Why the alternate break?

[chevybob20]

One of the most successful tours in the U.S. is the Midwest9ballTour. It has always been alternate break for two reasons: it's more fair and it guarantees larger fields. The events held at Shooter's in Olathe,Ks. routinely have 100+ entries with large to really large Calcuttas. Also, Evelyn Dysart might be the best T.D. in the country.

This is spot on. Pool is supported by it's own players. The whole system is parasitic in nature. It will continue to be this way until outside money is brought in, if ever. These regional tours are surviving off of this format. I like them because I can post up and take a shot at a pro player on the cheap. I can't do that in golf. But, if I'm watching a true championship, I want to watch the best players win.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... So is that what alternate breaks is all about? ...

If it is rack-your-own 9 ball there are some players who will always make a ball on the break. Always. Well, maybe 98%. And they can tell you which ball will go into which pocket before they shoot.

Is that fair?

 

[jojopiff]

People nowadays, so much hate nuance. The correct answer, imo, is both. Are we talking the invitation only Big Foot at Derby City? Then it should absolutely be winner break. Are we talking the US Open where there's a minimum Fargo Rate (aka minimum skill level)? Then it should absolutely be winner break. Any tourney where the intended crowd is professionals, then it should be winner break.

Now, tourney's like the US Bar Table Championship where it's intended crowd (and subsequent large payouts) are dependent on "dead money" then the idea of winner break is based on the caveman idea of "Winner Break, if you can't survive then go practice!!!" and is destined to fail. I'll happily be dead money at a tourney I have a chance to participate against good/great players as well as the top players in the world. I won't, however, go spend my hard earned money to travel (and take vacation) to a place where I'm going to watch pro's break and run against me. And the first mother****er who tells me to "practice more" or "get better" needs a wake up call to the people who live their lives in the real world. We have lives and families and businesses that don't allow us to "practice more" and all we really want is an opportunity to compete. So not giving most of us an alternate break system where all we get is an opportunity is short sighted.

I'd venture to say that if the winner break system really worked there'd be more professional tournaments. And there'd be more money in pool. But the archaic idea where we stick to the "MANLY" way of thinking that "alternate break" is for pussies, we will continue to ruin pool. We've done a lot of things one way in this world for a long time, and I'd venture to say almost every one of them have been outgrown and/or proven wrong.

But I'm a "banger" who absolutely couldn't compete with pro's in winner break.

 

[Bob Jewett]

.. Any tourney where the intended crowd is professionals, then it should be winner break. ...

Not at 9 ball.

 

[jojopiff]

Not at 9 ball.

Care to elaborate? I'd perfectly fine with race to 15 in 9ball on the table the Dennis/KO just played on. I think table size/toughness also comes into play when determining winner break or alternate break.

Someone could likely tell the biggest package at the US Open. How tough were the tables?

Obviously, 1 pocket tourneys differ.

 

[Bank it]

I look at the final at Turning Stone as a good example of why winner breaks is the format I prefer.

Is anyone really going to say that wasn't magnificent 9 ball by Mika? Does anyone ponder that if it hadn't been winner break that perhaps he doesn't catch that gear to give that textbook display.

Look at Jason Shaws beat down of Mika at the previous Turning Stone. 22 minutes of the most explosive 9 ball I've seen in years.

If that kind of pool bores you perhaps you need a heart transplant.

 

[Scaramouche]

There is one pool tournament, nations teams, that has winner break.
A team could travel half way around the world and never get a single shot because of winner break.

Insane :yikes::yikes::yikes:

Snooker has alternate break, and the break is defensive.
But lopsided scores are still possible.

For example, in a German tournament in 2014, Marco Fu beat John Higgins, 4 time world champion, by a score of 4 - 0, as in ZERO - Higgins did not score a point.

Last Sunday Ronnie O'Sullivan won 10 - 1 over Barry Hawkins in the final of the the Masters, the second most lucrative tournament in snooker.

If one of the reasons for a competition is to find the best player, alternate break is a way to put pressure on the players to perform.

 

[RiverCity]

Sorry but you're wrong. Pool is a game where it remains your inning until you miss, foul or play a safe. That's the way it should be. Winner breaks brings a dynamic to he game that shouldn't be lost.

Alternate break is the invention of the everybody gets a turn, everybody gets a trophy generation. Oh, and also for those who break like they hit it with their purse. Sharpen up your safe game girls.

Tap tap tap

 

[Bob Jewett]

Care to elaborate? ...

See my previous post in this thread. The break at nine ball has been broken since about 2000. Or do you enjoy seeing your opponent make the wing ball every time with a 1/2-speed break?

 

[Paul Schofield]

Anyone have any actual stats on whether alternate break favors the better or worse player?

I copied and pasted this from a post I made on this subject a couple of years ago. Read on....

Alternating breaks makes the matches closer but the better player wins more often. (good in every way)

Not sure why you would think this. Lets say I routinely run 2-3 racks, and my opponent rarely can run 1. In this scenario, obviously I have an advantage *in the same race* if it is winner breaks. This is because my opponents break is unlikely to cost me a rack, whereas my break may cost him 3. What am I missing?

KMRUNOUT

You are missing something here. You are describing how you win a match with winner breaks. You are not thinking about how he wins a match with winner breaks and yes, he will win a match from time to time.

The rule is: The more often both players are brought to the table on a predictable and regular basis, the bigger the advantage for the better player. The weaker player wins by having lopsided opportunites in his favor and is allowed to score without limit untill he makes a mistake. Alternating breaks goes some distance toward eliminating his best chance at winning.

Here is an extreme example: I can run 150 balls in straight pool. I can play the best player in the world 10 games to 150 and I am going to win 1,2,or 3 games. Imagine if we were to play 150 points but we were only allowed to run 4 balls (4 and stop). Without exageration, I could not win even 1 game in 10,000 under these rules. These rules will make the matches closer but impossible for me to win. Bringing the best player back to the table on a regular and predictable basis destroy the only way I can possibly win (lopsided opportunities and being allowed to score without limit).

The same is true for Eight & Nine-Ball. Todays rules of winner breaks, early 9-balls, and Texas Express can make for very lopsided opportunities in a match. It is easy to lose to a player that is half your speed. Alternate breaks, shoot after a legal break, and no short games go a long way toward creating more equal opportunities (favoring the stronger player). These rules keep a match from getting away from the better player.

I have extensive stats on this subject.

 

[Colonel]

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. You think the NBA should take up the street rules of "make it take it"? You think Wimbledon should allow the player who holds serve to keep serving because they haven't been broken? You think the NFL should force the team who got scored on to kick the ball back to the team that scored on them?

Old time pool players are bonkers and are killing the sport with dumb talk like blaming the next "generation" for looking at a fundamentally flawed aspect of the game and wanting to change it to make some sense.

And all you players on here are acting like breaking and running is the only advantage that breaking gives you. Hell no, a good break also gives you the first look at a lock up safety. Yes the other guy gets a turn, but he has to hit a two rail kick just to avoid giving ball in hand. How ludicrous is that? Just because each player got a turn does not mean those turns are equal.

Alternate break is fair, it keeps both players coming to the table at regular intervals where each player has equal chance to control the situation on the table and when both players are good, it prevents run away matches WHICH ARE NOT EXCITING IN ANY WAY!

Wow, you are the one who couldn't be more wrong. You know how tired you sound with that "get off my lawn" attitude?

Well:
1. This isn't the NBA, your analogy really doesn't work.
2. What you're proposing is changing the way a game was always played and losing an important dynamic of that game as a result.
3. I am crazy, but far from old.(See Avatar)
4. Dresses are on sale at Walmart, stock up.

EDIT: For all those posting in this thread about "flying halfway around the world and not getting a shot", Really? Can anyone document a match where someone flew halfway around the world to an event and didn't gat a shot? If it has happened, well welcome to the big leagues, take your beating like you have a pair. I mean if you get on a plane & fly halfway around the world to play you should understand you're in the big leagues & act accordingly.

Colonel<------- Yes I'm crazy, no you can't have some.

 

[jojopiff]

See my previous post in this thread. The break at nine ball has been broken since about 2000. Or do you enjoy seeing your opponent make the wing ball every time with a 1/2-speed break?

The question you ask here is cleverly worded so as to get the answer you would like from me. But, here are the stats from the US Open 9ball from 2015. Obviously some major rule changes, but the breaker won 53% of the time & made a ball 62% of the time. So maybe your problem isn't with winner/alternate break, maybe your problem is with soft breaking. While a worthwhile topic, not the topic of this thread. And, I don't see how a "1/2 speed break" is relevant to this conversation. Can it not be used in an alternate break format too? Or are you saying that if they use it in winner break, one player is likely to run away? The stats below wouldn't necessarily say that to be true. Of the times they (in this small sample size) made a ball on break, 37% of the time they broke and ran.

Now, if you're going to press and tell me to answer the question, again it's nuanced. No, I don't care to watch it(to each their own), but if the rules of the tourney are that its not outlawed then I have no problem with it being used. And you'd be crazt not to have that in your Arsenal if it's allowed.

Here are some aggregate break statistics from the 33 9-Ball matches streamed this week by Accu-Stats from the 2015 U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship in Norfolk, VA.

The conditions for this event included: Diamond 9-foot table with pro-cut pockets, blue Simonis 860 cloth, Accu-Rack racking template, Aramith Tournament balls, measles cue ball, winner breaks, breaker racks for himself with the 9-ball on the foot string and the 2-ball at the back of the rack, break from the box (approx. 9" to each side of the long string), the break is illegal unless at least 3 balls pass the side pockets or are pocketed, foul on all balls, jump cues are allowed, and all slop counts (except I'm not sure whether a 9-ball pocketed in a foot-rail pocket counted, as that did not happen on stream). A 40-sec. shot clock (with one extension per rack) was used on the full-production matches.

The 33 matches (572 games tracked) were as follows. The figures in parentheses for some of the matches are the Accu-Stats Total Performance Averages (TPA), as calculated by Accu-Stats and shown on the stream.

Sun., Oct. 25 -- E. Strickland (.878) d. S. Frost (.830) 11-9, H-T Liu d. M. Chamat 11-6, S. Woodward (.825) d. I. Majid (.787) 11-10, N. Ekonomopoulos (.943) d. D. Mills (.879) 11-6, J. Morra (.897) d. F. Petroni (.718) 11-2, and R. Chinakhov d. R. Gallego 11-4.

Mon., Oct. 26 -- W. Kiamco (.876) d. A. Hopkins (.718) 11-6, K. Boyes d. S. Daulton 11-6, D. Orcollo d. P-N. Pham 11-1, A. Kazakis (.921) d. A. Pagulayan (.711) 11-3, S. Van Boening (.870) d. R. Gomez (.900) 11-9, and M. Davis d. I. Majid 11-9.

Tues., Oct 27 -- E. Dominguez d. So Shaw 11-9, R. Gallego (.920) d. C. Rocha (.829) 11-7, I. Putnik (.900) d. P-C Ko (.828) 11-8, A. Pagulayan d. A. Kang 11-5, O. Ortmann (.878) d. J-L Chang (.825) 11-6, and J. Bergman (.896) d. S. Van Boening (.857) 11-7.

Wed., Oct 28 -- J. Ignacio d. E. Strickland 11-5, K. Uchigaki (.891) d. P-Y Ko (.953) 11-10, J. Mazon d. B. Shuff 11-4, K-L Hsu (.917) d. M. Dechaine (.827) 11-7, J. Shaw (.866) d. C. Biado (.848) 11-7, and D. Orcollo (.816) d. K. Uchigaki (.787) 11-7 [Note: the data below exclude results for 5 games when the stream was down during the Ignacio/Strickland match.]

Thurs., Oct 29 -- D. Appleton d. N. Van den Berg 11-4, R. Morris (.891) d. F. Felicilda (.906) 11-10, K-L Hsu (.922) d. R. Souquet (.901) 11-8, H-T Liu d. J. Bergman 11-8, K. Boyes (.921) d. J. Shaw (.874) 11-9, and H-T Liu (.891) d. K-L Hsu (.817) 11-7. [Note: the data below exclude results for 6 games when the stream was down during the Liu/Bergman match.]

Fri., Oct 30 -- Y-H Cheng (.947) d. K. Boyes (.868) 11-4 (hot-seat match), K. Boyes (.915) d. H-T Liu (.895) 11-9 (semifinal), and Y-H Cheng (.908) d. K. Boyes (.878) 13-6 (finals).​

Overall results -- The breaker made at least one ball (and did not break illegally or foul) 62% of the time (353 of 572), won 53% of the games (302 of 572), and broke and ran 23% of the games (131 of 572).

Here's a more detailed breakdown of the 572 games.

Breaker broke legally, made at least one ball, and did not foul:

• • Breaker won the game: 224 (39% of the 572 games)
• • Breaker lost the game: 129 (23%)

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul, but broke illegally:

• • Breaker won the game: 4 (1%)
• • Breaker lost the game: 7 (1%)

Breaker fouled on the break (includes 1 break that was both fouled and illegal):

• • Breaker won the game: 13 (2%)
• • Breaker lost the game: 28 (5%)

Breaker broke dry (without fouling, but includes the 11 breaks that were both dry and illegal):

• • Breaker won the game: 61 (11%)
• • Breaker lost the game: 106 (19%)

Therefore, whereas the breaker won 53% of all games (302 of 572),

• • He won 63% (224 of 353) of the games in which he broke legally, made at least one ball on the break, and did not foul.
• • He won 36% (4 of 11) of the games in which he made at least one ball and did not foul, but broke illegally.
• • He won 32% (13 of 41) of the games in which he fouled on the break.
• • He won 37% (61 of 167) of the games in which he broke dry but did not foul.
• • He won 36% (78 of 219) of the games in which he either broke illegally, fouled on the break, or broke dry without fouling.

Break-and-run games: The 131 break-and-run games represented 23% of all 572 games, 43% of the 302 games won by the breaker, and 37% of the 353 games in which the break was successful (made a ball, legal, no foul).

The 131 break-and-run games consisted of 2 4-packs (Y-H Cheng and K-L Hsu), 4 3-packs, 16 2-packs, and 79 singles.

9-balls on the break: The 131 break-and-run games included just two 9-balls on the break (0.3% of the 572 breaks). With the Accu-Rack, the 9-ball tends to remain close to its original position.

 

[9andout]

winner breaks, race to 21 ,single knock out, thats the pro tour should be entries close at 32,64(local), 128(turning stone),256 (derby,world championships,eurotours,china open,japan open)
10 ball call shot-call safety
that is my opinion
no jump shots respect to the game its not basketball

Isn't that a "jump shot" about to be hit in ur AV.....????

Hey 9andout,
I'm not inferring any thing and Efren is my favorite player. Just asking a question and trying to get honest opinions. In my opinion when Efren was in his prime he had the most rounded game of pool I know of.

I really am trying to understand the reason for alternate breaks.

I was hoping not haha. Just messin' and taking it literally.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Its for people who pay a lot of Money to come to a tournament and don't get a chance to shoot!!

Maybe they should choose a different career/recreation path, or practice the lag.

 

[Poolmanis]

There is one pool tournament, nations teams, that has winner break.
A team could travel half way around the world and never get a single shot because of winner break.

Insane :yikes::yikes::yikes:

Snooker has alternate break, and the break is defensive.
But lopsided scores are still possible.

For example, in a German tournament in 2014, Marco Fu beat John Higgins, 4 time world champion, by a score of 4 - 0, as in ZERO - Higgins did not score a point.

Last Sunday Ronnie O'Sullivan won 10 - 1 over Barry Hawkins in the final of the the Masters, the second most lucrative tournament in snooker.

If one of the reasons for a competition is to find the best player, alternate break is a way to put pressure on the players to perform.

Snooker break shot have 1% affect to final score. Ditch Snooker from this thread please.

 

[Bbutler]

Many, many other sports in the world uses "alternate break" or at the very least equal chances. Basketball, football, soccer, professional darts, and more. Volleyball is one of the only sports I can think of that has a "make it, take it" type of rule, but even then, the rules have been changed to allow the receiving team to still be able to score on every serve.

So why is pool different? Why does it need to be possible for a player to be able to win a match without their opponent ever putting their hand on the table? Not that it does happen that often, but it can. So why? Because that's how its always been? If that's your reasoning that is the worst argument ever. With that argument we'd still have slavery. "I think slavery is fine because that's just the way it's always been." Pure stupidity.

Alternate break is better because it ensures that both players get an equal chance to come to the table and make something happen. How does having rules that allow one player to win without the other player getting a shot benefit the player with the "less rounded game?" Get out of here with that non-sense.

Alternate break is more fair, gives equal chance to both players. End of discussion. Alternate break should have been the rule years ago, hell, from the very beginning.

So in straight pool if you run 150 and out the other guy should still get another turn at the table?

Yeah, I don't think so.

 

[Bbutler]

Sorry but you're wrong. Pool is a game where it remains your inning until you miss, foul or play a safe. That's the way it should be. Winner breaks brings a dynamic to he game that shouldn't be lost.

Alternate break is the invention of the everybody gets a turn, everybody gets a trophy generation. Oh, and also for those who break like they hit it with their purse. Sharpen up your safe game girls.

This post pretty much nails it.

For the ones who say, 'oh noez, what happens if so-and-so travels halfway around the world and has to sit down through a nine pack?' I would remind you that this is why pool tournaments are traditionally double elimination. Someone running out an entire set has happened maybe half a dozen times in history. If you're unlucky enough to have it happen to you maybe you'll have better luck on the losers' side.

 

[Pushout]

So in straight pool if you run 150 and out the other guy should still get another turn at the table?

Yeah, I don't think so.

About seven or eight months ago, there was a member here who was adamant about just that and alternate break in nine ball. He had quite obviously never played Straight Pool.

 

[Wheelsno3]

So in straight pool if you run 150 and out the other guy should still get another turn at the table?

If the player who went 150 out did so immediately after the break because the breaker made a poor break, then no, they don't get another chance. If in some way they called a ball on their own break and the other player never got a shot at all, then yes they should get a chance.

Pool players are so silly with this idea that their game must allow a situation where one player "wins" by putting on an admittedly inspired and outstanding display without the other player having a chance to respond. We see the out cry over the NFL's overtime rules for this very reason, and the NFL has already changed the rules once due to this sentiment and will probably change the rules again soon. But the fact of the matter is pool is a competitive game, and if you are trying to find who the best player is, having rules that allow a player to "lose" while sitting in their chair is not a way to find the best player.

That logic is fundamentally flawed and must be challenged and changed. I'm not saying that a 150 out is common, I'm not saying a player running a 5 pack in 9 ball in a race to 5 is common, what I'm saying is that a system that allows that as a possibility is flawed and must change.

 

[ivicafranic]

With an alternate break everybody can be a player