Bank Ring Games

[shw]

I've watched and participated in several bank ring games in the last few years and I see several issues with the rules.

Safeties are always an issue. As someone in the "Why was John Brumback barred from tournament?" thread said,.. if you just fire at everything the rest of the group will hate you for leaving the guy behind you a lot of easy shots. If you are a little cautious the guy behind you will accuse you of playing safe.

The no-safeties rule can also affect how you shoot. I know I have changed how I wanted to hit a bank because I didn't want it to look like I was playing safe. I've heard others say the same thing.

Then their are the times when there just isn't a bank shot available. Some times this is handled with,..."Well,. .your just screwed. shoot something" but recently Truman is handling this with "Truman decides if there's a shot. If not, the shooter can roll out and the next player gets the option to shoot or pass back". This helps but it's still frustrating when you finally get to the table and are frozen to the side of a ball with no shot.

Another issue is when there are only three players left in the game and two players gang up on the third to run him out. I've seen this once (at least I'm pretty sure that's what was happening) and have heard others complain about it.

I think a reasonable solution for Derby/Tunica type ring games is to just allow the incoming player to have ball in hand for their first shot of each inning. This would eliminate the "safety" and "no shot" issues (mostly) and make it harder for two players to team up on a third.

Also, I think it would make the game more exciting. The audience is there to see bank shots made. Allowing the players to start with ball in hand would lead to more banks being made, longer runs, and I think a generally more exciting game. Of course, the starting number of chips may have to be adjusted to make the game last the required length.

Another option, would be to pay by the rail. 1 chip for a bank, 2 chips for a two rails, 3 chips for a 3 rails, etc... when the bet doubles, it's 2 chips per bank, 4 chips for a 2 rail, 6 chips for a 3 rail, etc.. (any 3 rail or more kick shot just pays whatever the 1 rail bank pays). Some of the local players have been running these type of bank rings games on the side at Michael's and it makes for a good show. .

I don't mind allowing it to turn into a normal bank game with safeties when there are only two people left. Maybe even take the "pay per bank or rail" out of it and just play one game of normal 9 ball bank for all the marbles?

I think a Derby Bank ring game with Ball-in-hand for the first shot of every player's inning, paying per rail, doubling the bet every two games until only two are standing then playing one rack of regular 9 ball bank for all the marbles would be more exciting than what we've seen the last few years.

shw

 

[NH Steve]

I've watched and participated in several bank ring games in the last few years and I see several issues with the rules.

Safeties are always an issue. As someone in the "Why was John Brumback barred from tournament?" thread said,.. if you just fire at everything the rest of the group will hate you for leaving the guy behind you a lot of easy shots. If you are a little cautious the guy behind you will accuse you of playing safe.

The no-safeties rule can also affect how you shoot. I know I have changed how I wanted to hit a bank because I didn't want it to look like I was playing safe. I've heard others say the same thing.

Then their are the times when there just isn't a bank shot available. Some times this is handled with,..."Well,. .your just screwed. shoot something" but recently Truman is handling this with "Truman decides if there's a shot. If not, the shooter can roll out and the next player gets the option to shoot or pass back". This helps but it's still frustrating when you finally get to the table and are frozen to the side of a ball with no shot.

Another issue is when there are only three players left in the game and two players gang up on the third to run him out. I've seen this once (at least I'm pretty sure that's what was happening) and have heard others complain about it.

I think a reasonable solution for Derby/Tunica type ring games is to just allow the incoming player to have ball in hand for their first shot of each inning. This would eliminate the "safety" and "no shot" issues (mostly) and make it harder for two players to team up on a third.

Also, I think it would make the game more exciting. The audience is there to see bank shots made. Allowing the players to start with ball in hand would lead to more banks being made, longer runs, and I think a generally more exciting game. Of course, the starting number of chips may have to be adjusted to make the game last the required length.

Another option, would be to pay by the rail. 1 chip for a bank, 2 chips for a two rails, 3 chips for a 3 rails, etc... when the bet doubles, it's 2 chips per bank, 4 chips for a 2 rail, 6 chips for a 3 rail, etc.. (any 3 rail or more kick shot just pays whatever the 1 rail bank pays). Some of the local players have been running these type of bank rings games on the side at Michael's and it makes for a good show. .

I don't mind allowing it to turn into a normal bank game with safeties when there are only two people left. Maybe even take the "pay per bank or rail" out of it and just play one game of normal 9 ball bank for all the marbles?

I think a Derby Bank ring game with Ball-in-hand for the first shot of every player's inning, paying per rail, doubling the bet every two games until only two are standing then playing one rack of regular 9 ball bank for all the marbles would be more exciting than what we've seen the last few years.

shw

I can tell you have put a lot of thought into these ideas, and you have some good ideas.

As it stands now, they redraw the order periodically, don't they? Of course they might not do it often enough to prevent one player from screwing another (or being overly generous)

I have wondered about a "pass it back" option now and then -- where the incoming player could make the guy that left the shot shoot from there.

The old "push out" rule might be adapted, but a push out is not likely to help the player left in the crappy spot, because if they push out too tough they just get it back and it is still too tough, but if they push out too easy the next guy will shoot it anyway and the guy screwed is still screwed.