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 .

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
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
How it would speed up the game. I find it hard to believe you are serious.

4 to 4 score (or any score). A guy takes an intentional. The score is now 5 to 4. Traditional rules of course score is 4 to 3.

Notice the ball count totals: 9 with the proposed rule change, 7 without.

How would that NOT speed up the game (please answer)?? I am not saying this would turn a 5 day tournament into a 3 day one by the way. I think the way to go is to try and speed the game to a lesser extent. Anything else will change one pocket too much imo. Wasn't this entire topic brought up because the recent tournament went a LITTLE to long anyway?

Your assertions about me needing to bring up the problems are absurd. I would love to see how you think an abortion debate should go down... the pro- rights people should start out by informing the audience of all the pitfalls of aborting babies? It is almost difficult to take you seriously, so I wont. Further, I don't see any problems. So, if that is your argument, so be it, and don't point out the problems. But realize, if you can't argue against something, there is probably nothing wrong with it. Right? Do you really expect everyone to believe the reason you aren't bringing up arguments against the proposal in a heated debate is because it is not your place to do so?

Shot clock firmly in the lead. I am sure that's how it would stay with more voters. I don't think it is a bad option as long as the tournament has the resources for it.
 
Last edited:

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
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
Feel free to stay out of the threads. You aren't adding anything anyway as far as arguments against.

You are here to spread your knowledge and experience I can surmise based on some of the wwyd's. But now, you have this experience, but all the sudden you don't want to use it to inform people why this would be a bad change?

And if you are "tired of this BS", then why do you keep saying "the onus is on you to convince us." Convincing people necessitates communication. Don't ask for communication, then say "I'm tired of this BS" when you get it.
 
Last edited:

One pocket Smitty

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
747
No my vote would not have changed. I only voted for the shot clock because that option was the only one to really leave the game alone.
Sorry about not noticing the post about how to address the ball in the jaws, just didn't read all the post on this thread.--Smitty
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,894
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".

To the contrary, Steve, I have commented on several other ideas, agreeing that some of then have merit, and some don't IMO. As to the value of my idea, to shorten each and every game of one
pocket played, you gotta be very dense not to see that fewer balls needed to get out, translates to shorter games. My trying this idea would no doubt be recieved by gushing adulations, NOT. It would be far more valuable for you to try it cause readers would inherently know that anything good you had to say would be very painful for you.



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.

Have you read the disrespectful and insulting garbage written by TW and others? I think I am far more polite. I have said numerous times that I love to play one pocket in its current form. These threads are about how best to speed the game up. Why would anybody whose only contribution is to keep repeating how much they want to keep the game as is, even read let alone post on these threads? Are they just trying to keep us all from even talking about 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?
Steve, you don't even follow your own advice. You have offered several ideas of your own, spotting balls from kitchen, using the "pick" as a penalty, both of which I think are perhaps workable and have some merit. But, you have offered absolutely NOTHING to support or PROVE their worth or that they would work (very hypocritical).

What am I to think??:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

stedyfred

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
197
I have seen one or two players hold up an entire tournament with their slow play. The tourney director should put those players on a shot clock. I think that your shot clock option is the only one that could have some merit but not enough for me to vote for it. I don't like my opponent getting a ball if I take an intentional scratch ( game is altered too much). No one could take a scratch if opponent has 7 balls or game is over, most people would not take scratch if opponent has 6 balls thereby having them need one. Many people have seen this thread but only 14 have voted in your poll. JMO.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
9,238
Expedite One Pocket Options

Steve, you don't even follow your own advice. You have offered several ideas of your own, spotting balls from kitchen, using the "pick" as a penalty, both of which I think are perhaps workable and have some merit. But, you have offered absolutely NOTHING to support or PROVE their worth or that they would work (very hypocritical).

What am I to think??:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Limiting balls in the kitchen has been tried and even reported here it works.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
9,238
Expedite One Pocket Options

Shot clock is also proven to work. The "pick" is an old handicap technique but indeed I did throw out the idea of using it here without trying it thoroughly. If that makes me a hypocrite so be it, but it seems like you have a pretty low threshold -- at least as the term applies to others :)

I'm responding from my phone which is a pain and limited anyway.

PS when I suggested helping to sponsor a small tourney my phone auto corrected "a little bit" to "limitless" lol not what I meant.

But I am serious about doing that -- serious enough that I might chip in too -- if we could agree on the rules -- might be a big if :)
 

KindlyOleUncleDave

Verified Member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
539
speed up the game?

speed up the game?

Ban all stupid-ass nits from playing, or commenting, or even sweating the action.

Let them watch ESPN.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
9,238
To the contrary, Steve, I have commented on several other ideas, agreeing that some of then have merit, and some don't IMO. As to the value of my idea, to shorten each and every game of one
pocket played, you gotta be very dense not to see that fewer balls needed to get out, translates to shorter games. My trying this idea would no doubt be recieved by gushing adulations, NOT. It would be far more valuable for you to try it cause readers would inherently know that anything good you had to say would be very painful for you.

Have you read the disrespectful and insulting garbage written by TW and others? I think I am far more polite. I have said numerous times that I love to play one pocket in its current form. These threads are about how best to speed the game up. Why would anybody whose only contribution is to keep repeating how much they want to keep the game as is, even read let alone post on these threads? Are they just trying to keep us all from even talking about it?


Steve, you don't even follow your own advice. You have offered several ideas of your own, spotting balls from kitchen, using the "pick" as a penalty, both of which I think are perhaps workable and have some merit. But, you have offered absolutely NOTHING to support or PROVE their worth or that they would work (very hypocritical).

What am I to think??:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I just looked, and of your 39 posts here on OnePocket.org, incredibly all but one of them have basically been hammering away on the same single point. Yet, you have called others stubborn. Take this sentence of yours: "Why would anybody whose only contribution is to keep repeating how much they want to keep the game as is, even read let alone post on these threads?" and just for giggles imagine if someone else had made the same point about how much you keep repeating your own single idea to change the game instead.

You have also called everyone who disagreed with you at all, "dense", "silly", "you got nothing", "don't even understand what we are talking about", "you keep repeating like a broken record", "dogmatic" -- and probably more, but I did not reread all 38 of your posts on the same point. In fact, you have consistently talked down to all who don't embrace your idea, including me.

To me, repeatedly criticizing others for essentially the same thing you are guilty of yourself is the very definition of hypocrisy.

You also posted earlier to Tom, that he should "put up or shut up" -- well now is your chance to do the same.

I have offered to put up a share in a small added money Express One Pocket tournament. I notice Tyler initially dismissed that, and it looks like you have too, with yet another put down something about how painful it would be for me. What's with that? A hundred apiece added would be pretty good for a mini- tournament of the type they hold every night at Derby City for example. Since they start their minis at midnight, it makes sense to use an accelerated game format for that type of thing.

The same applies to Tyler here -- if you two really like your idea and want to see if it will work, it is definitely time to put up or shut up, imo. I am in if we can all agree on the exact rules. If it is at Derby City we have six months to work it out. Of course, for DCC we would still have to get it approved by Greg Sullivan and the DCC tournament directors -- which who knows, that could be just as hard a sell as OnePocket.org has been for you :D Maybe Lou would chip in and it could be $400 or more added :D
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
Looks like shot clock is pretty easily favored in the choices I gave. That makes sense, most players want the actual one pocket changed as little as possible. I think the shot clock affords a good blend between not changing the game, and having the desired effect of speeding it up.

I was thinking last night about "Texas Express". First, I wondered who came up with that rule in 9ball. Some unnamed player? Who is he/she/they, and what do they think about the potential changes to one pocket? Anyway, maybe there exists a version of "Texas Express" one pocket, where the game is in fact changed, but people still like it, and it is faster. I really don't know. Tough questions. The other thing to note about it is, once Texas express took over, even the players who preferred the old push rules seemed to be playing the new express way. Some still argue push is a better way to play of course, despite the lack of actual playing time it gets.

This brought me to thinking about things we as humans become accustomed to. It seems to be human nature. Whether it is our pool cue, our bowling ball, our rifle we have used for years, whatever.... we may not have the best one, but there tends to be an inclination there to not change due to our being accustomed to it. We are used to its intricacies and we feel comfortable when we have it. Again, these are tough questions. If one pocket were to change, would we need to force the change onto players, like Texas express seemed to be? Would the changes take off on their own? Would the players scoff at the potential changes? I guess there is no way to tell until we tried something. Really no specific inferences being made here, just thoughts to consider :)
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
9,238
Looks like shot clock is pretty easily favored in the choices I gave. That makes sense, most players want the actual one pocket changed as little as possible. I think the shot clock affords a good blend between not changing the game, and having the desired effect of speeding it up.

I was thinking last night about "Texas Express". First, I wondered who came up with that rule in 9ball. Some unnamed player? Who is he/she/they, and what do they think about the potential changes to one pocket? Anyway, maybe there exists a version of "Texas Express" one pocket, where the game is in fact changed, but people still like it, and it is faster. I really don't know. Tough questions. The other thing to note about it is, once Texas express took over, even the players who preferred the old push rules seemed to be playing the new express way. Some still argue push is a better way to play of course, despite the lack of actual playing time it gets.

This brought me to thinking about things we as humans become accustomed to. It seems to be human nature. Whether it is our pool cue, our bowling ball, our rifle we have used for years, whatever.... we may not have the best one, but there tends to be an inclination there to not change due to our being accustomed to it. We are used to its intricacies and we feel comfortable when we have it. Again, these are tough questions. If one pocket were to change, would we need to force the change onto players, like Texas express seemed to be? Would the changes take off on their own? Would the players scoff at the potential changes? I guess there is no way to tell until we tried something. Really no specific inferences being made here, just thoughts to consider :)
Texas Express as named, I do not know who started it, but it was the Jansco's that first introduced "one foul ball in hand anywhere on the table" , which is the main component of Texas Express. They used it first in 1967!!!!
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
I just looked, and of your 39 posts here on OnePocket.org, incredibly all but one of them have basically been hammering away on the same single point. Yet, you have called others stubborn. Take this sentence of yours: "Why would anybody whose only contribution is to keep repeating how much they want to keep the game as is, even read let alone post on these threads?" and just for giggles imagine if someone else had made the same point about how much you keep repeating your own single idea to change the game instead.

You have also called everyone who disagreed with you at all, "dense", "silly", "you got nothing", "don't even understand what we are talking about", "you keep repeating like a broken record", "dogmatic" -- and probably more, but I did not reread all 38 of your posts on the same point. In fact, you have consistently talked down to all who don't embrace your idea, including me.

To me, repeatedly criticizing others for essentially the same thing you are guilty of yourself is the very definition of hypocrisy.

You also posted earlier to Tom, that he should "put up or shut up" -- well now is your chance to do the same.

I have offered to put up a share in a small added money Express One Pocket tournament. I notice Tyler initially dismissed that, and it looks like you have too, with yet another put down something about how painful it would be for me. What's with that? A hundred apiece added would be pretty good for a mini- tournament of the type they hold every night at Derby City for example. Since they start their minis at midnight, it makes sense to use an accelerated game format for that type of thing.

The same applies to Tyler here -- if you two really like your idea and want to see if it will work, it is definitely time to put up or shut up, imo. I am in if we can all agree on the exact rules. If it is at Derby City we have six months to work it out. Of course, for DCC we would still have to get it approved by Greg Sullivan and the DCC tournament directors -- which who knows, that could be just as hard a sell as OnePocket.org has been for you :D Maybe Lou would chip in and it could be $400 or more added :D
I was just trying to "get out" of this, and saw your post Steve. This may be something hard to discern if you are not in another person's shoes, but I feel Mr. Worth talked down in a very pretentious and elitist way during this discussion. This makes people respond in a certain way. Part of the reason I started this anonymous voting thread is because there are certain posters in here who obviously think they rule the place, their opinion counts, and nobody else's does. Well, this thread gave a little anonymous voice to those who felt like chiming in. The fact that this is the only way to go in here to avoid castigation speaks volumes. For example, 2 posters (other than moose and I) voted for the foul should count for opponent option, do you really think they would have publicly chimed in with Mr. Worth hovering over their every word? This elitism is not the type of behavior to encourage. For me personally, I give respect when it is due. You may see me disagree with Doc. Bill for example, but I would never address him disrespectfully, as he affords me the same courtesy.

Respectfully, some of your statements seem quite combative also. Why would I put money up in support of this idea? And why would you assume I am in a position to do this? This is a public one pocket forum. I have simply been stating my opinion, and backing it up when people have responded. Doing what I have done I think is at the heart of good forum discussions. I added an opinion, defended it, and am fine with letting people who run actual one pocket tournaments choose if they think it is a good thing to try. Yet, according to your statements, I should either keep my mouth closed, or put up money?

That is it though. The idea is out there in the ether (no credit to me, not my idea of course), that is good enough for me. If it matters at all, I actually did get a chance to try 2 games of this way of playing. I must say, I agree with moose once again, I don't feel as though my data on these 2 games will be well received, but let's just say the games were completed, it was pure one pocket imo (balls were not moved for no reason at all), and I did not personally notice any negatives. The winner went to 6 one game (I guess we can assume that was a faster game?), and to 8 the other game (no fouls). Anyway, I did try it, didn't find a problem, I guess it is now up to others if they want to do the same. :)
 
Last edited:

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
Texas Express as named, I do not know who started it, but it was the Jansco's that first introduced "one foul ball in hand anywhere on the table" , which is the main component of Texas Express. They used it first in 1967!!!!
I wonder whose idea it was to implement their idea more prominently. Looking at this history could aid us here? :)
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
9,238
I wonder whose idea it was to implement their idea more prominently. Looking at this history could aid us here? :)
I would start looking in Texas :D

By the way, in 1967 there was nothing more prominent in pool tournaments than what the Jansco's were doing at Johnston City and Stardust. The US Open Straight Pool had only recently revived after apparently closing up shop due to lack of support and interest.

If you look in old magazines the history would probably come up. Since it is a nine-ball rule, I think I will personally pass on researching it, simply because I have zero interest in that game. The only reason I know about the Jansco role is because I do have a great deal of interest in the Jansco Brothers and Johnston City history.
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
I would start looking in Texas :D

By the way, in 1967 there was nothing more prominent in pool tournaments than what the Jansco's were doing at Johnston City and Stardust. The US Open Straight Pool had only recently revived after apparently closing up shop due to lack of support and interest.

If you look in old magazines the history would probably come up. Since it is a nine-ball rule, I think I will personally pass on researching it, simply because I have zero interest in that game. The only reason I know about the Jansco role is because I do have a great deal of interest in the Jansco Brothers and Johnston City history.
Yeah, it was just an idea. I would head to Texas but the darned place is a little big :)

The one last thing I will say that I meant to add to my supposed last post up there was.....

I think the discussion about how you would handle fouls when a player is on the hill with the fouler gives away a ball rule is interesting. The only reason I mention it, is it seems possible to give some latitude to TD's.

Let's say for example you run a tournament with the foul adds a ball to opponent rule, and "you can't win the game on a foul". I DO realize this will make people cringe, but it would be possible if you are running late to institute a rule where you CAN in fact lose the game on a foul. I think that would speed things up tremendously, as we all know a lot of time is spent after a guy is on the hill and hangs a ball.

Just a parting thought.

There have been some other really good thoughts in here. I personally like the poster who mentioned a shot clock with a running ball count (maybe a race to 24 balls or something), as opposed to a game count. This would obviously make it so when a guy gets 8 and he is running balls, he can just continue. Hard to say how much that would speed things up.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,894
Steve

This discussion is over as far as I am concerned. All has been said that can be said, the pole is underway and voters seem to favor the shot clock. I am fine with that. This was always just a discussion for me, I like to play one pocket just as it is, and I don't imagine anyone is gonna change the rules any time soon.

Yes, I said some things, mostly to TW, that I ain't proud of and I tried to apologize in post # 35 which it seems you think was insincere or disrespectful. You're entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong.

It occurrs to me that you may not even be aware of what happened here. After all the times that Tyler and I were forced to go over our argument, trying to justify and explain it primarily to Tom, he (Tom) let it out in post #29 that he did not understand the rule change idea we were discussing at all, which is why he kept saying that it would not speed up most games.

When I realized this I went off on him a bit which must have caused him to realize his error. Hence, his sarcastic apology .

My only point in explaining this is IMO virtually all of this back and forth could have and should have been avoided.

In any event, I got no bone to pick with you, you seemed to have some pretty good ideas and were at least willing to discuss them as well as mine.
 
Last edited:

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,664
This message comes to you all from aboard a tramp steamer headed for Thailand and a six pack of young beautiful hookers. I'm not sure how far we've come but I think I see the west coast of Africa on my left as I look out this port hole. It's either that or Gilligan's Island. I've just finished a fifth of Bushmill's and I'm feeling just fine, though I'm starting to get a little hot for the seal they have penned up in the next bay to me. Trust me, she's really cute.

Because my cell phone can't connect, I've had to resort to the old fashion method of communication. Message in a bottle and a profound hope the tide brings it in to the proper sources so I can share this one thought with you.

So in what may be the last communication I will transmit until landfall due to the fact that I'm out of bottles, booze or otherwise, here it is.

I've learned a valuable lesson in the past day and a half while hiding in the hole of this leaking ship. I hope we make it to port before the salt water reaches my chin. It's only around the ankles now so I think we'll be Okay. You see I couldn't afford the passage so here I am, a stow away.

So the lesson is an old one. It is a lesson which on occasion is forgotten for a short while by even the sharpest of wits. It sometimes takes a situation like the one I found myself in during the discussions with Tyler and Darmoose to bring things back into focus. I obviously lost track of what was important. Sanity being one of these.

In the dark, while fumbling around for a comfortable place to lay my head I came upon an old, moldy, dog eared, volume of quotations by Mark Twain. It could just as easily been in that fortune cookie I had for breakfast but on page 17 of this one worn out, rat chewed book, this one brilliant quote popped out like a naked 22year old beauty queen from a bachelor party cake. Believe me, the quote comes in as a close second. It was like a message from God.


“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

My post #29? ......Really? :lol

No offense intended, just trying to have a little fun, folks.

Tom
 
Last edited:
Top