Why Pass On Breaking?

[Jude Rosenstock]

so now I have seen on youtube 2 ways to call & make the head ball from a full rack of 15 in the opening break. what about the way van den berg reportedly called and made a ball from the stack of 14? anyone have info on that or is it just another urban legend without substance?

also is the requirement to send cb & 2 ob to a rail suspended if a called ball is pocketed?

Yes, my understanding of the rules is, if you pocket the shot, you need not meet any other break requirements. It's an interesting little twist. You could smash open the entire rack, stop the cueball dead center of the table and if that 1 in the side tickles the point, you're screwed AND you're at minus 2! Sadly, I know about a dozen guys in my town who would forego the penalty out of pity and just run 150 on me.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

also is the requirement to send cb & 2 ob to a rail suspended if a called ball is pocketed?

Yes, it is. Here's the WPA rule:

4.3 Opening Break Shot
The following rules apply to the opening break shot:

(a) The cue ball begins in hand behind the head string.

(b) If no called ball is pocketed, the cue ball and two object balls must each be driven to a rail or the shot is a breaking foul. (See 8.4 Driven to a Rail.) This is penalized by subtracting two points from the breaker’s score. (See 4.10 Breaking Foul.) The non-breaking player may accept the balls in position or may require the breaker to play another opening break shot, until he satisfies the requirements for an opening break or the non-shooting player accepts the table in position. (See 4.11 Serious Fouls)

 

[poolmouse]

I've begun to wonder how much of an advantage there is to not breaking.

I would say it depends on your opponent. I've played some great 14.1 players who can't play a decent opening safe. They can have the break. I'm pretty good at putting someone on the head rail on an openning break. Win-win for me, I consider the opening break one of the most crucial shots in 14.1. It sets the tone and can potentially get you on the score board first.

PS, For the love of God...never, ever give 14.1-Straightman the opening break!!!

 

[Vahmurka]

correction

It was Huidji See. See looked over the rack then called the apex ball in the side.

to make it right, that was Mario He actually Huidji See is "in the blue corner", He is "red".
Here is my post in a thread about that very break describing what's behind it, and containing another link to where I posted a short clip (with slo-mo) of Mario making the head ball. As I described the situation in these posts, I won't repeat here.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

to make it right, that was Mario He actually Huidji See is "in the blue corner", He is "red".
Here is my post in a thread about that very break describing what's behind it, and containing another link to where I posted a short clip (with slo-mo) of Mario making the head ball. As I described the situation in these posts, I won't repeat here.

Thanks for the correction, I posted by memory and hadn't even realized I posted incorrectly.

Do you know if he uses this break regularly?

 

[juggler314]

Even if

I think one poster brought up changing the rules if this happens. I would have to side with that.

A large part of this game is a certain amount of strategy, if you could find a shot that went with a good enough percentage to be worth shooting on a full rack - it would radically change the nature of the game. Mainly the opening safety battle to determine who gets first crack at a decent run.

Corey Deuel famously is able to soft break, make the 1 in the side and with "rack your own" set the balls in a pattern that ensures both an easy and predictable run out in 9 ball. The easy fix for that was to require that 4 balls pass the midpoint of the table (or be pocketed) so you couldn't get that perfect control of the rack.

I watched him and Mika go at each other like this in an alternate break match. Rack1 - Corey - soft break, make 1 in side, easy out. Rack2 Mika - pound crap out of the balls - execute a good out. Rack3 Corey - soft break, make 1 in side...wait are all the balls in exactly the same place??? - easy out. Rack4 - mika pounds the crap out of them again, executes good run out. Rack5 - corey, soft break 1 in the side, **** this yes they are all the same! easy out. Rack6 - mika pounds the **** out of them again - runs out. Rack7, corey - soft break, makes 1, same runout - people start quietly booing corey. I seem to remember them going back and forth for about 5 racks each, don't remember who ultimately won (I know corey finally got stuck or something on one of his breaks). But fans sitting 5 feet away booing is pretty telling.

Any "sure thing" for the opening break would drastically affect the value of the opening lag.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I think one poster brought up changing the rules if this happens. I would have to side with that.

A large part of this game is a certain amount of strategy, if you could find a shot that went with a good enough percentage to be worth shooting on a full rack - it would radically change the nature of the game. Mainly the opening safety battle to determine who gets first crack at a decent run.

Corey Deuel famously is able to soft break, make the 1 in the side and with "rack your own" set the balls in a pattern that ensures both an easy and predictable run out in 9 ball. The easy fix for that was to require that 4 balls pass the midpoint of the table (or be pocketed) so you couldn't get that perfect control of the rack.

I watched him and Mika go at each other like this in an alternate break match. Rack1 - Corey - soft break, make 1 in side, easy out. Rack2 Mika - pound crap out of the balls - execute a good out. Rack3 Corey - soft break, make 1 in side...wait are all the balls in exactly the same place??? - easy out. Rack4 - mika pounds the crap out of them again, executes good run out. Rack5 - corey, soft break 1 in the side, **** this yes they are all the same! easy out. Rack6 - mika pounds the **** out of them again - runs out. Rack7, corey - soft break, makes 1, same runout - people start quietly booing corey. I seem to remember them going back and forth for about 5 racks each, don't remember who ultimately won (I know corey finally got stuck or something on one of his breaks). But fans sitting 5 feet away booing is pretty telling.

Any "sure thing" for the opening break would drastically affect the value of the opening lag.

Of course pattern racking isn't an issue with Straight Pool but it shouldn't be in 9 Ball either since it is against the rules. And until professionals play by the rules the pro game isn't gonna get anywhere.

As far as 14.1 goes, if someone discovers a wired ball in an undisturbed rack and that play begins to become routine, the rule should change. Probably requiring the opening shot to be a safety would do it.

But lord help us if someone finds a wired ball that is not the head ball - that would be a bigger problem. Another rule would have to be instituted that says you can't call a ball out of any undisturbed rack.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... But lord help us if someone finds a wired ball that is not the head ball - that would be a bigger problem. Another rule would have to be instituted that says you can't call a ball out of any undisturbed rack.

I forget who told me, but the story goes:

Nick van den Berg in one 14.1 tournament (match?) did not play to have a break ball. Instead he played for a shot out of the 14-ball rack on every break.

So, I think the rule change is a real possibility.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I forget who told me, but the story goes:

Nick van den Berg in one 14.1 tournament (match?) did not play to have a break ball. Instead he played for a shot out of the 14-ball rack on every break.

So, I think the rule change is a real possibility.

It can be a really simple rule, too. Balls must be racked with a standard triangle. No magic rack, no divots, nothing. If a table has divots, the balls must be racked on the other side of the table. Then, shooters can try to call a ball in the stack all day long.

It's the only way to keep the integrity of the game intact. If you force players to shoot a safety on the opening shot, you leave the possibility of having this dead-ball remain undisturbed and available for the incoming shooter. The counter-strategy then will be to play the safety more full than normal. You'll simply never see a great opening safety again and losing the lag will be catastrophic.

By banning freeze-rack methods, you allow for imperfect racking again. The mere thought that it is unlikely the dead-ball exists anymore serves as enough of a deterant from shooting it.


Strangely, when I started this thread, I was thinking it would be about the value of the opening safety. From what I've experienced and seen over the years, racking versus breaking does not appear to be an obvious decision. For many games, the opening safety is the start of a lengthy exchange. For many others, there are often difficult shots left for the incoming player that they're unlikely to pocket. I know there are many knowledgeable players who will simply say, "This is the way it has always been done" as their justification but wish, with data-compilation mechanisms at our ready, we might see something that would actually support this decision. I hope one day people see the value in building out statistics for pool, especially straight pool. I think if pool were to ever leap to the network stations and news broadcasts, it will do so once more records are available.

 

[AtLarge]

... Nick van den Berg in one 14.1 tournament (match?) did not play to have a break ball. Instead he played for a shot out of the 14-ball rack on every break. ...

Any idea what shot he was playing? Was it the same one every rack?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Any idea what shot he was playing? Was it the same one every rack?

I don't know, but if it was one of the corner balls straight into its corner by playing against the opposite side, I'd go for not only the same shot but the same side on every break. The strategy would be to leave the last ball somewhere convenient for position if nothing else presented itself, like maybe up by a head pocket.