Analytics in One Pocket

baby huey

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,699
After watching a lot of Baseball and then Pro Football recently, I got to thinking what kind of ANALYTICS could be applied to Pool more specifically One Pocket? Being a decent player, I could think of several situations where Analytics might work. Examples might be sending the cueball up table and letting your opponent shoot at his hole especially if he were an average or poor ball pocketer. Also the type of safeties you might consider against an opponent who struggles with safety play. How about you guys?
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,572
its math based you need to know your 's and his % of doing things.

you cant send him up table for a long shot unless you know how often he takes that shot or shoots something else. and what his chances of making it and the costs of his making it to you. and what you gain if he doesnt.

after playing enough you do get a feel for it in general but not on specific situations.

if you cant do that then you cant make the right decisions, and just are winging it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lll

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,347
Hypothetical 1: You have a short rail bank to your pocket. You cannot play a two way shot. You also have a good safety. We usually analyze this on the "don't sell out credo". But the new players have analyzed it differently. They say "I make the ball 80% of the time, and if I make it, I'll get at least 5 more balls. So Expressed as a number I will get 6 balls 80% of the time, or 4.8 balls with the offensive shot. If I miss the 1 in 5 times, I will give up the game. So I give up 8 balls 20% of the time, or 1.6 balls. Obviously, they have to shoot. This is why offense has taken over in one pocket. We grew up trying to give up no balls, but the new players know they can't hold the pros down forever, so they have to match fire with fire and take their chances to win when they are there. If you won't make 6 balls if you make it, your calculus is obviously different.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,347
Hypothetical 2: You have one ball left on the table. If you long rail to your pocket, the cue ball leaves a return cross bank if the object ball doesn't drop. So you have to make it or shoot it so hard that it clears the banking area. This will decrease your accuracy. What do analytics say? You will make it about 1 in 6 times at a normal speed and you will leave a cross bank 4 in 6 times, which gets made half the time. What do you do?

Pass. You make it 1 in 6, and 4 times you leave a cross bank, which gets made half the time (2 of 6). You lose twice as much as you win. Play safe.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,347
Hypothetical 3: You have a long straight shot that you will make about half the time. If you miss, you don't leave a shot, but he gets to move the stack to his side, which will change the momentum of the game. What do you do?

See, one pocket players have been playing analytics before they were cool. Every shot you decide is a cost benefit analysis, risk reward determination. Now we may not have broken it down to bare mathematical computations, but we are always weighing those things in our heads. And when we see people shoot the wrong shot, it is based on thousands of games and seeing what works and what doesn't work.
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,572
also you have to add in what happens if you choose the safe shot. as you pass your turn to him and if that safe doesnt increase your game winning chances it increases his. so you have to factor in that as well.
 

unoperro

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
2,138
also you have to add in what happens if you choose the safe shot. as you pass your turn to him and if that safe doesnt increase your game winning chances it increases his. so you have to factor in that as well.
You can't make that as general rule or to play safe would always be playing to lose. We all know better then that , don't we?
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,572
what i said above is entirely accurate. you may not be understanding it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lll

unoperro

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
2,138
what i said above is entirely accurate. you may not be understanding it.
I apologize as I didn't comprehend your post correctly. You didn't say playing safe was playing to lose. You did say if the safe doesn't improve your position it improves your opponents. So that can be a analytical situation where one has to choose the lesser of 2 evils , or at best buy some time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lll

BrookelandBilly

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
317
From
Fair Oaks Ranch, Texas
Hypothetical 2: You have one ball left on the table. If you long rail to your pocket, the cue ball leaves a return cross bank if the object ball doesn't drop. So you have to make it or shoot it so hard that it clears the banking area. This will decrease your accuracy. What do analytics say? You will make it about 1 in 6 times at a normal speed and you will leave a cross bank 4 in 6 times, which gets made half the time. What do you do?

Pass. You make it 1 in 6, and 4 times you leave a cross bank, which gets made half the time (2 of 6). You lose twice as much as you win. Play safe.
Are you describing a shot down your long rail to your hole or a bank from your opponents long rail to your hole?
 

Billy Jackets

Verified Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
2,227
I used to bring these points up in the WWYD's, and an awful lot of people told me it didn't matter. and they are somewhat right . It doesn't much matter, when playing one of the top 10 in the world , but it sure does matter playing the majority of the one pocket players who sometimes miss. I can think of an example, from a shot Dennis O made , right off the top of my head.
I am sure there are many more.
The opponent left him dead straight in and he had to go long rail first to come out 1/8th inch to make the object ball in the corner 2 feet away , then went 2 feet with follow and either got a kiss or something weird happened, to the bottom rail, for position on a ball ,I don't think anyone thought he could get on.
After he made it , everyone said you just can't give up any shots no matter how tough , because they make them , baloney. I think Dennis shot the sucker shot and just happened to hit it great. If I was going in the same pool room as he was , I would let him shoot it for money every few days {of course he isn't dumb enough to go for that} but you know what I mean.
It was a freak shot,
He made it, and I think he ran out , but I am giving that shot up, all day long, every day, to anyone who hasn't proven to me, they can make it consistently.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,347
So then you make it, or hang it, or leave a cross rail or a three railer (head rail-long rail-foot rail) unless you just bang the hell out of it an take your chances.
That's fine, but that's not analytics. Analytics means shooting the percentage shot every time. It doesn't work unless you adhere to it. You won't pass up the shot and that is your prerogative, but it may explain why you lose more than you win in that spot if you are 5-1 to make the long rail.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,347
I used to bring these points up in the WWYD's, and an awful lot of people told me it didn't matter. and they are somewhat right . It doesn't much matter, when playing one of the top 10 in the world , but it sure does matter playing the majority of the one pocket players who sometimes miss. I can think of an example, from a shot Dennis O made , right off the top of my head.
I am sure there are many more.
The opponent left him dead straight in and he had to go long rail first to come out 1/8th inch to make the object ball in the corner 2 feet away , then went 2 feet with follow and either got a kiss or something weird happened, to the bottom rail, for position on a ball ,I don't think anyone thought he could get on.
After he made it , everyone said you just can't give up any shots no matter how tough , because they make them , baloney. I think Dennis shot the sucker shot and just happened to hit it great. If I was going in the same pool room as he was , I would let him shoot it for money every few days {of course he isn't dumb enough to go for that} but you know what I mean.
It was a freak shot,
He made it, and I think he ran out , but I am giving that shot up, all day long, every day, to anyone who hasn't proven to me, they can make it consistently.
I remember that shot. It was against Scott Frost in February, 2017 or so in Wisconsin. As I remember, Scott had put a power return on Dennis' opening shot and left him in a dead trap, with the cue on the top rail, doubled up and Scott had 8 or 9 balls near his pocket. Dennis did not have a safe in that spot. But the felt was new and slick and he took his chances and ran out.
 

BrookelandBilly

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
317
From
Fair Oaks Ranch, Texas
That's fine, but that's not analytics. Analytics means shooting the percentage shot every time. It doesn't work unless you adhere to it. You won't pass up the shot and that is your prerogative, but it may explain why you lose more than you win in that spot if you are 5-1 to make the long rail.
The variables are infinite and are subject to internal and external factors that can abruptly change during a match. Do I want to attempt a high percentage shot or do I want to manipulate the object ball and cue ball to eventually get myself a higher percentage shot out of my opponent! That’s a rhetorical statement.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,347
The hypothetical said you make the long rail bank one out of six times. That's not high percentage. And in that spot, you should wait for a shot that doesn't sell out. If you have a higher percentage making the bank, it changes the calculus, of course. Expressed as math, you make it 16.67% of the time, and you lose 33% of the time on the next shot. The math says wait for a better shot.
 

BrookelandBilly

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
317
From
Fair Oaks Ranch, Texas
The hypothetical said you make the long rail bank one out of six times. That's not high percentage. And in that spot, you should wait for a shot that doesn't sell out. If you have a higher percentage making the bank, it changes the calculus, of course. Expressed as math, you make it 16.67% of the time, and you lose 33% of the time on the next shot. The math says wait for a better shot.
My sentiments exactly.
 

baby huey

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,699
It makes sense to play to the percentages and or math as previously mentioned. I liked the long rail straight back and how often it’s made or left an easy cross corner. Lord knows we’ve all done that many times. I watched the baseball playoffs and World Series and saw the Analytics blow up so many times. In pool it’s so hard to stay in the moment and shoot the “correct shot” all the time. And then have to execute it well all the time. Playing it safe is not analytical in an of itself. Playing to your opponents weaknesses consistently is. Finding the weaknesses first IMO is the key to the analytics working.
 
Top