Statistics showing the break has minimal effect on game outcome

[jalapus logan]

If one doesn't gamble, the question comes down to plain curiosity. If one does gamble and doesn't care, maybe that means he's never going to negotiate a handicap anyway, either way, so difference does it make?

I guess it doesn't matter much either way. I'm just a curious sort I suppose.

 

[LSJohn]

Good guess: .575 X 21 = 12.075; .425 X 21 = 8.925[/QUOTE

Or 12/21= 57.14. 09/21= 42.85

Meaning 57.14 - 42.85 = 14.39% in favor of the breaker... is that correct?

Yes, that's the way I would say it.

 

[LSJohn]

I guess it doesn't matter much either way. I'm just a curious sort I suppose.

Oh, me too, I was commenting on Brookeland's lack of interest.

 

[jalapus logan]

Oh, me too, I was commenting on Brookeland's lack of interest.

Roger that. I'm also wondering why Mike Page hasn't focused his fargorate system on onepocket yet. I'm intrigued with his methods and I think it would be good for all for the cue games potentially.

 

[baby huey]

Isn't it interesting that we all know that having the break is an advantage but to statistically figure out how much an advantage is the difficult part. Too me, the table conditions might be the key to this problem. Lastly, when the ball counts when pocketed on the break, that would add statistically to the breakers advantage percentage wise.

 

[Billy Jackets]

I may have missed someone else saying this , but there is another factor to the statistics , if the player who is giving up the break knows how to cheat the rack and the guy breaking doesn't know he's getting slugged, the break can be a huge disadvantage.
I played ok one pocket and a pretty good player offered me several balls and the break , I thought I was stealing.
After I scratched on the break 4 times in a row, and he ran a bunch of balls every time or got out, I realised I had gone sailing.
I didn't know about moving down on the rack because not much one pocket was played back then, and even if I had , I am sure once I moved down, the game was over.

 

[Jeff sparks]

Someone suggested reviewing past matches between players of equal or very near equal skills...I would gladly do this if I had access to the matches suggested, I would enjoy watching them and counting the total wins by the breaking player while trying to pick up a few pointers along the way...

Imo, this would be a very accurate way to establish a percentage value to the break if the case study was done over at least a couple of hundred games between players of equal skill..

I’m curious too...

 

[LSJohn]

Someone suggested reviewing past matches between players of equal or very near equal skills...I would gladly do this if I had access to the matches suggested, I would enjoy watching them and counting the total wins by the breaking player while trying to pick up a few pointers along the way...

Imo, this would be a very accurate way to establish a percentage value to the break if the case study was done over at least a couple of hundred games between players of equal skill..

I’m curious too...

Lemme get this straight:

You're volunteering to do a scientific statistical study if I send you 50-75 match DVDs?

Er, thanks anyway. :heh

Actually. now that I think about it, I might go for it. I have 100 on a shelf gathering dust and rarely make reference to any of them.

I won't be back where they are until about Mar 5, but pm me your address and I'll pick out 40 or 50 to send you then. I can get them back next time I'm in Houston.

 

[Jeff sparks]

Lemme get this straight:

You're volunteering to do a scientific statistical study if I send you 50-75 match DVDs?

Er, thanks anyway. :heh

Actually. now that I think about it, I might go for it. I have 100 on a shelf gathering dust and rarely make reference to any of them.

I won't be back where they are until about Mar 5, but pm me your address and I'll pick out 40 or 50 to send you then. I can get them back next time I'm in Houston.

No John, I’m not...

I was bluffing... Thought I might Tom Sawyer someone into volunteering though...:lol:lol

Someone with the actual matches referenced in the previous posts could actually rip through them fast forwarding in an hour or so...

 

[LSJohn]

No John, I’m not...

I was bluffing... Thought I might Tom Sawyer someone into volunteering though...:lol:lol

Someone with the actual matches referenced in the previous posts could actually rip through them fast forwarding in an hour or so...

Oh, you mean like.................................................. moi?

Oops. I suddenly forgot where I stored those DVDs.

 

[NH Steve]

No John, I’m not...

I was bluffing... Thought I might Tom Sawyer someone into volunteering though...:lol:lol

Someone with the actual matches referenced in the previous posts could actually rip through them fast forwarding in an hour or so...

If I am looking for certain things -- like end games with only a ball or two -- even on youtube you can fast forward. For One Pocket sometimes it still isn't that fast shot to shot. What I really notice is how the balls screech to a stop lol. It helps to turn the volume down too

 

[baby huey]

Nice JEFF, you are our TOM SAWYER. I can hardly wait to see you with your paint bucket and brushes.

 

[AtLarge]

Firstly, thanks to member Atlarge for compiling these statistics. Wish we had an army of folks like him. It's sure hard to fire off opinions when faced with hard facts, lol. ...

Thanks, JL. I haven't been back over here in a couple weeks, so I just now saw this thread.

As has been noted, the 53% figure was for just 59 games in 16 short races to 3. Results from the limited number of streamed matches at DCC events vary widely from year to year.

So I also looked at results (referenced by NH Steve) for the streamed matches I watched at the last 10 DCC and Southern Classic events. The breaker-won percentage (for the games for which I have that information) varied from 41% to 84% over those 10 events. Small numbers can produce atypical results. But in total it was 389 games in 97 matches, and the breaker won 56% of those games, or about 5 wins for every 4 losses.

As to the skill levels of the players, DCC tries to pick good matches with top-notch players for the stream each round. Success in that objective varies, of course.

The Accu-Stats Make It Happen events are small fields with all top-notch players. The breaker-won percentage in the last 3 (2017, 2016, and 2015) MIH events was 66%, 61%, and 52%. Aggregating those 3 events, we have the breaker winning 60% of the 243 games.

 

[lll]

Thanks, JL. I haven't been back over here in a couple weeks, so I just now saw this thread.

As has been noted, the 53% figure was for just 59 games in 16 short races to 3. Results from the limited number of streamed matches at DCC events vary widely from year to year.

So I also looked at results (referenced by NH Steve) for the streamed matches I watched at the last 10 DCC and Southern Classic events. The breaker-won percentage (for the games for which I have that information) varied from 41% to 84% over those 10 events. Small numbers can produce atypical results. But in total it was 389 games in 97 matches, and the breaker won 56% of those games, or about 5 wins for every 4 losses.

As to the skill levels of the players, DCC tries to pick good matches with top-notch players for the stream each round. Success in that objective varies, of course.

The Accu-Stats Make It Happen events are small fields with all top-notch players. The breaker-won percentage in the last 3 (2017, 2016, and 2015) MIH events was 66%, 61%, and 52%. Aggregating those 3 events, we have the breaker winning 60% of the 243 games.

atlarge thanks alot for adding the additional results
a 60% advantage for the breaker sound closer to conventional wisdom

 

[beatle]

that would be for top run out players that can immediately capitalize on a superior position.

if i played dead even with a guy and he wanted to lay 3 to 2 on the money and break, i would own his house in a week.
same would anyone else.

 

[Jeff sparks]

Thanks, JL. I haven't been back over here in a couple weeks, so I just now saw this thread.

As has been noted, the 53% figure was for just 59 games in 16 short races to 3. Results from the limited number of streamed matches at DCC events vary widely from year to year.

So I also looked at results (referenced by NH Steve) for the streamed matches I watched at the last 10 DCC and Southern Classic events. The breaker-won percentage (for the games for which I have that information) varied from 41% to 84% over those 10 events. Small numbers can produce atypical results. But in total it was 389 games in 97 matches, and the breaker won 56% of those games, or about 5 wins for every 4 losses.



As to the skill levels of the players, DCC tries to pick good matches with top-notch players for the stream each round. Success in that objective varies, of course.

The Accu-Stats Make It Happen events are small fields with all top-notch players. The breaker-won percentage in the last 3 (2017, 2016, and 2015) MIH events was 66%, 61%, and 52%. Aggregating those 3 events, we have the breaker winning 60% of the 243 games.

Thanks AtLarge,
That sure tells a tale about when high level pros play each other... an amazing 20% advantage for the breaking player!!! 146/243 = 60%. 97/243 = 40%
60% - 40% = an amazing 20% edge went to the breaking player...

It stands to reason though, the higher skill sets neutralize each other during the ensuing game, so the opening break means a lot in terms of an insurmountable lead between players with exceptional ability...

Not sure how this stat would play out among lesser skilled players with equal skill sets, but I would think it would be above 10%...

And it also proves that the percentage garnered from random matches where the skill sets of the players was all over the chart, the win percentage of the breaking player is drastically reduced, simply because the stronger player will tend to break serve on the weaker player more often, thereby skewing the stats to a much lower percentage...

Thanks again AtLarge. That was interesting, and informative....

Now assigning a ball value to the break between equally skilled players has some basis in fact, although it could be refined even further with a larger case study...say like a 1000 games... .

 

[LSJohn]

that would be for top run out players that can immediately capitalize on a superior position.

if i played dead even with a guy and he wanted to lay 3 to 2 on the money and break, i would own his house in a week.
same would anyone else.

Right, he'd be giving you double what 60/40 would be: you're only giving up the break in half the games.

 

[#Cruncher]

While the win rate of the breaker may not be 60%, I’m fairly confident that it’s over 55%.

 

[baby huey]

Since we are revisiting this post, think about the break in another way. Let's say the break is worth only one ball on average. If the skill level of both players is comparable then now that I have that one ball, in order for me to lose the game, you have to beat me 8/6 instead of 8/7. The 8/7 is the margin to win if playing even up and all the balls are used. That's a pretty high percentage.

 

[Jeff sparks]

Since we are revisiting this post, think about the break in another way. Let's say the break is worth only one ball on average. If the skill level of both players is comparable then now that I have that one ball, in order for me to lose the game, you have to beat me 8/6 instead of 8/7. The 8/7 is the margin to win if playing even up and all the balls are used. That's a pretty high percentage.

So if you and I actually were equally skilled and played to a draw over many sessions, then if I were to spot you the break, according to your thinking, you would have to spot me 8/7 to make it an even game again... correct?

In theory, if the break was worth 1 ball, this would stand to reason if the players were of equal skill...

So if you had to play a set for your life, and you were given the choice, which side of it would you take? Would you take 8/7 and give up the breaks, or take all the breaks and give up 8/7?

One consideration might be the total ball count over several hundred games... I would think the breaking player tends to win by a larger margin of balls per game simply because he usually gets the first shot...

Sometimes the non breaking player just cannot escape the break, and for this reason, I would choose to take the break and give up a ball...

What’s your thinking?