One Pocket rule change

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
One pocket is NOT like Chess.

Chess is a game played on a checkered board. There are a finite number of moves. You may not know every move in every situation but someone does. If not someone, then the computer does.

One pocket has an infinite number of variables. Forget about all the physical obstacles. Scientists have been trying for years to predict the outcome of the simplest roll of the balls without success. I don't think they ever considered SKID? Probably never heard of it.

When the smartest computer starts playing one pocket and can beat even ME, then I will concede that the Shot clock is a viable solution to tournament one pocket.

Anyone want to put up their 10K just to see how it works?

Bill S.
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,230
One caveat.
These guys that hem and haw and piddle around and slow play, they usually play better when they finally speed up.
I don't think most do it on purpose, they probably learned from someone who played that way or it's hard for them to make a decision.
Rod.
 

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
One pocket is NOT like Chess.

Chess is a game played on a checkered board. There are a finite number of moves. You may not know every move in every situation but someone does. If not someone, then the computer does.

One pocket has an infinite number of variables. Forget about all the physical obstacles. Scientists have been trying for years to predict the outcome of the simplest roll of the balls without success. I don't think they ever considered SKID? Probably never heard of it.

When the smartest computer starts playing one pocket and can beat even ME, then I will concede that the Shot clock is a viable solution to tournament one pocket.

Anyone want to put up their 10K just to see how it works?

Bill S.
The shot clock has already worked in the Make It Happen invitational. It moved matches along quite nicely. But, like I wrote, you could never have enough clock operators for a larger tournament so it's a moot point.

Dennis
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
Thinking about the TWO pocket table.

I only played twice on one in Joplin MO and both times we played to the back pockets. By that I mean the rack was at the other end of the table.

The first time my opponent shot a ball up his rail and back into his pocket I jumped straight up out of my chair. Never had seen anything like it.

Later on some 3 rails and 2 rails came up that I had never seen before also.

Eventually I figured it out and prevailed but it took some time. Amazing how much real estate those 4 extra pockets take up.

I have been doing some additional thinking about the 2 pocket table and think it would work very well on a Diamond bar table with fewer balls.

Surfer Rod and I used to play one pocket on the Valley bar tables for 400 to 600 per game. I really liked the game.

Might make a great game to replace bar table 8 ball and make one pocket more popular.

Another variation on one pocket might be to take an old Philly game (one ball in the side) and make it a one pocket game. Sort of like straight pool but you have to make the center ball in the original rack (say the 8 ball) in your pocket.

Changing one pocket (a gambling game) into a tournament game is not so easy. If someone could figure a way to put the gambling element back into the game (say the ability to wager 2 games on your break, win or lose) perhaps it would become more popular.

It needs an element of more excitement. That's why I proposed the Break-n-Run game. Running balls only. Ridiculous shot. Desperate attempts. Some work, some don't. Run X number of balls for bonus points.

This is the game I would like to see at the DCC.

Your opponent breaks and runs 10. Your turn. You break and run 8.
He is now up one game. Race to 10? Your favorite players gets his chance. No one is locked in his chair while the other player wins.

Not one pocket as we know it but a game that would make one pocket (or its' variations) more popular for a new generation.

Bill S.
 

usblues

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
1,324
Being a .....

Being a .....

....traditionalist I deplore changes in the game,balls or cloth color.That being said,Bill last idea strikes me as something to think and try out as slow play is the worst part of 1P,cheers,James
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,994
One Pocket rule change

I believe Diamond was at least considering a two pocket table Bill, so you might be on to something
 
Last edited:

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,987
I believe diamond was at least consisting a two pocket table Bill, so you might be on

They might could consider simply building some pocket inserts like Brunswick had (or whoever). That way if you didn't like the two-pocket table, you could put the other two inserts in and play 3C or straight rail.;) For that matter guys could block whichever pockets they wanted.

I'd better alert Greg. He might not have thought of that...:cool:

Doc
 

iusedtoberich

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
146
The shot clock has already worked in the Make It Happen invitational. It moved matches along quite nicely. But, like I wrote, you could never have enough clock operators for a larger tournament so it's a moot point.

Dennis
Someone could write a custom iPad app that is a pool shot clock program. Its located between the two player's chairs. It counts down when the player touches it, and even beeps a warning at 10 seconds. When the shot clock is up, it can automatically go to a 5 minute reserve per game, beeping again every 60 seconds of the reserve time (for example). It can be modified depending on what is deemed to work well, and what is not each tournament.

A relatively cheap solution, because no referee is required to keep the time like they do now in Accustats and TAR matches.

I bet there is even a bunch of iPad apps for chess that can be a starting point.
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,186
When I envison the cumulative shot clock, I imagine the time allowed for each player to be ample and generous. Only the slow players who are way out of line and sharking with their slow play would be affected. Suppose you determined that you would have to complete matches in two hours in order to finish the tournament on time and you were racing to 3; then each player would get 1/3 of 120 minutes divided by two. This would be 20 minutes each. Considering a lot of shots will only take 20 seconds or less, you could spend several minutes on the real sawdust burners. I don't blame Ghosty for not liking this because he likes to grind through each and every possibility and then domit again before deciding. Works for him.
Petie this is no and heres why. say the first game turns into an uptable game and even though the 2 players are playing at a decent pace the game takes an hour. now both players are under pressure to finish out the match because the 1st game ate up a large percentage of their allotted time. There should be no clocks unless the specific player or players are playing slow. Keith
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,994
Someone could write a custom iPad app that is a pool shot clock program. Its located between the two player's chairs. It counts down when the player touches it, and even beeps a warning at 10 seconds. When the shot clock is up, it can automatically go to a 5 minute reserve per game, beeping again every 60 seconds of the reserve time (for example). It can be modified depending on what is deemed to work well, and what is not each tournament.

A relatively cheap solution, because no referee is required to keep the time like they do now in Accustats and TAR matches.

I bet there is even a bunch of iPad apps for chess that can be a starting point.
Now there is a good idea -- for someone else, not me!
 

One Pocket Ghost

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
9,371
I don't blame Ghosty for not liking this because he likes to grind through each and every possibility and then do it again before deciding. Works for him.
Petie, you're my bro, but please don't misrepresent me...what you posted, (which is copied above), is totally incorrect...I strongly stated my feelings about changing (not changing) the One Pocket rules because I am a One Pocket purist and because I revere the game as it is - not because I play slow or - "grind through each and every possibility and then do it again before deciding."...you have never sweated any of my gambling sessions, so you have no legitimate/realistic basis for making that statement...

The reality is, I play at a medium speed (timewise)...I don't "grind through each and every possibility and then do it again before deciding', because I don't have to..reason being, having played One Pocket for 40 yrs. I recognize 90% of my incoming situations and options immediately, resulting in my response also being immediate...

For example, re. speed of play, the last 4 times Dr. Billy (who also plays at a medium speed) and I played, we played about 5 hours each time, and each of those times we played about 10 games - averaging 1/2 hour per game - there were no 1-1/2 hour games, and no 1 hour games....and when I often play John Lavin, Red Shoes owner, who plays a little faster than Billy - we play about 10 games in 4 hours...

Lastly, when John Henderson and I play each other, we also play at a medium speed during our sessions - and we both said as much on this site a year or two ago.

- Ghost
 

piggybank04

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
230
ghost--i was thinking the same thing--most situations come up repeatedly, so usually its a quick decision and execute......i can see if youre in a tough spot to take a little time.......some guys ponder every single shot tho, thats just plain overkill, and theres no reason for it imho.......
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,994
At the recent US Open, Corey had 14 hours to consider his shot when the power went out in the middle of game three vs Orcullo. Mercifully, when the game re-started he just got up and shot -- I was half expecting him to look for another few minutes because that was what he was doing, lol.

On the other hand, Frost won one of his late money round matches out there -- race to three -- in 21 minutes!
 

jrhendy

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
4,704
At the recent US Open, Corey had 14 hours to consider his shot when the power went out in the middle of game three vs Orcullo. Mercifully, when the game re-started he just got up and shot -- I was half expecting him to look for another few minutes because that was what he was doing, lol.

On the other hand, Frost won one of his late money round matches out there -- race to three -- in 21 minutes!
Before they decided to give it up and remove everyone from the room because the lights were not coming back on, he spent at least another hour talking with other players about the layout and shot.

I know Billy I. spent some time looking it over with him.

Funny thing about Corey, the longer he looks, the more aggressive shot he chooses.
 

petie

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
3,314
Petie, you're my bro, but please don't misrepresent me...what you posted, (which is copied above), is totally incorrect...I strongly stated my feelings about changing (not changing) the One Pocket rules because I am a One Pocket purist and because I revere the game as it is - not because I play slow or - "grind through each and every possibility and then do it again before deciding."...you have never sweated any of my gambling sessions, so you have no legitimate/realistic basis for making that statement...

The reality is, I play at a medium speed (timewise)...I don't "grind through each and every possibility and then do it again before deciding', because I don't have to..reason being, having played One Pocket for 40 yrs. I recognize 90% of my incoming situations and options immediately, resulting in my response also being immediate...

For example, re. speed of play, the last 4 times Dr. Billy (who also plays at a medium speed) and I played, we played about 5 hours each time, and each of those times we played about 10 games - averaging 1/2 hour per game - there were no 1-1/2 hour games, and no 1 hour games....and when I often play John Lavin, Red Shoes owner, who plays a little faster than Billy - we play about 10 games in 4 hours...

Lastly, when John Henderson and I play each other, we also play at a medium speed during our sessions - and we both said as much on this site a year or two ago.

- Ghost
Please forgive me, Luke. I was just trying to sound like I knew you well. Having taken a lesson and sweating the doubles match where you and John played Billy and Fred and seen you play flawlessly against Airport Jim, I thought I had a handle on it. It was certainlyV never meant to be a dig. For the record, I don't want any changes either. Any suggestion I might make would be in the spirit of pragmatism having gone along with the tide which seemed to be indicating that we as a website speaking for the elite one pocket players would be suggesting changes to our game for tournament directors to use.

I do have one suggestion. Whatever changes anyone might want to make, they should try them out in a challange type situation first. Don't put them into a real tournament until they have been vetted. E.g. The Ipad as shot clock sounds ideal until you press it twice by mistake or have one of those glitches like when you're typing along at sixty miles an hour and you suddenly notice that your cursor jumped to no man's land a paragraph ago.
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,987
... For example, re. speed of play, the last 4 times Dr. Billy (who also plays at a medium speed) and I played, we played about 5 hours each time, and each of those times we played about 10 games - averaging 1/2 hour per game - there were no 1-1/2 hour games, and no 1 hour games.... ...- Ghost

Ghost, your post caused me to recall the Billy/Artie vs. John H. gambling match in Galveston a few years back. I'd say that both Billy and Hendy play at average to quick speeds. Artie can play at the speed of a grave stone.;)

When it was Artie's turn, Billy would stay still for awhile. But then he'd start pacing all around the area like a caged lemur. He wasn't sharking anybody. He just had to fill his time between shots.:)

BTW, movers are not always slow players. For example Chris Gentile can move with the best of them, but he makes his decisions quickly, and plays right along.

Doc
 

Cory in dc

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Messages
1,518
Two ideas.

1. A combination chess clock / shot clock approach. Each player starts with a bank of time on the chess clock. When the chess clock time runs out, the player goes on a 30 second shot clock. This gives players an incentive to shoot quickly whenever the situation allows, in order to bank their time for when they really need it. But it avoids the dynamic of trying to stretch out games strategically, since you can't win that way, just put your opponent on a clock.

2. Play to a point total that carries over from match to match. So a race to 3 becomes a race to 24 (you go to the next rack when either player reaches 8; you could speed it up by making that 7). Why does this help? Because the single remaining ball at the end of the game is 1/24th of what you need to win instead of 1/3rd. I guess a real grinder would still play that the same way at the end, but I think most players would be more aggressive.

I used the point totals in a handicapped one pocket tournament I used to run, because it was the only way I could come up with a handicap system that was fair but didn't take all night. I couldn't have 5-3 races and get people home, and I didn't want to ever have anyone only needing one game. With ball totals, I could make a match 20-12, 16-16, whatever.


Cory
 
Last edited:

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,994
Before they decided to give it up and remove everyone from the room because the lights were not coming back on, he spent at least another hour talking with other players about the layout and shot.

I know Billy I. spent some time looking it over with him.

Funny thing about Corey, the longer he looks, the more aggressive shot he chooses.
And this proves it :)

 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,413
Two ideas.

1. A combination chess clock / shot clock approach. Each player starts with a bank of time on the chess clock. When the chess clock time runs out, the player goes on a 30 second shot clock. This gives players an incentive to shoot quickly whenever the situation allows, in order to bank their time for when they really need it. But it avoids the dynamic of trying to stretch out games strategically, since you can't win that way, just put your opponent on a clock.

2. Play to a point total that carries over from match to match. So a race to 3 becomes a race to 24 (you go to the next rack when either player reaches 8; you could speed it up by making that 7). Why does this help? Because the single remaining ball at the end of the game is 1/24th of what you need to win instead of 1/3rd. I guess a real grinder would still play that the same way at the end, but I think most players would be more aggressive.

I used the point totals in a handicapped one pocket tournament I used to run, because it was the only way I could come up with a handicap system that was fair but didn't take all night. I couldn't have 5-3 races and get people home, and I didn't want to ever have anyone only needing one game. With ball totals, I could make a match 20-12, 16-16, whatever.


Cory
Your chess clock approach seems like a good and fair way to speed up play, very good.

With your race to 24 as opposed to three races to eight sounds like a good way to judge a players speed, however, it takes away a lot of pressure situations that are stimulating for players and spectators both. Plus, why do you stop when either player reaches eight? Why not play out the entire rack? Is it a time thing? imo playing out the entire rack (15 balls) will help players develop a more solid all around game, however, if you're having a problem with the time it takes to do that, it's understandable.

Dr. Bill
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
Your chess clock approach seems like a good and fair way to speed up play, very good.

With your race to 24 as opposed to three races to eight sounds like a good way to judge a players speed, however, it takes away a lot of pressure situations that are stimulating for players and spectators both. Plus, why do you stop when either player reaches eight? Why not play out the entire rack? Is it a time thing? imo playing out the entire rack (15 balls) will help players develop a more solid all around game, however, if you're having a problem with the time it takes to do that, it's understandable.

Dr. Bill
Bill, If you are going to go that far then why not play the game like straight pool. Play till one player reaches a specified number of balls with a 14.1 format? I'm not serious about this form of One Pocket, I'm just throwing things on the wall. Still, it might be an interesting prop bet.

Tom
 
Top