Why the alternate break?

Wheelsno3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry but your logic doesn't pass the smell test.

Consider, let's say we play a race to nine and I win the lag and hang a nine pack on you, you lose without getting a shot and go home to kick garbage cans and yell at your wife. But let's say the same thing happens at alternate break, does the result change at all? No, you still lose, except now you lose 9-8 instead of 9-0 and you still kick garbage cans and yell at the wife -- maybe even more so. In the end you die just as dead. The only difference is that in the second match there was some phony format that allowed you to get a 'chance to win' that you didn't earn.

And by the way if there was a winner break match where a player opened with an eight pack and then his opponent followed it with another eight pack it would be the most talked about match in history. But in alt break almost no one would even notice. The big break and the big packages are where the legends come from.
 
Bbutler said:
Sorry but your logic doesn't pass the smell test.

Consider, let's say we play a race to nine and I win the lag and hang a nine pack on you, you lose without getting a shot and go home to kick garbage cans and yell at your wife. But let's say the same thing happens at alternate break, does the result change at all? No, you still lose, except now you lose 9-8 instead of 9-0 and you still kick garbage cans and yell at the wife -- maybe even more so. In the end you die just as dead. The only difference is that in the second match there was some phony format that allowed you to get a 'chance to win' that you didn't earn.

And by the way if there was a winner break match where a player opened with an eight pack and then his opponent followed it with another eight pack it would be the most talked about match in history. But in alt break almost no one would even notice. The big break and the big packages are where the legends come from.
Click to expand...

GREAT;GREAT POST & TOTALLY TRUE:smile::smile::smile::cool:

WELL DONE:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 
Sooo ....
The lag is the most important shot in pool.

You go to a tournament and have to lag on a table you have never seen before.
What does winning the lag prove?
Is it skill or a random event?
 
Scaramouche said:
Sooo ....
The lag is the most important shot in pool.

You go to a tournament and have to lag on a table you have never seen before.
What does winning the lag prove?
Is it skill or a random event?
Click to expand...

Sure it's important. Doesn't matter if it's nine ball, ten ball, one pocket or straight pool, it's always important. But it's not nearly as important as the next eighty shots that follow it. How is that relevant to anything?
 
decent dennis said:
Tell that to the Packers.
Click to expand...

Wheelsno3 said:
The Packers did get an equal shot after every score by the Cardinals throughout the game. The NFL's overtimes rules specifically are at fault, not the overall set up of Football.

And by the way, there are lots and lots of people who think the NFL overtime rules are stupid, myself included. College overtime rules are much better for equality of opportunity, and you can find many players and former players and commentators criticizing the NFL for having bad rules.

Pointing to the NFL only further proves the point that Alternate break is the proper way to play the game.
Click to expand...

Unless billiards has some sort of mathematical equation for the probability of running a rack, or getting a clean break without being snookered off the break, then using the NFL (and specifically the Packers) would be a poor comparison.

Benjamin Morris' argument is vastly more polished than my vulgar attempts.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nfl-coaches-are-getting-away-with-crimes-against-middle-school-math/
 
So what big upsets have there been because of the alternate break? If someone beats SVB in an alternate break format. Is it because they are a weaker player and only won because they got to break? It would seem they played just as well or better.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Colonel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should get the rules in one pocket changed to a winner breaks format. It really isn't fair to let your opponent break after he loses a game.
 
Pool was much more interesting to watch and it gave much more adrenaline when winner break was on.
You could get in rhythm more oftently and it gave that special feel to players that can be foung nowadays with this alternate break.
What can be better then to run out all the set or even if ysomeone else runns out it on you.
For me,there is nothing better in world than that.
Well,maybe sex with some special chicks:smile::smile::smile::eek::smile::smile::smile:
So, congratultaions you losers and enjoy now as long as you can since everything will be as it was before:wink:once very soon.
 
Well, I finally did some analysis and got an answer I did not expect. The result will be described in more detail in the September issue of Billiards Digest, but briefly:

I compared winner-breaks with alternate-breaks format for a variety of run-out-from-break percentages and a variety of lag-success percentages. It turns out that the match-winning percentages are identical for the two formats. What does change, as noted above, is that with alternate break, the loser gets to play more. But he doesn't get to win the match more.

Let's look at an extreme case where both players are 99% to run from the break and they play a race to 3. Under winner breaks, the one who wins the lag is 97% to run out the match for the whitewash, but if he loses any game, his opponent will almost surely run out, so he has a close to 97% chance to win the match.

Under alternate breaks, the one who wins the lag has a 95% chance to win 3-2 (runs out at hill-hill) and a 1% chance for each of 3-1 and 3-0 scores for the same 97% match win probability. The chances turn out to be identical, so there is probably some proof, but my combinatorics are too rusty to put into action.

I made an Excel spreadsheet that does both kinds of format for races up to 9. Drop me an email at jewett@sfbilliards.com if you want a copy of it. I also made a simpler spreadsheet that does not consider who breaks with races up to 15.

Remember to practice your lag.;)
 
Bob Jewett said:
... I compared winner-breaks with alternate-breaks format for a variety of run-out-from-break percentages and a variety of lag-success percentages. It turns out that the match-winning percentages are identical for the two formats. ...
Click to expand...

A couple of years ago, in the "Pool Myths Explained" thread, ineedaspot said pretty much the same thing:

ineedaspot said:
A few myths surround the question of alternate versus winner breaks.

Mathematically, they are the same. A race to 11 is best of 21, with the lag winner getting 11 breaks and the other guy 10. If someone gets to 11 first, the rest of the racks aren't played. Winner vs alternate breaks only changes the order that the racks are played. It's like the difference between 2-3-2 and 2-2-1-1-1 for home/away in a best-of-seven playoff series.

Which means that, despite what tv commentators say, neither format favors the better breaker, neither makes "holding serve" more important, and neither makes the lag more valuable.

The only differences are with respect to the mental game. Winner breaks probably favors the "momentum" player, while alternating favors the "even keel" player.
Click to expand...

He made additional comments on this subject in posts # 26, 30, 35, 46, and 49 of the same thread.
 
AtLarge said:
A couple of years ago, in the "Pool Myths Explained" thread, ineedaspot said pretty much the same thing:
...
He made additional comments on this subject in posts # 26, 30, 35, 46, and 49 of the same thread.
Click to expand...
I recall seeing that now. Thanks for the pointer. I guess I didn't pay much attention to it because of the very simple example he gave, where one player is 100% to run out, so the reasoning is pretty easy. (Maybe I missed a post with the details for more complex cases.)

It turns out that if one player is 73% to run out a rack from the break and 37% to win the lag while the other player is 65% to run out a rack from the break and 63% to win the lag, in a race to nine, for both alternate and winner breaks, the first player is 63.0985348% to win the match. It's harder to see how identical match chances follow in this case compared to the 100% runs case. Maybe it's obvious if you look at it the right way, but I haven't managed to do that yet.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I recall seeing that now. Thanks for the pointer. I guess I didn't pay much attention to it because of the very simple example he gave, where one player is 100% to run out, so the reasoning is pretty easy. (Maybe I missed a post with the details for more complex cases.)

It turns out that if one player is 73% to run out a rack from the break and 37% to win the lag while the other player is 65% to run out a rack from the break and 63% to win the lag, in a race to nine, for both alternate and winner breaks, the first player is 63.0985348% to win the match. It's harder to see how identical match chances follow in this case compared to the 100% runs case. Maybe it's obvious if you look at it the right way, but I haven't managed to do that yet.
Click to expand...

I just looked back and didn't find any of his posts talking specifically about more complex cases. But somehow I had the sense that he was. :frown:
 
ivicafranic said:
Well,the alternate break is certainly for suckers and it kills the game.
This is one of the most stupid changes that has ever done in pool.:o:o:o:(:o:o:o
What you can do is to ask any real player about that and you will get this answer.
Only those who are affraid of loosing would tell you oposit.
Of course,you have right on your opinion but this is mine:smile:
Click to expand...

Don't need to ask a real player ask a not so real player that makes up the field ,, the real fact is alternating breaks bring more players in and more money to the pot period


1
 
Ak Guy said:
So is that what alternate breaks is all about? Is it a way of giving players with a less rounded game a better chance?
Click to expand...

it's actually giving you a chance to execute the good break that you have been practicing for hours and hours, and then run out. if you cant, you have to figure out what safety you can do. if it's your opponent's break, and he misses or makes a safety, you are given the chance to dominate and steal the rack from him.
i think alternating breaks is good for tournaments.
 
Surely there is room for both formats in 9 ball?

I far prefer to watch alternate break, the pressure ramping up on both players to hold their serve so to speak as the match progresses. I think this is the best format for high level knock out tournaments, world 9 ball, US Open etc.

In these daft races to 100 that some people seem to like, then sure, winner breaks is probably the way to go.

I want the world champion to be the best player, not the one who got several rolls on their break.
 
Grantstew said:
Surely there is room for both formats in 9 ball?

I far prefer to watch alternate break, the pressure ramping up on both players to hold their serve so to speak as the match progresses. I think this is the best format for high level knock out tournaments, world 9 ball, US Open etc.

In these daft races to 100 that some people seem to like, then sure, winner breaks is probably the way to go.

I want the world champion to be the best player, not the one who got several rolls on their break.
Click to expand...

Ummm

That's what happens a lot in alternate break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top