Winner Breaks..

middleofnowhere

Registered
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.
This is all conversation since pool doesn't really have any standard set of rules. The rules are whatever the tournament promoter or two players gambling decide to play by. But what I pointed out is a fact.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
This is all conversation since pool doesn't really have any standard set of rules. The rules are whatever the tournament promoter or two players gambling decide to play by. But what I pointed out is a fact.
It's a potentiality... Whether or not it's actually something anyone cares about is opinion ;)
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
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.
Sry I missed the above edit when I originally responded to your post.

Exactly though... hill/hill can happen a multitude of ways... So why have a special rule in place just in the off chance that the breaker of the first game also may be the breaker of the hill/hill...?

The only way I can see an 'unfair' argument being made is if the players hold serve and the winner of the lag/flip gets both the first and last break.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Relagging when hill-hill is totally pointless and goofy. Work out the possibilities in a race to two that goes hill-hill. There are only two possibilities of wins and losses: WLW and LWW for the winner. The player who won the initial lag will always have exactly one more break than the other player in a hill-hill match. The only thing that the relag might do is take the break away from the person who lost the lag in the first place.

Here is how that works:
A wins the lag
A breaks and wins, score 1-0
A breaks and loses, score 1-1, hill-hill score, time to relag
Relag, A wins the lag
A breaks for the third time because he won the relag. Maybe he wins and maybe he loses the game, but he got all the breaks.

Does anyone really think that's fair?
 

Paul Schofield

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
This thread is an example of overthinking an issue. McDonalds was known for doing thorough local market studies to determine viability of a location. Burger King's local market studies were nothing more than locating local McDonalds and building a store within throwing distance. We need to do like Burger King. All successful sports have rules that guarantee predictable, regular participation. Alternating breaks is a step in that direction..
 

Catalin

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I like alternate break in tournaments, which are a form of sport, and winner break in money games, which is more like gambling.


Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk
 

ceebee

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I watched a match in Olathe, it was alternating break, race to 11. Both players ran the rack, after making a ball, for 9 racks each. This was almost a perfect match, it was great playing. Player A breaks dry Player B runs out, Breaks & runs out. for the win.

What a match... The match was won with the break....
 

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I still haven't heard a good argument against loser breaks.


Jeff Livingston
Let's try expressing one aspect of loser breaks a little differently. Remember, excitement and drama are important for fans.

So here is the rule. Once one player gets to the hill, HE gets ALL the remaining breaks.
So if we are playing, and I get out to an 8-4 lead on you in a race to 9, I get all the breaks for the rest of the match. Winning for you means winning 5 in a row all off of my break.
 

chefjeff

Nazis are back.
Silver Member
Let's try expressing one aspect of loser breaks a little differently. Remember, excitement and drama are important for fans.

So here is the rule. Once one player gets to the hill, HE gets ALL the remaining breaks.
So if we are playing, and I get out to an 8-4 lead on you in a race to 9, I get all the breaks for the rest of the match. Winning for you means winning 5 in a row all off of my break.

What?

That has nothing to do with loser breaks, it is hill breaks or something.

Does anyone have a good argument against LOSER breaks? Not hill breaks, not alternative, not hill breaking, not whatever else, but LOSER BREAKS.

Is the question too hard or what? It's like it doesn't register in ether.


Jeff Livingston
 

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What?

That has nothing to do with loser breaks, it is hill breaks or something.

Does anyone have a good argument against LOSER breaks? Not hill breaks, not alternative, not hill breaking, not whatever else, but LOSER BREAKS.

Is the question too hard or what? It's like it doesn't register in ether.

Think about it Jeff. I am talking about how loser breaks plays out anytime one player gets to the hill. That player gets ALL the remaining breaks. I am not talking about some goofy different thing. I am merely talking about your subject in a way that illustrates what I see as an undesirable feature.

If I get up 10-0 on you in a race to 11, then from there after each game we ask the following question.

##PLAYGAME

Did Mike win the game?
If YES, then go to ##MATCHOVER
If NO, then Mike is loser and so gets next break
go back to ##PLAY GAME

##MATCHOVER

For you to win the match, we need to cycle through 11 times, 11 wins for you all off of my break.
 

chefjeff

Nazis are back.
Silver Member
Think about it Jeff. I am talking about how loser breaks plays out anytime one player gets to the hill. That player gets ALL the remaining breaks. I am not talking about some goofy different thing. I am merely talking about your subject in a way that illustrates what I see as an undesirable feature.

If I get up 10-0 on you in a race to 11, then from there after each game we ask the following question.

##PLAYGAME

Did Mike win the game?
If YES, then go to ##MATCHOVER
If NO, then Mike is loser and so gets next break
go back to ##PLAY GAME

##MATCHOVER

For you to win the match, we need to cycle through 11 times, 11 wins for you all off of my break.

Thank you for explaining it to my stupid mind.

I knew I was missing something.



Jeff Livingston
 

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I still haven't heard a good argument against loser breaks.


Jeff Livingston
We sometimes play this way. Sometimes it can lead to the breaker getting dry breaks and a stronger player running out. It doesn't really matter though, because if you're getting nothing but dry breaks, you probably need more practice at it anyway. It's also good for the stronger player as they need to practice coming to the table second anyway.

We usually just do alternate breaks, but it's just social so no one really cares to stomp or get stomped by an opponent. I really think alternate breaks or loser breaks is a good thing for letting a beginner get some experience at breaking. It can also lead to unpredictable clusters which is a good thing to practice for anyone.

If I'm playing a much better player, I'd rather play winner breaks as I'd rather get a good whooping in hopes it will make me buckle down and play my best.
 

chefjeff

Nazis are back.
Silver Member
Because you're penalizing the winner of the previous game. Thought that one would have been obvious

By allowing the ahem, the opponent, ahem, to shoot, too?

You know, a match, not a practice session or exhibition. A match played by both competitors.

What a penalty!


Jeff Livingston
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
By allowing the ahem, the opponent, ahem, to shoot, too?
Yes by allowing the opponent to gain an advantage at the expense of the rack winning player.

Alternate break is one thing. Telling a player that you lose control of the table if you win a game is another. In theory a player could win a match and never need to assemble his breaker using your concept. That sounds cool, but not gaining any exposure to how a match tables break while moving forward through a tournament is even more of a penalty.

Imagine ripping through the first couple of rounds against weak opponents just to end up facing a world beater, and you having broken a single rack of balls... nice.
You know, a match, not a practice session or exhibition. A match played by both competitors.

What a penalty!
Yes, penalizing the previous rack winner by giving control to the opponent is huge. Alternate break allows both to play, and they both get exposure to the break shot. Loser breaks is a gaff game.
 

chefjeff

Nazis are back.
Silver Member
If I pay to watch a pool match and my guy gets no shot, I want my money back.


Jeff Livingston

Without money coming into pool, it will remain booooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring to players and viewers alink, no matter who breaks and runs.


Jeff Livingston
 
Top