Expedite One Pocket Options

Expedite One Pocket Options

  • Impose a shot clock

    Votes: 11 68.8%
  • Each player goes to 7 balls

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • Fouls are paid by adding a ball to non-fouling player

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

stedyfred

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
197
An uptable game, while lengthy, provides players with an opportunity to display some advanced skills. In Derby City Classic match S. Frost vs S. Ochoa, Scott shows the best way to come off of balls that are uptable and have cue ball come to rest on bottom rail (several times). This is just one of the things that a gr8 player does better than lesser skilled player but it is an integral part of the game. Squeezers don't want the game changed or speeded up. JMHO.
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
i didnt vote because my option wasnt there, which would be to put "slow" play on the clock--not everyone, just those deemed to be taking too much time in general.....i had a race to 2 go a little over 3 hrs, and we both played at a pace that could be termed between medium and fast....believe me, i would have loved a quick match but the opportunities just werent there that often.....if you want a fast match then i suggest outmoving your opponent in the early stages and then run out.....im going to continue my grinding, constant pressure game, no matter how long it takes to finish my match......its my best chance to win.......people can change the rules but i'll take one pocket the way it is......
Aww. That would be the shot clock option, which is in the lead btw. Do what you want, but when I put shot clock, I simply mean implementing it in some way.
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,685
We all know your point, Tom, you keep repeating it like a broken record. You are barking up the wrong tree, it ain't my pole and it weren't my idea to have a pole.:p:p:p:p

Lastly, it is just a discussion, nobody is gonna change the game if you stop repeating your point. Why can't you just let others have a little fun making believe that any of you "high levelers" give a crap about slow play, spectators, or Tv venues?

Didn't that sound just awful, I picked that up from you, and Ghosty, and Ducky.:lol:lol:lol:lol
Dar, a little fun is one thing, this has gone on for a long time now. Over 300 posts on the same subject! You say we all know my point. We all know your point just as well. You and Tyler have been the ones pushing home the point of speeding up the game. Anytime anyone gave your idea a thumbs down you were right there shoving down our throats again. Would you like to retrace the numerous threads to get a count? I have simply been responding. Man, you guys have a way of turning things around better than some of the politicians in Washington.

Please don't even think that you are only pushing your point in the name of "fun". To take a page out of a Frank Zappa song, (and Art you may like this) "Oh no, I don't believe it."

Of course we all know your idea won't fly but not because you don't want it to but because it isn't practical.

Tom
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
Just simply saying something isn't good or doesn't work isn't practical. In any endeavor in life, even pool, you must support your arguments with actual assertions. "Thumbs down" does not really qualify. Why thumbs down? When we have responded to you, it was trying to elucidate the reasons why your assertions were wrong. "Thumbs down because I don't know where the balls will come from" has been addressed.

What is more telling to me is your LACK of arguments against. How can you not like something and not even have a reason as to why?
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
Shot clock and fouls paid by adding a ball to non-fouler are now tied. Although, sample size is not very big. I would hope if people come in they just choose their favorite of the 3 posed options :)
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,685
Just simply saying something isn't good or doesn't work isn't practical. In any endeavor in life, even pool, you must support your arguments with actual assertions. "Thumbs down" does not really qualify. Why thumbs down? When we have responded to you, it was trying to elucidate the reasons why your assertions were wrong. "Thumbs down because I don't know where the balls will come from" has been addressed.

What is more telling to me is your LACK of arguments against. How can you not like something and not even have a reason as to why?
I have explained over and over again my objection to your suggestion. Changes to traditional institutions, One Pocket being one of these, requires careful consideration and a firm understanding of all that is potentially at stake. You would be mistaken if you thought I have not tried to think of all pitfalls that could occur. I know of a few from experience that would cause me pause but I don't feel the onus is on those who disagree but on those who wish to convince. One does not go to a bank looking for a loan and say to the loan officer "I want a loan, tell me why I shouldn't get the loan." They convince the loan officer it is good business for the bank to provide the loan.

As I have ask repeatedly, why must you turn it around and try to elicit reasons why not each time I have ask you why. Your patented answer is always the same, suggesting that it would speed up the game but you don't say how that will happen given common situations that arise in so many One Pocket games. Up table games for one example. There are others. How does your solution solve a situation like that? I think the answer is obvious, I don't expect you to answer with any practical knowledge because you lack the experience. You have made that perfectly clear through the numerous posts you've made.

Tom
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,922
IN all seriousness, Tom

IN all seriousness, Tom

You would be mistaken if you thought I have not tried to think of all pitfalls that could occur. I know of a few from experience that would cause me pause .....

I don't expect you to answer with any practical knowledge because you lack the experience. You have made that perfectly clear through the numerous posts you've made.

Tom
do you expect others with differing opinions from yours to simply shut up because you say so. Tyler nor I started this thread. Someone with perhaps more experience than you and who is perhaps a better player than you did. He, and many others have acknowledged that the game, under certain circumstances might could use some tweaking.

I have played one pocket for about 40yrs or so. I will not play for fun, I bet my own money and I don't like to lose. I enjoy the game in its present state very much, for the same reasons you do. I do not want to change or ruin the game.

The part of the game I enjoy most, if I had to pick is the "moving" part. For me one pocket is a mental war of wits. Nothing pleases me more than manuevering my opponent into a position he don't like and watching him struggle before giving in. Nothing I hate more than being on that hook myself.

I know its a cliche, but I do believe in taking care of Whitey above all else. I also understand one must have an appropriate amount of offense to be successful. I am considered an excellent banker amongst my peers. I understand the use of the uptable game to protect a lead.

I only say these things, so maybe you will get off the "you got no experience" routine.

AS I have said before, scratches and fouls are to be avoided, thats why they carry penalties, no? And yes, intentional fouls can be strategically useful, but overuse is boring and does lengthen the game, and this favors ballrunners (if you don't agree with that, you aren't all that experienced).

I think the current penalty for scratches and fouls (even the intentional kind) don't provide the proper disincentative, you may disagree.

My idea of changing the rule on penaltys for fouls to make the game shorter is at the very least a very good beginning towards solving the problem being discussed (slow and long games). It does this by lowering the number of balls needed to get out and it does this throughout the game each time a foul is committed (I think you understand this).It does not change any of the current strategies inherent in the game, except to make fouls increasingly more important as the game goes on applying more pressure to control Whitey. The game gets shorter each time you don't. We even addressed the strategy of following in a ball you pocket into your opponents pocket when he's on the hill, so as not to lose this option.

Up above, I have used only what I considered a pertinent part of your post and for a reason.

You cllaim to have given all this considerable thought, and have some "pitfalls"
that you are keeping a secret. You chastise us for carrying on this many page discussion out of ignorance. You'd rather that everyone endure all this rather than enlighten us with your experience and knowledge.

I, and I'm sure Tyler, and perhaps many others, would once and for all like to hear your reasons why this idea won't work, why it will ruin current strategies and the game, share some examples with us all and respond to this admittedly long winded description of my point of view (sorry).

You can't say that I haven't explained the rule and what it does as well as how it does it... so here's your chance.. you could put an end to this if you know what you say you know.

EITHER PUT UP OR COP OUT ONCE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
This thread needs an enema:p. Or, at least this pic:D:

Brought to you by "Soccer, The Worlds Most Popular Spectator Sport"(that nobody in the U.S.A. wants to watch). One-Pocket fans take note.

1.jpg
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,685
do you expect others with differing opinions from yours to simply shut up because you say so. Tyler nor I started this thread. Someone with perhaps more experience than you and who is perhaps a better player than you did. He, and many others have acknowledged that the game, under certain circumstances might could use some tweaking.

I have played one pocket for about 40yrs or so. I will not play for fun, I bet my own money and I don't like to lose. I enjoy the game in its present state very much, for the same reasons you do. I do not want to change or ruin the game.

The part of the game I enjoy most, if I had to pick is the "moving" part. For me one pocket is a mental war of wits. Nothing pleases me more than manuevering my opponent into a position he don't like and watching him struggle before giving in. Nothing I hate more than being on that hook myself.

I know its a cliche, but I do believe in taking care of Whitey above all else. I also understand one must have an appropriate amount of offense to be successful. I am considered an excellent banker amongst my peers. I understand the use of the uptable game to protect a lead.

I only say these things, so maybe you will get off the "you got no experience" routine.

AS I have said before, scratches and fouls are to be avoided, thats why they carry penalties, no? And yes, intentional fouls can be strategically useful, but overuse is boring and does lengthen the game, and this favors ballrunners (if you don't agree with that, you aren't all that experienced).

I think the current penalty for scratches and fouls (even the intentional kind) don't provide the proper disincentative, you may disagree.

My idea of changing the rule on penaltys for fouls to make it a game shortener, does not change any of the current strategies inherent in the game, except to make fouls increasingly more important as the game goes on applying more pressurs to control Whitey. The game gets shorter each time you don't. We even addressed the strategy of following in a ball you pocket into your opponents pocket when he's on the hill, so as not to lose this option.

Up above, I have used only what I considered a pertinent part of your post and for a reason.

You cllaim to have given all this considerable thought, and have some "pitfalls"
that you are keeping a secret. You chastise us for carrying on this many page discussion out of ignorance. You'd rather that everyone endure all this rather than enlighten us with your experience and knowledge.

I, and I'm sure Tyler, and perhaps many others, would once and for all like to hear your reasons why this idea won't work, why it will ruin current strategies and the game, share some examples with us all and respond to this admittedly long winded description of my point of view (sorry).

You can't say that I haven't explained the rule and what it does and where I am coming from... so here's your chance.. you could put an end to this if you know what you say you know.

EITHER PUT UP OR COP OUT ONCE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You've said absolutely nothing that you haven't said countless times before. You did not address how your idea would shorten games where a preponderance of the balls end up table and out of play. You claim that your minor change will shorten the game considerably but how do you know that? How do you know that by changing one rule players will not use other methods to prolong the game. Players do adapt you know. How do you know your tinkering will not upset the game in ways unintended? How many times must I say the same thing until you realize that these reason alone are enough to discourage a player or tournament director to avoid your idea like plaque. At least until the idea had been tested time and again?

Why is it that you stick to this idea as though it is a revelation from God. Have you even challenged your own theory by playing a few hours worth in a pool room with quality players? I doubt it because if you had you would have mentioned it by this time.

You want me to explain the pitfalls of your what I believe to be a silly change in the rules of One Pocket. I will give you one more but you must address the reasons I have stated so far. This you have not come close to doing up to now.

Coins on the table have been used for decades to indicate that a player owes a ball. Coins fall off the table more time then you could begin to count. Many of those times neither player sees that the coin is missing and sometimes the coin magically disappears on purpose. Can you imagine that?
So often does it happen that a ball which is owed does not get spotted when it is suppose to be spotted that a rule had to be adopted to cover this situation so as to not favor either player. I have thought about this scenario with regard to your rule change and don't have an adequate answer to this question. I wonder if you have thought about this situation or if now that it is brought to your attention you will just now put a little thought behind it? I would bet on the latter.

Finally, just how many games do you believe your changes will affectively shorten games? You believe that a reasonable percentage of games played have several coins denoting owed balls. I can assure you the percentage of these games is quite low. It does happen but certainly not enough to warrant any changes of the nature you suggest. Can you dispute this claim? I have no numbers to back up what I say only 45 some odd years of playing some of the best players ever to play the game. What evidence can you provide to back up your thinking to dispute any of what I have said?

So instead of throwing out sweet nothings and to quote you,
EITHER PUT UP OR COP OUT ONCE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

Tom
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,922
You've said absolutely nothing that you haven't said countless times before. You did not address how your idea would shorten games where a preponderance of the balls end up table and out of play. You claim that your minor change will shorten the game considerably but how do you know that? How do you know that by changing one rule players will not use other methods to prolong the game. Players do adapt you know. How do you know your tinkering will not upset the game in ways unintended? How many times must I say the same thing until you realize that these reason alone are enough to discourage a player or tournament director to avoid your idea like plaque. At least until the idea had been tested time and again?

Why is it that you stick to this idea as though it is a revelation from God. Have you even challenged your own theory by playing a few hours worth in a pool room with quality players? I doubt it because if you had you would have mentioned it by this time.

You want me to explain the pitfalls of your what I believe to be a silly change in the rules of One Pocket. I will give you one more but you must address the reasons I have stated so far. This you have not come close to doing up to now.

Coins on the table have been used for decades to indicate that a player owes a ball. Coins fall off the table more time then you could begin to count. Many of those times neither player sees that the coin is missing and sometimes the coin magically disappears on purpose. Can you imagine that?
So often does it happen that a ball which is owed does not get spotted when it is suppose to be spotted that a rule had to be adopted to cover this situation so as to not favor either player. I have thought about this scenario with regard to your rule change and don't have an adequate answer to this question. I wonder if you have thought about this situation or if now that it is brought to your attention you will just now put a little thought behind it? I would bet on the latter.

Finally, just how many games do you believe your changes will affectively shorten games? You believe that a reasonable percentage of games played have several coins denoting owed balls. I can assure you the percentage of these games is quite low. It does happen but certainly not enough to warrant any changes of the nature you suggest. Can you dispute this claim? I have no numbers to back up what I say only 45 some odd years of playing some of the best players ever to play the game. What evidence can you provide to back up your thinking to dispute any of what I have said?

So instead of throwing out sweet nothings and to quote you,
EITHER PUT UP OR COP OUT ONCE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom[/QUOTE]

It does not take a genious to understand that if everytime a player scratches, fails to get a rail, or plays some sort of intentional foul, or commits any other foul, and the result is that his opponent has to make one less ball to get out, the game will be shorter than it would be under todays rules where a foul just means that the fouler has to make an extra ball which makes the game longer.

This applys to the beginning game, the middle game, and the end game. It applys to the downtable game as well as the uptable game. No matter how long the game takes to complete due to you putting the balls uptable and out of play (as you say), it will be shorter than it would be under todays rules. That is what we are talking about, isn't it, the RELATIVE difference.

I would not expect any TD to institute any of the suggestions discussed here without proper vetting, do you?

I don't know who you are playing or where, but where I play I don't think I've ever seen a coin dissapear, and certainly not in any of my games. Thats just really silly. We can't entertain this cause you don't think you can keep score, when its the same way you been keeping score all your life, with balls and coins. Now, if you are worried about someone intentionally stealing a coin, well, they steal balls too. And certainly you can't imagine this being a problem in a TV venue, can you?

To your FINAL question...just how many games would be shortened by this rule? EVERY FREAKING GAME YOU PLAY!!!!

You don't even understand that it does not matter whether a player has adopted an intentional foul strategy where he would, under todays rules line up coins denoting he owes balls. How many games have you played where there were NO fouls?? How many fouls would you say have been committed on average in the games you play, TOM?

EVERY SCRATCH AND FOUL (intentional or otherwise) rewards the foulers opponent with a ball(coin).

COULD THIS BE ANY SIMPLER TO UNDERSTAND??

I have addressed every silly concern you've expressed, and you've proven that you don't even understand what we all are talking about (EVERY FOUL, TOM, FROM THE BREAK TO THE END)

YOU GOT NOTHING, Why don't you just admit it? And you wonder why we have to keep going over this!!!!

Here's an example as simple as I can make it for you.

Player A makes 3 fouls, while player B makes 4 fouls in the game. Player A has to make 4 balls to win, player B has to make 5 balls to win. Result, shorter game, COMPRENDE??:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,685
Yeah, brilliant. You're a genius, Wow, now I understand everything. Thanks ever so much. I've been so thickheaded but you, in your infinite wisdom have guided me to the clarity of enlightenment. I will sleep easy now knowing that I have now be blessed with your all knowing insight. I pray that I may in some spiritual way touch the hem of your garment.

Thank You, Thank you, Thank You.
Now can we please move on to other things? :(
I'm so tired of this BS
Tom
 

One pocket Smitty

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
747
I went ahead and voted. My choice was for a shot clock, reason being that was the only option that was available that would keep the game as it is now played.
After thinking about the adding a ball choice I thought what if theplayer had his game ball in the jaws, you couldn't make it and follow it in could you without giving him his winning ball.---Smitty
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,922
I went ahead and voted. My choice was for a shot clock, reason being that was the only option that was available that would keep the game as it is now played.
After thinking about the adding a ball choice I thought what if theplayer had his game ball in the jaws, you couldn't make it and follow it in could you without giving him his winning ball.---Smitty
Smitty

That was addressed long ago,and again just one post ago. An excrption was discussed and accepted that when a player has his game ball jawed in the pocket, his opponent can still follow it in with the cue ball. The penalty in this situation only, is to spot a ball. This was addressed so that the game would not end on a foul.

To bad your vote was misinformed, buy thanks for voting anyway. Would you have voted differently had you had this information?
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
9,262
Expedite One Pocket Options

Has anyone tried this foul change idea? Darmoose, Tyler, anyone? If so, how did it work? It seems to me it shifts the balance a little in terms of the value of a trap so that freezing on a ball or the back of the stack becomes stronger. Also IMHO any added penalty for scratches favors the better players. I also don't see anything in it that would tend to make the game more exciting to play or watch whereas limiting balls in the kitchen clearly helps minimize the least exciting phase of current one pocket, which translates to generally more entertaining on net.

I also think the coins on the rail seem a little awkward. Sure we use them now but only when a negative is involved. To have them become part of your score until the very end of the game definitely strikes me as awkward. That's why I suggested the "pick". The "pick" also introduces another point of strategy along with keeping the scoring simple.

But the real bottom line is that until smart players fool around with any new rule, who really knows what strategies will emerge from it -- and how it will effect the game?
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,922
Yeah, brilliant. You're a genius, Wow, now I understand everything. Thanks ever so much. I've been so thickheaded but you, in your infinite wisdom have guided me to the clarity of enlightenment. I will sleep easy now knowing that I have now be blessed with your all knowing insight. I pray that I may in some spiritual way touch the hem of your garment.

Thank You, Thank you, Thank You.
Now can we please move on to other things? :(
I'm so tired of this BS
Tom
Tom,

I am no genius, and am very sorry to have talked to you like I did. Three quarters of this thread could have so easily been avoided, and many posters who respect your opinion would have been spared all this confusion.

I have no wish to rub your nose in it, but your attitude created almost all this vehemence. People don't like to be dismissed from on high.

Maybe you do need a break. If so, good luck. But if you decide to express an opinion now that the confusion has cleared, it would be welcome by me.

As for this being BS, I don't think so, it's just a discussion, and it will probably continue. If you choose not to continue to participate, you will leave us with the impression that now that you understand, you have no further meaningful critism.
 

stedyfred

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
197
The changes that are proposed in this thread would compromise the integrity of the game. If you are running a tournament and you are concerned about time, shorten the races but please leave the game intact so it can rest on its own merit.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,922
Has anyone tried this foul change idea? Darmoose, Tyler, anyone? If so, how did it work? It seems to me it shifts the balance a little in terms of the value of a trap so that freezing on a ball or the back of the stack becomes stronger. Also IMHO any added penalty for scratches favors the better players. I also don't see anything in it that would tend to make the game more exciting to play or watch whereas limiting balls in the kitchen clearly helps minimize the least exciting phase of current one pocket, which translates to generally more entertaining on net.

I also think the coins on the rail seem a little awkward. Sure we use them now but only when a negative is involved. To have them become part of your score until the very end of the game definitely strikes me as awkward. That's why I suggested the "pick". The "pick" also introduces another point of strategy along with keeping the scoring simple.

But the real bottom line is that until smart players fool around with any new rule, who really knows what strategies will emerge from it -- and how it will effect the game?
Good input, Steve, I agree that this idea values the "moving" part of the game a little more, kinda like it used to be 40-50 yrs ago. No, I haven't tried it yet, its almost impossible to get gamblers to try anything new.

The coin thing is a result of many people thinking a two ball penalty by way of transferring a ball from fouler to foulee was too much, it could be a lil hard to get used to for a while.

I am familiar with the "pick" in one pocket, as in "one, hit, and the pick" as a spot, and I think that could work also, but the pick can be very powerful, probably more valuable than a second ball.
 

backplaying

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
523
I for one love one pocket and play almost every week day.

I never watch tapes or live matches because all the stalling for no reason, by one player or the other is too painful to me.
Someone gave me a tape of Efren and Alex, I spent the whole time Alex was shooting fast forwarding the tape. I finally gave up and skipped to the end.
It was torture to me.
So I guess you can put me in the change camp.
Rod.
P.S. My games are never that slow, if my protagonist stalls or just plays painfully slow I quit. :frus
Its the only one pocket tape that I have fallen a sleep many times while watching. People who takes minutes to shoot should have no one to play. I know I will refuse to gamble with a slow player playing anything.
 

One Pocket Ghost

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
9,535
The changes that are proposed in this thread would compromise the integrity of the game. If you are running a tournament and you are concerned about time, shorten the races but please leave the game intact so it can rest on its own merit.

Welcome to the site Fred..always a pleasure to admit another clear-thinking guy to the asylum...:heh

- Ghost
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
9,262
Expedite One Pocket Options

Tom,

I am no genius, and am very sorry to have talked to you like I did. Three quarters of this thread could have so easily been avoided, and many posters who respect your opinion would have been spared all this confusion.

I have no wish to rub your nose in it, but your attitude created almost all this vehemence. People don't like to be dismissed from on high.

Maybe you do need a break. If so, good luck. But if you decide to express an opinion now that the confusion has cleared, it would be welcome by me.

As for this being BS, I don't think so, it's just a discussion, and it will probably continue. If you choose not to continue to participate, you will leave us with the impression that now that you understand, you have no further meaningful critism.
I respectfully disagree. To be honest my impression is just the opposite -- to me it has seemed like for some reason you and Tyler just would not accept any contrary opinion -- despite the fact that your idea is the one trying to buck the status quo, which to me places more of the burden on you to prove the value. It is amazing to me that you have not even tried it, yet you have pushed it relentlessly for a week and in my opinion you have not respected those who like the game as it is -- which has come from many different players, not from "on high".

This quoted post of yours for example is very disrespectful IMHO -- you actually seem to believe your own idea is the only logical well thought ought view and are dismissive of those that disagree, yet you have no zip nada experience with how well or not your idea might actually work or how smart players might adapt to it.

Honestly I would suggest you back off and try it yourself and get some feedback and share that. How about adding a little money for a mini tournament? There are plenty of members here (me included) who have added a limitless to make a tournament happen...

What is that old expression about catching more flies with honey than vinegar?
 
Top