Winner Breaks..

Poolmanis

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Is the way how pool should be played. PROVE ME WRONG! :ROFLMAO:

Ok. Here is little thought for discussion.
1. Alternative break is ok if matches are short races(max 5-6). Longer matches it is boring to watch. Not suitable for TV if we want to sport grow and interest more people.
2. Winner breaks no lead is safe. Huge comebacks happen and they bring drama. It is possible to comeback alternative break too but often it means leading player need to start play and break bad. Making match again not so great. Winner breaks it is possible that losing player get only one chance and take max out from it!
3. World Pool Championship maybe show this better for everyone.
4. Tourneys rarely are all single elimination. So if someone get destroyed in winner breaks they still in and can do same for some other guy in tournament. So double elimination brackets are friend of winner breaks.
5. I could go on but I let others chime in ;)
 

Cameron Smith

is kind of hungry...
Silver Member
I agree with this. I really don’t like alternating breaks and the trend has hurt my enjoyment of pro pool over the last decade. The best way to control packages frequency and size is by reducing the size of the pockets. 4 inches seems perfect for the brand new slick cloth.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Silver Member
Absolutely. Tennis would be a much better game if you kept serving until you lost a point. The traditionalists would scream, but it would be a lot more exciting.
 

King T

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Is the way how pool should be played. PROVE ME WRONG! :ROFLMAO:

Ok. Here is little thought for discussion.
1. Alternative break is ok if matches are short races(max 5-6). Longer matches it is boring to watch. Not suitable for TV if we want to sport grow and interest more people.
2. Winner breaks no lead is safe. Huge comebacks happen and they bring drama. It is possible to comeback alternative break too but often it means leading player need to start play and break bad. Making match again not so great. Winner breaks it is possible that losing player get only one chance and take max out from it!
3. World Pool Championship maybe show this better for everyone.
4. Tourneys rarely are all single elimination. So if someone get destroyed in winner breaks they still in and can do same for some other guy in tournament. So double elimination brackets are friend of winner breaks.
5. I could go on but I let others chime in ;)
Well....., Not to say your wrong Sir, but here's another angle. If I go to a tournament and I draw SVB and then Dennis O or Josh Roberts and the Chip Compton, well I'd like to get in a few breaks! I don't want to drive to another tournament and go two and out without shooting!!
I might not win, but i do want good mileage for my Money! P.S. Josh ran 6 racks going to 9 and Chip ran 4, no shot on the 1 ball and then ran 3!
 

Poolmanis

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well....., Not to say your wrong Sir, but here's another angle. If I go to a tournament and I draw SVB and then Dennis O or Josh Roberts and the Chip Compton, well I'd like to get in a few breaks! I don't want to drive to another tournament and go two and out without shooting!!
I might not win, but i do want good mileage for my Money! P.S. Josh ran 6 racks going to 9 and Chip ran 4, no shot on the 1 ball and then ran 3!
Yes. You could also win lag and put couple racks in before they shoot also.

I also have my share on winner breaks.. good and bad.
Just couple stories from my tourneys:
Nordic 9ball champs(only time i played them) back somewhere 2000. I was shooting good those times and 1st round i got Norweigian guy and others said he is pro. I played really good and went 8-0 lead race to 9. Then i fouled to cueball on tricky shot and never shoot again. He ran 9 and out.
Ok. shit happens.
Next round I got another Norwegian guy and I took again good 8-1 lead and then dry break. Guy ran 5 racks. play lock up safe and i hit ball but leave a shot and he runs set out.
I did not miss a ball both sets..

Also had 8ball final where i only lag... race to 8. I should practice lagging too :D

But i also made some comebacks from 0-8 so all good :)
 

middleofnowhere

Registered
Well....., Not to say your wrong Sir, but here's another angle. If I go to a tournament and I draw SVB and then Dennis O or Josh Roberts and the Chip Compton, well I'd like to get in a few breaks! I don't want to drive to another tournament and go two and out without shooting!!
I might not win, but i do want good mileage for my Money! P.S. Josh ran 6 racks going to 9 and Chip ran 4, no shot on the 1 ball and then ran 3!
That's true, the super player is probably going to win regardless. However the only chance the lesser player has is winner breaks. He needs the chance to go nuts even play over his head.

A few good rolls, a little luck, the superstar misses a ball or two and your in the winners circle.
 

Scratch85

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I would like to see winner breaks until someone gets on the hill, and then the trailing player gets all the breaks.

If it goes hill-hill, re-lag for the final break.

Not a bad idea. I think I favor the player, who gave up his earned break, getting it back at hill-hill though. No need to make him earn his break again, after being seated. Seems too much of a penalty for playing well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

The_JV

Local_Pro
The better player stands a better chance at winning an alternate break set.

What builds drama in tennis (someone else brought it up), is not only holding your serve but attempting to break the opponents.

Pool is no different in tennis in this regard. Holding serve (winning your break game) is the most improtant aspect.

I don't have an issue with winner breaks if templates are not used.
 

middleofnowhere

Registered
Not a bad idea. I think I favor the player, who gave up his earned break, getting it back at hill-hill though. No need to make him earn his break again, after being seated. Seems too much of a penalty for playing well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unless the guy on the hill closed it out, the trailing player does get all the rest of the breaks.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Silver Member
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.
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'd like to see disclaimers on the implied merits of major tourneys; that they are only contests comprised of a sampling of the "best" known players and the filtering is simply to determine "a winner". Speaking of filtering, criteria such as most BnRs, highest average Accustats, and total game lead to name a few should be considered to determine a (for lack of a better word) champion.
 

middleofnowhere

Registered
I'd like to see disclaimers on the implied merits of major tourneys; that they are only contests comprised of a sampling of the "best" known players and the filtering is simply to determine "a winner". Speaking of filtering, criteria such as most BnRs, highest average Accustats, and total game lead to name a few should be considered to determine a (for lack of a better word) champion.
How do you equate a guy who breaks and has an easy out. Then another player breaks has no out but wins all the safety play ultimately winning.
Whoses win was superior? The score is still 1 to 1. Is one win of greater value then the other? A field goal kicker kicks it dead center. Another just makes it inside the post. Does one count more then the other.
 

The_JV

Local_Pro
The length of the match does depend on the format but the chance of winning it does not.
Nah I don't subscribe to that logic when using the template.

Race to 7 winner breaks, both players capable of putting together such a pack of wins. Player A (800 fargo) wins lag, runs 7 games. Player B (825) doesn't get to touch the table. In theory the weaker player wins. That's far fetched on the amatuer level for the most part, but not for top teir pros.

Race to 7 alternate, both players can only BnR a single game at a time. Player A (800) wins lag, holds serve. Player B gets an opprotunity to maintain pace and does not necessarily require a BnR to hold control of that frame. The most consistent player wins this race, not the one that managed to stay at the table throughout.

Beyond keeping run away scores in check. Alternate break format magnifies the significance of the in game error. The winner of an alternate break match typically is the player that made the least amount of mistakes while capitalized on their opponents. Whereas the winner of a winner break match is the person who has managed to successfully get on the 1 after dropping a ball on the break consistently. The SVB vs Szolnoki match is a great example of this. In my humble opinion, that match was won by Szolnoki when he sorted out the break first.

All that said, I don't have a problem with winner break when using a triangle. I think the tiny bit of randomness is enough to mix up the break results. I also think very difficult equipment (tight pockets) is a must, to keep packages in check. The idea of witnessing mulitple racks being run off sounds impressive, but seeing someone pull away with a extensive lead really sucks the drama out of the match. No different than a >20 game lead in the latter stage of a mega race.
 
Last edited:

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
Nah I don't subscribe to that logic when using the template.

Race to 7 winner breaks, both players capable of putting together such a pack of wins. Player A (800 fargo) wins lag, runs 7 games. Player B (825) doesn't get to touch the table. In theory the weaker player wins. That's far fetched on the amatuer level for the most part, but not for top teir pros.

Race to 7 alternate, both players can only BnR a single game at a time. Player A (800) wins lag, holds serve. Player B gets an opprotunity to maintain pace and does not necessarily require a BnR to hold control of that frame.

Beyond keeping run away scores in check. Alternate break format magnifies the significance of the in game error. The winner of an alternate break match typically is the player that made the least amount of mistakes while capitalized on their opponents. Whereas the winner of a winner break match is the person who has managed to successfully get on the 1 after dropping a ball on the break consistently. The SVB vs Szolnoki match is a great example of this. In my humble opinion, that match was won by Szolnoki when he sorted out the break first.

All that said, I don't have a problem with winner break when using a triangle. I think the tiny bit of randomness is enough to mix up the break results. I also think very difficult equipment (tight pockets) is a must, to keep packages in check. The idea of witnessing mulitple racks being run off sounds impressive, but seeing someone pull away with a extensive lead really sucks the drama out of the match. No different than a >20 game lead in the latter stage of a mega race.

Maybe a mix of winner breaks and alternating breaks would be a good format.

Play winner breaks, but limit it to 3 wins in a row. If we're playing a race to 9, and you win the flip, the worst damage I'll suffer is 3 loses, then it's my turn to break. Then winner of that game breaks, but the winner can only get 3 wins breaking and then the next break goes to the opponent.

I have a friend who put a 6-pack on me playing 8ball on a Diamond barbox. In a race to 7 that's about a done deal. Being down that far, one mistake leads to losing. Since then, we play alternating breaks. Lol. And that evens it out. In a longer race, like 11 or 15 or whatever, winner breaks is fine. Or in gambling session it's fine. But in a short tournament race, one player might not even get to play, and that's unfortunate.

I can't think of any other sport or game where the opponent can get shutout without having any opportunity to compete or perform.
 
Last edited:

Pacecar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Not a bad idea. I think I favor the player, who gave up his earned break, getting it back at hill-hill though. No need to make him earn his break again, after being seated. Seems too much of a penalty for playing well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like this modification of the Beiber proposal.
 

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
Absolutely. Tennis would be a much better game if you kept serving until you lost a point. The traditionalists would scream, but it would be a lot more exciting.

Lol. I agree. But, in tennis, when you're serving, your opponent at least has a chance. They aren't just sitting in a chair on the sidelines whatching you serve into an empty service court box.
 
Last edited:
Top