racked the balls after that. It was a display for a highlight film. So my opinion is we all try to get the balls tight and a perfect rack is all balls tight and in the correct spot and square but it is almost impossible sometimes to get that with a cheap plastic rack that is at some of the bar tournaments. That's why I prefer opponent racks so you the breaker can accept or reject the rack. If you don't look,it is your fault! Just like complaining that someone was moving in your line of vision when you were shooting. Don't miss and complain, just get up and reset and then shoot. What is wrong with a Sardo if it gets the balls all frozen to each other. That is what we are trying to do? I just wish pool players had the honesty and respect for the game like golf does. If you foul call it on yourself! But some pool players have a different code of ethics and will not call a foul on themselves or tell the opponent they fouled unless they are asked. That is my pet peev with pool. Got off the subject a little but I prefer opponent racks, or a Sardo to eliminate the obvious.

 

[rangoonkid]

That is a great post and point. The Sardo takes all the BS out of it. So the loser can rack for the winner.

 

[Cuebacca]

That is a great post and point. The Sardo takes all the BS out of it. So the loser can rack for the winner.

I agree, it seems like the Sardo is given a bad rep due to it sometimes being used on lesser equipment that can't accommodate one. It should be a no-brainer in tournaments where the cloth will be compatible with a Sardo. But shouldn't racking with the Sardo be winner rack though?

You could still screw your opponent with the Sardo by failing to line up the pointer thingies to the dots on the cloth, I would think. I haven't used a Sardo yet, so I don't know how obvious that would be. It just seems like foul-play would be more difficult in rack-your-own, because you simply try to line up the dots to the pointers for a good rack, but you have no control to try to do something shady like wiring the 9 to drop.

In an Accu-Stats I have, Parica makes I think it was 7 wingballs in 8 breaks when Earl racks using the Sardo. Earl broke maybe two times and no wingball for Earl. On the last rack, Earl is up to something. He aligns the balls using the Sardo, touches the nine and twists it, and then re-racks with the Sardo. Parica makes no wing ball on that break. After the match, Earl is upset and is talking to Parica. You can't really make out what they're saying very well, but after watching it several times I believe Earl was accusing Parica of giving him bad racks with the Sardo, and to test out his theory, Earl gave Parica a bad one in the last rack. I don't want to turn this into an Earl thread or anything, but the commentators were kind blowing it off like it was just another Earl moment. But I think in this case, Earl may have been on to something, whether Parica was intentionally doing something or just being conveniently careless when racking for Earl.

Anyway, my point is that if there's no third party neutral racker, then I think rack-your-own is the most fair, even with a Sardo. The opponent should simply inspect the rack afterwards, and if the rack looks rigged, tell them what you don't like about it and have them re-rack. You can say the same of rack-for-each other, but in this format, it seems that there are much more ways to screw someone than in rack-your-own, so eventually the breaker just sighs and accepts a mediocre rack or worse, gets into one of these huge arguments over the rack.

Is the last statement a true one, folks? Would you guys agree that there are more arguments in rack-your-own or in rack-for-each-other? I'm talking professionals only here, as I assume that most pros will be basing their arguments on actual knowledge of the rack, not speculation.