S. Frost vs. S. Ochoa 2012 Tunica

[Cowboy Dennis]

Scott decided to carom off the 6 ball and pocket the 2 ball.

 

[Tom Wirth]

Tom,

When I first saw this DVD I stopped it before I saw the shot Scott chose, so in that regard I did see the layout as you all did; I didn't see any great shot to shoot before I ever saw what Scott shot. I say I'm biased because it appears that way, that's all.

The only place I see players constantly shoot banks and send the cueball four rails is on this site. I rarely see it on DVD's (about 115 One-Pocket DVD's) and I can only remember one person in my life who routinely shot those type shots. I will also be putting the 9 in a possible path to block that 4-railer with the cueball.

I'll post up Scott's shot in a minute.

Dennis

Dennis, I am surprised the three and four rail position shot isn't used more frequently than that. I have always found it to be a very effective shot for safety purposes and for position on follow-up shots. The shot does require a good feel for the table speed and knowledge of whether the table plays long or short.

I would imagine the player you are referring to might be Efren. He is a great billiard player as you undoubtedly know. I too play a fair amount of billiards and it offers a lot of confidence in shooting these types of shots. I would recommend to anyone who wishes to improve their One Pocket game to learn a few things about three cushion billiards.

The shot Scott choose to shoot is very conservative and I would not criticize his choice. He got a good portion of the job done. He has cleared the problem of the two ball.

Thanks again for the wwyd threads. I think I can speak for all of us that we get a lot out of them.

Tom

 

[wincardona]

Tom, I agree with your answer to the banking of the 9ball cross table by playing the 15ball and swinging 4 cushions around table as a good reply to the shot. Despite the fact that that option (banking the 9ball) was one of my choices, along with the billiard on the 2ball. I disagree with what you say when you said that Frost chose a conservative option. I believe you must consider what options are available, and if there were any aggressive options to choose from, and in this instance there were none. So the option Frost chose Imo was a smart choice, ...and not a conservative one... considering what options were available. If you notice that every option that was available really didn't improve Scott's position, however, pocketing the 2ball did. So if you take a fair look at the situation you would have to agree that this was no time to get aggressive.

Dr. Bill

 

[Tom Wirth]

You're right Bill,
Saying Frost was conservative with his choice of shot isn't accurate given the situation. It is only conservative in relation to the shot I proposed which was as I stated early on a rather aggressive shot. Scott did accomplish what was necessary and that was doing away with the problem of the two ball. When trying to get out of an opponent's break it sometimes takes several innings. Scott had very little to work with in this situation. I guess I just have lost some of my patience and grown more aggressive in my old age.

Tom

 

[wincardona]

You're right Bill,
Saying Frost was conservative with his choice of shot isn't accurate given the situation. It is only conservative in relation to the shot I proposed which was as I stated early on a rather aggressive shot. Scott did accomplish what was necessary and that was doing away with the problem of the two ball. When trying to get out of an opponent's break it sometimes takes several innings. Scott had very little to work with in this situation. I guess I just have lost some of my patience and grown more aggressive in my old age.

Tom

I have grown more conservative in my old age.:lol I actually look to duck first, as opposed to shooting now a days. It's when I look to get aggressive is when I realize that...maybe ducking is right.

Actually Tom, I still play aggressively considering my age and skill set, however, I am more selective when doing so. As you know...it's more fun to play aggressively.

Dr. Bill

 

[Tom Wirth]

I have grown more conservative in my old age.:lol I actually look to duck first, as opposed to shooting now a days. It's when I look to get aggressive is when I realize that...maybe ducking is right.

Actually Tom, I still play aggressively considering my age and skill set, however, I am more selective when doing so. As you know...it's more fun to play aggressively.

Dr. Bill

You got that right, Bill. It is more fun to play the aggressor. Who wants to be looking down the barrel of the gun all the time.

Plus if you can play aggressively and have success you can always fall back on a more conservative game. What is the cliche? "The best defense is a strong offense."

My philosophy has always been to be a little more aggressive on my opponents break then on my own. I figure all else being equal, my opponent has the best of it when he is breaking therefore I don't have as much to lose as when it is my break. Just like if my opponent has me six to one or so I had better be willing to take a few more risks to get back into the game. The converse stands as well of course.

Tom

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

Dennis, I am surprised the three and four rail position shot isn't used more frequently than that. I have always found it to be a very effective shot for safety purposes and for position on follow-up shots. The shot does require a good feel for the table speed and knowledge of whether the table plays long or short.

I would imagine the player you are referring to might be Efren. He is a great billiard player as you undoubtedly know. I too play a fair amount of billiards and it offers a lot of confidence in shooting these types of shots. I would recommend to anyone who wishes to improve their One Pocket game to learn a few things about three cushion billiards.

The shot Scott choose to shoot is very conservative and I would not criticize his choice. He got a good portion of the job done. He has cleared the problem of the two ball.

Thanks again for the wwyd threads. I think I can speak for all of us that we get a lot out of them.

Tom

The player I refer to was a guy I played at the Rack for 10-12 hours one night many moons ago. He said his name was Larry but they called him Baltimore Bullet. A couple guys here mentioned it may have been Buddy Dennis if I recall. I don't know what Buddy looked like so I couldn't say. I remember that Red and John McCue both knew him. He went 3 & 4 rails with the cueball on those banks more than anyone I've ever seen.

I didn't think the 2 ball was a problem when I first saw this break. Like I said, I stopped the DVD and looked at the situation as you all did and I just didn't think Scott had anything aggressive to shoot and I didn't think the 2 was a problem.

Not to prove my point or anything because a shot is either correct or incorrect before it's shot but here's Sylver's reply to Frost's shot. He banked the 12 into the 10 and pocketed it in his hole. If the 12 had missed the 10 it would've hit the 13/3 and separated them. This shot could've easily been seen before Scott shot the 2 in, that's basically my problem with the 2 ball being rolled in.



The 12 was the only ball Sylver got but still, Scott gave up two balls for no good reason that I could see before he shot. Of course, he could have rolled the 9 and turned Sylver loose on that bank with 4-rail positch and maybe Sylver would've ran 7 balls. Who knows.

Here's how he left it:

 

[wincardona]

The player I refer to was a guy I played at the Rack for 10-12 hours one night many moons ago. He said his name was Larry but they called him Baltimore Bullet. A couple guys here mentioned it may have been Buddy Dennis if I recall. I don't know what Buddy looked like so I couldn't say. I remember that Red and John McCue both knew him. He went 3 & 4 rails with the cueball on those banks more than anyone I've ever seen.

I didn't think the 2 ball was a problem when I first saw this break. Like I said, I stopped the DVD and looked at the situation as you all did and I just didn't think Scott had anything aggressive to shoot and I didn't think the 2 was a problem.

Not to prove my point or anything because a shot is either correct or incorrect before it's shot but here's Sylver's reply to Frost's shot. He banked the 12 into the 10 and pocketed it in his hole. If the 12 had missed the 10 it would've hit the 13/3 and separated them. This shot could've easily been seen before Scott shot the 2 in, that's basically my problem with the 2 ball being rolled in.

View attachment 7924

The 12 was the only ball Sylver got but still, Scott gave up two balls for no good reason that I could see before he shot. Of course, he could have rolled the 9 and turned Sylver loose on that bank with 4-rail positch and maybe Sylver would've ran 7 balls. Who knows.

Here's how he left it:

View attachment 7925

Dennis, your point is well taken about the reply to Scott's choice, however, you must acknowledge that there is a reply to all shots. When upper echelon players are competing you are going to see options executed well, that's what makes them special. In this situation had Scott shot his choice harder the cue ball would of been closer to the pocket/rail, which would of precluded Sylver to even choose his shot as an option, and would of had to look else where. I feel that Frost chose the right shot for the situation but didn't hit it as good as he could have. Also something of importance to recognize is, as aggressive as Frost is, to see him play a passive shot and give up a ball to do it should be reason to believe that it was right.

Quite often the shot after the break is a compromise, there's nothing guaranteed. All we can do is evaluate the situation and choose the option that we feel offers us the best chance of escaping a situation. If the reply to our choice is a good one, that doesn't necessarily mean that our choice of options to put our opponent in the situation was a bad one. How many times have you said to yourself..I can't believe he made that shot...Well if he can make that shot often, then..he'll just have to take the pot.

Dr. Bill

 

[Tom Wirth]

Right Dennis,
I have never liked leaving the cue ball naked along the bottom rail in the early innings of a game. With that twelve ball asking to be banked in some manner back toward Ochoa's side of the table Frost opened a door and Ochoa stepped through. Even if the twelve was frozen he could have banked it two rails under the stack and taken the cue ball up table leaving Scott in a tough spot.

Though the two wasn't an immediate threat it did pose a major potential hazzard so I see why Scott would want to do something about it. I still would have liked to see what would have happened had Frost shot the shot I envisioned. An opportunity lost? JMO

This is the beauty of One Pocket. So many decisions to be made. One innocuous shot can turn into a monster which grows bigger and uglier for one player or the other. Got to love it!

Tom

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

This is the beauty of One Pocket. So many decisions to be made. One innocuous shot can turn into a monster which grows bigger and uglier for one player or the other. Got to love it!

Tom

True enough Tom, a "small" shot can morph into a monster shot and a "nothing" shot can cost you. That is part of the game that we all know of & accept.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Dennis

 

[FastEddieF.]

Bad Choice

Bad Choice

Hi Tom,I rather jump off a bridge before not banking the15 ball into the 9 and 11 ball and going 3 rails behind the 3 and 11 balls. I respect Scott's game but IMO he made a mistake.This is the first time you changed your mind on a shot. I'm sure if Scott was just watching the game he would play the banking of the 15 ball.