One Ball One Pocket

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

But Guys, I just thought of this:
When the cb is froze to the head rail, is it then also played at times that if you foul, you then spot a ball from the table and then you are playing to two balls, and so forth?
If so, is this one of the most popular ways to play the game when the cb is froze to the head rail? I like it better!
thanks, Whitey

 

[NH Steve]

I don’t know about all the rest of you guys, but my number one priority for any rules for this game are to make the game as inviting to play as possible — particularly for new players. That nixes the idea of making the breaker come off the center of the head rail to open.

Of course, any of you can play however you and your opponent agree!

 

[BRLongArm]

I've never played the game anywhere except in California. Yes, the break is more difficult but it is not impossible and can be learned. Try it a few dozen times and see how you do. Intermediate players can learn how to survive the break shot problem. Beginners will suffer, but they will suffer playing this game against anyone who is not a beginner.

What is the purpose of one ball one pocket? Well, it has always been a gambling game, but why are we interested in promulgated official rules? To grow the game, right? Why, then, would we change all the rules up from regular one pocket? Why not keep the rules as close to one pocket as possible?

 

[LuckyLeon]

I second this Amen motion.

OBOP is meant to be fast and deadly (sudden death), which is a large part of its attraction.

Truth be told, players stipulating to tweak the rules has always been an option, but nice to see it made formal on this forum.

So glad to see this fun game getting more attention. Much thanks to Steve, Darmoose, et al.

PS: Can’t wait for the posts re starting at the out hole in golf. Talk about fun.

Wow! I like golf on the snooker table but never thought about this!

 

[lfigueroa]

I don’t know about all the rest of you guys, but my number one priority for any rules for this game are to make the game as inviting to play as possible — particularly for new players. That nixes the idea of making the breaker come off the center of the head rail to open.

Of course, any of you can play however you and your opponent agree!

I think the priority should be to codify the most popular version of the game.

It matters not a wit if you alter the rules and everyone says: "Well, that's special" and continues to go about their bizanaess as always.The game already exists. You can't fly in and make up some idealist version of the game that no one can relate to.

Lou Figueroa

 

[NH Steve]

I think the priority should be to codify the most popular version of the game.

It matters not a wit if you alter the rules and everyone says: "Well, that's special" and continues to go about their bizanaess as always.The game already exists. You can't fly in and make up some idealist version of the game that no one can relate to.

Lou Figueroa

Yes that’s exactly what I’m doing — and I think I’ve done OK, narrowing wording to cover basically two popular versions. Both versions I can now say I have played many games of, since Nick P got me playing the “Sudden Death” version yesterday Maybe you meant to “fly in” to reply to someone else??

 

[lfigueroa]

Yes that’s exactly what I’m doing — and I think I’ve done OK, narrowing wording to cover basically two popular versions. Both versions I can now say I have played many games of, since Nick P got me playing the “Sudden Death” version yesterday Maybe you meant to “fly in” to reply to someone else??

I was responding to you and quoted you appropriately.

You said: “my number one priority for any rules for this game are to make the game as inviting to play as possible”

I suggested there was an alternate priority.

Lou Figueroa

 

[darmoose]

Yes that’s exactly what I’m doing — and I think I’ve done OK, narrowing wording to cover basically two popular versions. Both versions I can now say I have played many games of, since Nick P got me playing the “Sudden Death” version yesterday Maybe you meant to “fly in” to reply to someone else??

Good on you for playing both versions, Steve. I would ask which you preferred, but that just depends on whether you scratched (fouled) more than Nick......

 

[NH Steve]

Good on you for playing both versions, Steve. I would ask which you preferred, but that just depends on whether you scratched (fouled) more than Nick......

It would be easier to write the rules for “Sudden Death”, because there is no score keeping except games won and lost

I’m happy with either — but I’d say I prefer traditional, not Sudden Death. What I like best about starting as if the score is 7-7 in ball count and playing standard One Pocket rules from there is exactly that — it follows standard One Pocket rules. I do think that is significant because I do think the game has an appeal that will introduce more players to One Pocket, and I’m a little concerned about confusion entering the standard One Pocket rules.

You’ve got action with me Sudden Death next time we are together

 

[NH Steve]

I suggested there was an alternate priority.

Me too — by saying “my number one...”

 

[u12armresl]

You can do a few other things I haven't seen mentioned.

Play the ball on the spot and cue ball behind the line, but no one can win or lose the game in the first shot after the break from each player.

Also, you can play break and the pockets are decided after the 1st return shot.

All fouls are played BIH with no other balls but the single ball in play coming onto the table. Never more than the cue ball and object ball on the table. So unless a ball is frozen to a rail with a difficult bank it is usually an automatic loss.

 

[u12armresl]

A lot of the ways I see people posting it played are gaff games which people specifically practice for.

Few local people in my last pool room used to devote hours to the break and possible shots after just waiting to spring this idea of a (one ball one pocket game) on someone that they were wanting to fleece.

 

[LSJohn]

It's not for beginners or the faint of heart, but it can be played as a ring game.

 

[NH Steve]

It's not for beginners or the faint of heart, but it can be played as a ring game.

So you have been part of one of those, or watched it? I've never been in a ring One Pocket game, but I have put some thought in it.

The players that follow are always on the opposite pocket of course...
John Henderson mentioned playing "Liability Snooker" where it sounded like only the previous shooter (the one that "sold out") pays, or did everyone else pay equally, or maybe the player that sold out pays double??
I'm curious how it was played.

I am not fond of ring games in general, because you often at the very least do not get rewarded for laying down a tough situation for the player that follows you. But if a way could be found to mitigate that, I can see the fun and action of ring games that is appealing!

I wonder about something like, when a player makes their pocket, only those players who were on the opposite pocket for that last round of shots would pay the player that scored. Meaning, say there are 5 players in total in the ring game, shooting in this order, and yes in this example with an odd number of players, next time your own turn comes around you are flipping to the other pocket. (That alone sounds like a nightmare in terms of remembering which is your pocket when you get to the table lol. Maybe the ring should only be an even number of players -- especially ahem if those players are seniors lol???)

1. Mitch
2. Jackie
3. darmoose
4. NH Steve
5. BRLongArm

BRLongArm makes the ball in his pocket, so the players who last shot at that same pocket do not pay. I sold out it looks like, so I pay for sure, and maybe I pay double because I "sold out" -- even though Joe made a terrific shot lol. So in that ring, it would just be NH Steve and Jackie that paid, possibly with me paying double?? darmoose and Mitch were both shooting at the same pocket as BR, so they must have done their job -- in fact it is quite possible darmoose laid down a tough situation for me, that led to my failure to 100% defend BR from getting an opportunity for the game winner.

 

[darmoose]

It would be easier to write the rules for “Sudden Death”, because there is no score keeping except games won and lost

I’m happy with either — but I’d say I prefer traditional, not Sudden Death. What I like best about starting as if the score is 7-7 in ball count and playing standard One Pocket rules from there is exactly that — it follows standard One Pocket rules. I do think that is significant because I do think the game has an appeal that will introduce more players to One Pocket, and I’m a little concerned about confusion entering the standard One Pocket rules.

You’ve got action with me Sudden Death next time we are together

Ha ha..........I don't like playing champions, not so much.....................I do have to wonder how you arrive at your preferred version being the "traditional" version though.......... I might also like to try some "option" OP with you......perhaps in Memphis......

 

[darmoose]

So you have been part of one of those, or watched it? I've never been in a ring One Pocket game, but I have put some thought in it.

The players that follow are always on the opposite pocket of course...
John Henderson mentioned playing "Liability Snooker" where it sounded like only the previous shooter (the one that "sold out") pays, or did everyone else pay equally, or maybe the player that sold out pays double??
I'm curious how it was played.

I am not fond of ring games in general, because you often at the very least do not get rewarded for laying down a tough situation for the player that follows you. But if a way could be found to mitigate that, I can see the fun and action of ring games that is appealing!

I wonder about something like, when a player makes their pocket, only those players who were on the opposite pocket for that last round of shots would pay the player that scored. Meaning, say there are 5 players in total in the ring game, shooting in this order, and yes in this example with an odd number of players, next time your own turn comes around you are flipping to the other pocket. (That alone sounds like a nightmare in terms of remembering which is your pocket when you get to the table lol. Maybe the ring should only be an even number of players -- especially ahem if those players are seniors lol???)

1. Mitch
2. Jackie
3. darmoose
4. NH Steve
5. BRLongArm

BRLongArm makes the ball in his pocket, so the players who last shot at that same pocket do not pay. I sold out it looks like, so I pay for sure, and maybe I pay double because I "sold out" -- even though Joe made a terrific shot lol. So in that ring, it would just be NH Steve and Jackie that paid, possibly with me paying double?? darmoose and Mitch were both shooting at the same pocket as BR, so they must have done their job -- in fact it is quite possible darmoose laid down a tough situation for me, that led to my failure to 100% defend BR from getting an opportunity for the game winner.

You get into some LSD or sumtin in houston........................straight OP is hard enough........

 

[crabbcatjohn]

So you have been part of one of those, or watched it? I've never been in a ring One Pocket game, but I have put some thought in it.

The players that follow are always on the opposite pocket of course...
John Henderson mentioned playing "Liability Snooker" where it sounded like only the previous shooter (the one that "sold out") pays, or did everyone else pay equally, or maybe the player that sold out pays double??
I'm curious how it was played.

I am not fond of ring games in general, because you often at the very least do not get rewarded for laying down a tough situation for the player that follows you. But if a way could be found to mitigate that, I can see the fun and action of ring games that is appealing!

I wonder about something like, when a player makes their pocket, only those players who were on the opposite pocket for that last round of shots would pay the player that scored. Meaning, say there are 5 players in total in the ring game, shooting in this order, and yes in this example with an odd number of players, next time your own turn comes around you are flipping to the other pocket. (That alone sounds like a nightmare in terms of remembering which is your pocket when you get to the table lol. Maybe the ring should only be an even number of players -- especially ahem if those players are seniors lol???)

1. Mitch
2. Jackie
3. darmoose
4. NH Steve
5. BRLongArm

BRLongArm makes the ball in his pocket, so the players who last shot at that same pocket do not pay. I sold out it looks like, so I pay for sure, and maybe I pay double because I "sold out" -- even though Joe made a terrific shot lol. So in that ring, it would just be NH Steve and Jackie that paid, possibly with me paying double?? darmoose and Mitch were both shooting at the same pocket as BR, so they must have done their job -- in fact it is quite possible darmoose laid down a tough situation for me, that led to my failure to 100% defend BR from getting an opportunity for the game winner.

Sounds a lot like golf

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

I watched the Seniors on line. And I believe a match was on where they were battling over the last ball. JJ then brought up OB-OP and stated; "can you imagine handicapping this game, with a chuckle", "how tough that would be".

Steve has handicapping this game in his original initial game rule draft. I can imagine handicapping 1 ball, but 2 balls, wow, and 3 would be insane.
But, it is a brilliant idea! Any thing to create some action between players of different skill levels, I am all for!
Whitey

 

[LSJohn]

3 Players works fine. Draw straws for shooting order every game. Both losers pay winner. Each time a player comes to the table, his pocket for that round is the one opposite the pocket the previous player had. Therefore, in a 3-man game, each player's pocket changes every turn. Works fine, and 4 players is even simpler because poscket doesn't change. 5 players back to switch=cheroo. I suspect 5-player will usually be playeed with pretty small stakes. Games go pretty fast, so drawing for shooting order every game seems to keep most players satisfied with the fact that they will sometimes pay on someone else's sellout.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

3 Players works fine. Draw straws for shooting order every game. Both losers pay winner. Each time a player comes to the table, his pocket for that round is the one opposite the pocket the previous player had. Therefore, in a 3-man game, each player's pocket changes every turn. Works fine, and 4 players is even simpler because poscket doesn't change. 5 players back to switch=cheroo. I suspect 5-player will usually be playeed with pretty small stakes. Games go pretty fast, so drawing for shooting order every game seems to keep most players satisfied with the fact that they will sometimes pay on someone else's sellout.

Nicely written and explained!
Whitey