Freddie said . . .

vapros

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
4,806
From
baton rouge, la
While he was doing commentary for one-pocket matches I have heard Freddie Bentivegna say - more than once - when playing from behind, don't shoot until you can get all the balls you need. I'm sure he would have recognized exceptions, but that seemed to be his policy. I don't recall other commentators responding to this. Dr. Bill? Anyone?

I can't imagine that it would EVER be a good game plan. :rolleyes:
 

Frank Almanza

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
2,569
From
Upland, California
While he was doing commentary for one-pocket matches I have heard Freddie Bentivegna say - more than once - when playing from behind, don't shoot until you can get all the balls you need. I'm sure he would have recognized exceptions, but that seemed to be his policy. I don't recall other commentators responding to this. Dr. Bill? Anyone?

I can't imagine that it would EVER be a good game plan. :rolleyes:

I can't see where that would be good strategy. I will pass on one ball if I can better the situation but I don't think I would ever pass on two or more.
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
2,493
While he was doing commentary for one-pocket matches I have heard Freddie Bentivegna say - more than once - when playing from behind, don't shoot until you can get all the balls you need. I'm sure he would have recognized exceptions, but that seemed to be his policy. I don't recall other commentators responding to this. Dr. Bill? Anyone?

I can't imagine that it would EVER be a good game plan. :rolleyes:


Freddy was Old School, through and through.

Nowadays, the way top flight players and those a few tiers below (through osmosis, self-defense, and pure terror) strike the ball... it is no longer a valid strategy.

Lou Figueroa
 

Cobra Kai

New Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2014
Messages
7
From
New York, NY
He might have been talking about an end game situation where maybe one guy needed 4 and the other guy needed one and the balls were out of play. Probably emphasizing the point of trying to get em all in play so if your opponent makes a mistake it can cost him the game, instead of one at a time and needing 4 mistakes.
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,572
his statement showed he had some idea of how low your chances of winning are when you can only get your balls one at a time. he probably didnt understand the math enough to really make the right choice in difficult situations.

it really is important. some have a feel for the right decisions so they survive but will shoot the wrong shots many times not based on their ability, but wrong because the shot lessens their chance of winning the game.
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,693
From
Dallas Tx.
his statement showed he had some idea of how low your chances of winning are when you can only get your balls one at a time. he probably didnt understand the math enough to really make the right choice in difficult situations.

it really is important. some have a feel for the right decisions so they survive but will shoot the wrong shots many times not based on their ability, but wrong because the shot lessens their chance of winning the game.

Excellent post, I have passed up the chance of getting only one ball many times when I trailed by the scores of 7/4--7/5. Passing up a low percentage shot despite the fact that it may be free is an art in playing winning one pocket. Put balls in play as opposed to taking a low percentage shot that is free when you're trailing by the scores of 7-4-7/5 when the balls are not in play. Freddie was right in certain situations like the above one's.

Dr. Bill
 

Billy Jackets

Verified Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
2,735
If you think it isn't valid, you probably haven't watched Scott Frost take it to the next level, by taking an intentional scratch to preserve the positional advantage.
The look on some of his opponents faces is priceless.
At first they seemed to cock their heads at him and look like he has gone off the air.
Then they get down over the ball and realise what he has done to them and how much trouble they are in, and they shake their heads like, ahhhh now I see.:heh
It reminds me of a minor piece sacrifice in chess , to open up the opponents king to an attack when his pieces are out of position.
It goes against what you are normally trying to accomplish {gaining material} but the material is insignificant if it means winning the game, because of the move.
 
Last edited:

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
Very well put by several of you. I think Freddy sometimes -- like many of us -- in emphasizing a point, would overstate a bit: I.e. "always" do this or that, whereas in common sense and practice it is "never" always :D:D
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
2,493
If you think it isn't valid, you probably haven't watched Scott Frost take it to the next level, by taking an intentional scratch to preserve the positional advantage.
The look on some of his opponents faces is priceless.
At first they seemed to cock their heads at him and look like he has gone off the air.
Then they get down over the ball and realise what he has done to them and how much trouble they are in, and they shake their heads like, ahhhh now I see.:heh
It reminds me of a minor piece sacrifice in chess , to open up the opponents king to an attack when his pieces are out of position.
It goes against what you are normally trying to accomplish {gaining material} but the material is insignificant if it means winning the game, because of the move.


No one here plays at Scott's level (or at the level any of the top dogs play at), so that point is moot, at best.

And while there are occasional opportunities to improve the real estate, the huge honking majority here, in most situations, will always attempt to "gather ye rose buds while they may" and get within firing distance of their opponent. Who among us has not been ecstatic to grab a handful of balls and pull within a ball or three of our opponent, after being down a bunch? To say otherwise is highly unrealistic.

Lou Figueroa
 

crabbcatjohn

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
4,997
From
Benton, Ky.
Comes up all the time against the guys i play.... And it only takes one time to learn...For instance... You need three and you have 2 laying in your hole. You have a easy shot and can make the two balls by your hole but you might have a bank to get another ball by your hole and stick him where now he is in a for sure death trap. I don't see these so much as "advanced" shots... But beginners might...
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
Excellent post, I have passed up the chance of getting only one ball many times when I trailed by the scores of 7/4--7/5. Passing up a low percentage shot despite the fact that it may be free is an art in playing winning one pocket. Put balls in play as opposed to taking a low percentage shot that is free when you're trailing by the scores of 7-4-7/5 when the balls are not in play. Freddie was right in certain situations like the above one's.

Dr. Bill

To follow up on your comment, Bill. It is a rare thing to have a totally free shot in situations like you are describing. Just because you may not give up an open shot to your opponent does not mean the shot was free. The end game is a game of momentum. You must develop that momentum by positioning the balls into favorable locations.

If you shoot some low percentage shot on a ball that already favors you, and miss it, your opponent can now move that ball, or another into an area that favors him. You have therefore lost an opportunity to have moved a second ball into a favorable position. There are very few free lunches. I think that is also what Freddy was saying.

Tom
 
Last edited:

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,718
From
New Braunfels tx.
Comes up all the time against the guys i play.... And it only takes one time to learn...For instance... You need three and you have 2 laying in your hole. You have a easy shot and can make the two balls by your hole but you might have a bank to get another ball by your hole and stick him where now he is in a for sure death trap. I don't see these so much as "advanced" shots... But beginners might...

A much better player than Freddy once told me, always get in the one hole, when you have a cinch verses a somewhat tougher shot. You'll always have the serve (1st shot at winning). As you would in your scenario.
I believe that to be correct.
Needing 3 and able to get 2 is much different than the gist of this thread.
P.S. There are no sure death traps with no other balls on the table.
 
Last edited:

crabbcatjohn

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
4,997
From
Benton, Ky.
A much better player than Freddy once told me, always get in the one hole, when you have a cinch verses a somewhat tougher shot. You'll always have the serve (1st shot at winning). As you would in your scenario.
I believe that to be correct.
Needing 3 and able to get 2 is much different than the gist of this thread.
P.S. There are no sure death traps with no other balls on the table.

I know what your saying but without knowing what shot Freddy was calling or exact game situation the OP was talking about its hard to second guess the strategy he was discussing. Not having heard Freddy do a bunch of commentary Maybe i misunderstood. I was giving a very basic strategy move to get another ball closer to your hole without making a hanger. I've played guys like Buddy needing 6 or 7 that just keep moving balls closer to their hole even though they can make two or three but decide its best to keep the pressure on you by getting more balls in their Zone. Thats what i thought the thread was discussing.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,530
From
monett missouri
If you shoot some low percentage shot on a ball that already favors you and miss it,

Tom

Of course, but let me send one of your own (and Freddy's) ideas back at you:

Even if it's not low percentage, and even if it's "free" and you make it, it might put you in a position from which you can't manage the table as well as you could have from where you were before you chose the "freebie."

:heh
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,718
From
New Braunfels tx.
I know what your saying but without knowing what shot Freddy was calling or exact game situation the OP was talking about its hard to second guess the strategy he was discussing. Not having heard Freddy do a bunch of commentary Maybe i misunderstood. I was giving a very basic strategy move to get another ball closer to your hole without making a hanger. I've played guys like Buddy needing 6 or 7 that just keep moving balls closer to their hole even though they can make two or three but decide its best to keep the pressure on you by getting more balls in their Zone. Thats what i thought the thread was discussing.

I agree will all you're saying, it was a sorta weak example. The better players I've played made everything that stuck its nose out. (unfortunately) :frus
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
I know what your saying but without knowing what shot Freddy was calling or exact game situation the OP was talking about its hard to second guess the strategy he was discussing. Not having heard Freddy do a bunch of commentary Maybe i misunderstood. I was giving a very basic strategy move to get another ball closer to your hole without making a hanger. I've played guys like Buddy needing 6 or 7 that just keep moving balls closer to their hole even though they can make two or three but decide its best to keep the pressure on you by getting more balls in their Zone. Thats what i thought the thread was discussing.

Crabbcat, This kind of strategy is best used in the earlier stages of one pocket games where trapping your opponent comes more natural because of the high numbers of balls still on the table. In the later stages of games these traps are far more rare because of the limited number of balls to hide behind. Also, you must consider another factor here.

Consider a game where the score is tied five balls each and the remaining five balls are essentially out of play for both players. If only one ball is scored at a time, which is often the case, this means that the first ball you or he scores has a value of 33% of the overall game and the second ball you score is worth half the game.

I think of the end game as an entirely separate game, with a strategy totally different than that I employ when most of the balls are still in play. That's why you will see many experienced one pocket players willing to take intentional fouls when most of the balls are on the table but rarely will you ever see a player doing the same thing when only a handful of balls remain.
The values change because of the limited opportunities to run several balls in a single inning.
Tom
 

crabbcatjohn

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
4,997
From
Benton, Ky.
I agree will all you're saying, it was a sorta weak example. The better players I've played made everything that stuck its nose out. (unfortunately) :frus

Sorry, It was a weak example. Of course being a weak player myself maybe the better players play these shots against me because they know they can:lol
 

crabbcatjohn

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
4,997
From
Benton, Ky.
Crabbcat, This kind of strategy is best used in the earlier stages of one pocket games where trapping your opponent comes more natural because of the high numbers of balls still on the table. In the later stages of games these traps are far more rare because of the limited number of balls to hide behind. Also, you must consider another factor here.

Consider a game where the score is tied five balls each and the remaining five balls are essentially out of play for both players. If only one ball is scored at a time, which is often the case, this means that the first ball you or he scores has a value of 33% of the overall game and the second ball you score is worth half the game.

I think of the end game as an entirely separate game, with a strategy totally different than that I employ when most of the balls are still in play. That's why you will see many experienced one pocket players willing to take intentional fouls when most of the balls are on the table but rarely will you ever see a player doing the same thing when only a handful of balls remain.
The values change because of the limited opportunities to run several balls in a single inning.
Tom
I guess i need to read more. I was just telling a guy last night i'm not the smartest guy on percentage play and need to be more analytical
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
Of course, but let me send one of your own (and Freddy's) ideas back at you:

Even if it's not low percentage, and even if it's "free" and you make it, it might put you in a position from which you can't manage the table as well as you could have from where you were before you chose the "freebie."

:heh

This can happen at all stages of a game. By taking one shot you may at the same time be trapping yourself. If that is the case, the shot is not "free" is it? Now you must analyze what comes next. Will the shot you take and the value of the ball you score be greater than the penalty you suffer from the loss of position? These are all things you must weigh individually before taking that shot. Still, if the shot brings you a third or half way closer to winning the game it may be well worth the price.

The same can't be said for early play action.

Tom
 
Top