A better game...Or not ?

[SJDinPHX]

I ran a small tournament here in Phx, about 20 yrs ago. It was a new take on one pocket, and it enjoyed a little spurt, but never really caught on.

I see they do the same thing in banks, in that they race to whoever gets 23 banks first. If I remember right, I think we went to 30. It is played just like the bank version, in that you play until ALL the balls are off the table.. Pretty self explanatory. Whoever makes the last ball, gets to break the next rack. ( game/session)..The game is over when the 30th ball is made. A big money match, could go to 50 balls, or more.

I think I understand why it never really caught on. All players were geared to matching up, by the game. (8/7,10/6, etc.) The same thing could be accomplished if a better player gave a weaker player 30/25, 30/22 and so on.

It changes the game very little, the best player would still be the favorite, and as always, matching up well would be very important..For example, two players, who play close to even, the one with the best end game, would have a little the best of it.

It is non-stop action though, as every ball takes on a new dimension..You could be down 8 balls, but if you can get the last 7, you are only down 1 ball, AND you would be breaking. It could open up the game, offensively, as giving up 3 or 4 balls, would not be as potentionally fatal.

I think if we could get a few high profile, gambling matches played this way, it might become a popular way to match up..It does open up some new options...What do you all think ?

PS..Pool player's can be very enterprising..I don't think it would take long for them to learn how to match up, playing this way..

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

What do you all think ?

PS..Pool player's can be very enterprising..I don't think it would take long for them to learn how to match up, playing this way..

Dearest Ducky,

I think you are an idiot. That's just what poolplayers enjoy; learning.

RBL

 

[tylerdurden]

I like it. I think the game favors conservative style play because the chances you take and mistakes you make stay with you. I have heard RA talk about playing like this before, but ironically it seems it would not have suited his style as well as per game. I see strong correlations with golf; match play vs the normal 72 hole tournaments -- whatever is your cup of tea i guess, no better or worse.

 

[Jimmy B]

I like this game a lot. There was never enough players around this area to institute a change like that in one pocket but it's a good game. Each ball you fight for down to the end. Like if you're going to 25 then each ball is 4% of the game and each ball is like a pound of flesh. A pound of flesh. No more. No less. No bone. No cartilage. But only flesh.................Now back to Hardtimes.

 

[Skin]

Why not just leave the last ball, rack 14, and keep going to make it one continuous game? Call it 14.1pocket.

Skin

 

[androd]

This is the game that the guy from Jackson Tenn. (nickname=Meathead) liked to play. He wanted to play so much a ball and play the rack all the way out. He often went to Johnson City and matched up with the big boys.
Rod.

 

[gulfportdoc]

Why not just leave the last ball, rack 14, and keep going to make it one continuous game? Call it 14.1pocket.

Skin

Skin, now THAT is an interesting idea! I'd have to think that through a little. Do you suppose it would slow down the game? That way there'd be only one formal break shot per match. But guys would still play normally.

The 15th ball would be played just as if there was only one ball busted out of the stack (very rare). Very interesting concept...

~Doc

 

[SJDinPHX]

Skin, now THAT is an interesting idea! I'd have to think that through a little. Do you suppose it would slow down the game? That way there'd be only one formal break shot per match. But guys would still play normally.

The 15th ball would be played just as if there was only one ball busted out of the stack (very rare). Very interesting concept...

~Doc

It would be interesting, but it would decrease the value of making the last ball..Plus, it WOULD slow up the game.. The odds of making the last ball in your pocket, and having a good IP break, on the same shot, would be very rare..The game can already be slow enough... I feel whoever gets the LAST ball...Should get the break...Ahead or behind..Just like (ugh) 9 ball..

 

[jrhendy]

It would be interesting, but it would decrease the value of making the last ball..Plus, it WOULD slow up the game.. The odds of making the last ball in your pocket, and having a good IP break, on the same shot, would be very rare..The game can already be slow enough... I feel whoever gets the LAST ball...Should get the break...Ahead or behind..Just like (ugh) 9 ball..

We have played a race to 15 balls in some mini tournaments at Hard Times.

Whoever is behind in balls breaks the 2nd rack. Soooo, if the score is 7/7, I can fire the ball in your hole and get the break.

Very few games are over in one rack but it does happen sometimes.

 

[petie]

It would be interesting, but it would decrease the value of making the last ball..Plus, it WOULD slow up the game.. The odds of making the last ball in your pocket, and having a good IP break, on the same shot, would be very rare..The game can already be slow enough... I feel whoever gets the LAST ball...Should get the break...Ahead or behind..Just like (ugh) 9 ball..

This is what came to mind when I thought of the 14.1 pocket approach. Its pretty tough to make one in your own pocket and break the balls in the same direction. Could be done but far from routine.

 

[onepocket926]

....I ran a tourney in Palm Desert....years ago...and we played a similar way.....it was first to 16....(two racks a third if necessary)....alternate breaks..... race to 2....it led to some very interesting matches.....it brings a new dimension to...."I need 'em all"....when the other guy runs the first rack....

 

[gulfportdoc]

It would be interesting, but it would decrease the value of making the last ball..Plus, it WOULD slow up the game.. The odds of making the last ball in your pocket, and having a good IP break, on the same shot, would be very rare..The game can already be slow enough...

Well, I'll guess that the 14.1 method of playing is not likely to catch on anytime soon, since the continuous count itself is very rarely used.

However, for discussion's sake, I wouldn't think that the best strategy would be to try to leave a shot with the last ball to one's hole so as to leave a cueball break shot on the stack (as in 14.1), but more so to position the CB in order to be able to leave it in a place, say, on the opponent's side of the stack, while moving balls toward one's hole.

In contrast to the traditional break shot, I'd think that --after pocketing the 15th ball-- a guy could come up with a much more devastating "break" shot from a beneficial CB position. ~Doc

 

[Skin]

Well, I'll guess that the 14.1 method of playing is not likely to catch on anytime soon, since the continuous count itself is very rarely used.

However, for discussion's sake, I wouldn't think that the best strategy would be to try to leave a shot with the last ball to one's hole so as to leave a cueball break shot on the stack (as in 14.1), but more so to position the CB in order to be able to leave it in a place, say, on the opponent's side of the stack, while moving balls toward one's hole.

In contrast to the traditional break shot, I'd think that --after pocketing the 15th ball-- a guy could come up with a much more devastating "break" shot from a beneficial CB position. ~Doc

Well, that's what I think, too, Doc. It would be fun to try it out to see how it goes. There might be a problem if the last ball or cb is left within the triangle, though. I don't think it'd be a good idea to rack the balls on the head spot.

Skin

 

[SJDinPHX]

Well, that's what I think, too, Doc. It would be fun to try it out to see how it goes. There might be a problem if the last ball or cb is left within the triangle, though. I don't think it'd be a good idea to rack the balls on the head spot.

Skin

Nothing wrong with encouraging new ideas. I guess I just felt that fighting extra hard, to get the last ball on the table, (and hence the break) would be very interesting..Plus, that would be the best way to keep the tradition of a 'normal' break, that we are all used to..

If you change the game too radically, I'm afraid it would lose whatever appeal 'continueous play' might have..John H. offered an interesting alternative..Maybe the player BEHIND on the ball count should get the break..Because, especially in handicapped games, the best player would figure to get the last ball, and the break, and it may lead to a one-sided slaughter..

Lets keep looking at it, as there ARE a few kinks.. Lets see what we can come up with, as I still think it is a viable way to increase interest in the game of one pocket, if only for the novelty factor.. I would think it would certainly be better test of all around knowledge,(between two close players) than the short (3-4) game decision, now popular in all tournaments..Race to 25, or so, should be about the same timewise..

PS..It also could lead to some spirited 'pre game' negotiations..'til everyone figures out where its at..

 

[wgcp]

Doc,
Next time we play... we can give this a test run...

B

 

[wincardona]

I like the idea of lengthening the game to a double digit number, it will lend to educating players to every facet of the game. I also agree with Dick about playing until all balls are pocketed, playing with one ball on the table is a very interesting part of one pocket and should be kept in the game. In regard to the break I would suggest that you either lag, or flip for the opening break and the break should be alternated from there on.

The break in one pocket creates a very interesting and challenging obstacle to either break down (get out of) or build off of, and if taken away from the game would drastically change the game not only in terms of strategy, but would also lessen the pressure applied to the players playing. Allow me to use an analogy to compare it with. Playing tennis the serve is a very important part of the game, it creates action and presents an immediate challenge to the defending player, similar to the break playing one pocket. If you would take the serve away from a tennis game it would lessen the excitement in the game, which in turn would effect the popularity of the game by lessening the interest of the game, imo.

One pocket is a great game why fool with the play of the game? I like the idea of playing to a double digit number, but disagree with taking the break from the game.:sorry I have seen and played some great 1 ball (last ball) battles playing one pocket, and look forward to play the next one.

Dr. Bill

 

[tylerdurden]

I think the best part about this proposed game is that there would be no "electoral college" effect.... a guy who won 2 games 8 to 0 then lost 3 games in a row 8 to 7 (in a race to three) would have made more balls, yet he loses playing normally. That way of playing really makes less and less sense the more you examine it.

As far as breaking goes, I personally don't think it would be too hard to try and compel an even number of breaks into the matches. That should even things out as much as possible. If you race to 16 balls, don't you ensure 2 (an even number) breaks? It could go 15 to 15, then you'd need a third break -- not sure what to do from there.

 

[petie]

Well, I'll guess that the 14.1 method of playing is not likely to catch on anytime soon, since the continuous count itself is very rarely used.

However, for discussion's sake, I wouldn't think that the best strategy would be to try to leave a shot with the last ball to one's hole so as to leave a cueball break shot on the stack (as in 14.1), but more so to position the CB in order to be able to leave it in a place, say, on the opponent's side of the stack, while moving balls toward one's hole.

In contrast to the traditional break shot, I'd think that --after pocketing the 15th ball-- a guy could come up with a much more devastating "break" shot from a beneficial CB position. ~Doc

I spent a little time on the table today practicig by myslef and giving the continuous 14.1 pocket a try. It wasn't so bad. I never even thought of your stategy, Doc which sounds like the best way to go about it. I'm eager to see if somebody will play me this way just to see how it feels.

 

[WillieNilly]

I actually have played this,14.1pocket a bunch of times while practicing and 2 that i recall with an opponent over the last 10 years.
i didnt think it to be a new concept in pool since both games predate me by half a century and at some point someone had to think of it or try it before.

realisticly if your doing a race to a number of balls , line up ,or play em all off w/ alternate break works better.
i think play em all off with ball count difference being the payoff factor,( I.E. player A makes 10, b gets 5, at 10$ a ball player a wins 50, or wins the game 30 to 12, =180). could be real a good gamble game. weight would be spoting balls on the wire.