When will this happen?

Snapshot9

Snapshot9

son of 3 leg 1 eye dog ..
Silver Member
I know it has been mentioned before a little, but it really bothers me that,
in Professional 9 ball events, that, at least the TV matches (or ones with an independent racker), do not rack the balls in a predetermined sequence
in order to be COMPLETELY FAIR TO BOTH PLAYERS.

As it is, they are just rolled up into the rack any old way, which can determine if a player gets out or not. It is an inequality that exists, and
not in keepig with the true spirit of Professional Pool.

I imagine that whole matches have been determined by this inequality that
exists (racking the balls randomly except for 1 and 9), and I just don't
think it is being equally fair to both players, especially since the alternate
break format is being used so much now.

I know many players probably have a sequence they like, as do I, but I have learned not to give my rack sequence to an opponent breaking, as I believe my sequence makes the balls lay well after the break .... but I do
to myself on 'rack your own'. Of course, when their is a 'ball spot', it throws things out of kilter somewhat.

Personally (and I have studied it for a long time), I like:

1
32
897
54
6

sequence when I am breaking 9 ball. Right to left sequence, and if a wing ball goes, it is the 7 or 8. If I make one, the layout sequence is usually
favorable for a runout.

Should both players be given the same racking sequence for the final
rounds of a Professional 9 ball event when an independent or official
racker is used? What do you think?

If so, how could we possibly get this implemented?
 
Personally I feel the balls should be racked in an order that achieves the maximum difficulty. grouping balls together makes it too easy and placing low numbered balls like the 2 and the 3 above the 9 leaves the opportunity for combos to the 9 too often. I like to place the 3 on a wing and the 2 at the bottom of the rack or the second last row on the opposite side from the 3.
 
Snapshot9 said:
Should both players be given the same racking sequence for the final
rounds of a Professional 9 ball event when an independent or official
racker is used? What do you think?

If so, how could we possibly get this implemented?
Click to expand...

If the PROs think it is to their advantage, they will get a rule to accomodate them. The Pros have their own set of rules and have for a long time. The only use the World Standard Rules as a reference to their own. These rules are always discussed in detail in the players' meeting prior to the start of any major tournament.

I don't know of anyone outside of the Pros that could get these rules changed.

A good example of what the Pros can get done is placing the 9 ball on the spot (using the Sardo rack) instead of the 1 ball on the spot.

another example is (in some pro tournaments, not all) 3 balls must pass the center pocket on a break or the incoming player gets ball in hand. This was to eliminate the 'soft' break tactics.
 
Tom In Cincy said:
another example is (in some pro tournaments, not all) 3 balls must pass the center pocket on a break or the incoming player gets ball in hand. This was to eliminate the 'soft' break tactics.
Click to expand...

That's a rule to mess up Corey Deuel's break, nothing less. Just because Earl and others go beserk when Deuel breaks soft and runs 'em out is no reason to gang up on him. But pros will be pros. Joe Tucker might well be right: the days of 10 ball are coming.

Flex
 
Snapshot9 said:
I know it has been mentioned before a little, but it really bothers me that,
in Professional 9 ball events, that, at least the TV matches (or ones with an independent racker), do not rack the balls in a predetermined sequence
in order to be COMPLETELY FAIR TO BOTH PLAYERS.

As it is, they are just rolled up into the rack any old way, which can determine if a player gets out or not. It is an inequality that exists, and
not in keepig with the true spirit of Professional Pool.

I imagine that whole matches have been determined by this inequality that
exists (racking the balls randomly except for 1 and 9), and I just don't
think it is being equally fair to both players, especially since the alternate
break format is being used so much now.

I know many players probably have a sequence they like, as do I, but I have learned not to give my rack sequence to an opponent breaking, as I believe my sequence makes the balls lay well after the break .... but I do
to myself on 'rack your own'. Of course, when their is a 'ball spot', it throws things out of kilter somewhat.

Personally (and I have studied it for a long time), I like:

1
32
897
54
6

sequence when I am breaking 9 ball. Right to left sequence, and if a wing ball goes, it is the 7 or 8. If I make one, the layout sequence is usually
favorable for a runout.

Should both players be given the same racking sequence for the final
rounds of a Professional 9 ball event when an independent or official
racker is used? What do you think?

If so, how could we possibly get this implemented?
Click to expand...


That is not a good way to rack the balls, unless it's my break of course.
 
I like the random rack. I used to practice with the balls racked a certain way for 9-ball but figured if the rules said random, then I should practice random. Setting them up to make your chances for a runout better... I don't know.
 
Quit being facetitious ... lol

macguy said:
That is not a good way to rack the balls, unless it's my break of course.
Click to expand...

You evidently missed the part where I said I learned NOT TO RACK THEM in my sequence for my opponent ... lol

In reference to an earlier post, yes, I agree, maybe they should rack them in the 'hardest' sequence for the pros, but I am saying they should be consistent to BOTH players in their racking. The sequence I mentioned was not necessarily for the pros, just my preferred sequence when I
break.... lol

I like the idea of ONLY center breaking for 9 ball pros, side breaking is too
easy, and for it to be a free standing break (not using a rail). (there goes
the girls ... oops)

I think they are being sissies with the 3 balls past the side pocket rule just for Cory Deuel. It is kind of like breaking and running the 9 towards the corner pocket, but stopping short. If you make a ball, that is good, but if you don't, your in trouble. Same way with soft breaking, it is great when it works, but a killer when it doesn't.
 
Snapshot9 said:
I know it has been mentioned before a little, but it really bothers me that,
in Professional 9 ball events, that, at least the TV matches (or ones with an independent racker), do not rack the balls in a predetermined sequence
in order to be COMPLETELY FAIR TO BOTH PLAYERS.

As it is, they are just rolled up into the rack any old way, which can determine if a player gets out or not. It is an inequality that exists, and
not in keepig with the true spirit of Professional Pool.

I imagine that whole matches have been determined by this inequality that
exists (racking the balls randomly except for 1 and 9), and I just don't
think it is being equally fair to both players, especially since the alternate
break format is being used so much now.

I know many players probably have a sequence they like, as do I, but I have learned not to give my rack sequence to an opponent breaking, as I believe my sequence makes the balls lay well after the break .... but I do
to myself on 'rack your own'. Of course, when their is a 'ball spot', it throws things out of kilter somewhat.

Personally (and I have studied it for a long time), I like:

1
32
897
54
6

sequence when I am breaking 9 ball. Right to left sequence, and if a wing ball goes, it is the 7 or 8. If I make one, the layout sequence is usually
favorable for a runout.

Should both players be given the same racking sequence for the final
rounds of a Professional 9 ball event when an independent or official
racker is used? What do you think?

If so, how could we possibly get this implemented?
Click to expand...
As soon as we start our own player's organization. No one should be allowed to rack without gloves either.

unknownpro
 
Snapshot9 said:
You evidently missed the part where I said I learned NOT TO RACK THEM in my sequence for my opponent ... lol

In reference to an earlier post, yes, I agree, maybe they should rack them in the 'hardest' sequence for the pros, but I am saying they should be consistent to BOTH players in their racking. The sequence I mentioned was not necessarily for the pros, just my preferred sequence when I
break.... lol

I like the idea of ONLY center breaking for 9 ball pros, side breaking is too
easy, and for it to be a free standing break (not using a rail). (there goes
the girls ... oops)

I think they are being sissies with the 3 balls past the side pocket rule just for Cory Deuel. It is kind of like breaking and running the 9 towards the corner pocket, but stopping short. If you make a ball, that is good, but if you don't, your in trouble. Same way with soft breaking, it is great when it works, but a killer when it doesn't.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I did miss that. I had to reread it several times to find, it was a little cryptic.
 
Snapshot9 said:
Personally (and I have studied it for a long time), I like:

1
32
897
54
6
Click to expand...

Not to hijack this, but if this is the easiest layout, what do people consider hardest? I have not seen any difference when racking in different order, the balls fly all over the place for me. Nothing is very consistent in terms of patterns.
 
Snapshot9 said:
As it is, they are just rolled up into the rack any old way, which can determine if a player gets out or not. It is an inequality that exists, and
not in keepig with the true spirit of Professional Pool.
Click to expand...
It would take a rules change from the BCA, Texas Express, or World Standard. It won't happen. I too like to rack them in a certain sequence, depending on who's breaking. However I've noticed that in the long run, it's a very minor edge, if any.

But wait! That is one of the lesser issues with 9-ball as a tournament game. The main issue is that, with players of reasonably equal caliber, the game is 100% LUCK! :eek:

Doc
 
Snorks said:
Not to hijack this, but if this is the easiest layout, what do people consider hardest? I have not seen any difference when racking in different order, the balls fly all over the place for me. Nothing is very consistent in terms of patterns.
Click to expand...

i cant remember where i read it, it may be joe tuckers book.....but i think the hardest rack for your opponent is supposed to be

1
35
698
42
7

of course when you are spotting someone a ball or balls this goes out the window. If you guys are spotting someone a single ball, where do you put it? I used to put it right behind the 1, but lately ive had more luck putting it on the end at the very back of the rack.
 
Snapshot9 said:
I know it has been mentioned before a little, but it really bothers me that,
in Professional 9 ball events, that, at least the TV matches (or ones with an independent racker), do not rack the balls in a predetermined sequence
in order to be COMPLETELY FAIR TO BOTH PLAYERS.

As it is, they are just rolled up into the rack any old way, which can determine if a player gets out or not. It is an inequality that exists, and
not in keepig with the true spirit of Professional Pool.

I imagine that whole matches have been determined by this inequality that
exists (racking the balls randomly except for 1 and 9), and I just don't
think it is being equally fair to both players, especially since the alternate
break format is being used so much now.

I know many players probably have a sequence they like, as do I, but I have learned not to give my rack sequence to an opponent breaking, as I believe my sequence makes the balls lay well after the break .... but I do
to myself on 'rack your own'. Of course, when their is a 'ball spot', it throws things out of kilter somewhat.

Personally (and I have studied it for a long time), I like:

1
32
897
54
6

sequence when I am breaking 9 ball. Right to left sequence, and if a wing ball goes, it is the 7 or 8. If I make one, the layout sequence is usually
favorable for a runout.

Should both players be given the same racking sequence for the final
rounds of a Professional 9 ball event when an independent or official
racker is used? What do you think?

If so, how could we possibly get this implemented?
Click to expand...

A while back this was tried in a pro tournament (women's I believe) and it was discarded because the runouts were all too similar and so it made the game very boring.

I rack:
1
24
697
35
8

Really pissed me off in a rack-your-own tourney once when I figured out that I had been racking the same for myself the whole tourney out of habit :(

RC
 
keep it random

Except for:

1
??
?9?
??
2

Controlling the back ball & the cue ball with a firm break isn't easy. But, once it's figured out with a soft break, it's easier.

It still comes down to reading a table. imho
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top