Why the alternate break?

[Bob Jewett]

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

As mentioned above, the two formats yield the same probability of the better player winning. This is counter-intuitive, but that's the result. Maybe one player or the other prefers one format and maybe he will play better with the format he prefers, but apart from hypothetical psychological wrinkles, it's a wash.

What alternate break does give is longer matches when there are a lot of break-and-runs.

 

[Skratch]

IMHO, I think Alternate breaking is great for short sets. It makes sense for TV viewing since you cant devote a long time to the match. For those marathon Match up sets that go 30+ I think the Winner break format is far better. It might even make the match move faster if the player is in the zone. In either case, I think the better player will win regardless of breaking format. If the point of Alternate breaking was to give equal chances, I dont think so. I think you have to earn that right, not have it given. As an example,we lag to earn the right to choose if you want to break first. Its not just given to you. If your opponent can run a package, you should try to match that to stay in the game. In a short set, thats nigh impossible. So again, short sets Alternate breaking makes sense.

 

[Matt]

As far as alternate break vs. winner break goes, I think there's room for both.

As it's already been stated, if you assume that the players are robots and have a fixed probability of winning any given game (i.e the psychological effects don't matter), the outcome is the same in either format for an even race.

One factor that everyone here seems to be leaving out is that many local tournaments are handicapped, and that's when alternate breaks do affect the match outcome by giving the player that needs fewer games more opportunities at the table. Because of that, playing alternate breaks with handicaps will yield more upsets than if the same races are used in a winner break format. Even if you adjust the handicaps accordingly, the alternate break format will give the weaker player more chances to shoot (even if it's just stepping up and breaking dry), so the alternate break format is good for attracting players across a range of skill levels to a handicapped tournament.

In the case of a non-handicapped tournament, I think there's something to be said for the psychological effect of both formats on the player and the audience. In the case of winner breaks, there is a chance for a player to catch a gear and put together a package, which can be gratifying for the player, exciting for the audience, and demoralizing for their opponent. In the case of alternate breaks, there's a lot of pressure to win all the racks you break and coming back from a deficit means your opponent has to make a mistake on their break. Both feel very different to play and watch, even if the statistics say they are the same.

Having said all that, I really don't like either format if I want to see a serious display of pool skill. I know some people consider the open break a skill that should be mastered as part of being a well-rounded player, but I fall in the camp that considers it more of a trick shot and am more interested in the rest of the game following the break. Because of that, I'm grateful that there are games like one pocket and straight pool where the break is a finesse shot, or like american rotation where it is more of a randomizer. I understand why those games don't appeal to the masses, but for an experienced player/viewer that is over the excitement running out racks of 9-ball, I think they offer a lot more in terms of strategy.

 

[billiardthought]

I think all tea should be sweet tea because that's how I like it

 

[bad_hit]

What about alternative break every X games? Instead of alternating every rack, you alternative at intervals of the set. eg - races where you alternate at game 5 if the break hasn't changed hands yet, then at game 10, etc. That way people can run packages (which is fun to watch), but each oppenent has a chance to win.

One of the stupidest concepts ever is that someone can run out the set with the other player in the chair never getting a turn. Apply that to ANY other game and picture it and see how silly that seems. Each player should obviously get a turn, no matter what. But running several racks in a row is good stuff.

 

[SJDinPHX]

What about alternative break every X games? Instead of alternating every rack, you alternative at intervals of the set. eg - races where you alternate at game 5 if the break hasn't changed hands yet, then at game 10, etc. That way people can run packages (which is fun to watch), but each opponent has a chance to win.

One of the stupidest concepts ever is that someone can run out the set with the other player in the chair never getting a turn. Apply that to ANY other game and picture it and see how silly that seems. Each player should obviously get a turn, no matter what. But running several racks in a row is good stuff.

That may be one viable alternative..But I will always be in favor of some form of alternate break!..There is no other sport/game in the world, where after a score is completed, that a team/person continues to play on!..That would be like, in football for example, the team who just scored a touchdown, would again recieve the kick-off!..Or when you score a basket..you keep the ball, and continue to score, without your opponent ever having a chance to respond..Or in tennis, should one player get to serve, until his arms get tired?..Sitting in your chair, is NOT competing..It is just getting cold, bored and stiff, to where you can't adequately compete!

PS..There is no way you'll ever convince me, that is an equitable way to hold any kind of a fair contest!..I have to think that pool, is the only game on the planet, that has survived with that mentality for so long!..It is absolutely assinine!

 

[nick serdula]

Yes to alternating

Best man wins every time. Also is should be win by 2.
Ouch,
Nick

 

[Bob Jewett]

Best man wins every time. Also is should be win by 2.
Ouch,
Nick

Nah. 10 ahead with alternate break. Plan for a month.

But in some sense winner breaks is better because it tends to be faster (fewer total games). On the other hand, if you want to see the guy who loses the lag play....

 

[AtLarge]

Nah. 10 ahead with alternate break. Plan for a month.

But in some sense winner breaks is better because it tends to be faster (fewer total games). On the other hand, if you want to see the guy who loses the lag play....

Maybe they should lag for the break for each game.

 

[Poolmanis]

Alternate break is okay IF tournament is single elimination or races are short(7 or less). Otherwise watching it gets really boring ...
We have double elimination competitions so if someone get whitewashed due package he can lag better on next match...

I believe we have double elimination tournaments because we had winner breaks?

I just toss example: I watch race to 11 alternative break where is playing two great players. Another one is breaking perfect and have some luck and run out his first 4 racks.
another player gets cueball kicked in 2 times and break 1 dry. He runs one from 4 first his break. So score is 7-1.. It is possible to come back BUT he needs really help from rolls or another player need to start dog a lot. Anyways even if he wins that not look exciting.

Let´s put similar match example... another player opens with 4 pack and another player finally gets shot and clear table and scratch from next break. Opponent run couple racks more and score is 7-1 .. again comeback is hard to make but he only need ONE shot to start his comeback and if he is down like 3-9 and run set out it would be legendary..

If one fall far behind with alternative break he will need multiple chances.. Winner breaks he need only one and game is in hands. Of course he need to play and break perfect but technically he is commanding his own faith. No need help from opponent.