World Pool Series: Why Add More Randomness to 8-Ball?

N

Netherton

Registered
First of all, I have to congratulate Appleton and team on the amazingly amazing 8-ball based World Pool Series. Its been great, particularly the commentary. Instead of the usual nonsense that says nothing, people like Melling tell you with no humility what the right shot and patterns should be. Great stuff.

But.....there is one glaring error in logic. that is, you are the group that you potted on the break. On the surface this seems like a good idea because it makes the game "harder". Well, it does make the game harder, but unfortunately it makes the game more random. And that's unacceptable. 8-ball, inherently is a game of random inequality. Its the only game we play where the group you shoot is different than mine. And all of that is by randomness. The randomness of the clusters, the randomness of the break etc...Because I was always told to have a solution to a problem, my solution is that this tour should have been played on 10 footers with tight pockets. Not you are what you sink. The APA/CPA has the same break rule for good reason. In the APA there are semi-pros playing against people who have trouble holding a pool cue. So the break rule is there to narrow the gap.

I don't want the gap narrowed on a world class level. I don't want to see Shane beast -slam the break only to see his opponent (thankfully, the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker are not entered) have a dead nuts throw in pattern and Shane is left having to break out two clusters and get a ball off the dead mans zone frozen to the side pocket etc..The intention was good, the actuality is that in an already pathetically random game they have created more randomness. That's fine for the leagues, but not for these players.
 
interesting pov...good eye!
giphy.gif
 
It just makes it a little harder to run out, creating more back and forth. I find it more interesting than watching people run out rack after rack.
 
Your solution of tight pockets on 10' tables is completely unrealistic. With 90+ competing, where are you going to find a room with those conditions throughout? I like the











Your solution is completely unrealistic. Where are you going to find a room where 90+ players compete on 10', tight pocket tables? That room doesn't exist. As far as the "take what you make" provision, I like it. It reduces the number of break and run games, and the player can always play safe to prevent his opponent from running out if he has a roadmap.
 
Your solution is as flawed as your -randomness evens the field arguement.

Randomness increases the difficulty so doesn't the most skillfully player still stand the greatest chance at success? ;)
 
Netherton said:
First of all, I have to congratulate Appleton and team on the amazingly amazing 8-ball based World Pool Series. Its been great, particularly the commentary. Instead of the usual nonsense that says nothing, people like Melling tell you with no humility what the right shot and patterns should be. Great stuff.

But.....there is one glaring error in logic. that is, you are the group that you potted on the break. On the surface this seems like a good idea because it makes the game "harder". Well, it does make the game harder, but unfortunately it makes the game more random. And that's unacceptable. 8-ball, inherently is a game of random inequality. Its the only game we play where the group you shoot is different than mine. And all of that is by randomness. The randomness of the clusters, the randomness of the break etc...Because I was always told to have a solution to a problem, my solution is that this tour should have been played on 10 footers with tight pockets. Not you are what you sink. The APA/CPA has the same break rule for good reason. In the APA there are semi-pros playing against people who have trouble holding a pool cue. So the break rule is there to narrow the gap.

I don't want the gap narrowed on a world class level. I don't want to see Shane beast -slam the break only to see his opponent (thankfully, the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker are not entered) have a dead nuts throw in pattern and Shane is left having to break out two clusters and get a ball off the dead mans zone frozen to the side pocket etc..The intention was good, the actuality is that in an already pathetically random game they have created more randomness. That's fine for the leagues, but not for these players.
Click to expand...


A humble suggestion for a simple solution to your problem:

Forget 8 Ball - watch 14.1

Next.

Dale

ps FWIW - I agree that the group should still being 'open' after a ball is made on the break.
 
Last edited:
14.1 is dead. You have to pay for your mistakes. No one like that anymore. I've tried playing people 14.1 for years. No one like to see their real skill in the bright light of day, aka 14.1

Except me
 
Netherton said:
First of all, I have to congratulate Appleton and team on the amazingly amazing 8-ball based World Pool Series. Its been great, particularly the commentary. Instead of the usual nonsense that says nothing, people like Melling tell you with no humility what the right shot and patterns should be. Great stuff.

But.....there is one glaring error in logic. that is, you are the group that you potted on the break. On the surface this seems like a good idea because it makes the game "harder". Well, it does make the game harder, but unfortunately it makes the game more random. And that's unacceptable. 8-ball, inherently is a game of random inequality. Its the only game we play where the group you shoot is different than mine. And all of that is by randomness. The randomness of the clusters, the randomness of the break etc...Because I was always told to have a solution to a problem, my solution is that this tour should have been played on 10 footers with tight pockets. Not you are what you sink. The APA/CPA has the same break rule for good reason. In the APA there are semi-pros playing against people who have trouble holding a pool cue. So the break rule is there to narrow the gap.

I don't want the gap narrowed on a world class level. I don't want to see Shane beast -slam the break only to see his opponent (thankfully, the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker are not entered) have a dead nuts throw in pattern and Shane is left having to break out two clusters and get a ball off the dead mans zone frozen to the side pocket etc..The intention was good, the actuality is that in an already pathetically random game they have created more randomness. That's fine for the leagues, but not for these players.
Click to expand...
A bit flawed reasoning based on what I think is your basic misunderstanding of the history of 8-ball and the games rules.

If 8-ball is "inherently a game of random inequality," what year would you say this inherent quality came about? 1948? 1975? 1986? 2010?

Each of these years would break your theory.
 
Agreed with all of the above.

Watch and play more 14.1 :)


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
 
I wanna see pros run racks which is tough enough under the best of circumstances, hell a 3 pack in 9 ball for a top pro is what is what ....less than 1% probability

anything that makes that task even harder is a no go in my book with the caveat of playing on a min 9' table
 
smashmouth said:
I wanna see pros run racks which is tough enough under the best of circumstances, hell a 3 pack in 9 ball for a top pro is what is what ....less than 1% probability

anything that makes that task even harder is a no go in my book with the caveat of playing on a min 9' table
Click to expand...
They aren't playing a rotation game though. They are playing 8 ball. For world class pros an open after the break format with no break restrictions will yield a much higher B&R %.

The current format does add some degree of randomness and plenty of difficulty, but it also adds something else...actual entertainment. Also as Freddy pointed out there is no lack of historical precedent behind take what you make.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
I like it the way it is. Honestly, when I first started playing again 2 years ago after a 15 year hiatus(mainly played in DR), the whole open table even if something dropped after the break seemed silly to me.
 
I like the take what you make for pro's as well. If not for the breaking outside the box as in the last WPS, elite pros can still BNR
at a very high rate with take what you make.
 
Last edited:
gxman said:
I like the take what you make for pro's as well. If not for the breaking outside the box as in the last WPS, elite pros can still BNR
at a very high rate with take what you make.
Click to expand...

We tried an interesting variation of 8-ball rules a little bit here where the suit is always chosen by an opposing player.

The player at the table after the break chooses to PASS or SHOOT.

PASS -- Here you go opponent. You are stripes.

SHOOT -- I'll shoot.. what suit am I?
 
I play a small money match every sat, BCA 8 ball race to 7
We are B players so not a lot of break and runs.
Open table if you make a ball on the break is a big advantage because you can select the best layout for what is going to be a multiple inning game.
If your break is working it's hard to lose.

I prefer you are what you make, It takes away the break advantage.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top