thinking of matchroom events, but open to other scenarios as well
and how does race length affect the answer?
and how does race length affect the answer?
which favors the higher-rated player, winner break or alt. break?
- Thread starter evergruven
- Start date
That depends on what type of racking. Template racks, rack your own, versus ref racks, there is high variation in the comparisons.
Imagine cheating racks on an unsuspecting young player.
Then when the the player gets suspicious, change it up a little bit.
At the elite level winner break will result in long streaks of one player dominating at the table.
Imagine cheating racks on an unsuspecting young player.
Then when the the player gets suspicious, change it up a little bit.
At the elite level winner break will result in long streaks of one player dominating at the table.
agree. great point. matchroom uses a template, ref racks- so what you think?
The refs tend to help the lesser known players.
Template racks favor those most skilled at specific breaks. Those skills are not distributed evenly among the talent pool.
How can your inning end if you have not missed a shot ?
Longer races always favor the better player, regardless of the break format. The longer the race, the more likely the better player will win the match.
Of course if you start to include factors like one of the players is more likely to get tired, you can't apply math and statistics based simply on their probabilities of winning on their break. Did you want the answer without any psychological or emotional considerations?
Here's a post by Bob Jewett from a couple years ago, responding to the claim that "The better player stands a better chance at winning an alternate break set."
"If you believe that the chances are governed by probability and not psychology or fatigue, then the match win outcomes are identical for all of the following formats (race to N wins):
Winner breaks
Loser breaks
Alternate breaks
Player A breaks N times and then player B breaks until there is a match winner.
The winner of each rack decides who will break the next rack but not more than N times total for either player.
You play the maximum possible number of games without checking the total score by any of the above formats and then you pick by random draw which games will count until you have a winner.
Play the maximum possible number of games again as above and then player A picks which games will count.
This is very hard to believe, but this is how break order and match win chances work.
The length of the match does depend on the format but the chance of winning it does not."
Here's the full thread (9 pages): https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/winner-breaks.531556/
So the answer is that the format -- winner, loser, alternate, whatever -- should be chosen by the promoter to make the format the most interesting to the audience. I'll guess that is either winner breaks or alternate break, but that's just a guess.
My vote has always been ‘winner breaks’…..most possible drama.
Those who don’t want drama can play or watch something else.
I‘ve always offered to play winner breaks even at snooker and one-pocket.
yes, thanks bob. thanks all for the replies!
My simple mind tells me that a better player will win more racks and so in a winner breaks format that better player should be breaking more often and
breaking = control of the table
control of the table (especially for a "better player") should = success
breaking = control of the table
control of the table (especially for a "better player") should = success
I have always believed that winner breaks favors the stronger player. I mean with alternate break you are guaranteeing the weaker player at least 1 shot every other game. Winner breaks offers no such guarantee.
I see 2 variables that cloud the issue....
Player ability
Who wins the lag/toss
Assuming player ability is equal. (meaning both players pot a ball on the break and don't miss a shot), The one who wins the lag wins the match. That assumes a match with an odd number of games.
There is a player a ball better than me that I love to see in tournaments. He has a slight vision problem, so I play my game until he misses. Like a shark circling and waiting, I know it is time for the attack.
The longer the match; the higher the percentage of reversion to the mean, aka: the better player will win.
Winner break, alternate break, offense, defense,..... all that aside; It is the player who does not miss or misses the least that wins.
Before someone replies; of course LUCK and good/bad rolls throw a wrench into the whole scenario!
Player ability
Who wins the lag/toss
Assuming player ability is equal. (meaning both players pot a ball on the break and don't miss a shot), The one who wins the lag wins the match. That assumes a match with an odd number of games.
There is a player a ball better than me that I love to see in tournaments. He has a slight vision problem, so I play my game until he misses. Like a shark circling and waiting, I know it is time for the attack.
The longer the match; the higher the percentage of reversion to the mean, aka: the better player will win.
Winner break, alternate break, offense, defense,..... all that aside; It is the player who does not miss or misses the least that wins.
Before someone replies; of course LUCK and good/bad rolls throw a wrench into the whole scenario!
Alternate break in preliminary rounds. Winner breaks in the final and semi-final rounds. I think more folks watch the semi and finals ... they want to see the pro's put some packages together. The best player wins and the promoters have a larger audience. Everybody WINS.
Winner breaks favors the better player. Too bad tournament organizers are so concerned about giving the weaker players a chance to shoot these days when the spectators would rather see players stringing racks. Running out a set from the first break is like throwing a 300 in bowling. People love it and they're denied that opportunity with alternate breaks.
I don't think that is the case, since every other sport feels the ability to start the game as a big advantage. And it is, just pool has developed in the way it has. I don't think alternate break takes away from the game that much. Yes, we don't see the big game runs, but it's enables both players an equal chance to score. It's like talking about any other break rule, every idea has positive and negative things in it, the only way is to balance the two, not try to totally get rid on one, since that will never happen.
In tournaments or league, or anything, I don't care on bit about winner break or alternate break, and in shorter races I prefer alternate break. If they pro events go back to races to 11 or 13, then winner break is fine there, but the results are going to be very similar to alternate break if tracked over time not game to game. No matter the rules of the game, the same group of players tend to end up in the final 8. In many leagues it's winner break anyway.
Except in bowling the other player has a chance to match that 300. Pool is the only sport where people want the offense to stay on the field after they score. Personally I don’t get it? In tennis the same player doesn’t get to serve every game if he wins.
23DenaliBDE
Well-known member
That’s such an interesting point that I think there’s another way it could be done and solve the argument completely. What if- player A Break and run = Player B break . So as long as both players get at least 1 shot, winner breaks? I’m thinking that’s a neat idea. I have little doubt I’m wrong and just don’t know why yet though