The Shot After The Break

[jrhendy]

Sometime I get videos from friends/players asking me to watch them and critique/make suggestions about their game. I think many games are potentially lost on that first shot after your opponent makes a good break. Too many players are watching the champions videos where players like T Rex are turning the game around after the break with one shot. It's a great feeling when it works, and sometimes there is an angle there to get a ball on your side with out much risk, but when you are trying to move multiple balls, bad things can happen and often do.

I would like to hear what some of you think.

 

[crabbcatjohn]

I have gotten much better at it over the years. It used to be a big weakness. Now I try not to do too much knowing most of the time if I don't sell out I can work my way out of it. Its crucial against the quality of players I play to not try something that will leave a free return bank and get them going. Its so easy to do trying to do too much. I seldom sell out now.

I do have to remind myself to keep everything as simple as possible at the start of a session until my speed and spin control start to come in.

 

[J.R.]

About twenty years ago I was in a friend's basement hitting balls with the celebrated power one pocket player, Ronnie Allen. He stated that the one area of one-pocket that separates great players from good players is their "kick shot" abilities.

In reference to the first shot after the break, I believe it is imperative to learn how to precisely strike the cue ball one, two, and three rails to the left, right and center of my opponent's pocket. Additionally, all tables do not play the same, especially when the cue ball is rebounding off two and three rails. Consequently, when a player goes to a table he should have a quick line-up of multiple cue ball kick shots to his opponent's pocket to confidently ascertain how that particular table is playing before he begins to practice shooting object balls into a pocket.

 

[lfigueroa]

Sometime I get videos from friends/players asking me to watch them and critique/make suggestions about their game. I think many games are potentially lost on that first shot after your opponent makes a good break. Too many players are watching the champions videos where players like T Rex are turning the game around after the break with one shot. It's a great feeling when it works, and sometimes there is an angle there to get a ball on your side with out much risk, but when you are trying to move multiple balls, bad things can happen and often do.

I would like to hear what some of you think.

Yes, this is true.

I sometimes think 1pocket is like Sumo wrestling. The first guy to get leverage can keep the pressure on for the win. I know that's an overly simplistic metaphor but I think it applies. In fact I think one could make the argument that the return of break is the most critical shot in the game.

I also agree with your comment about too many guys trying to impersonate the hyper-aggressive styles of Tony or Scott. Those guys can do what they do because they're super accurate in terms of hit and speed. Personally, I like playing guys that roll that way because I can just wait for their shots to go ka-blewee : -)

Lou Figueroa

 

[Hardmix]

The early innings are the most dangerous since all of the balls are down table. One slip and it can be lights out. I do think many newer players try to do too much in the first or 2nd inning resulting in yard sales. I think some of this is result of watching more advanced players pull off spectacular shots. Bottom line....pllay within your skill and knowledge set.

 

[catkins]

I love playing aggresive off the break return but only if you have a rock solid cue ball

 

[gulfportdoc]

Good points, John. I agree with you and the others who have remarked that many of us average players try to do too much-- usually taking shots that has to be hit perfectly in order to succeed, especially so after the break. Most of us don't hit perfect shots.

Most games of one-pocket are lost, not won. So a guy has to keep reminding himself to aim for zero mistakes. If a guy makes no mistakes, he has the best chance of winning most of his games.

 

[GoldCrown]

I believe it is imperative to learn how to precisely strike the cue ball one, two, and three rails to the left, right and center of my opponent's pocket. Additionally, all tables do not play the same, especially when the cue ball is rebounding off two and three rails.

I am hanging onto this. Have been working on it and getting a little better/consistent.

 

[Hard Times Carla]

I generally play weak players, like myself. Besides trying to get a ball on my side, I concentrate, if it is possible, to freeze the cue on the rail. That way my opponent has a harder time on his next shot.

 

[lll]

Good points, John. I agree with you and the others who have remarked that many of us average players try to do too much-- usually taking shots that has to be hit perfectly in order to succeed, especially so after the break. Most of us don't hit perfect shots.

Most games of one-pocket are lost, not won. So a guy has to keep reminding himself to aim for zero mistakes. If a guy makes no mistakes, he has the best chance of winning most of his games.

it shows you got a lesson from artie.....

 

[gulfportdoc]

it shows you got a lesson from artie.....

Sho 'nuff...

 

[kollegedave]

Sometime I get videos from friends/players asking me to watch them and critique/make suggestions about their game. I think many games are potentially lost on that first shot after your opponent makes a good break. Too many players are watching the champions videos where players like T Rex are turning the game around after the break with one shot. It's a great feeling when it works, and sometimes there is an angle there to get a ball on your side with out much risk, but when you are trying to move multiple balls, bad things can happen and often do.

I would like to hear what some of you think.

Broadly speaking, you are right in my view. However, I would make this qualification. I remember Jeremy Jones making this observation on an accu-stats tape, so to the extent someone finds this helpful, the credit goes to JJ. At times (not all the time or even most of the time), the break of an opponent is so effective that trying to move out of it over a series of innings is less likely to meet with success than the "turn-around" shot. In that instance, the turn-around shot is the correct shot.

He suggested that at any point during a game, if a player finds himself in at a large positional disadvantage, that player should consider a more aggressive approach. Conversely, if a player has wrestled a large positional advantage, he should consider a conservative approach.

kollegedave

 

[lfigueroa]

Broadly speaking, you are right in my view. However, I would make this qualification. I remember Jeremy Jones making this observation on an accu-stats tape, so to the extent someone finds this helpful, the credit goes to JJ. At times (not all the time or even most of the time), the break of an opponent is so effective that trying to move out of it over a series of innings is less likely to meet with success than the "turn-around" shot. In that instance, the turn-around shot is the correct shot.

He suggested that at any point during a game, if a player finds himself in at a large positional disadvantage, that player should consider a more aggressive approach. Conversely, if a player has wrestled a large positional advantage, he should consider a conservative approach.

kollegedave

As you know, udderwise known in St. Louis as “The Big Ed.”

Lou Figueroa

 

[kollegedave]

As you know, udderwise known in St. Louis as “The Big Ed.”

Lou Figueroa

Yes, the "Big Ed" falls into this category of shots, but I think Jeremy Jones was including difficult/ risky shots where you have your eyes open as well.

So many one pocket tournaments are played in races to 3 or 4 (mostly 3), I think this analysis may change a little if a player finds himself in a long gambling match vs. a race to 3. In the longer match, I might lean more conservative.

Suppose in a race to 3 both players are capable of running 8. Player A plays well but loses a close game that he broke in game 1. In game 2, his opponent lays down a dynamite break. One wrong "move", and player A may go down 2-0. In this scenario, I think riskier options should not always be thrown out. I wonder if this is what is behind the phenomenon that jrhendy is noticing? People are used to playing their "race-to-three-one-pocket" in all scenarios and not just in a race to three?

Dave

 

[lfigueroa]

Yes, the "Big Ed" falls into this category of shots, but I think Jeremy Jones was including difficult/ risky shots where you have your eyes open as well.

So many one pocket tournaments are played in races to 3 or 4 (mostly 3), I think this analysis may change a little if a player finds himself in a long gambling match vs. a race to 3. In the longer match, I might lean more conservative.

Suppose in a race to 3 both players are capable of running 8. Player A plays well but loses a close game that he broke in game 1. In game 2, his opponent lays down a dynamite break. One wrong "move", and player A may go down 2-0. In this scenario, I think riskier options should not always be thrown out. I wonder if this is what is behind the phenomenon that jrhendy is noticing? People are used to playing their "race-to-three-one-pocket" in all scenarios and not just in a race to three?

Dave

Maybe a couple of different scenarios are involved when it comes to evaluating this.

OTOH, it could be case where you have a lower percentage bank or combo or kick shot to score. There you have to carefully weigh what your probabilities of scoring are, what you will gain with a successful pot, and what you stand to lose if you fail. Or, it could be a shot more closely related to a Big Ed where you're looking to rearrange the furniture -- taking balls off your opponent's side and moving things your way, and even putting a ball in your hole. (For the uninitiated, a "Big Ed" scrambles everything and scores a ball in your hole; a "Small Ed" just scrambles everything, doesn't score, but puts you in pickle.)

Then the problem becomes putting that many balls in motion, controlling whitey, and having Chaos Theory come into play.

Lou Figueroa

 

[jrhendy]

Yes, the "Big Ed" falls into this category of shots, but I think Jeremy Jones was including difficult/ risky shots where you have your eyes open as well.

So many one pocket tournaments are played in races to 3 or 4 (mostly 3), I think this analysis may change a little if a player finds himself in a long gambling match vs. a race to 3. In the longer match, I might lean more conservative.

Suppose in a race to 3 both players are capable of running 8. Player A plays well but loses a close game that he broke in game 1. In game 2, his opponent lays down a dynamite break. One wrong "move", and player A may go down 2-0. In this scenario, I think riskier options should not always be thrown out. I wonder if this is what is behind the phenomenon that jrhendy is noticing? People are used to playing their "race-to-three-one-pocket" in all scenarios and not just in a race to three?

Dave

I was mostly referring to gambling matches. If you are playing by the game, you can be a little bolder in your return shot IMO. In a short race, you need to be a little more careful.

 

[s-trolle]

Sometime I get videos from friends/players asking me to watch them and critique/make suggestions about their game. I think many games are potentially lost on that first shot after your opponent makes a good break. Too many players are watching the champions videos where players like T Rex are turning the game around after the break with one shot. It's a great feeling when it works, and sometimes there is an angle there to get a ball on your side with out much risk, but when you are trying to move multiple balls, bad things can happen and often do.

I would like to hear what some of you think.

Great observation! Both in the “too many games lost after the brake” and “watched to much what the champions does”
I have a practice routine where i will brake from right side and reply the brak. Only those two shots. Then switch side and brake again and reply. I wil do this for at least 5 brake’s each side.
This is also what i tell newcomers to the game to do!
and in the though process of replying to the brake i will force myself to find at least 3 shot options (from the wise billy incardona and his very good and useful one pocket instruction video )

and then i keep watching old dvds from a time where not all shots was tony t and scott frost move the whole pile and run out by the speed of light.

Ww can’t all play like them

all for one, one pocket for all

 

[squeezeplay]

Just bet some serious cheese and you will figure out how to weasel out of tough breaks. Survival.

 

[lfigueroa]

Just bet some serious cheese and you will figure out how to weasel out of tough breaks. Survival.

Bogus.

Betting “serious cheese” does not imbue you with greater skill or insight.

Hard work and experience does.

Lou Figueroa

 

[squeezeplay]

Bogus.

Betting “serious cheese” does not imbue you with greater skill or insight.

Hard work and experience does.

Lou Figueroa

I was only trying to convey that hero shots, reversal shots, your "Big Ed Little Ed" shots are great for video and railbirds but do little for consistently winning the games. Don't give up the game because your opponent made a awesome break. Squirm, wiggle and bunt your way out. Most of the time your opponent will just hand the game over to you. Much respect.