I know this topic has been discussed to death, (e.g. here and here), but it's come up again due to WPC switching to winner break, and the announcers keep talking about how winner break makes it "important to keep the table" and how it "punishes mistakes" more, etc. When it's alternating breaks, people talk about how it makes the lag more important, since that's who gets to break at hill-hill.
Well, it makes no difference. I should qualify that: it makes no *mathematical* difference. It makes a psychological difference because you can end up in your chair for longer periods of time, and get cold or whatever. It also has an effect on the final score: it tends to make victory margins wider. But, mathematically, it has no effect on the outcome of a match.
Think about it this way. In a race to 9, if the winner of the lag gets at most 9 breaks, while the loser of the lag gets at most 8 breaks. That's the same with alternating or winner breaks (incidentally, it's also the same with loser breaks). To win, I need to get 9 of the total of 17 possible racks: I can win all 9 on my break, or 6 on my break and 3 on my opponents break, or any other combination which adds up to 9.
Of course, unless the match goes hill-hill, all 17 racks aren't played out, but that's because the remaining racks wouldn't change the outcome of a match. For arguments sake, though, we could extend the match after the winner is decided, until the winner of the lag gets 9 breaks, and the loser of the lag gets 8 breaks. Whether its winner or alternating breaks only changes the order in which the racks are played out, not the outcome. You could even have the winner of the lag break 9 times in a row, and then the loser breaks 8 times in a row, it would be the same outcome.
I'm not downplaying the mental aspect of the game here. Maybe winner breaks favors streaky players who can catch a gear and run a bunch of racks. Maybe it's easier to for a better player to intimidate weaker players in winners break by stringing racks. Or maybe it's easier for weaker players to get confidence by stringing racks of their own. Maybe you need more mental toughness with alternating breaks, because the score tends to be closer. Or maybe you need more toughness to bounce back after being hit with a 4-pack under winner breaks. Who knows. But mathematically, neither format makes the lag more important, nor does it favor the stronger or weaker player, nor is one more "fair" than the other.
Some examples. Say two players are evenly matched, so each player wins 60% of their breaks. In this case, the winner of the lag will win a race to 9 52% of the time in either format. Now say one player is significantly better, so he will win 75% on his own break and 50% on the opponents. In this case, the better player wins 88% if we wins the lag, and 85% if he loses the lag. Again, this is true under either format.
So in conclusion, the winner break format has nothing to do with the upsets going on. The upsets are because the pockets are playing easier, the soft break is working, and more generally because short races of 9-ball are not effective in bringing out differences in skill between world-class players.
Well, it makes no difference. I should qualify that: it makes no *mathematical* difference. It makes a psychological difference because you can end up in your chair for longer periods of time, and get cold or whatever. It also has an effect on the final score: it tends to make victory margins wider. But, mathematically, it has no effect on the outcome of a match.
Think about it this way. In a race to 9, if the winner of the lag gets at most 9 breaks, while the loser of the lag gets at most 8 breaks. That's the same with alternating or winner breaks (incidentally, it's also the same with loser breaks). To win, I need to get 9 of the total of 17 possible racks: I can win all 9 on my break, or 6 on my break and 3 on my opponents break, or any other combination which adds up to 9.
Of course, unless the match goes hill-hill, all 17 racks aren't played out, but that's because the remaining racks wouldn't change the outcome of a match. For arguments sake, though, we could extend the match after the winner is decided, until the winner of the lag gets 9 breaks, and the loser of the lag gets 8 breaks. Whether its winner or alternating breaks only changes the order in which the racks are played out, not the outcome. You could even have the winner of the lag break 9 times in a row, and then the loser breaks 8 times in a row, it would be the same outcome.
I'm not downplaying the mental aspect of the game here. Maybe winner breaks favors streaky players who can catch a gear and run a bunch of racks. Maybe it's easier to for a better player to intimidate weaker players in winners break by stringing racks. Or maybe it's easier for weaker players to get confidence by stringing racks of their own. Maybe you need more mental toughness with alternating breaks, because the score tends to be closer. Or maybe you need more toughness to bounce back after being hit with a 4-pack under winner breaks. Who knows. But mathematically, neither format makes the lag more important, nor does it favor the stronger or weaker player, nor is one more "fair" than the other.
Some examples. Say two players are evenly matched, so each player wins 60% of their breaks. In this case, the winner of the lag will win a race to 9 52% of the time in either format. Now say one player is significantly better, so he will win 75% on his own break and 50% on the opponents. In this case, the better player wins 88% if we wins the lag, and 85% if he loses the lag. Again, this is true under either format.
So in conclusion, the winner break format has nothing to do with the upsets going on. The upsets are because the pockets are playing easier, the soft break is working, and more generally because short races of 9-ball are not effective in bringing out differences in skill between world-class players.
