Winner Breaks..

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
If 'loser breaks,' it evens out the chances for both players.

Pool players can't ever seem to play with those odds.
As I've pointed out before, "loser breaks" has exactly the same match odds as winner breaks and alternate break. One way to look at it is that the better player still gets to break the first rack if he wins the flip and every time the weaker player wins a game.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
I see thread turning direction of what everyone favorite break format is but I would ask what you would to WATCH?
I can´t watch long alternative break format matches myself and i am hardcore pool player/fan. I know people like to think what is fair and so on..
Let´s forget what is fair but what is most entertaining format for you? Heck I think i never tried or seen game been played loser breaks format but i would probably like that more than alternative...
That's actually a more difficult question...

Personally...?..., I think if you can manage to have two players both 'in gear' playing a winner break format in a slightly longer race (11-13), not using a template. That could be potentially most entertaining.

I say 'potentially' because it completely depends on the players at hand and the equipment they're playing on. A ton of misses in any format, in a long race is painful to watch.
 

chefjeff

Nazis are back.
Silver Member
I see thread turning direction of what everyone favorite break format is but I would ask what you would to WATCH?
I can´t watch long alternative break format matches myself and i am hardcore pool player/fan. I know people like to think what is fair and so on..
Let´s forget what is fair but what is most entertaining format for you? Heck I think i never tried or seen game been played loser breaks format but i would probably like that more than alternative...

Loser breaks makes it a match, not a runout session.

It seems obvious to me which would be preferable to paying fans who support BOTH players.


Jeff Livingston
 

chefjeff

Nazis are back.
Silver Member
As I've pointed out before, "loser breaks" has exactly the same match odds as winner breaks and alternate break. One way to look at it is that the better player still gets to break the first rack if he wins the flip and every time the weaker player wins a game.

I can see ZERO problems with loser breaks but it just won't gain ANY traction.

Why?


Jeff Livingston
 

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I am with you, Bob. Basketball would be a much better game if the ball was turned back over to the team that just scored. After all, why punish a team for scoring? Imagine a "basketball package". It would be great!
Or, for the flip-side nightmare, imagine a straight-pool-game for which I make a ball and then it's your turn.
 

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I can see ZERO problems with loser breaks but it just won't gain ANY traction.

Why?


Jeff Livingston
One problem, imo, is that you and many others are not truly appreciating Bob's point.

You still seem to be thinking that because two good players with alternate break trade off lots of games and more frequently get to 9-8 or 9-7 scores, that the matches are "closer" than are the winner-breaks matches with more lopsided scores. Those matches are not actually closer. It is an illusion. The scores in the two formats are apples and oranges, or at least Granny Smith and McIntosh apples.
 

Paul Schofield

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Or, for the flip-side nightmare, imagine a straight-pool-game for which I make a ball and then it's your turn.
That would be taking turns hitting the cue ball, much like ping pong. I actually tried this a few times. It is an interesting game. I was not compelled to play it further.
 

Csim

Member
I think trophies should be given to the first bracket of players that get eliminated from every tournament from here forward. The tournament should stop so it can be done with a ceremony.
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
One variation I saw that was used in some PBT events of the late 1990's was winner breaks but if a match reaches double hill, there is another lag that determines who will break the deciding rack. I was fine with that.
 

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If the break doesn't matter, I have seen a lot of people who have lost out on winning a ton of money for refusing to spot the break to someone that may play very close to their speed.

I have played for many years and I have NEVER seen a real player turn down the break when in a gambling match.
 
Last edited:

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What about playing to a race divisible by 3 (9, 12, 15, etc).

Then breaking it up into 3 mini-races (Race to 9 would be three races to 3, Race to 12 would be three races to 4, and so on)

-1st mini-race, Player A gets all the breaks

-2nd mini-race, Player B gets all the breaks

(2 options for the 3rd and final mini-race)
a. Players lag. Winner of the lag gets all of the breaks
b. Players lag. Winner just gets the first break and the rest of the set is played out with alternate breaks.
 

Chili Palmer

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Nope don't like it. Win by two is better.

Why do you like win by 2? For the record, I'm not a huge fan of it because I think if you choose a number to race to that shouldn't change. I also don't think it would be a good idea for larger tournaments (if tournaments at all) because you no longer have some control over the timing of the matches.
 

Chili Palmer

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
What about playing to a race divisible by 3 (9, 12, 15, etc).

Then breaking it up into 3 mini-races (Race to 9 would be three races to 3, Race to 12 would be three races to 4, and so on)

-1st mini-race, Player A gets all the breaks

-2nd mini-race, Player B gets all the breaks

(2 options for the 3rd and final mini-race)
a. Players lag. Winner of the lag gets all of the breaks
b. Players lag. Winner just gets the first break and the rest of the set is played out with alternate breaks.

That was my thought - race to 9 and you have 17 possible games, take a way the hill-hill game and you've got 16 possible games. Winner of lag gets the break for the first 8 and opponent gets last 8, or you could do 4-4-4-4. This, to me, would prevent someone from running out the set but gives viewers the chance to watch players string some racks together.

In the end, the players get to break just as much as they would with alternating break but their opponent doesn't get to run out the set on them.

Hill-hill winner of lag would break.
 

middleofnowhere

Registered
Why do you like win by 2? For the record, I'm not a huge fan of it because I think if you choose a number to race to that shouldn't change. I also don't think it would be a good idea for larger tournaments (if tournaments at all) because you no longer have some control over the timing of the matches.
You're right about the time, buddy playing sigel played a the match in a race to 11 win by two. Final score was 23-21. One of the most exciting matches I have ever seen.

It was one of those Grady tournaments. Grady often liked to tinker with rules. Truth is, when it comes to rules by trying them out you find the strengths and flaws.

The win by 2 was partially a way I ran monthly tournaments for several years. It works good.

The complete format was, race to 6 two out of three sets. If it went to the third set you had to win by 2.

The players loved it. It became a popular tournament.
The win by 2 thing for me is, once two players reach hill hill, they are both winners.
It is a shame for a players to play a tough match to have it decided by one game.

Also in pool there are no real set rules. Myself like Grady put on tournaments and often made up our own rules. You know pretty quick what works and what doesn't.

I played in one Grady tournament where he had us calling all balls (9 ball) 9 on the break spotted and you keep shooting.

Untill you actually play by various rules you don't really know how it will work out.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... but I would ask what you would to WATCH? ...
What I would like to see at least once is "breaker must push out". With that tiny little change, the advantage of the break is removed, no one really cares about who breaks, and there will be no more goofing the rack to win a major. (And at least one major major has been won by "special rack technique".) Also, every rack is guaranteed to have both players involved and at least one skill shot.
 

TWOFORPOOL

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Nonsense. You can say well done to the winner whatever the format. If it's winner breaks and my opponent runs out the set/match then I'm the first to say congratulations. Same with alternate break when I lose. When I win I don't say "you loser" to my opponent. Do you have an argument for winner breaks other than the macho one?
It is much more exciting to watch winner breaks since you always have a chance to come back. When you get 3 or 4 behind in alternate break its about impossible to win unless your opponent starts dogging it real bad. "the Macho One" has nothing to do with it. When I am talking about losers it those players who whine about not getting to play in a match. If you want to play then go play tennis or a team sport. I admire excellent play and applaud players for it.
 

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What I would like to see at least once is "breaker must push out". With that tiny little change, the advantage of the break is removed, no one really cares about who breaks, and there will be no more goofing the rack to win a major. (And at least one major major has been won by "special rack technique".) Also, every rack is guaranteed to have both players involved and at least one skill shot.
Ding!

Ding!

Ding!

Ding!

Ding!
 

Paul Schofield

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What I would like to see at least once is "breaker must push out". With that tiny little change, the advantage of the break is removed, no one really cares about who breaks,
Bob, I think the advantage of the break WOULD BE removed. Also removed is the greatest thrill executed in our sport: "The Break-And-Run". For comparison, it would be like taking the home-run out of baseball, the ace out of tennis, the run-back out of football, the hole-in-one out of golf, the block-start out of swimming and track. The logic given is that players cheat and it cannot be stopped.

The strategies of this proposal are yet to be discovered. I imagine new problems more plentiful and bigger than the original.

The break is skillful, fun, and exciting. I say keep it that way.
 
Top