One Ball One Pocket

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,488
From
monett missouri
"But my preference would be on a scratch or foul you spot up an extra ball and now need two, like normal One Pocket. "

I don't care one way or the other, but that's not like normal one pocket. We never spot a ball when we don't have a ball. And, a reasonable argument can be made that as soon as there are 3 balls on the table it's not one ball one pocket any more.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,488
From
monett missouri
"As you keep spotting the ball up, even a fairly average player could run 10 (or 20) and out."

Good point. This suggests that one ball advocates should include any-scratch-is-a-loss.
 

Jakie

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
226
From
Naples Fl
"As you keep spotting the ball up, even a fairly average player could run 10 (or 20) and out."

Good point. This suggests that one ball advocates should include any-scratch-is-a-loss.
any foul is loss of game would be my vote.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,389
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.
It's just one pocket. If a guy fouls twice in a row, he's on two.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,389
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!
I think we need to keep all the rules of one pocket, except the opening shot. That's in keeping with our mandate to spread one pocket to the masses. If we monkey around with the rules, we are just going to confuse new players who come to one pocket through this simple variation. I understand concerns about lengthening games, but scratches are an accepted part of our game, so why change it in this variation?
 

Tobermory

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
1,666
From
Berkeley, CA 94708
Its onepocket with one ball
right?
Right, you start with one ball on the table, but that doesn't and shouldn't preclude having more than one ball on the table if someone fouls. Why should one ball on the table be sacrosanct? 2, 3, 4, 5 balls on the table just means that one player has been fouling and digging a hole for themselves, just like in regular 1p. There is no sudden death in regular 1p, and why would anyone think that is a good idea for 1b1p? Giving up a spot shot after a foul might seem like certain death for a good shooter, but it ain't sudden: the shooter has to make the ball to win. It is funny to me that so many people who have never played this game have such strong opinions about the rules.
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
17,778
From
vero beach fl
Right, you start with one ball on the table, but that doesn't and shouldn't preclude having more than one ball on the table if someone fouls. Why should one ball on the table be sacrosanct? 2, 3, 4, 5 balls on the table just means that one player has been fouling and digging a hole for themselves, just like in regular 1p. There is no sudden death in regular 1p, and why would anyone think that is a good idea for 1b1p? Giving up a spot shot after a foul might seem like certain death for a good shooter, but it ain't sudden: the shooter has to make the ball to win. It is funny to me that so many people who have never played this game have such strong opinions about the rules.
My bad tober
Read my edit
I agree with you 😱😃👍
 

jrhendy

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
5,365
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.
Steve, you are an experienced one pocket player. How many times have you nudged a ball around a neutral pocket. Not many I’ll bet. There are too many easy safeties off a ball in front of a neutral pocket.
 

jrhendy

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
5,365
From
Placerville, CA
We used to play the object ball and the cue ball are froze on the center spot on the end rails. We often played winner breaks because the break is a disadvantage.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
10,830
From
New Hampshire
I think we need to keep all the rules of one pocket, except the opening shot. That's in keeping with our mandate to spread one pocket to the masses. If we monkey around with the rules, we are just going to confuse new players who come to one pocket through this simple variation. I understand concerns about lengthening games, but scratches are an accepted part of our game, so why change it in this variation?
I agree, and I think this aspect could be rather significant if 1B1P continues to pop up!


"But my preference would be on a scratch or foul you spot up an extra ball and now need two, like normal One Pocket. "

I don't care one way or the other, but that's not like normal one pocket. We never spot a ball when we don't have a ball. And, a reasonable argument can be made that as soon as there are 3 balls on the table it's not one ball one pocket any more.
Yes, but we pretty much never have only one ball, without having one to spot up either 😁
Spotting up consecutive balls, one after the other in the middle of your inning just doesn't come up in normal play -- I don't see why you would want that here either. BTW, that rule wasn't even written before our rules in 2004 -- but it was how older players like Grady played the game, which is why it got into our rules. But in fact there was confusion among less experienced players prior to our rules about that. I'd hate to see us go back to that confusion -- I presume that is the kind of thing Joe is referencing above.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
10,830
From
New Hampshire
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
That works until a creative player perfects a shot that takes advantage of the opportunity to play an offensive shot. That would essentially kill the game.

Funny thing is, when Beenie told me about how they started it at Johnston City -- with the OB close to the jaws of the the opponent's pocket -- if I remember correctly he also mentioned they had to change that up because somebody came up with an offensive shot lol.

I would like to keep it simple and just say "The player to shoot first cannot shoot at their own pocket; they must play a safety."

If that doesn't do it, you could give the opponent the option of calling for a rebreak if the OB is left below the foot spot. I say option, because my experience (actually playing this game), is that if the opponent goofs and leaves the OB low, it is often a sell out of a cross corner bank. Why not punish a bad break? But the option of calling for a rebreak if the OB ends up below the spot would definitely limit gamesmanship if it was necessary.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,389
That works until a creative player perfects a shot that takes advantage of the opportunity to play an offensive shot. That would essentially kill the game.

Funny thing is, when Beenie told me about how they started it at Johnston City -- with the OB close to the jaws of the the opponent's pocket -- if I remember correctly he also mentioned they had to change that up because somebody came up with an offensive shot lol.

I would like to keep it simple and just say "The player to shoot first cannot shoot at their own pocket; they must play a safety."

If that doesn't do it, you could give the opponent the option of calling for a rebreak if the OB is left below the foot spot. I say option, because my experience (actually playing this game), is that if the opponent goofs and leaves the OB low, it is often a sell out of a cross corner bank. Why not punish a bad break? But the option of calling for a rebreak if the OB ends up below the spot would definitely limit gamesmanship if it was necessary.
Steve, there is no problem. Why are you trying to invent one? I have been playing this game for 25 years and have never had a dispute with an opponent who didn't play safe to the side like we always do. There is no gamesmanship. You don't need rules to address a nonexistent problem. And if someone tries to **** you by gaming the system, which for the life of me I cannot even ponder how, you just quit the asshole.
 
Last edited:

Bob Jewett

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
557
From
Berkeley, CA
... I would like to keep it simple and just say "The player to shoot first cannot shoot at their own pocket; they must play a safety."

...
As a rule, that's as clear as mud.

As for spotting balls, at one pocket you owe balls and do not spot a ball for a foul if your score is 0 or negative. I think some people are overlooking this very simple rule. A little more complicated is that this means there is never more than one ball on the table. Unless you want to make the rules more unlike normal one pocket.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A BALL TO SPOT, YOU DON'T SPOT ONE FOR A FOUL. Unless you want to make up a new rule.
 

Bob Jewett

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
557
From
Berkeley, CA
... And if someone tries to **** you by gaming the system, which for the life of me I cannot even ponder how, you just quit the asshole.
The problem is in a tournament. In a tournament it's better to have uniform rules that everyone is playing by so you don't have mad players walking away from matches.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,389
As a rule, that's as clear as mud.

As for spotting balls, at one pocket you owe balls and do not spot a ball for a foul if your score is 0 or negative. I think some people are overlooking this very simple rule. A little more complicated is that this means there is never more than one ball on the table. Unless you want to make the rules more unlike normal one pocket.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A BALL TO SPOT, YOU DON'T SPOT ONE FOR A FOUL. Unless you want to make up a new rule.
You have 7 balls. You are playing for the last ball. It's one pocket.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
10,830
From
New Hampshire
As a rule, that's as clear as mud.

"The player to shoot first cannot shoot at their own pocket; they must play a safety."

Ok, if that doesn't do it, something like this should:

1. The player to shoot first must open with a legal shot that results in leaving the object ball above the foot spot. If they fail to leave the object ball above the foot spot, the opponent has the option of accepting the balls as they lie and continuing play, or calling for a re-break.

That takes the whole question of safety vs offensive shot out of it.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,389
The problem is in a tournament. In a tournament it's better to have uniform rules that everyone is playing by so you don't have mad players walking away from matches.
The set up: Object ball on the footrail in the center. Cue ball in hand in the kitchen.
The break: Alternate break, no offensive shots allowed. You must place safe.
After the break: regular one pocket rules apply.

That is all you need. 38 words
 

Tobermory

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
1,666
From
Berkeley, CA 94708
As a rule, that's as clear as mud.

As for spotting balls, at one pocket you owe balls and do not spot a ball for a foul if your score is 0 or negative. I think some people are overlooking this very simple rule. A little more complicated is that this means there is never more than one ball on the table. Unless you want to make the rules more unlike normal one pocket.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A BALL TO SPOT, YOU DON'T SPOT ONE FOR A FOUL. Unless you want to make up a new rule.
For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would perceive a problem with spotting a ball for a foul right away rather than saying the fouler owes a ball. What is the problem -- conceptually or practically -- with having more than one ball on the table after a player fouls? 1b1p is not exactly the same as regular 1p: you people just need to get over the brain freeze that limits your ability to see the inherent integrity to the practice of spotting a ball even if your score is 0 or negative.

For those of you who prefer that the fouler "owe" a ball, how do you imagine what happens when the owing player makes a ball? Do they spot it right up and keep shooting? That rule would give an edge to the fouler rather than a full penalty.
 
Last edited:

Tobermory

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
1,666
From
Berkeley, CA 94708
The problem is in a tournament. In a tournament it's better to have uniform rules that everyone is playing by so you don't have mad players walking away from matches.
As Joe says, there is no problem in a tournament or in action with a simple rule: no offensive shot allowed. Would the rule be clearer to you if it was restated as: "The breaker cannot win the game on the break." Maybe that is the best construct of all as it permits the breaker to do whatever they want.
 
Top