What would you do here?

[The_JV]

Here is a video link in support of the "E" option. I'm in day 4 of COVID and feeling good enough to get up and around so decided to play around with this since I can't do anything else. Everything is reversed in the video just because I have a car in the garage that I didn't feel like moving to clear the other side of the table.

https://youtu.be/H50k0Hf_nq4

Right on... Your second attempt is goal, but the 1st and 3rd show how out of whack you can get following that pattern and still fall on the subsequent shots naturally.

Your 1st attempt was literally a carbon copy of my one try at this pattern back when this thread started.

 

[JusticeNJ]

I originally said C, but after setting this up on a table and faithfully recreating the layout in the diagram, it became apparent to me E is better. The angle from the CB from the 6 to the 7 isn't as great as it looks on an actual table as it does in the diagram. I think E is actually the better route now that I set it up, with a better margin of error. Just my opinion. The diagram here with what appears to be a 10" pocket by scale (lol), was a little deceiving - it's not really that straight.

I also originally said C because I shoot stuff like that all the time playing 14.1, which is 99% of what I play.

 

[The_JV]

I also originally said C because I shoot stuff like that all the time playing 14.1, which is 99% of what I play.

I'm not surprised at all... Sliding the CB back and forth short distances is the core discipline of 14.1

That said, long pots and running through an OB with enough top spin to reach the top of the table, isn't really something that happens in straight pool either.

 

[Lawnboy77]

And good shooting too.

So here we are ten pages in still waiting for the video in support of B or C.

The only way it's going to appear is if it's performed by someone who voted E

Well I have about 6 more days of quarantine left, so I have feeling that I'll work on those B and C options and might just post a vid of me trying that. It's good practice since so much of the time E is not available due to obstructions.

Alright! Boredom strikes deep in the heart of Texas...details at 11.

 

[ThinSlice]

A week later I’m still playing safe. I thought about it day and night. It’s the only option. Anything else just isn’t working for me.

Looking for a game,
Fatboy

Get that table up and running and let’s play.


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[Straightpool_99]

Honestly, that's not a bad solution. A player should really consider all options, in accordance with their current skill level or comfort zone, before committing to any shot in situations like this. If you know your odds of getting out here are worse than your odds of playing a good safety, then a safe is the way to go. Doing what it takes to win is what's important.

You'll get murdered, long term, playing safes against anything over a fargo 600 from positions like these, possibly all the way down to about 550.

You allready have good position and a four ball run out. ANYONE can run 4 frickin balls. Seriously, if you are an underdog to the 4 ball ghost, which is close to what this is, you have to be waaaaaay down in the 500's, possibly in the high 400's of Fargorate.

So lets examine the position tactically: You have four balls in fairly easy positions, at least nothing is tied up. The 7 ball is deceiving, getting snookered means you horribly botched the position play, even if the 9 wasn't there. Now, lets disregard that and say you play some sort of safe on the six.

I don't trust anyone who can't run four balls to lock up this safety, I'll bet they'll leave a simple one rail kick or jump. Best case they get the 6 down table and the cueball behind the 7-9. So what are the outcomes:

1. The opponent kicks, makes a hit and makes the ball.
2. The opponent kicks, makes a hit and leaves you snookered (unlikely but possible)
3. The opponent kicks, makes a hit and leaves you tough
4. The opponent kicks, makes a hit and leaves you fairly easy (like the position you allready have, though it's a good chance you have to travel further)
5. The opponent kicks and misses, giving you ball in hand on a ball that's now further away than it was. You can give yourself a good angle on it, but really, the problem with the 9 still exists from the other side. You need a good position on the 7 to get to the 8 easily without the 9 interfering in some way.

So what did you really accomplish? You sacrificed an easy position for a CHANCE at getting an even easier position. As seen above, there is a high likelyhood of this going wrong. Someone making a one rail kick or normal jump is not unusual at all. In those cases you may never get back to the table again. In several other of the outcomes you make yourself an underdog. For what? Because you're to yellow to play a perfectly normal, easy position shot? You still have to run 4 balls to win and I sincerely doubt it will be very much easier than it allready is, even with ball in hand. I guess if you snooker the person, leaving the 6 close to the 7 and still prevent him from hitting it, you could make it easier?

All of this is for naught, I fear, since a terrible player will get in trouble from the 7 to the 8 and the 8 to the 9, at least as often than he'll mess up the 6. Even with ball in hand on the 6, those two transitions have to be negotiated. If you're going to play safe here, I suggest doing it on the 7. At least then you can move it down table towards the 8 and make that transition easier, that is if the opponent misses the kick. If he does hit it, then refer to the outcome chart above. The outcomes are still very likely negative for you in that case.

TLDR: If you're a good player, you should get out as it is. If you're a bad player, you can't really benefit much from safing on the 6, you must safe on the 7 to get any benefit at all.

 

[BC21]

You'll get murdered, long term, playing safes against anything over a fargo 600 from positions like these.

You allready have good position and a four ball run out. ANYONE can run 4 frickin balls. Seriously, if you are an underdog to the 4 ball ghost, which is close to what this is, you have to be waaaaaay down in the 500's, possibly in the high 400's of Fargorate.

So lets examine the position tactically: You have four balls in fairly easy positions, at least nothing is tied up. The 7 ball is deceiving, getting snookered means you horribly botched the position play, even if the 9 wasn't there. Now, lets disregard that and say you play some sort of safe on the six.

I don't trust anyone who can't run four balls to lock up this safety, I'll bet they'll leave a simple one rail kick or jump. Best case they get the 6 down table and the cueball behind the 7-9. So what are the outcomes:

1. The opponent kicks, makes a hit and makes the ball.
2. The opponent kicks, makes a hit and leaves you snookered (unlikely but possible)
3. The opponent kicks, makes a hit and leaves you tough
4. The opponent kicks, makes a hit and leaves you fairly easy (like the position you allready have, though it's a good chance you have to travel further)
5. The opponent kicks and misses, giving you ball in hand on a ball that's now further away than it was. You can give yourself a good angle on it, but really, the problem with the 9 still exists from the other side. You need a good position on the 7 to get to the 8 easily without the 9 interfering in some way.

So what did you really accomplish? You sacrificed an easy position for a CHANCE at getting an even easier position. As seen above, there is a high likelyhood of this going wrong. Someone making a one rail kick or normal jump is not unusual at all. In those cases you may never get back to the table again. In several other of the outcomes you make yourself an underdog. For what? Because you're to yellow to play a perfectly normal, easy position shot? You still have to run 4 balls to win and I sincerely doubt it will be very much easier than it allready is, even with ball in hand. I guess if you snooker the person, leaving the 6 close to the 7 and still prevent him from hitting it, you could make it easier?

All of this is for naught, I fear, since a terrible player will get in trouble from the 7 to the 8 and the 8 to the 9, much more often than he'll mess up the 6. Even with ball in hand on the 6, those two transitions have to be negotiated. If you're going to play safe here, I suggest doing it on the 7. At least then you can move it down table towards the 8 and make that transition easier, that is if the opponent misses the kick. JMO.

If my Fargo score were 450, and I couldn't get out from here, and I was smart enough to realize it, I'd bat that 6ball down table 3 rails toward the 8. With a little luck I move the 8. Leaving the cb behind the 7 and 9 is natural, a simple stop shot. The odds of any opponent jumping or kicking that six in, with it near the end rail, is very unlikely.

Weaker players don't always have to get their asses handed to them everytime they play a stronger player. But in order for a weaker player to beat a stronger player, the weaker player can't be stupid by going for runouts that they can't finish. So yes, sending that 6 down table might provide a better opportunity for any player that thinks like they might struggle from here on the 7, 8, and 9.

And so what if they end up in a position that's worse? If going for the runout is likely to cost them to lose in the first place, it's worth trying to create a better opportunity. And if that doesn't work, then try again. I don't know about you, but I've been beaten by some low ranked players by a fluke shot or accidental safe with only 3 or 4 balls on the table. So what I'm suggesting to weaker players is to start doing this stuff on purpose in order to possibly win more games.

 

[Straightpool_99]

If my Fargo score were 450, and I couldn't get out from here, and I was smart enough to realize it, I'd bat that 6ball down table 3 rails toward the 8. With a little luck I move the 8. Leaving the cb behind the 7 and 9 is natural, a simple stop shot. The odds of any opponent jumping or kicking that six in, with it near the end rail, is very unlikely.

Weaker players don't always have to get their asses handed to them everytime they play a stronger player. But in order for a weaker player to beat a stronger player, the weaker player can't be stupid by going for runouts that they can't finish. So yes, sending that 6 down table might provide a better opportunity for any player that thinks like they might struggle from here.

And so what if they end up in a position that worse?
If going for the runout is likely to cost them to lose in the first place, it's worth trying to create a better opportunity. And if that doesn't work, then try again. I don't know about you, but I've been beaten by some low ranked players by a fluke shot or accidental safe with only 3 or 4 balls on the table. So what I'm suggesting to weaker players is to start doing this stuff on purpose in order to possibly win more games.

If a person is unable to get out from here, he should go for a safe on the 7. It's easier to do, much more likely to lock the other person up, and POSSIBLY puts you in a position where you can now run out, even with very low skill. Safing on the 6 really doesn't do much of anything for a low skilled player, and is likely to be botched as well. You're just leaving it up to randomness. The 7 is the actual smart play. If the player is smart and aware of his own skills, then he should consider the whole picture and not play shot for shot.

There are many moving parts to your scenario, moving the 8 is probably not going to happen often, so you have the 6 near the end rail....And you have ball in hand. You seriously expect a fargo 450 to run out easier with ball in hand in that scenario, than in the scenario given? He has to travel twice or three times as far with the cueball and probably needs to get close to where he should have gotten to begin with. So, longer travel and close to the same position zone. I don't see how that's going to work, frankly.

The point is, if you can't run 4 balls, you're not gaining anything from safing on the 6. You're just stacking the odds against yourself.

 

[JC]

If my Fargo score were 450, and I couldn't get out from here, and I was smart enough to realize it, I'd bat that 6ball down table 3 rails toward the 8. With a little luck I move the 8. Leaving the cb behind the 7 and 9 is natural, a simple stop shot. The odds of any opponent jumping or kicking that six in, with it near the end rail, is very unlikely.

Weaker players don't always have to get their asses handed to them everytime they play a stronger player. But in order for a weaker player to beat a stronger player, the weaker player can't be stupid by going for runouts that they can't finish. So yes, sending that 6 down table might provide a better opportunity for any player that thinks like they might struggle from here on the 7, 8, and 9.

And so what if they end up in a position that's worse? If going for the runout is likely to cost them to lose in the first place, it's worth trying to create a better opportunity. And if that doesn't work, then try again. I don't know about you, but I've been beaten by some low ranked players by a fluke shot or accidental safe with only 3 or 4 balls on the table. So what I'm suggesting to weaker players is to start doing this stuff on purpose in order to possibly win more games.

Let's get real here.

If you were a Fargo 450 none of this would even occur to you.

You would take aim at the six, hit the ball too hard and hope for a good shot on the 7 never even aware that the 8 ball exists until you see where you just happened to land on the 7.

What do you suppose makes a player a fargo 450?

 

[BC21]

If a person is unable to get out from here, he should go for a safe on the 7. It's easier to do, much more likely to lock the other person up, and POSSIBLY puts you in a position where you can now run out, even with very low skill. Safing on the 6 really doesn't do much of anything for a low skilled player, and is likely to be botched as well. You're just leaving it up to randomness. The 7 is the actual smart play. If the player is smart and aware of his own skills, then he should consider the whole picture and not play shot for shot.

There are many moving parts to your scenario, moving the 8 is probably not going to happen often, so you have the 6 near the end rail....And you have ball in hand. You seriously expect a fargo 450 to run out easier with ball in hand in that scenario, than in the scenario given? He has to travel twice or three times as far with the cueball and probably needs to get close to where he should have gotten to begin with. So, longer travel and close to the same position zone. I don't see how that's going to work, frankly.

The point is, if you can't run 4 balls, you're not gaining anything from safing on the 6. You're just stacking the odds against yourself.

Easier for who? Lol. You? Me? Some other 600+ player?

Playing a safe on the 7 requires playing position for such a safety. Let's say the safe is played on the 6, which is a simple stop shot that almost any player could do, nothing says the player has to try to runout from the new position of the 6 after the opponent shoots. Maybe another safety option will be in play.

I'm talking about staying in the game to avoid losing, even if it means playing pointless safeties. I've seen enough inpatient opponents get fed up with such saftety play to the point of going for some rediculous shot to try to win the game.

There was a great player, a buddy of mine named Larry Price, who'd play a safe in a heartbeat any time he didn't like the out, even with just 3 or 4 balls on the table and an open shot. It was frustrating, a player of his caliber not choosing to run out when most players below his skill level would jump on it. But he'd lock you up tight and of course still win the game. When I'd ask, why didn't you just get out? He'd say, "I didn't like it."

So what I'm suggesting is that if the goal is to win, a player should do whatever it takes to stay in the game until a winning opportunity arises.

 

[BC21]

Let's get real here.

If you were a Fargo 450 none of this would even occur to you.

You would take aim at the six, hit the ball too hard and hope for a good shot on the 7 never even aware that the 8 ball exists until you see where you just happened to land on the 7.

What do you suppose makes a player a fargo 450?

Exactly. So I am just trying to get weaker players to think in terms of not selling out if you can't run out.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Let's get real here.

If you were a Fargo 450 none of this would even occur to you.

You would take aim at the six, hit the ball too hard and hope for a good shot on the 7 never even aware that the 8 ball exists until you see where you just happened to land on the 7.

What do you suppose makes a player a fargo 450?

There probably are SOME 450s who were once better but are hampered by poor health or eyesight.

Easier for who? Lol. You? Me? Some other 600+ player?

Playing a safe on the 7 requires playing position for such a safety. Let's say the safe is played on the 6, which is a simple stop shot that almost any player could do, nothing says the player has to try to runout from the new position of the 6 after the opponent shoots. Maybe another safety option will be in play.

I'm talking about staying in the game to avoid losing, even if it means playing pointless safeties. I've seen enough inpatient opponents get fed up with such saftety play to the point of going for some rediculous shot to try to win the game.

There was a great player, a buddy of mine named Larry Price, who'd play a safe in a heartbeat any time he didn't like the out, even with just 3 or 4 balls on the table and an open shot. It was frustrating, a player of his caliber not going an out that most players below his skill level would jump at. But he'd lock you up tight and of course still win the game. When I'd ask, why didn't you just get out? He'd say, "I didn't like it."

So what I'm suggesting is that if the goal is to win, a player should do whatever it takes to stay in the game until a winning opportunity arises.

Ok "easier" isn't necessarily the word. I mean easier to freeze the ball or lock someone up. That may not be easier either as I look at it again, but still not difficult. Pointless safeties are pointless. Every time you let someone back in, they can turn the tables on you.

I agree with your sentiment, that you shouldn't run out when you realistically aren't able. But I disagree very strongly with playing pointless and time wasting safeties. You should have a plan in mind to win the game, even if it looks completely hopeless. Once every 1000 games or so, a situation arises where you can do nothing but blast into balls and hope to get lucky. Those nonewithstanding, I stand by my opinion on making a plan. Only by formulating a plan, can you test it and then learn from it. Have something specific in mind and think ahead. If you're just moving balls around and playing shot for shot, you're not learning anything of note.

 

[BC21]

There probably are SOME 450s who were once better but are hampered by poor health or eyesight.

Ok "easier" isn't necessarily the word. I mean easier to freeze the ball or lock someone up. That may not be easier either as I look at it again, but still not difficult. Pointless safeties are pointless. Every time you let someone back in, they can turn the tables on you.

I agree with your sentiment, that you shouldn't run out when you realistically aren't able. But I disagree very strongly with playing pointless and time wasting safeties. You should have a plan in mind to win the game, even if it looks completely hopeless. Only by formulating a plan, can you test it and then learn from it. Have something specific in mind and think ahead. If you're just moving balls around and playing shot for shot, you're not learning anything of note.

I agree 100%. However, a real game situation is no time to practice. If pointless safeties keep you in the game and frustrate your opponent, that's good for you. But I agree you should have a plan. And sometimes that plan could involve multiple safes. Lol

 

[The_JV]

It's tough to apply >600 reasoning to <500 spd players.

If I had ball in hand with this pattern, I may just still play the two railer into E pattern. Gaining a BIH with a random 6 ball location up table is actually making this senario worse for the weaker player imo. May as well go balls deep and attempt the 3 fouls while you're at it.

I get picking your spots, and ducking if things look lack luster. However there really comes a time wherein a player needs to develop while under fire, and this particular situation is as good as any.

Considering a safe play at nearly any point isn't a bad idea. Playing scared won't ever win you a game though.

 

[gregcantrall]

Exactly. So I am just trying to get weaker players to think in terms of not selling out if you can't run out.

Unless I missed it….Ride the Nine is a viable option that has been overlooked. At any time for a weak player. In my history there’s a few times that option worked. POW Splat is what we called that option.

 

[BC21]

Unless I missed it….Ride the Nine is a viable option that has been overlooked. At any time for a weak player. In my history there’s a few times that option worked. POW Splat is what we called that option.

Lol...yes. That happens a lot. But I believe more games are lost than won by riding the 9.

 

[gregcantrall]

Unless I missed it….Ride the Nine is a viable option that has been overlooked. At any time for a weak player. In my history there’s a few times that option worked. POW Splat is what we called that option.

The original designation was, Hit em hard and wish them well. If it didn’t go by 3 pockets it wasn’t a real ride.

 

[JC]

Lol...yes. That happens a lot. But I believe more games are lost than won by riding the 9.

Riding the 9 is like the 9 ball break. The glory of doing it is only a fraction of the pain of having it done to you.

 

[gregcantrall]

Riding the 9 is like the 9 ball break. The glory of doing it is only a fraction of the pain of having it done to you.

The most painful are the unintended shit-Ins. My most painful was at hill hill my opponent missed the 7 so badly that it went around 3 rails striking and making the 9 ball on the spot!

 

[BC21]

.......

Considering a safe play at nearly any point isn't a bad idea. Playing scared won't ever win you a game though.

I agree. But there's a difference between playing scared and holding out for a better opportunity.

I only jumped on the safety notion when I thought of how often a weaker player has beaten me by missing the 6 ball and accidentally hooking me. I get the good hit but leave a shot, then my opponent sinks the 6 and fires the 7-9, or misses the 7 and hooks me again. Lol

This stuff happens like magic sometimes! So I think it would be smart if the weaker player learned to do it on purpose when needed.