Can't see the forest for the trees.

straightback

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
1,851
From
owensboro, ky
Your last paragraph is very true.

But I believe that it often goes beyond that in that that's all many players have -- the poor fundamentals. Basically what I'm saying is that a lot of guys get by playing 1pocket on knowledge and a bunt stroke. It's never really a problem of their stroke breaking down because it's already broken. (I mean, if we're really being honest :)

If an opponent recognizes that, and they have some knowledge of their own, they can almost fire away at will.

Lou Figueroa

I wholeheartedly agree. I play a style not unlike Danny's and Frost's (this style is dominant in Owensboro except for Varner and a couple others) and I typically size a player's stance and stroke up very carefully. If you are not accustomed to doing this, I would offer you two data points. First, watch the travel of the back hand. Second, get in front of them and intensely follow the white of the ferrule on the stroke delivery. If there is any deviation on the tip, hitches, hiccups or steering, the leave-him-long option might be in play.

This is kind of part and parcel of the new one pocket, where, quite literally, one player bets his stroke and shooting technique are better than the other.
 

jrhendy

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
4,876
From
Placerville, CA
Ego

Ego

I believe many players that play or have played at a fairly high level let their egos get in the way. I know I do.

Most of the local players I match up with run balls and bank better than I do. I am a better defensive player and CAN be more patient, but I often find myself trying to outshoot them. This usually gets me stuck and I then revert to a more patient, defensive game to try and get even or maybe win a game or two.

I am capable of breaking down a good player sometimes, but it seems I would rather be a gofer when I am playing for smaller stakes.

I often shoot what I know is not the right shot for my style of play, and usually hit it bad. Maybe that is my subconscious trying to teach me something. I am getting too stubborn to learn.:lol
 

keoneyo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
2,883
Your last paragraph is very true.

But I believe that it often goes beyond that in that that's all many players have -- the poor fundamentals. Basically what I'm saying is that a lot of guys get by playing 1pocket on knowledge and a bunt stroke. It's never really a problem of their stroke breaking down because it's already broken. (I mean, if we're really being honest :)

If an opponent recognizes that, and they have some knowledge of their own, they can almost fire away at will.

Lou Figueroa

I agree and is a profound statement. I think it happens often that when making a simple safe or small safety move people forget their fundamentals. They push instead of stroke. When watching Varner I noticed that every move no matter how small was used with good stance and follow through. Leaving the cue ball in the perfect position and not in some general area.
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
1,945
I wholeheartedly agree. I play a style not unlike Danny's and Frost's (this style is dominant in Owensboro except for Varner and a couple others) and I typically size a player's stance and stroke up very carefully. If you are not accustomed to doing this, I would offer you two data points. First, watch the travel of the back hand. Second, get in front of them and intensely follow the white of the ferrule on the stroke delivery. If there is any deviation on the tip, hitches, hiccups or steering, the leave-him-long option might be in play.

This is kind of part and parcel of the new one pocket, where, quite literally, one player bets his stroke and shooting technique are better than the other.


I hear what you're saying, but I have played lots of guys with unorthodox deliveries that are still quite accurate when it comes to making balls and laying the CB down.

Lou Figueroa
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
1,945
I believe many players that play or have played at a fairly high level let their egos get in the way. I know I do.

Most of the local players I match up with run balls and bank better than I do. I am a better defensive player and CAN be more patient, but I often find myself trying to outshoot them. This usually gets me stuck and I then revert to a more patient, defensive game to try and get even or maybe win a game or two.

I am capable of breaking down a good player sometimes, but it seems I would rather be a gofer when I am playing for smaller stakes.

I often shoot what I know is not the right shot for my style of play, and usually hit it bad. Maybe that is my subconscious trying to teach me something. I am getting too stubborn to learn.:lol


I think the flip side of that is that we play everyone like they shoot like SF or Efren. At the core of this thread is the notion that maybe they don't all shoot like SF or Efren and that there is leeway to shoot more aggressively.

Lou Figueroa
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
1,945
I agree and is a profound statement. I think it happens often that when making a simple safe or small safety move people forget their fundamentals. They push instead of stroke. When watching Varner I noticed that every move no matter how small was used with good stance and follow through. Leaving the cue ball in the perfect position and not in some general area.


Yes, sometimes there is an issue with forgetfulness but I think it's deeper than that and that many guys come to the table with poor fundamentals to begin with. And they have some level of success because of superior knowledge and that much of the game is played on half the table.

Lou Figueroa
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,343
From
monett missouri
I think the flip side of that is that we play everyone like they shoot like SF or Efren. At the core of this thread is the notion that maybe they don't all shoot like SF or Efren and that there is leeway to shoot more aggressively.

Lou Figueroa

For me, spotting flaws in my opponents' games is not a reason to play more aggressively. Many of the games I lose are the result of my misses, not my opponents' traps or cuing skills.

I have two recent tournament wins against people whom I am not "supposed" to beat. In both cases my recognition of their weaknesses caused me to be more patient and play tighter, waiting for their mistakes rather than looking for aggressive plays that might give me a chance to run balls.

"More aggressive" is matching my own pocketing skills against those of my opponent. That's rarely a good idea for me.
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,326
From
Tucson AZ
Danny Smith


It is what it is, trying to make something else out of it by speculating is only fooling your self. Chris Gentile is a very strong one pocket player, that has never been questioned, but he can be beaten. Gentile is a very smart player and plays to his strengths when able to, however, there are players (believe it or not) who also posses a strong game as well and are allowed and capable of beating strong players in spite of the ..so called traditional correct way to play. What's correct for one isn't necessarily correct for all, you count your money at the end of the match and the player with the most money is the winner..every thing else is just talk. Style of play should be respected regardless of the style you play..to me it's more about winning then..why he lost. It's easy to sit back and be a result player and correct a players play after the match is over, then make assertions on why he lost..or he should of done things differently..blah..blah..blah. Then suggest that the reason he lost is because he was a tired player..really...When it gets to that kind of speculating it should be a ..done deal. period.

Danny Smith is also a very strong player and people are starting to realize that even more today then yesterday, in spite of his..so called..unstable style of play. His game is consistently strong enough to beat players like Darren Appleton, a world champion in every discipline except one pocket, however, he did finish second in the US Open One Pocket Championship to VanBoening in Vegas. He also beat Richie Richeson, quite easily if I remember correctly, certainly no easy task. Richie plays a very strong game and has beaten every top player with the exception of the truly upper echelon players, and we all know who they are. Danny then beat a very strong and upcoming Josh Roberts, who by the way beat Chris Gentile, and he also played Justin Hall to a stand still.:eek: Josh is no joke and neither is Hall. Jeremy Jones is considered technically to be one of the strongest movers in the game, Jeremy gave Richeson 9/8 in Kty. and beat him easily, he also gave Josh Roberts 9/8 in Vegas and again won easily, however, when he played Danny, again, Danny won easily. In 2013 at the Derby Jeremy tried to give Danny 9/8 and lost, no contest. But for some strange reason all of this went seemingly unnoticed, maybe it's because Danny plays an unorthodox type of game..or maybe it's because all of his opponents play...supposedly.. a more solid game.:confused: Or just maybe we ..can't see the forest for the trees.

Dr. Bill

I think Chris played as bad a game as he is capable of!!!! Dan played a poor strategic game of one pocket. I do not think Danny's game is the game of the future in one pocket. I hope Danny plays Scott, it will be very interesting. Keith
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
16,466
From
vero beach fl
i heard that danny played chris at DCC
if thats true does anyone know how they played and who won??
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,591
From
Dallas Tx.
I think Chris played as bad a game as he is capable of!!!! Dan played a poor strategic game of one pocket. I do not think Danny's game is the game of the future in one pocket. I hope Danny plays Scott, it will be very interesting. Keith

Keith,i'm not saying that Danny's game is one that we should model our game off of, that would be a mistake because he plays a very volatile game for the majority of players that play one pocket. However, Danny plays this game as good as I've seen it played by anyone, it's not as reckless as most believe it is because he has honed his skills to play this type of game to near perfection. This should have been evidenced with all the victories that he was able to accomplish in the last nine months, beating top players the likes of Jeremy Jones, Josh Roberts, Richie Richeson, Darren Appleton, and then finally Chris Gentile.

Danny plays a great cue ball to go along with his power game, that's what makes his game as strong as it is. Danny has a fascinating imagination and is able to execute it the way he envisions it, that's what makes certain people just more dangerous than others. He needs to be mentally and physically prepared, and needs to be hitting the balls well to execute his game the way he has, however, if he does then he's going to be very difficult to beat. It's going to take an upper echelon player to do it. Frost, Pagulayan, Orcullio. Reyes.

Chris couldn't hold Danny because he couldn't come with the difficult shots that Danny kept leaving him, and he was forced to shoot to defend the positions he was left in. Yes we would of liked to have seen Chris do well because he plays the brand of one pocket that we all strive to play, and for him to lose kinda makes one feel that we are modeling our game off of the wrong players.. not true. There are not too many players that can emulate Danny's style and be an efficient player but you must give him his just dues, he's earned it.

Danny and Chris played at the Derby, Chris was getting a spot of 9/8. After 20 hours of play Danny was up nine games. Chris came back the nine games and won six games in the next eight hours. I personally put more emphasis on the first twenty hours of play, than the last eight hours. Which to me makes perfect sense. They played even in Chicago and Danny won easily, maybe it will turn around the next time they play..if they ever do, but I don't see that happening.

We are watching Danny play his game very well and in doing so he's winning, but there may come a time when he starts dogging it and then things will turn around but I don't expect that to happen any time soon he's just playing too well at this time.

Dr. Bill
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
931
Danny Smith

Danny Smith

The one thing that separates Danny from all the top players is his cue ball. Even his detractors must admit that he controls his cue expertly while on offense. While all the top pros control whitey when moving, Danny does it when he is shooting shots we would all turn down. When you can control your cue with aggressive stack shots and multi-rail banks, you can put heat on your opponent that we rarely see. Like Billy says, few players can emulate this style of play because we have all learned to limit our mistakes and let the opponent shoot the flyers.

When Danny's opponents implement the traditional one pocket strategy, they just fall further and further behind in the development of the table until either they make a mistake, or Danny makes one of those shots and runs out. After a few hours of the same result, the player gets frustrated and starts shooting at flyers. But that is not his game, and that accelerates what was slow death into quick death. Only Josh Roberts hung tough, but even he was eventually worn down.
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,326
From
Tucson AZ
Keith,i'm not saying that Danny's game is one that we should model our game off of, that would be a mistake because he plays a very volatile game for the majority of players that play one pocket. However, Danny plays this game as good as I've seen it played by anyone, it's not as reckless as most believe it is because he has honed his skills to play this type of game to near perfection. This should have been evidenced with all the victories that he was able to accomplish in the last nine months, beating top players the likes of Jeremy Jones, Josh Roberts, Richie Richeson, Darren Appleton, and then finally Chris Gentile.

Danny plays a great cue ball to go along with his power game, that's what makes his game as strong as it is. Danny has a fascinating imagination and is able to execute it the way he envisions it, that's what makes certain people just more dangerous than others. He needs to be mentally and physically prepared, and needs to be hitting the balls well to execute his game the way he has, however, if he does then he's going to be very difficult to beat. It's going to take an upper echelon player to do it. Frost, Pagulayan, Orcullio. Reyes.

Chris couldn't hold Danny because he couldn't come with the difficult shots that Danny kept leaving him, and he was forced to shoot to defend the positions he was left in. Yes we would of liked to have seen Chris do well because he plays the brand of one pocket that we all strive to play, and for him to lose kinda makes one feel that we are modeling our game off of the wrong players.. not true. There are not too many players that can emulate Danny's style and be an efficient player but you must give him his just dues, he's earned it.

Danny and Chris played at the Derby, Chris was getting a spot of 9/8. After 20 hours of play Danny was up nine games. Chris came back the nine games and won six games in the next eight hours. I personally put more emphasis on the first twenty hours of play, than the last eight hours. Which to me makes perfect sense. They played even in Chicago and Danny won easily, maybe it will turn around the next time they play..if they ever do, but I don't see that happening.

We are watching Danny play his game very well and in doing so he's winning, but there may come a time when he starts dogging it and then things will turn around but I don't expect that to happen any time soon he's just playing too well at this time.

Dr. Bill

Bill, i hear everything you are saying but I'm still saying the results of the match are not the result of Dans outstanding play but rather the result of Chris's weak play. I wasn't routing for Chris, I was just watching to see 2 good players match up. If Dan played the way he did against Scott, Alex or Efrin i think he loses. If he does match up against one of those players hopefully you and i can make a small wager. Thanks for your imput. Professor Keith
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,326
From
Tucson AZ
Keith,i'm not saying that Danny's game is one that we should model our game off of, that would be a mistake because he plays a very volatile game for the majority of players that play one pocket. However, Danny plays this game as good as I've seen it played by anyone, it's not as reckless as most believe it is because he has honed his skills to play this type of game to near perfection. This should have been evidenced with all the victories that he was able to accomplish in the last nine months, beating top players the likes of Jeremy Jones, Josh Roberts, Richie Richeson, Darren Appleton, and then finally Chris Gentile.

Danny plays a great cue ball to go along with his power game, that's what makes his game as strong as it is. Danny has a fascinating imagination and is able to execute it the way he envisions it, that's what makes certain people just more dangerous than others. He needs to be mentally and physically prepared, and needs to be hitting the balls well to execute his game the way he has, however, if he does then he's going to be very difficult to beat. It's going to take an upper echelon player to do it. Frost, Pagulayan, Orcullio. Reyes.

Chris couldn't hold Danny because he couldn't come with the difficult shots that Danny kept leaving him, and he was forced to shoot to defend the positions he was left in. Yes we would of liked to have seen Chris do well because he plays the brand of one pocket that we all strive to play, and for him to lose kinda makes one feel that we are modeling our game off of the wrong players.. not true. There are not too many players that can emulate Danny's style and be an efficient player but you must give him his just dues, he's earned it.

Danny and Chris played at the Derby, Chris was getting a spot of 9/8. After 20 hours of play Danny was up nine games. Chris came back the nine games and won six games in the next eight hours. I personally put more emphasis on the first twenty hours of play, than the last eight hours. Which to me makes perfect sense. They played even in Chicago and Danny won easily, maybe it will turn around the next time they play..if they ever do, but I don't see that happening.

We are watching Danny play his game very well and in doing so he's winning, but there may come a time when he starts dogging it and then things will turn around but I don't expect that to happen any time soon he's just playing too well at this time.

Dr. Bill

Dr Bill, i still don't think dannys game is at the top level, as i believe you do. i still feel he plays reckless and was lucky chris was way off his game. But the make it happen event will give us a better idea of his abilities. i propose you and i bet $100. on the event. i say danny will not finish in the top 3 in the event. do we have a bet. We can settle up by paypal or by mail. Keith
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,591
From
Dallas Tx.
Dr Bill, i still don't think dannys game is at the top level, as i believe you do. i still feel he plays reckless and was lucky chris was way off his game. But the make it happen event will give us a better idea of his abilities. i propose you and i bet $100. on the event. i say danny will not finish in the top 3 in the event. do we have a bet. We can settle up by paypal or by mail. Keith

Keith, Danny is probably the weakest player in the tournament, there are four other players in the tournament that are arguably the top four players in the world. Danny's playing at a level under the best players but slightly over all the other players like Richeson, Gentile, Compton, Roberts, and Jones. When Danny was beating every one he was playing during that stretch he was playing top level one pocket, since then his game has dropped some what but imo he is still over the players that he beat during that stretch.

I agree with you, Danny doesn't figure to finish in the top three. In a six man round robin there figures to be several players with the same record, like 2 wins 4 losses. Or maybe 3 wins 3 losses, too many possibilities of a tie for the top three. Then we would have to go into tie breakers and I really don't want to try to figure that out.

I believe that the right number of games Danny figures to win is two games. I believe his record will be four losses and two wins, which then imo he wont make the top three.

I'll take $120 to $100 he wins two games, or i'll let you take $120 to $100 he wins two games. I'll lay $200 to $100 he doesn't win three games, or i'll take $200 to $100 he does win three games.. you choose for a sweat bet.

Dr. Bill
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,326
From
Tucson AZ
Keith, Danny is probably the weakest player in the tournament, there are four other players in the tournament that are arguably the top four players in the world. Danny's playing at a level under the best players but slightly over all the other players like Richeson, Gentile, Compton, Roberts, and Jones. When Danny was beating every one he was playing during that stretch he was playing top level one pocket, since then his game has dropped some what but imo he is still over the players that he beat during that stretch.

I agree with you, Danny doesn't figure to finish in the top three. In a six man round robin there figures to be several players with the same record, like 2 wins 4 losses. Or maybe 3 wins 3 losses, too many possibilities of a tie for the top three. Then we would have to go into tie breakers and I really don't want to try to figure that out.

I believe that the right number of games Danny figures to win is two games. I believe his record will be four losses and two wins, which then imo he wont make the top three.

I'll take $120 to $100 he wins two games, or i'll let you take $120 to $100 he wins two games. I'll lay $200 to $100 he doesn't win three games, or i'll take $200 to $100 he does win three games.. you choose for a sweat bet.

Dr. Bill

Dear Doctor, I don't like any of the bets you are offering so i have to pass. I just thought you were very excited by Dannys style and his game a few months ago and i thought you would have liked him to finish in the top half of the field. we will do something with Danny in the future. Keith
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
10,751
From
Gulfport, Mississippi
...

I agree with you, Danny doesn't figure to finish in the top three. In a six man round robin there figures to be several players with the same record, like 2 wins 4 losses. Or maybe 3 wins 3 losses, too many possibilities of a tie for the top three. Then we would have to go into tie breakers and I really don't want to try to figure that out.

...Dr. Bill
It's a six man event, round robin, but they're only playing each other 1 game?! The word "bizarre" comes to mind...:rolleyes: The Accustats notice only says "Round Robin", without indicating anything else. Surely they're playing races to 3, or at least to 13 balls or something similar. If it's only one game, luck is going to be a large factor in this event.

~Doc
 

petie

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
3,314
From
Citrus Springs, FL
It's a six man event, round robin, but they're only playing each other 1 game?! The word "bizarre" comes to mind...:rolleyes: The Accustats notice only says "Round Robin", without indicating anything else. Surely they're playing races to 3, or at least to 13 balls or something similar. If it's only one game, luck is going to be a large factor in this event.

~Doc

I'm with you, Doc. They must mean 'one race.' One game wouldn't be much better than a coin flip.
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,591
From
Dallas Tx.
It's a six man event, round robin, but they're only playing each other 1 game?! The word "bizarre" comes to mind...:rolleyes: The Accustats notice only says "Round Robin", without indicating anything else. Surely they're playing races to 3, or at least to 13 balls or something similar. If it's only one game, luck is going to be a large factor in this event.

~Doc

It's a race to three in a round robin format, luck will play a role in a short race to three, however, racing to three at the Derby City Classic has proven that luck doesn't play as big of a role as one would suspect. Look at the photo banners of the players that have won the one pocket the next time you're at the Derby, just seems that the luckiest players are the most skilled players.:heh

Accu-Stats would love it if we had the time to play a race to four or five but with only one table and 15 matches to play (16 with the finals)in four days, there aren't enough hours in the day to finish the tournament in the time allotted. Again, imo, not as much luck as one might think.;)

Dr. Bill
 
Top