Break

[RabbiHippie]

Because players complained about others making a ball and running out.

So they came up with racking them back up because players didn’t want other players to have a ball already.

What type of players do you think were complaining?

Nice explanation. I guess I was wondering why the remedy for an illegal ball on the break wasn't the same as for 8-Ball.

I rack and break the same every time in both 8-Ball and One Pocket. I still use my second-ball break in 8-Ball. I worked on mastering it 30 years ago and make the eight in the side pocket fairly often ... Maybe 1 out of 15. That's not an advantage anymore but I still break that way because for me it's reliable.

Same thing with One Pocket. I'd say my odds of making a ball are similar to 8-Ball, but certainly not 20% over the long term. It did happen once 3 out of 5 racks and twice in a row when my break was on. The only difference between the Perfect Breaks and the Imperfect Breaks in that video was that the 2-ball happen to fall in. (I always rack the 2-ball on the corner.) Actually I'm disappointed when a ball drops.

When it's rack-your-own, I always make sure the triangle is squared up and every ball is touching. If I'm racking funny, it's unconscious and unintentionall.

 

[Renegade_56]

Some of the pros get very good at -- Tony Chohan for one. They must be on to something. But like Bill says, by far most of us it is an unnecessary rule, since we don't make a ball on the break very often at all.

However, the fear is always there -- that in the case game, with your opponent breaking, they will make a ball and you will have no chance. People's fears are not always rational, but they are real none the less. Hence the rule

Then why not do the same to 8 ball and 9 and 10 ball. Heaven forbid someone makes a good shot?

People complain about how long games and matches take in one pocket all the time, so somebody came up with the brilliant idea of taking away the one thing that could make the biggest difference in match times.

I watched all the old matches I can find from way back before they started playing the re break stuff, and I'm yet to see a match where it looked like someone had an unfair advantage because they occasionally made a ball on the break. Alternating breaks stops all that.

Any shot that can be penalized but not rewarded is an unfair shot,,,,,,,,,imo of course, but I'm still right!

 

[Billy Jackets]

Let me restate and clarify my offer: I'll bet up to $1,000 that nobody can make the corner ball more than 20% of the time using a normal break shot (8 ball and 9 ball big breaks not allowed) on a table with 4 1/4 pockets. The breaker can rack their own but I get to inspect and reject any that appear gaffed or loose or offcenter. The test is 50 breaks. To win, breaker has to make at least 11 corner balls. Any takers?

I think 11 out of 50 is 22%, I might be wrong. I'll still take 37 cents worth, just to have something to do besides watch my toenails grow. You can play the 50 racks and tell me how I did. I trust you.
I'm not sure this would even be the correct way to put a numerical value on the bet. Actually, isn't the bet I don't yes 11 before you no 40 which is 25.25 % . Is there a doctor in the house?
Sorry if I am wrong, I quit school in 7th grade, so if I can't use my fingers and toes , no bueno.

 

[lll]

I think 11 out of 50 is 22%, I might be wrong. I'll still take 37 cents worth, just to have something to do besides watch my toenails grow. You can play the 50 racks and tell me how I did. I trust you.
I'm not sure this would even be the correct way to put a numerical value on the bet. Actually, isn't the bet I don't yes 11 before you no 40 which is 25.25 % . Is there a doctor in the house?
Sorry if I am wrong, I quit school in 7th grade, so if I can't use my fingers and toes , no bueno.

22% is greater than 20 % so 11 satifies the winner of the bet criteria
the bet is 50 breaks not i get 11 before your get 40
jmho
icbw
i should let tobermory answer

 

[unoperro]

Tobermory is just drumming up work for his peers. Everyone knows it would take a lawyer to collect from a lawyer .

All I know is I have had to abandon my old break because laying down the perfect break[making a ball and having a clear shot] and having to rerack pisses me off.

 

[Tobermory]

View attachment 440980

22% is greater than 20 % so 11 satifies the winner of the bet criteria
the bet is 50 breaks not i get 11 before your get 40
jmho
icbw
i should let tobermory answer

You are correct, Larry. More than 20% is the requirement.

 

[Tobermory]

My point in proposing this bet and test is that it isn't possible, given an honestly racked rack, to control the corner ball accurately enough to make it very often, certainly not more than 20% of the time. Nobody has jumped up to take the bet so it seems people agree.

The purpose of my point is to state the fact that making a ball on the break is not a skill shot, but is a lucky break, as it were.

As such, even if nobody can learn to make the ball on the break, so the purpose of the rerack rule would not actually be to thwart those who are good at making the ball, the rerack rule may still be a good idea just to prevent giving a player such a huge advantage from making a lucky break shot. My view is that the lucky breaker shouldn't be punished for getting lucky which is why I've come around to the idea that the break should be one shot and then sit down. If a ball goes down, it stays down but the breaker can't continue.

I'm curious what threshold it would take to get someone to step up and bet on their ability to make a ball on the break: 15%, 10%, 5%?

 

[Renegade_56]

If someone can actually make a ball 20% of the time, and plays races to 3 that goes to 5 games every time, which is probably unlikely, then theoretically that player would make a ball on the break about once every 3 sets. I just don't see where anyone really has an advantage, or disadvantage with that.

 

[unoperro]

If you bet more I am positive "Cleary" can do it on video.

 

[unoperro]

As for you guys in the 1 and done camp isn't that exactly what the rerack guys are after?

 

[Renegade_56]

As for you guys in the 1 and done camp isn't that exactly what the rerack guys are after?

Good question, except I'm unsure if the 1 would count or not if you made a ball.

 

[lll]

As for you guys in the 1 and done camp isn't that exactly what the rerack guys are after?

Good question, except I'm unsure if the 1 would count or not if you made a ball.

the one and done crowd i think the ball stays down /you have 1 and its the opponents shot
as opposed to you have zero and start over

 

[gulfportdoc]

If someone can actually make a ball 20% of the time, and plays races to 3 that goes to 5 games every time, which is probably unlikely, then theoretically that player would make a ball on the break about once every 3 sets. I just don't see where anyone really has an advantage, or disadvantage with that.

I don't believe anyone could consistently make a ball once in every five breaks, unless it's a gaff table or gaff rack. Everybody has seen a table that for some reason allows for more instances of making a ball on the break, but those tables are in the vast minority.

The purpose of the break is to leave a great safety and put your opponent in peril. IMO the break is not a skill shot in terms of trying to make a ball. Under perfectly repeatable conditions and with a perfectly repeated CB contact on the rack, the odds are still long that the corner ball would pocket.

 

[Renegade_56]

I don't believe anyone could consistently make a ball once in every five breaks, unless it's a gaff table or gaff rack. Everybody has seen a table that for some reason allows for more instances of making a ball on the break, but those tables are in the vast minority.

The purpose of the break is to leave a great safety and put your opponent in peril. IMO the break is not a skill shot in terms of trying to make a ball. Under perfectly repeatable conditions and with a perfectly repeated CB contact on the rack, the odds are still long that the corner ball would pocket.

Absolutely, and I don't know what the skill is, making 1 out of the 15 balls, or staying safe on ALL 15 balls,,,,,,,,, as the breaker I would be more likely to vote for a rerack if I sell out.

 

[Billy Jackets]

If you hit the break shot poorly , you sometimes make the ball on the break, you also sell out at least as often, usually more in my experiences, with a similar hit. {Whenever I have done it , it seems like I barely missed the head ball or contacted it super thin.}
The rerack rule, addresses the make a ball problem, but is actually, a failed attempt to fix a small problem , by creating a larger one.
You rerack on the positive outcome, but ,you don't rerack if you sell out, negative outcome, therefore how can it be a fair solution.
Is there a more fair way to do it? I don't know of one , without having impartial rackers at every table.
Which is probably about the same odds of someone jacking with the rack, as just rack your own.

 

[RabbiHippie]

My point in proposing this bet and test is that it isn't possible, given an honestly racked rack, to control the corner ball accurately enough to make it very often, certainly not more than 20% of the time. Nobody has jumped up to take the bet so it seems people agree.

The purpose of my point is to state the fact that making a ball on the break is not a skill shot, but is a lucky break, as it were.

As such, even if nobody can learn to make the ball on the break, so the purpose of the rerack rule would not actually be to thwart those who are good at making the ball, the rerack rule may still be a good idea just to prevent giving a player such a huge advantage from making a lucky break shot. My view is that the lucky breaker shouldn't be punished for getting lucky which is why I've come around to the idea that the break should be one shot and then sit down. If a ball goes down, it stays down but the breaker can't continue.

I'm curious what threshold it would take to get someone to step up and bet on their ability to make a ball on the break: 15%, 10%, 5%?

5% sounds about right.

I'm late to the debate and wasn't in California, so don't think I'm jumping into the fray or taking sides or the bet. I'm just saying 5% is about my ball-on-break percentage when I'm playing the One Pocket Ghost.

I don't use a specialized break playing the Ghost. I just break the same as I do in a real match against an opponent. I play the cue ball from where it lies and continue shooting at the same hole whether a ball goes in or not. My runs are smaller but I really refine my break shot. I record most of my training sessions on video and while I haven't kept track of an exact percentage over the years, I'd say it happens at least as often as pocketing the 8-ball in the side pocket with my second-ball break. Even when the corner ball doesn't fall, it usually winds up close to my pocket.

When I make an eight on the break under BCA rules, it just spots and I continue shooting. I feel like that's basically neutral and neither penalizes or rewards me for what's essentially a fluke.

That seems like the right spirit so I started wondering why One Pocket didn't take some inspiration from 8-Ball. If the ball didn't count towards my score and was spotted, wouldn't that be the same as how the rules already handle an illegal ball in another pocket? Not a foul but you turn over the table to your opponent. I'm not expecting to stay at the table after the break anyway since re-rack has been the standard in tournaments for a while now.

I have no preference on "ball on break counts" or "re-rack" anyway so long as rules are clarified beforehand.

 

[HowardK]

From what I've been reading. Many don't believe that it is possible to consistently make a ball in your pocket on the break. This just goes to reinforce Kentucky's opinion on removing the repack option.

 

[frmn]

In the tournaments I ran, if somebody made a ball on the break, if they sold out on the next break they got one more break. Also making a ball on the break meant either pocket (logical consistancy). Director could be called to determine if the break was a sellout.

 

[12squared]

In the tournaments I ran, if somebody made a ball on the break, if they sold out on the next break they got one more break. Also making a ball on the break meant either pocket (logical consistancy). Director could be called to determine if the break was a sellout.

That's fair, but lengthens the tourney potentially.

I like Steve's suggestion of break and sit down no matter what happens. If you make a ball it stays down, if you scratch you owe one and they get ball in hand. Or, let it count and continue shooting.

 

[stevelomako]

That's fair, but lengthens the tourney potentially.

I like Steve's suggestion of break and sit down no matter what happens. If you make a ball it stays down, if you scratch you owe one and they get ball in hand.

I like things that are cut and dried.

No ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple

Or, let it count and continue shooting.

It seems like people don’t want someone making a ball and getting another shot no matter what (especially in tournaments) so there has to be something simple.