World Pool Masters 2019

[Kickin' Chicken]

That’s irrelevant. The only question is: what shot maximizes your chance of winning the game.

I think both grilled cheese and your opinions have merit.

At the end of the day I would say we are supposed to do what gives us the best % for the win and it looks like Alex took that shot by playing the long distance safety.

I'm gonna guess that Alex passed on a 65% pot to force David to shoot a 40-45% shot. He rolled the odds dice and got snake eyes and I'm sure he'll be playing that one over in his head for quite a while.

Something I didn't see mentioned yet was that if Alex did attempt the bank there is a fair chance with his accuracy that if he did miss it would have been just barely and that invites the possibility of leaving a rattled hanger (even using middle-short-rail speed). That may have entered into his decision to duck.

Why I said both arguments had merit imo was because Buddy used to subscribe to the 'go down swinging' philosophy if a match was on the line and it's hard to disagree with The Rifleman.

best,
brian kc

 

[sjm]

... force David to shoot a 40-45% shot.
brian kc

I'd say the long bank form nine feet away is closer to 20%, maybe as high as 30% for the top few bank pool players in the world.

If the guys you play make that shot nearly half the time, you need to find an easier game.

I've seen that shot that David made missed ten times in a row when it came up at the Derby City Bank Pool Ring Game.

Whatever Buddy and the rest said, Irving Crane used to say "the percentages don't always work but they remain the percentages." Kazakis played the percentages here, and it didn't work. Kudos to David for a magnificent shot.

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

I'd say the long bank form nine feet away is closer to 20%, maybe as high as 30% for the top few bank pool players in the world.

If the guys you play make that shot nearly half the time, you need to find an easier game.

I've seen that shot that David made missed ten times in a row when it came up at the Derby City Bank Pool Ring Game.

Whatever Buddy and the rest said, Irving Crane used to say "the percentages don't always work but they remain the percentages." Kazakis played the percentages here, and it didn't work. Kudos to David for a magnificent shot.

Stu;

I agree I was being generous but still I think you'll agree that Alcaide was playing well above his pay grade in this tourney and 30% or 40% doesn't really change my overall point.

We agree that Alex played the odds and made David come with a tough shot which he did.

Do you think Alex's bank would have been an approx 65% make?

 

[jay helfert]

ALMOST ALWAYS GO FOR THE SHOT.

Both Ray Martin and Buddy Hall, people whom I respect their opinion, and who are authorities on the subject (along with others like Varner, Strickland) - told me that in these situations, always, always, always go for it.

Summary:

A chance is better than NO chance.

Winners win by winning, they don't win by depending on opponents missing.



Long version:


First, let's talk the sole exception. Only play safe if the bank is so off angle or froze at a bad angle where making it is just very low percentage. I mean low. In other words, attempting the bank would be a sure loss. Like a frozen ball that will double-kiss and won't bank. Something awful like that. A near no-win attempt.


Let's break down why ducking is wrong:

1. You give yourself 0% chance to win on your first shot.
2. You still have to execute a safe, the quality of which is not a sure thing.
3. You give your opponent a chance to win.
4. You've backed your opponent into a position where they will go for it.
5. You probably have far less than 40% chance of getting a shot IF they miss, because these guys miss "to the pro side" ...

Do all that and bet on that so that you can come BACK to the table again and face another situation like a bank or difficult safe.

Since that is the case, just shoot the first shot and try for the win. Rather than go through that whole exercise to give the other guy a chance and get burned like Kazakis did.


The big failure in this ducking philosophy is that people ONLY factor in the percentages of the shot for their opponent. Ignoring the rest, and not looking at the entire sequence. The cumulative effect. Safety percentage + opponent chance to make it + what kind of leave.


Did they factor in the percentage of chance they will get a reasonable shot assuming the opponent misses? Did they factor in the percentage it will take to execute the safety to perfection so that the resulting shape is so bad for them?

On a safe which gives up to a bank, that is VERY HARD to do....you'd have to have super-human speed control to leave both balls at an unreasonable aka unbankable angle....We've seen from trick shots, bank pool, one-pocket and the such that a LOT of banks are makeable by high level players. Doesn't mean they always try them, because there's no need. But when their back is to the wall....you don't want to test a world-class player on any bank!!!!



If Kazakis went for it and missed and lost at least he lost trying to win. Not lost handing the table over.


He has learned a painful lesson the hard way. If this ever comes up again, he will never play the so-called "percentages" and hand over the table and be at the mercy of his opponent. An opponent who at that point had probably realized defeat was a certainty. Giving up the table like that is energizing. Players jump at the chance, they get super-focused and shoot without fear as all was lost. They have NOTHING TO LOSE, and EVERYTHING TO GAIN.


As I said, you DON'T hand over the end-game table to a pro level player ever, unless you have zero chance of winning from your position. Since zero is rare, that means you should go for it.

Kazakis did not have 0% chance on his bank. He had a chance. It might have been tough, it might have been ugly. But it wasn't impossible. At his level, he should have a reasonable chance to make it.

I tend to agree with your (and Buddy's) synopsis of the situation. That is to go for the win when given the chance. I've seen more tournaments won by players making great shots then by players executing a good safety!

I can't fault Alex because he went with his gut feeling at the time, and feeling that way he probably would have missed the bank had he gone for it. You don't want to try a hard shot with doubt in your mind. But there is more to this then just having to execute a good safety, which Alex did. Any time you let your opponent (particularly a world class player) come back to the table there is a chance you won't shoot again. David may have been a huge underdog to make the bank, but he was a smaller dog to luck the ball in or leave a safe in return. Of the four possible outcomes after his safety, three of them were bad for Alex. David could make the bank, luck the nine in somewhere else, or leave Alex safe. Or he could leave Alex an easier shot then the bank he had passed on.

I don't like those odds when you have a chance to win by making one medium difficult bank shot. Of course Alex didn't see it that way. He saw the safety first and that became his best option. I would estimate he was more like a slight favorite to win the match after executing a good safety. Was he a big favorite? NO!

The big problem on that particular bank that Alex passed on is that even if you make it there is a real possibility of the cue ball scratching in the same side pocket. You have to be very careful how you hit this shot and that may have added to Alex's dilemma. And that's what makes Pool the interesting game that it is, even 9-Ball!

 

[sjm]

Do you think Alex's bank would have been an approx 65% make?

I figured it was about 40-50%. If it were 65% to make and not scratch, he should shoot it. We agree on that.

 

[Grilled Cheese]

Jay is right.

Ray and Buddy are right.


The people saying the safety was the better play think like amateurs.

First, all of them are underestimating the odds on the bank. Maybe it's a super hard shot for you, but it's not that bad for a world class player.


Secondly, you miscalculate the way to look at the percentages.


Let's say for example that you're right, the percentage to make that 9 ball long table is 40% ...assuming you get back to the table, whatever your shot is, is a percentage not against 100, but against the "60%" that the other guy will miss.

As Jay said, there's a very fair chance the leave will be unfavorable to Kazakis. So from the beginning of this entire sequence, you CANNOT calculate only the odds of the other guy making the ball or not. It's far less than that. It's the left over percentage assuming he misses, then a smaller percentage because you may not have a good shot, and then a lower percentage than that of you executing a tough shot from the crappy leave.


Now....Kazakis was under a lot of pressure which is why he botched the shape off the 8 ball. Plus there was a shot clock, so he was doubting himself and was not feeling like a lion, or feeling aggressive and confident. He instead ducked.


He's a great player and great players all learn. That's why they are great. He will learn to deal with this better. When he F's up a shot, to not ***** about it to himself like he did, and instead get past it immediately, stay focused, man-up and recover. His composure after that shot, and also in some instances of the Mosconi Cup show a lack of hard-core professionalism.


Take the win. TAKE IT.

Don't punt and pray your defense will hold. Recipe for disaster.



BESIDES...one point all you know-nothings miss entirely promoting this dumb "play the percentages" theory in a 9-ball end game scenario is the fact that, you don't make it to the FINALS of the World Pool Master's, or US Open, or World Pool Championships often enough to enjoy the luxury of cashing in on these "play the percentages" safeties....


Right? I mean, that's your consolation for Kazakis....Hey Alex, no worries, what you did was correct, because the next 5 times you're in the Master's Final, Hill-Hill, on the 9-ball, you will win the NEXT 4 in a row, because well...it's only 20% chance for the opponent to make it, and he did, so here on out you're going to win the rest.


How moronic.


****

Here's something to help you guys get a clue --


Flip a coin 10 times, lands on heads 10 times in a row...

On the 11th flip, what are the odds that tails will come?

A. Odds Favor Tails
B. Odds Favor Heads
C. Odds are the Same


If you can answer this question correctly, you will dispense with your flawed thinking.

 

[freds]

Flip a coin 10 times, lands on heads 10 times in a row...



On the 11th flip, what are the odds that tails will come?



A. Odds Favor Tails

B. Odds Favor Heads

C. Odds are the Same





If you can answer this question correctly, you will dispense with your flawed thinking.

B, odds favor heads because it's probably not a fair coin.

In any case, I don't see how one can argue with "take the shot that gives you the best chance of winning." Certainly you can argue about which shot that was. My thought is the bank - IF the shot clock wasn't getting to him, but I think it was. I'd bet he takes the bank given no time limit.


Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

[spartan]

Here is a simple event tree illustrating the rough (not exact) theoretical probabilities. Would agree with sjm that Alcaide making the long bank is more like 20% in this super high pressure final rack. Kazakis chances of winning is not 80% if Alcaide misses, it is a % of 80%. If we assumed that when shooter misses , % of sell out and % safe is equal, then Kazakis winning is a high % of the Alcaide sell out. i.e. roughly 90% x 40%=36%
So basically, Kazakis takes a gamble and sacrifices opportunity to win in exchange for Alcaide to giving him better chance (36%) in event Alcaide since Alcaide only has 20% chance of making the bank. So is Kazakis chances of going for that bank better than 36% ? Maybe In practice or non-pressure situation, Kazakis or other top players would made that bank 40% or 50% or 60% of time. But Kazakis mental state and confidence level at that moment suggests he needed to sit down so chances of him making the bank then would be lower than 36% maybe close to 0% ? Ducking would have been the right decision for Kazakis at that moment. Of cos, other top experienced players with better mental game in his position would have gone for the bank and that would be the right decision for them. This sound cliche but whether the decision is right or wrong comes down to the player (i.e. Kazakis) making the shot , NOT all other players. I also think Kazakis will be beating himself up over his bad position from 8 to 9 , NOT his decision to play safe. He can console himself that he returned the chance to win back after Alcaide snookered himself on the 5 and gave him a chance. :grin-square:

 

[sjm]

Jay is right.

As Jay said, there's a very fair chance the leave will be unfavorable to Kazakis.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Any suggestion that even a world class pro can execute a nine foot long bank bridging from off the foot rail with any defensive prospects is nonsense of the highest order.

Further, on the occasions where the leave after a missed bank isn't favorable, how often will the leave offer a two way shot or an easy safety that will still offer a chance to win still at least comparable to the chance foregone of making the original bank. It's awfully rare that you'll end up with something even nearly as difficult as the bank foregone.

At least Jay referred to the Kazakis bank as a pretty tough bank with a significant scratch issue. To you, it's just a hanger for a pro, but after ten years of watching the Derby City banks event live, I know that the bank Kazakis passed up is a very iffy proposition even for the elite bankers.

 

[Grilled Cheese]

B, odds favor heads because it's probably not a fair coin.

In any case, I don't see how one can argue with "take the shot that gives you the best chance of winning." Certainly you can argue about which shot that was. My thought is the bank - IF the shot clock wasn't getting to him, but I think it was. I'd bet he takes the bank given no time limit.


Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Assume it is a fair coin.


The answer would be C.

Doesn't matter what happens or comes before, the odds are the same each and every new instance. History plays no role in future events in this situation. Nor does projections of what the percentages will be.


Now, the odds of making that bank might not be 50/50 - so this isn't an exact fit, but it still illustrates the principle that people think over the long haul they'll come out winners. That's fine ...BUT

There is NO long haul. There is no second chance.


How many times will Kazakis be hill-hill in a major tournament on the 9 ball faced with either a bank or punt?

The BET is not to bet on your opponent having a low percentage bank. The bet is you only have one chance here and now, are you ok with giving your opponent a chance to win, even if that chance is 20%?


It doesn't matter what the odds are, you are not betting on yourself, you are betting on your opponent.



That is fundamentally a bad idea.

 

[Grilled Cheese]

Here is a simple event tree illustrating the rough (not exact) theoretical probabilities. Would agree with sjm that Alcaide making the long bank is more like 20% in this super high pressure final rack. Kazakis chances of winning is not 80% if Alcaide misses, it is a % of 80%. If we assumed that when shooter misses , % of sell out and % safe is equal, then Kazakis winning is a high % of the Alcaide sell out. i.e. roughly 90% x 40%=36%
So basically, Kazakis takes a gamble and sacrifices opportunity to win in exchange for Alcaide to giving him better chance (36%) in event Alcaide since Alcaide only has 20% chance of making the bank. So is Kazakis chances of going for that bank better than 36% ? Maybe In practice or non-pressure situation, Kazakis or other top players would made that bank 40% or 50% or 60% of time. But Kazakis mental state and confidence level at that moment suggests he needed to sit down so chances of him making the bank then would be lower than 36% maybe close to 0% ? Ducking would have been the right decision for Kazakis at that moment. Of cos, other top experienced players with better mental game in his position would have gone for the bank and that would be the right decision for them. This sound cliche but whether the decision is right or wrong comes down to the player (i.e. Kazakis) making the shot , NOT all other players. I also think Kazakis will be beating himself up over his bad position from 8 to 9 , NOT his decision to play safe. He can console himself that he returned the chance to win back after Alcaide snookered himself on the 5 and gave him a chance. :grin-square:

View attachment 517167

This is an excellent graphical representation. However, I would strongly object and contest the assumption that such a bank is 20% for a world class player who is in the zone, with nothing to lose, trying to redeem himself.

If you up Alcaide's odds, then it becomes worse for Kazakis as the progression evolves....

I would say that bank is higher percentage than that. I can't put a figure on it. But I'd say at the very least it is closer to the 50/50 area but not over.

So many variables....Efren or Shannon? I'd put it at greater than 50% ...


But never underestimate any pro in this situation. Just because some players might not be well known to execute challenging indirect shots, or they don't compete in banks or one-pocket doesn't mean that they don't have a great feel and comfort shooting them.


At worst they're going to be close. Not like some amateur who will miss by a diamond. Again, pro caliber players. Their "arsenal" of shot capability is far wider than other players.


Out of 10 shots at that bank, any pro will at the very worst catch the point, or the rail just before the point. It's going to be close. Of those, some will go in addition to the ones that go in straight.

A lot of strong amateurs can be consistently close too.

Only average to weaker amateurs would miss by a diamond or find this shot to be very improbable.


I think Kazakis knows this. Kazakis was NOT betting on the bank necessarily being super hard, but instead, betting on the nerves of Alcaide in such a tough end game position.

At this stage, it isn't skill, it's NERVES. Mental game is what wins.


Well, if a player "brings it" ...then nerves is out, and it is skill and then the percentage goes up a lot.


Kazakis was also betting against himself on the 9 ball bank. After botching shape, he wasn't feeling well about it, and had maybe 18-20 seconds to bank a 9 ball backwards into the side.


Well...I don't know guys. I watched pro pool for almost 30 years now....and maybe it is anecdotal, maybe I just remember the great shots and forget the failures....but it sure seems that in these situations, more often than not - the players given the chance make the ball.

Remember guys, we're not talking a standard safety. In fact, it was NOT a safety...he's just leaving the 9 ball tougher. Not a true safe. This was a punt.


Fortune favors the bold. Champions want the ball. Winners take it.

 

[gxman]

Kazakis missed that long bank earlier in the match but fluked it in. So that probably didn't help with his confidence to bank.

 

[Island Drive]

It's probably closer the 55/45 make. Those pockets were not big.

 

[sjm]

BESIDES...one point all you know-nothings miss entirely promoting this dumb "play the percentages" theory in a 9-ball end game scenario is the fact that, you don't make it to the FINALS of the World Pool Master's, or US Open, or World Pool Championships often enough to enjoy the luxury of cashing in on these "play the percentages" safeties....

Your is the early leader for "most arrogant post of 2019."

This particular know-nothing has been around pro pool since the late 1960's, spends 40-50 days a year attending live pool events all over America, and has spent thousands of hours playing pool against professional players. He is also an Ivy League graduate who was successful enough professionally to retire at 50.

This know-nothing watched and knew personally every legend of the game you've mentioned. He has seen every single one of them take on a chancy shot with a match hanging in the balance and he has also seen every one of them play safe in such situations.

Your "who cares about the percentages?" and "only I know how to assess a pro's percentages for the shots in question" views are hard to fathom. Nobody is stating that your conclusion is wrong. Perhaps Kazakis should have shot. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Your choice, however, to belittle anyone who disagrees is troubling, and yes, it's arrogant.

I'm not going to call you a know-nothing. You are obviously somebody who has been around pro pool a lot for a long time and who loves the game. That makes your opinion important in these AZB parts, but you need to recognize that there are others on this forum who have meaningful input to provide when it comes to the kinds of debates we have from time to time on the forum.

 

[Island Drive]

There's another HUGE factor that's not been pointed out, the mindset of incoming player, Because, they expected NO chance at getting back to the table, but now they are.

I've always found in match play, this moment makes me more relaxed, I usually make the shot....It's a free shot. We all know how many of them we get. It also can be a game changer when pocketed, then yah hit em with a small package.