One Ball One Pocket

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
2,143
Never played a single solitary game of this shit but if its called one ball one pocket, there should never be more than one ball on the table, IMO.

Lou Figueroa
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
2,143
I also like the idea of basic rules of One Pocket applying, except starting with one ball.

If you wanted to rush it and still keep it simple then yeah, you could play “Sudden Death” One Ball 1P — where any scratch or foul is loss of game. But please NOT a loss if the ball goes in a neutral pocket — that would be a completely different game!

You can owe one and put a penny up...

Lou Figueroa
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
10,860
From
New Hampshire
You can owe one and put a penny up...

Lou Figueroa
Yes I’ve never seen it played that way — not that that means much lol. But that wouldn’t be “sudden death” lol. From following this thread I got the impression putting a coin up is what some players have been doing, It does keep just one ball on the table which makes sense in a way. But it — as sudden death would also — conflicts with standard 1P end game.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
10,860
From
New Hampshire
Never played a single solitary game of this shit but if its called one ball one pocket, there should never be more than one ball on the table, IMO.

Lou Figueroa
Why? I think of it as great end game practice — as well as a way to get some impatient people to the table for One Pocket 😀😀
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
2,143
Yes I’ve never seen it played that way — not that that means much lol. But that wouldn’t be “sudden death” lol. From following this thread I got the impression putting a coin up is what some players have been doing, It does keep just one ball on the table which makes sense in a way. But it — as sudden death would also — conflicts with standard 1P end game.

Take a deep breath.

It's OK if it conflicts with standard 1pocket rules. It is a beast unto itself. A variant, a mutant, a bastard child.

Lou Figueroa
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
2,143
Why? I think of it as great end game practice — as well as a way to get some impatient people to the table for One Pocket 😀😀

To keep things moving along in an orderly fashion.

No one cares about you getting practice in. Too late for that ;-)

Lou Figueroa
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
10,860
From
New Hampshire
Take a deep breath.

It's OK if it conflicts with standard 1pocket rules. It is a beast unto itself. A variant, a mutant, a bastard child.

Lou Figueroa
I would like any of these variations -- except losing if you pocket the ball in a neutral pocket. But I can have preferences :)

I have only played it where it is like regular One Pocket except you start with just one ball, and have to begin with a defensive shot. The rest of the way, it's been regular One Pocket rules. That's going back maybe 20 years. I remember playing it with Bob Busa -- originally from MA but now maybe in Florida most of the year. I have not seen him for at least 10 years.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
10,860
From
New Hampshire
I've heard that at Super Billiard Expo one year, there were some guys who were VERY practiced at some kind of sudden death sort of version where you did lose if it went in a neutral pocket. The practiced guys were VERY good at nudging the ball near a hole without dropping it in -- putting their opponent is a serious bind.
 

jrhendy

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
5,377
From
Placerville, CA
I've heard that at Super Billiard Expo one year, there were some guys who were VERY practiced at some kind of sudden death sort of version where you did lose if it went in a neutral pocket. The practiced guys were VERY good at nudging the ball near a hole without dropping it in -- putting their opponent is a serious bind.
I alway thought my experience playing golf gave me an edge in one ball one pocket because of my speed and kicking ability.
 

Tobermory

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
1,667
From
Berkeley, CA 94708
I've played hundreds of games of 1b1p and in every game if a player fouled another ball was spotted up and the fouling player was now going for 2 balls. Nothing else makes sense. Sudden death is a gimmick. The rules are just like 1p except you start with one ball. No offense allowed on the break shot, otherwise you could just cut it in along the bottom rail, so we've always just said that you can't win on the break and you have to start with the cue ball on the same side as your declared pocket. Usually we have played that the cue ball is on the rail opposite the object ball, which makes the break shot a real tester that can lead to disaster if not played well. Personally I prefer to start with the cue ball anywhere behind the line on the same side of the table as my pocket so the break shot is not so fraught with peril.
 
Last edited:

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
10,860
From
New Hampshire
I've played hundreds of games of 1p1p and in every game if a player fouled another ball was spotted up and the fouling player was now going for 2 balls. Nothing else makes sense. Sudden death is a gimmick. The rules are just like 1p except you start with one ball. No offense allowed on the break shot, otherwise you could just cut it in along the bottom rail, so we've always just said that you can't win on the break and you have to start with the cue ball on the same side as your declared pocket. Usually we have played that the cue ball is on the rail opposite the object ball, which makes the break shot a real tester that can lead to disaster if not played well. Personally I prefer to start with the cue ball anywhere behind the line on the same side of the table as my pocket so the break shot is not so fraught with peril.
Last night I spoke to one of the players involved in that Expo example of sudden death, and he felt like he was had by that neutral pocket gimmick. He is a VERY experienced One Pocket player. That game became a nudging battle in the jaws of a neutral pocket instead of One Pocket as we know it at all.

To me that neutral pocket loss of game rule would be an example of unintended consequences (or maybe it was intentional at that time :oops:), when we mess too much with rules without trying things first.

However, all that said, I am in favor of writing rules the way people want to play the game -- the rules should fit the way people play. With this One Ball One Pocket thing taking off a bit right now, we might see it it played different ways until a front runner emerges.

I know I am not that keen on unlimited scratches/fouls, which is why I suggested you can need two balls, but needing a third would be loss of game. But I would not be opposed to a sudden death where one scratch or foul would be loss of game. I would happily play that. But my preference would be on a scratch or foul you spot up an extra ball and now need two, like normal One Pocket. That also accommodates handicapping by adding a 2nd ball before the break, somewhere on the table, so the stronger player starts out needing two.
 

stevelomako

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
1,169
From
Detroit, MI
Oh Lordy 🤦🏻‍♂️

Can we please make this as difficult as we can.


Hendy and I are in the small minority of…just find a spot to start with the 2 balls and just play.


Let’s mess it up with “you can’t do this” “you can’t do that”

Jesus
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,464
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
For the opponent's of just playing with one ball on the table at all times, I then am ok with a scratch is a loss of game, for otherwise this is how Bob depicted how the game goes:

If you scratch and owe a ball or two, and then you score the owed ball spots up and you get to continue your inning.
Well, this is what I am not a fan of; all you have to do is play position for the ball being spotted and re-shoot it in and not only erase the owed ball but you can win the game in this fashion.
Way to simple for me, if in fact this is how it is played. You might as well call it OB-OP Golf, but you get to shoot to the same hole.
----------------
In researching the OB-OP, this is how Shane plays it; if you scratch you pull up another ball and spot it, adding balls and balls needed to win the game. So if he is playing it this way, we then can assume pros are playing the game this way.
Once again, add this to Steve's game rule and you will have it, IMO.
Note; the players discuss and decide what constitutes a 'Safety' on the opening shot.
----------------
I'd like to see Steve's rules when finished, plus the 5 Rack Ghost rules, plus the reverse racking on the head spot OP game, all placed under Games.
And / Or,
The reverse racking on head spot Op game article placed in archives. I believe it was first played in 1927, if I recall properly. Fabulous memorabilia, and game.
Whitey
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,362
From
Baltimore, MD
I also like the idea of basic rules of One Pocket applying, except starting with one ball.

If you wanted to rush it and still keep it simple then yeah, you could play “Sudden Death” One Ball 1P — where any scratch or foul is loss of game. But please NOT a loss if the ball goes in a neutral pocket — that would be a completely different game!
Seems obvious that there is NO official one ball OP game in existence today, and there may never be. This has been a gambling game where the two players make their own rules. Not much different than lagging coins or prop shots to gamblers. So make whatever rules you want, I doubt it will have any far reaching effects across the country....... :)
 
Last edited:

Ratamon

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
734
From
London, UK
I've played hundreds of games of 1p1p and in every game if a player fouled another ball was spotted up and the fouling player was now going for 2 balls. Nothing else makes sense. Sudden death is a gimmick. The rules are just like 1p except you start with one ball. No offense allowed on the break shot, otherwise you could just cut it in along the bottom rail, so we've always just said that you can't win on the break and you have to start with the cue ball on the same side as your declared pocket. Usually we have played that the cue ball is on the rail opposite the object ball, which makes the break shot a real tester that can lead to disaster if not played well. Personally I prefer to start with the cue ball anywhere behind the line on the same side of the table as my pocket so the break shot is not so fraught with peril.

I agree that another ball has to be spotted up on a foul.

In the alternative (where you have just one ball on the table at all times) a foul is not that much of a penalty. As you keep spotting the ball up, even a fairly average player could run 10 (or 20) and out.

I'm sure that's not the way this game is intended to be played.
 

Ratamon

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
734
From
London, UK
I agree that another ball has to be spotted up on a foul.

In the alternative (where you have just one ball on the table at all times) a foul is not that much of a penalty. As you keep spotting the ball up, even a fairly average player could run 10 (or 20) and out.

I'm sure that's not the way this game is intended to be played.

There is a risk of course that with two old farts playing this would quickly turn into a normal one pocket game with 15 balls on the table lol :)
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,464
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
Seems obvious that there is NO official one ball OP game in existence today, and there may never be. This has been a gambling game where the two players make their own rules. Not much different than lagging coins or prop shots to gamblers. So male whatever rules you want, I doubt it will have any far reaching effects across the country....... :)
You may be right about far reaching effects, but OP.org should develop and have ownership over all games of OP.
OB-OP, 5 Rack Ghost, Head Spot Rack OP, and more. Displaying them where there are highly visible on the web site home pg. with a fast forward click, is the key to establishing them as official and being used.
Whitey
 
Last edited:

Ratamon

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
734
From
London, UK
For the opponent's of just playing with one ball on the table at all times, I then am ok with a scratch is a loss of game, for otherwise this is how Bob depicted how the game goes:

If you scratch and owe a ball or two, and then you score the owed ball spots up and you get to continue your inning.
Well, this is what I am not a fan of; all you have to do is play position for the ball being spotted and re-shoot it in and not only erase the owed ball but you can win the game in this fashion.
Way to simple for me, if in fact this is how it is played. You might as well call it OB-OP Golf, but you get to shoot to the same hole.
----------------
In researching the OB-OP, this is how Shane plays it; if you scratch you pull up another ball and spot it, adding balls and balls needed to win the game. So if he is playing it this way, we then can assume pros are playing the game this way.
Once again, add this to Steve's game rule and you will have it, IMO.
Note; the players discuss and decide what constitutes a 'Safety' on the opening shot.
----------------
I'd like to see Steve's rules when finished, plus the 5 Rack Ghost rules, plus the reverse racking on the head spot OP game, all placed under Games.
And / Or,
The reverse racking on head spot Op game article placed in archives. I believe it was first played in 1927, if I recall properly. Fabulous memorabilia, and game.
Whitey

Apols Whitey - I'm seeing your post only now. Great minds think alike I guess :).
 
Top