Winner Breaks..

[PoolBoy1]

Is the way how pool should be played. PROVE ME WRONG!

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

Is the way how pool should be played. PROVE ME WRONG!

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

If they'd move the rack spot I'd be more inclined to like the alternate way. It's the automatically making 1-4 balls break and having too many simple run outs. 9 ball tournaments on tv have little entertainment value anyway therefore the lack of them......now if players had Earl's personality and flare for the game or US vs Europe or Asia maybe they'd get some air time.

 

[Poolmanis]

What i see in discussion that many claim that other guy never shoots. How many matches you have seen done one inning?

 

[The_JV]

What i see in discussion that many claim that other guy never shoots. How many matches you have seen done one inning?

I've only seen a couple but they were short races (5&7).

I have seen several where a sizeable score differenial has been earned in one inning.

I've also seen many matches that have the winning player only allowing the opponent to see a snooker between multiple break'n'runs.

 

[Secondbest]

Is the way how pool should be played. PROVE ME WRONG!

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

Winner breaks is for bars and ring games with cash players. Alternate breaks for pool tournaments. Loser breaks for cash games, long matches with pro players.

 

[Cameron Smith]

What i see in discussion that many claim that other guy never shoots. How many matches you have seen done one inning?

In person, never outside of a race to 5. The largest packages I am aware of on YouTube are Kacis 8 and out and Chang Jung Lin running a 10 pack. Given how much pool is on YouTube and how few packages of that size are recorded, I’d say it’s sufficiently rare enough to not warrant concern.

I’ve seen more matches where one player was totally locked out due to safety play. But it’s rare to see a winner breaks match where the losing player didn’t get an opportunity to match their opponents performance. I’d say that so long as the match isn’t a 9-0 affair, the losing player had a chance.

 

[Poolmanis]

I've only seen a couple but they were short races (5&7).

I have seen several where a sizeable score differenial has been earned in one inning.

I've also seen many matches that have the winning player only allowing the opponent to see a snooker between multiple break'n'runs.

Okay. Couple examples how alternative breaks can go from my experience. It is same.
10-ball race to 8.
Petri Makkonen breaks: Rack1 - 4 balls - run out 0-1
Me. Dry. Makkonen run out 0-2
Petri 4 balls Bnr 0-3
Me. Dry. Petri runs out 0-4
Petri again 4 balls and bnr- 0-5
Me: makes balls but not have shot on 1 what is close to corner pocket. Push out. Petri jumps it in and run out. 0-6
Petri 3 balls and brn 0-7
Me makes a ball and have to play safe and we have safety battle and in the end Petri kick ball in and 0-8. BUT I WAS LOST LONG TIME AGO!

Sounds exciting match to watch? eh...
Btw he won that Finnish Champs that year on 10-ball... maybe not so surprise.

 

[The_JV]

Sounds exciting match to watch? eh...

No I understand what you're getting at... but at least you got to chalk you cue

 

[atlas333]

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.

WINNER!!

 

[AtLarge]

What I would like to see at least once is "breaker must push out". ...

I think Pat Fleming tried that for a while in some small events several years ago. But I don't remember anything more about it.

 

[9andout]

Sorry, I had to chuckle with a poster named straightline speaking of ice skating.


Jeff Livingston

Next up: Drag Racing!

 

[JohnnyOzone]

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.

I hate any rules that change the game to help the team behind. It's like a race where the leader has to stop on the last lap to let everybody catch up. The rules are the rules for the entire match / event.

 

[eg9327]

All this really means is that 9 ball is too easy for the pros. It's like "I can run 8 racks. A guy who runs 9 can beat me. Waaah! Life us not fair!" I hate it for you.

 

[straightline]

Next up: Drag Racing!

Very low dog sport...

 

[ridingfree2001]

Is the way how pool should be played. PROVE ME WRONG!

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

I used to play in Valley tournaments...race to 3 ..alternating breaks. It gives you a chance but the lag is more important to that format. My opponent wins the lag...breaks and runs out. I break and run out...then he breaks and runs out...then I break and run out...then its 2 to 2
..he breaks and runs out and I lose without ever missing a shot! Happened to me several times.

 

[middleofnowhere]

I used to play in Valley tournaments...race to 3 ..alternating breaks. It gives you a chance but the lag is more important to that format. My opponent wins the lag...breaks and runs out. I break and run out...then he breaks and runs out...then I break and run out...then its 2 to 2
..he breaks and runs out and I lose without ever missing a shot! Happened to me several times.

The problem is, even if players are not running out. The player who wins the lag is getting an extra break in a hill-hill situation. It would mean at hill-hill, you should flip a coin or lag for the last break.

Seems like when you mess with rules you create the need for more rules to solve new problems.
I like the randomness and unpredictable nature of pool. The anything can happen, even luck.

 

[straightline]

You could play to a clock with a cumulative score requirement as the rounds progress. (to make running out the clock stupid)

 

[The_JV]

The problem is, even if players are not running out. The player who wins the lag is getting an extra break in a hill-hill situation. It would mean at hill-hill, you should flip a coin or lag for the last break.

Seems like when you mess with rules you create the need for more rules to solve new problems.
I like the randomness and unpredictable nature of pool. The anything can happen, even luck.

Why is it a problem to award the player who won the lag the Hill/Hill break...? You won the lag, won all the game on your serve, you should have the last break.

 

[middleofnowhere]

Why is it a problem to award the player who won the lag the Hill/Hill break...? You won the lag, won all the game on your serve, you should have the last break.

Why do you assume the player won on his serve? He may have lost the games on his serve. The hill-hill could have resulted in a number of ways.

Not really a problem. But if there is an intent to try to make it all fair for both players, then one player is getting an advantage just as a result of breaking first.

The lag could be considered a skill shot and the break was earned. Supposed they had just flipped a coin as is the most common. Does the winner of (one) random coin flip deserve both first and last breaks?

If they flipped for the first, then they should flip for the last should the hill-hill come up.

I was just point this out. The players can play anyway they want as long as they are aware one player starts with a possable advantage.

 

[The_JV]

Not really a problem. But if there is an intent to try to make it all fair for both players, then one player is getting an advantage just as a result of breaking first.

The lag could be considered a skill shot and the break was earned. Supposed they had just flipped a coin as is the most common. Does the winner of (one) random coin flip deserve both first and last breaks?

If they flipped for the first, then they should flip for the last should the hill-hill come up.

I was just point this out. The players can play anyway they want as long as they are aware.

I get you're just making conversation, but the notion that the winner of the lag is gaining to much of an advantage by getting the first and possibly the last break is just a bit too much. We're assuming it goes hill/hill. Why not lag before every game...? ...or maybe best two of three coins flips..? ...oh how about spot shots before each rack...? You have to draw a line somewhere.

As far as lag vs coin. It doesn't make a difference what the choose. Generally I find the person requesting the coin knows they will be out classed in a lag. I don't pity those who make poor choices.

 

[sjm]

I think Pat Fleming tried that for a while in some small events several years ago. But I don't remember anything more about it.

This format was a novelty called the Accu-stats game show, and probably goes back to about 2014. It was usually done at Sandcastle Billiards in New Jersey as an exhibition type match, but Pat once brought it to Derby City. At Derby City, it was field of 16, single elimination, race to one. As a novelty, it was entertaining, and the mandatory push out made who broke unimportant, perfect for a race to one, but it never gained any traction at all as a tournament alternative.