A couple of words about the match

[Tom Wirth]

My observations of the match.

I watched several hours of the “Three Days War” and it was a war. These two guys understand the game very well and more importantly, as Dirty Harry would say; “a man has to understand his limitations.” Ghost and John each understand this concept very well indeed, and never throughout the entire match did they waver from that understanding.

John and Ghost have mastered their own egos and pulled the blinds from the windows and allow us the opportunity to see what One Pocket is really all about. We get saturated by witnessing videos from Accu-Stats and TAR the professional player’s ability to pocket great shots, play miraculous position on balls we wouldn’t think possible, and find safeties and moves that lead to naming these champions as “The Magician” and “The Freezer”.

Yes, of course these players are playing One Pocket the way we all would like to play the game but that is not what the game is all about. Very few will ever achieve such heights. One Pocket is about knowing our abilities and playing within those limitations. Grinding it out and forcing our opponents to find a way to win on their own while giving away nothing. Like Paine Webber, they got to “EARN IT”. That is great One Pocket played under normal settings and these two really knew how to apply the pressure.

So for those of you who are struggling to improve your One Pocket games the lesson these two war horses freely provided is to place your egos in your back pocket and play shots which you know you can execute. You may not always accomplish this task but if you try to pull off shots beyond your abilities you will certainly be assisting in your own demise.

John and Ghost, nice play guys,

Tom

 

[jrhendy]

K

Hey Big John, who is next on the list?

Maybe Stroud, but I had better pick up my ball running. I heard he was hitting em pretty good.

It won't be for a couple months, but I would love to come back to Phoenix when it cools down some and see you guys.

 

[Fast Lenny]

K

Maybe Stroud, but I had better pick up my ball running. I heard he was hitting em pretty good.

It won't be for a couple months, but I would love to come back to Phoenix when it cools down some and see you guys.

Sounds good buddy. I look forward to it.

 

[Hidy Ho]

The fact that as many people watched and posted is, in itself, a positive for our game. There are always going to be differences of opinion and negative remarks.

I watched some .... both live and recorded ones on Ustream as I now live/work in Singapore (although you might remember my face from hanging out at California Billiard - which as my home pool hall back in Cali). Being actively in action as you are ... at your age ... you amaze and inspire me!!!

I was wondering if playing on Diamond made any big difference as I don't think we have many Diamond tables back on NorCal?

 

[backplaying]

First, let me say that I watched the entire 21 or so grueling hours of this match, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, in spite of the opinion that I happen to have that it could and probably should have been completed in about half of that time. I think the "moving" and shot selection was very good and the ballmaking was a little subpar at times, although some very creative shots were made by both players.

I think John deserves, and has recieved, tremendous credit for being willing to travel several thousand miles, absorb the expense of a trip like this, and play an opponent on his home court, especially at his age. His reputation is well deserved.

However, any objective analysis of this match would have to at least touch on one distasteful aspect of the play to be complete. I have no problem with Lukes defensive playing style, in fact it is similar to mine, and I think this style makes for very interesting one pocket, not to mention that if you can't make a ball you better develop some defense. But, since Luke seems somewhat dismayed at there being any critisizm of his play, which begs the question. Perhaps he would like to hear one spectators opinion as to why he has that fowl taste in his mouth.

Using the 21 minute clip, which was very exciting, and which Luke wants to point to, and which I have no reason to think does not represent the entire match fairly well, let me offer this.

There were twelve innings, or trips to the table for each player in this clip. Measuring from the end of the opponents last shot, Lukes time at the table during the last 21 minutes was 15.5 minutes and Johns time at the table was 5.5 minutes (73% vs 28%). Extrapolated over the 21 hour match Luke had the table 15.5 hours to Johns 5.5 hours.

Now, while I don't know if this is typically Lukes normal cadence, I do know that playing this slow can make it hard to get action. Lukes preshot antics of walking away from the table, circling the table, chalking his stick several times, getting down to shoot only to rise and start all over again, even for large cheese, are often looked on unfavorably. They are sometimes regarded as "moves" defined as anything from ignorrant and annoying to deliberate and sharking in nature.

In any case, failure to recognize and alter this behavior, and consider the potential affect on your opponent over three days of play is the difference between the two players, and what IMO drew much of the negative remarks.

Pls accept this opinion in the constructive nature it is offered, and use it to improve your play in the future.

I agree completely. Nothing personal against the ghost, but I could never gamble with someone who plays that slow, with the exception of stealing.. 1 and 1/2 minutes per-shot is way to long, compared to Johns less than 30 seconds per-shot. The fact that it didn't bother John, tells me not much would, and I wish I could do it. I was going to play the black widow a 10,000 set once and my one request of a shot clock was rejected by strong arm John. I could never play well against slow players and have to consider that when matching up.

 

[Billy Jackets]

You guys had a great match, you both play great and still have love for the game.
It doesn't get much better than that.
Thanks for sharing it with us, I'm sorry there have to be knockers but they seem to never quit coming to the poolroom even though they hate it and themselves.

 

[Island Drive]

Hey Big John, who is next on the list?

If I start playing again next yr. when I retire, John can stop and visit before and after AZ.

And backplayin's comments, are as we know part of the game. There is always a style that we prefer to not be part of, unless the funds are flowin'. I've many times intentionally, practiced with someone whos style ''gets to me'' to ck my performance, works good. Because anytime I can put up with Myself when I'm annoyed, then I'm hittin' em gooooooooooooood.

 

[jrhendy]

I watched some .... both live and recorded ones on Ustream as I now live/work in Singapore (although you might remember my face from hanging out at California Billiard - which as my home pool hall back in Cali). Being actively in action as you are ... at your age ... you amaze and inspire me!!!

I was wondering if playing on Diamond made any big difference as I don't think we have many Diamond tables back on NorCal?

It was a Gold Crown with Diamond Rails. I banked well on the long rail banks, but had more trouble with the short rail banks.

 

[darmoose]

I agree completely. Nothing personal against the ghost, but I could never gamble with someone who plays that slow, with the exception of stealing.. 1 and 1/2 minutes per-shot is way to long, compared to Johns less than 30 seconds per-shot. The fact that it didn't bother John, tells me not much would, and I wish I could do it. I was going to play the black widow a 10,000 set once and my one request of a shot clock was rejected by strong arm John. I could never play well against slow players and have to consider that when matching up.

Backplaying,

Again, I agree with most of the positive comments regarding this match, particurarly Tom Wirths most recent analysis about knowing and playing within your limitations.

The only negative I saw in the whole match was Lukes pace of play and preshot antics. I remember one comment in the chatroom at the time thought it was even perhaps "showboating".

It's a bit strange, in light of the voluminous discussions about one pocket being sometimes soo sloooowww, that few will address Lukes pace of play, although I have recieved a couple of PM's commenting on it.

 

[androd]

It's a bit strange, in light of the voluminous discussions about one pocket being sometimes soo sloooowww, that few will address Lukes pace of play, although I have recieved a couple of PM's commenting on it.

Yep, He looks'em over.
Rod.

 

[Cary]

 

[suki]

Still agree to disagree

Still agree to disagree

It's because of the experience of 60 years of playing that has made me wise enough to know that the bank shot is the highest percentage to win in this situation. I said win not necessary make.
None of us expect to miss when we're shooting a spot shot but we do. Like the Beard said the bank shot is the shot we don't want them to shoot.
With tight pockets that spot shot isn't so easy.
I've been in enough situations like this for that amount of $ and more to know how your arm can tighten up and miss hit that spot shot. No need to take that chance.
And it's because of that 60 years of playing and learning from it that I can still compete with most players. I think I can play spot shots as well as most but one needs to know when to back off from the machismo.
So, even though I back off from shooting some spot shots I continue to play.
Play some?

I too have 60 years experience of playing. I have asked several top players and they all agree with me, not to say John is completely wrong, I see his thinking and yours, but if I need one ball to my opponents two I will always shoot for the win in that situation,, u may never get another chance. You play the game to win.
Come to my room and we could play. I do know who u are.

 

[senor]

Maybe the bank shot is the right shot when taking 60 yrs of pool into account, maybe it's not. All I know is over a period of a couple of years when I played my best, I don't think I missed 5 spot shots. Playing pool for over 60 yrs I imagine both frank and suki have been on heaters like that where it would be in their best interest to shoot the spot shot.

 

[Dudley]

Backplaying,

Again, I agree with most of the positive comments regarding this match, particurarly Tom Wirths most recent analysis about knowing and playing within your limitations.

The only negative I saw in the whole match was Lukes pace of play and preshot antics. I remember one comment in the chatroom at the time thought it was even perhaps "showboating".

It's a bit strange, in light of the voluminous discussions about one pocket being sometimes soo sloooowww, that few will address Lukes pace of play, although I have recieved a couple of PM's commenting on it.

When you're in a fair game for decent stakes looking over the shot isn't a bad thing imo.

I didn't notice that he played slow because I was too busy thinking what I would shoot in that situation.

I have tons of respect for John and the ghost for letting the match be streamed... they could have just told us what happened afterwards. Now every shot they took and choice they made is under scrutiny.

If you were betting with the ghost would you rather had him play faster so the internet spectators were happier?


Like I said in an earlier thread... for less money the ghost plays much faster and less deliberate.

The only person who should have an opinion about the pace of the game would be Mr Henderson. And I personally don't think it bothered him one bit.

When you're playing against weak players there's not much to think about to set a good trap. When both players move well sometimes the best shot isn't obvious.

Dudley

 

[Jimmy B]

When you're in a fair game for decent stakes looking over the shot isn't a bad thing imo.

I didn't notice that he played slow because I was too busy thinking what I would shoot in that situation.

I have tons of respect for John and the ghost for letting the match be streamed... they could have just told us what happened afterwards. Now every shot they took and choice they made is under scrutiny.

If you were betting with the ghost would you rather had him play faster so the internet spectators were happier?


Like I said in an earlier thread... for less money the ghost plays much faster and less deliberate.

The only person who should have an opinion about the pace of the game would be Mr Henderson. And I personally don't think it bothered him one bit.

When you're playing against weak players there's not much to think about to set a good trap. When both players move well sometimes the best shot isn't obvious.

Dudley

That's how I feel also. The Hacker explained it very well. What do you feel at that particular time in that particular spot. I knew what John was going to do as soon as the scratch occurred. Or at least was 90% sure. I was watching intently and I knew I would have played the bank also, even though I'm gopher and a sucker. I didn't think any intentional slow play was taking place. They just took some pauses for the causes now and then

 

[Dudley]

That's how I feel also. The Hacker explained it very well. What do you feel at that particular time in that particular spot. I knew what John was going to do as soon as the scratch occurred. Or at least was 90% sure. I was watching intently and I knew I would have played the bank also, even though I'm gopher and a sucker. I didn't think any intentional slow play was taking place. They just took some pauses for the causes now and then

The bold text above sums it up for me... I believe this is ghost's pace for a bigger set. --> Not a move.

I think it's unfair to bash him for being a "Slow Player". He and John put themselves out there for us railbirds to watch. I didn't even think about the pace until it was brought up in these threads.

20 a game is a different animal then a set for k's. The ghost wanted to like his shot before he shot it. What's wrong with that?

Some play faster some play slower. Anyone who gets in the box has my respect. If you don't like someones action don't play them.

Dudley

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

Backplaying,

Again, I agree with most of the positive comments regarding this match, particurarly Tom Wirths most recent analysis about knowing and playing within your limitations.

The only negative I saw in the whole match was Lukes pace of play and preshot antics. I remember one comment in the chatroom at the time thought it was even perhaps "showboating".

It's a bit strange, in light of the voluminous discussions about one pocket being sometimes soo sloooowww, that few will address Lukes pace of play, although I have recieved a couple of PM's commenting on it.

I'll discuss it for you.

Luke's pace of play wouldn't bother me a bit and would only make me play better. I'm a deliberate player, I don't think I'm slow or fast. I play the same way for cheap as I do for not so cheap. I shoot the same shots for cheap that I shoot for not so cheap. The right shot does not change because of the bet.

Luke's pace of play was not and is not a negative. Why don't you knock it off already, you don't know what you are talking about.

Dennis

 

[wincardona]

Below was my response to a post made by The Hacker in the Suki thread, in regard to the spot shot vs. the bank option, i'm posting it again over here because I feel it's note worthy, thanks.




You make a lot of good points and the critics will respond according to what happens, like always. However, after you factor in everything you should be able to determine how you feel about pocketing the spot shot..age..hours played...tightness of table...score of game..position of the second ball..ect.ect. You must also factor in the strength of your opponent which will certainly cloud an already clouded decision choice. But maybe I can help you clear up the decision making process with the right choice based off of percentages.

Naturally the position of the second ball is very influential in the decision making process. In this situation where the second ball is positioned high on the side rail should influence you to shoot the spot shot for several reasons.
#1 Shooting the spot shot the second ball is easier to defend against.
#2 Tougher bank to make.
#3 Tougher ball to play safe off of if your going for the pocket with the bank


Needing one ball to your opponents two balls you are at least a 9/5 favorite to a possible 3/1 favorite. The stronger your opponent is the less of a favorite you are in this type of a situation. This is something you need to judge for yourself to determine if you want to shoot the spot shot or bank the ball. However, you must be able to determine how much of a favorite, or dog you are to make the spot shot. After you factor in all the conditions with ..age..tightness of table...hours played...position of second ball...and you determine that you're even money to make the spot shot, then imo you should shoot it. (unless you're playing a weakened player) If you're 50/50 to make the spot shot you rate to win out of 10 games 5 games by shooting the spot shot. The 5 times you miss the spot shot you rate to win at least 60% of those games (3 games) for a total of 8 games. So by shooting the spot shot you rate to win 80% of the games played.

Now by banking the ball you again must factor in the make percentage of the bank to help you determine if the bank is the better option. However, with the bank you don't need to make as high of a percentage as with the spot shot because of the safety factor with the bank. If you shoot the bank and miss it (providing you play a good cue ball) you will retain a higher win percentage than the 60% win percentage that the missed spot shot carries.

Lets say you rate to make 30% of the banks, out of 10 games you will win 3 games. The 7 times the bank is missed you rate to win at a rate of 70% (about 5 games) 4.9 games to be exact. Which will give you a 79% win percentage out of 10 games.

You now have the formula, all that's left is to factor in all the conditions and you'll have your answer. But don't forget, if you're playing a weak player for what ever reason...lean toward the bank.

Dr. Bill

 

[wincardona]

Below was my response to a post made by The Hacker in the Suki thread, in regard to the spot shot vs. the bank option, i'm posting it again over here because I feel it's note worthy, thanks.




You make a lot of good points and the critics will respond according to what happens, like always. However, after you factor in everything you should be able to determine how you feel about pocketing the spot shot..age..hours played...tightness of table...score of game..position of the second ball..ect.ect. You must also factor in the strength of your opponent which will certainly cloud an already clouded decision choice. But maybe I can help you clear up the decision making process with the right choice based off of percentages.

Naturally the position of the second ball is very influential in the decision making process. In this situation where the second ball is positioned high on the side rail should influence you to shoot the spot shot for several reasons.
#1 Shooting the spot shot the second ball is easier to defend against.
#2 Tougher bank to make.
#3 Tougher ball to play safe off of if your going for the pocket with the bank


Needing one ball to your opponents two balls you are at least a 9/5 favorite to a possible 3/1 favorite. The stronger your opponent is the less of a favorite you are in this type of a situation. This is something you need to judge for yourself to determine if you want to shoot the spot shot or bank the ball. However, you must be able to determine how much of a favorite, or dog you are to make the spot shot. After you factor in all the conditions with ..age..tightness of table...hours played...position of second ball...and you determine that you're even money to make the spot shot, then imo you should shoot it. (unless you're playing a weakened player) If you're 50/50 to make the spot shot you rate to win out of 10 games 5 games by shooting the spot shot. The 5 times you miss the spot shot you rate to win at least 60% of those games (3 games) for a total of 8 games. So by shooting the spot shot you rate to win 80% of the games played.

Now by banking the ball you again must factor in the make percentage of the bank to help you determine if the bank is the better option. However, with the bank you don't need to make as high of a percentage as with the spot shot because of the safety factor with the bank. If you shoot the bank and miss it (providing you play a good cue ball) you will retain a higher win percentage than the 60% win percentage that the missed spot shot carries.

Lets say you rate to make 30% of the banks, out of 10 games you will win 3 games. The 7 times the bank is missed you rate to win at a rate of 70% (about 5 games) 4.9 games to be exact. Which will give you a 79% win percentage out of 10 games.

You now have the formula, all that's left is to factor in all the conditions and you'll have your answer. But don't forget, if you're playing a weak player for what ever reason...lean toward the bank.

Dr. Bill

Imo John didn't even try to make the bank shot, he positioned the cue ball to play both OB to a safe position, and 'cue ball' to near the top cushion. To me this was evidenced in how badly he missed the bank by over cutting it. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, the ball john banked was positioned awkwardly to play the bank and the cue ball to a safe position. Understanding this John imo considered the circumstances and played what is referred to as "situational pool" feeling like the momentum was clearly on his side and wanted to "insure the win" ...if that was possible. It was a very prudent thing to do...considering the circumstances...and the experience John has in gambling showed up and put him in a much better situation, which was the key to the win.

So now we have three options to decide from.
#1. Shoot the spot shot to win.
#2. Shoot the bank to win and play cue ball.
#3. Play the bank to position both the OB and the cue ball to a position that will offer you the best chance of winning on your next inning.

Well, what would you do? ASK JOHN.

Dr. Bill

 

[Bill]

For those that didn't get a chance to see the approx. final 25 gut-wrenching minutes of the match, I'm including here a link to those minutes...

I missed a game winning straight in shot in these minutes, that I was supposed to make, and that needless to say I'm not very happy with myself about...

That said...that miss was sure chirpily mentioned a lot in the chats, etc...

...here's the link ------>

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/37863239

- Ghost

OnePocket is, in my opinion, the top game of pool. after 40+ years as a poolplayer I've learned to respect it above all other pool games. and I've played them all ( except Bonus Ball )

but believe my observations are mine and mine alone

I've already said I thought Luke's pace overall was slower than needed ... but that's only my opinion

and that John didn't prefer shooting directly at his hole, with balls near Luke's pocket, again only my opinion

but that's what is so cool of the game of OnePocket. so many choices to do so many different moves. it's such an individual's game, we are all so diverse and so different

again a great show of OnePocket by two great players, many thanks Luke and John

came back to view the clip Luke provided but it's no longer available. Luke took it down, Ustream? What's up? would definitely like to see again