Speed up One Pocket?

[NH Steve]

I found this on the newsgroup rec.sport.billiard and thought some OnePocket.org readers might be interested in weighing in:
I am planning a big show and one-pocket tournament for next year.
In order to make one-pocket faster and more suitable for tournament play I
would like to try a new rule.

If you don't make a ball in your pocket in three innings it is ball in hand
for your opponent.
Ball in hand behind the line? anywhere on the table? must bank? I don't
know.

If anyone is interested in trying this rule out please let me (RSB) know the
results.
If anyone has a better idea lets hear it.

Sincerely,

Bill Stroud
You can read the discussion here (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/browse_frm/thread/cb5aefb5202c0ea0/f5cbce2fc017c4e7?hl=en#f5cbce2fc017c4e7) if you are not already familiar with RSB.

Boy, I think that would not be much like the One Pocket we know! The scoring would have to be pretty high -- races to seven or something like that, because that game would FLY.

Here are some ideas that at least wouldn't change the game that much -- any of them look workable?

Use a shot clock -- why not, and this should have minimal impact on the game. You would need several extensions per match that you could use when you were in a pickle
Any two scratches or fouls in a row, opponent has the option of playing from where the cue ball lies or taking ball in hand behind the line (of course you get that anyway on any pocket scratch -- this is to discourage intentional fouls)
Make the area above the head string 'balk' and require players to knock a ball out of 'balk' or the highest numbered ball in balk goes on the foot spot (whenever all the remaining balls are behind the line)
When your inning ends, only one (or maybe two) object balls are permitted to be left above the head string -- any additional balls that you leave in the kitchen get spotted (as if they fell into one of the neutral pockets). That way you could never cluster them up table
Then there is also Grady's rule of spotting up all the balls if five or more all get pushed up above the head string -- I believe he may have tried that at one of his torunaments
Granted, I have tried NONE of these :)

[gulfportdoc]

Here are some ideas that at least wouldn't change the game that much -- any of them look workable?

:)

Steve, of the ones you've listed, I prefer the 5th one. I hope Grady chimes in on this thread, since I'm sure he's imagined lots of ways to speed up the game. On the other hand, I'm not sure it should be artificially sped up. It seems to me that 1P is a game with much more defense than offense. Otherwise why not just have a guy smack open the rack on the break --as in 8-ball-- then flip a coin to see who gets to fire at his hole first from behind the head string. :rolleyes: Most slow play is due to playing safeties when there is no shot. If there is no shot, why should a player be penalized for not making a ball? Guys that want to rush through the contest would be better off playing that yellow-and-white ball game.

Has anyone experimented in 1P with a rack of 10 balls rather than 15?

Doc

[NH Steve]

Steve, of the ones you've listed, I prefer the 5th one. I hope Grady chimes in on this thread, since I'm sure he's imagined lots of ways to speed up the game. On the other hand, I'm not sure it should be artificially sped up. It seems to me that 1P is a game with much more defense than offense. Otherwise why not just have a guy smack open the rack on the break --as in 8-ball-- then flip a coin to see who gets to fire at his hole first from behind the head string. :rolleyes: Most slow play is due to playing safeties when there is no shot. If there is no shot, why should a player be penalized for not making a ball? Guys that want to rush through the contest would be better off playing that yellow-and-white ball game.

Has anyone experimented in 1P with a rack of 10 balls rather than 15?

Doc
I agree with you about being hesitant to change what is already a great game. I think you might as well just play a One Pocket version of Equal Offense if you want something to move as fast as he was talking about.

I thought option #4 might have some potential, but maybe make it more like a maximum of 3 or 4 balls in the kitchen.

For what he was trying to do, at least you ought to get credit for knocking a ball down near your pocket -- like anywhere below the foot spot.

I've never experimented with 10 balls, but have heard of playing with 9 balls, racked in 9-ball form. In fact, there is apparently a special break for just that game, a two-rail kick into the rack that can sometimes make the bottom ball in your pocket:

START(
%AN7O5%BL7P8%CJ5O4%DL7N1%EM7P1%FK6P1%GK6N8%HM7N8%IL7O4%Ph9Q2
%QA5[7%UM2D4%Vg2Q0%WD3G2%XL1D1%YJ2N0%ZC8G9%_C9Z4%`F8U6%aJ2P4
)END

[hemicudas]

I found this on the newsgroup rec.sport.billiard and thought some OnePocket.org readers might be interested in weighing in:

You can read the discussion here (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/browse_frm/thread/cb5aefb5202c0ea0/f5cbce2fc017c4e7?hl=en#f5cbce2fc017c4e7) if you are not already familiar with RSB.

Boy, I think that would not be much like the One Pocket we know! The scoring would have to be pretty high -- races to seven or something like that, because that game would FLY.

Here are some ideas that at least wouldn't change the game that much -- any of them look workable?


Use a shot clock -- why not, and this should have minimal impact on the game. You would need several extensions per match that you could use when you were in a pickle
Any two scratches or fouls in a row, opponent has the option of playing from where the cue ball lies or taking ball in hand behind the line (of course you get that anyway on any pocket scratch -- this is to discourage intentional fouls)
Make the area above the head string 'balk' and require players to knock a ball out of 'balk' or the highest numbered ball in balk goes on the foot spot (whenever all the remaining balls are behind the line)
When your inning ends, only one (or maybe two) object balls are permitted to be left above the head string -- any additional balls that you leave in the kitchen get spotted (as if they fell into one of the neutral pockets). That way you could never cluster them up table
Then there is also Grady's rule of spotting up all the balls if five or more all get pushed up above the head string -- I believe he may have tried that at one of his torunaments
Granted, I have tried NONE of these :)


I like #2, Steve. Seems a logical way of speeding it up.

[jazznpool]

I like the idea of using a 1-minute shot clock where it would cost you a ball if you violated. Last year I played a real slow poke and we traded off the stopwatch ourselves and would give a 10 second warning if needed. We never exceeded the limit and the games moved along. I have to admit the shot clock added some pressure and increased my anxiety. In previous sessions, this player was doing things like examining the pennies on the table used to mark balls owed! Problem with shot clock is you really need somone to officiate.

Martin

[Pelican]

I didn't think one pocket was supposed to be a fast game :confused: Us old folks like it slow and easy sippin' our mint julips :D

Later, Pel

[SactownTom]

I got a lot of great responses from this format tonite.
I ran 4 mini touranemts of 1pkt using this format. No negative feedback at all.

8 players in a mini, $25 per player, single elimination.
One game of 1p wasn't good, race to two would have taken way too much time for a mini. So, I decided to try out the Race to 15... Jose Parica ran 15 and out twice.

At the end of the first rack, whoever was behind in the ball count, had the break. Most matches were over in less than 20 minutes. The longest took about 40 minutes. Jose's match took about 8 minutes.

Four Minis.. Mark Haddad won 2, Tony Chohan and Jose Parica won the other two. John Henderson took 2nd in one event.
$200 for 1st and $50 for 2nd. Hard Times added $50 to each mini.

Only 8 players signed up to play the 9 ball mini. 5 of the players were from Austraila. Mike Davis won over Fach Garcia.

I had a ball..

[hemicudas]

I got a lot of great responses from this format tonite.
I ran 4 mini touranemts of 1pkt using this format. No negative feedback at all.

8 players in a mini, $25 per player, single elimination.
One game of 1p wasn't good, race to two would have taken way too much time for a mini. So, I decided to try out the Race to 15... Jose Parica ran 15 and out twice.

At the end of the first rack, whoever was behind in the ball count, had the break. Most matches were over in less than 20 minutes. The longest took about 40 minutes. Jose's match took about 8 minutes.

Four Minis.. Mark Haddad won 2, Tony Chohan and Jose Parica won the other two. John Henderson took 2nd in one event.
$200 for 1st and $50 for 2nd. Hard Times added $50 to each mini.

Only 8 players signed up to play the 9 ball mini. 5 of the players were from Austraila. Mike Davis won over Fach Garcia.

I had a ball..
That's amazing Tom. Wish I could have been there.

[Grady]

I have discussed over and over for many years different ways to speed up One Pocket. When I used my method in one event it only came up two or three times and it only made a different winner once. It did speed things up considerably.
Bill Stroud's suggestion might work if you started with all the balls at the other end of the table.
A chess clock would be better than a shot clock. I even purchased one and practiced with it to see if it were workable. Greg Sullivan has considered this too. Slow matches at my tournaments have always featured the same gentlemen. So a chess clock puts an end to their being slow because when they run out of time-they lose the match.
I am hesitant to interfere too mich with the integrity of a beautiful discipline.

[Shorty]

I've never experimented with 10 balls, but have heard of playing with 9 balls, racked in 9-ball form. In fact, there is apparently a special break for just that game, a two-rail kick into the rack that can sometimes make the bottom ball in your pocket:

START(
%AN7O5%BL7P8%CJ5O4%DL7N1%EM7P1%FK6P1%GK6N8%HM7N8%IL7O4%Ph9Q2
%QA5[7%UM2D4%Vg2Q0%WD3G2%XL1D1%YJ2N0%ZC8G9%_C9Z4%`F8U6%aJ2P4
)END

I have played this and used that break...it is a money maker for me. Not as many balls to worry with...so not as much defense and rewards the run out one pocket player. Good for newbies getting into the game as well. I still prefer the full stack.

Shorty

[OldHasBeen]

If there is a place where the players sit while the other player shoots, it could work - that the player just finishing, sits down & starts the timer for the incoming player. Seems just like FOX News - "Fair & Balanced"!

TY & GL

[gulfportdoc]

I have discussed over and over for many years different ways to speed up One Pocket. When I used my method in one event it only came up two or three times and it only made a different winner once. It did speed things up considerably.
Bill Stroud's suggestion might work if you started with all the balls at the other end of the table.
A chess clock would be better than a shot clock.
Grady, what is the "my method" you referred to? Also I'm not sure I understand what you meant by Stroud's suggestion, but with all the balls at the other end of the table?

Chess clocks would be great, but they're probably a little pricey to put at every table. Perhaps they could just be used for obviously slow matches.

Thanks,

Doc

[OldHasBeen]

Grady, what is the "my method" you referred to? Also I'm not sure I understand what you meant by Stroud's suggestion, but with all the balls at the other end of the table?

Chess clocks would be great, but they're probably a little pricey to put at every table. Perhaps they could just be used for obviously slow matches.

Thanks,

Doc

Howbout getting a real good "Chess Clock" maker to become a SPONSER of a major tourney?
If the "Sardo" guy can justify his sponsorship for that so called Rack - Maybe a good Chess Clock man could call it "The One Pocket Clock"!

TY & GL

[Grady]

At one of my events, I had it where if 5 or more balls were behind the headstring and they were the only balls left, they spotted up. If there were 8 or more balls past the middle of the table and they were the only balls left, they spotted up.
If you wanted to us Stroud's idea, I'd say rack the balls maybe all frozen on the far end rail. That way the "ball in hand" penalty wouldn't be so strong. But any format featuring ball in hand penalties like these would greatly favor the shotmakers.

[hemicudas]

Howbout getting a real good "Chess Clock" maker to become a SPONSER of a major tourney?
If the "Sardo" guy can justify his sponsorship for that so called Rack - Maybe a good Chess Clock man could call it "The One Pocket Clock"!

TY & GL
I like it, Tom. Why not just call it the "Shot Clock" and use it for all pool games to be broadcast on a timed media ie TV. It could be rigged with a 10 second warning bell/buzzer. It would take the pressure off the ref. of having to keep looking at his watch. As stated before, the player sits down and hits the button.

Get up off it Tom and go pitch this idea to the right people. You deserve a jelly on this one.

[OldHasBeen]

At one of my events, I had it where if 5 or more balls were behind the headstring and they were the only balls left, they spotted up. If there were 8 or more balls past the middle of the table and they were the only balls left, they spotted up.
If you wanted to us Stroud's idea, I'd say rack the balls maybe all frozen on the far end rail. That way the "ball in hand" penalty wouldn't be so strong. But any format featuring ball in hand penalties like these would greatly favor the shotmakers.

Grady - I like the idea of the Chess/Shot clock because it would be adaptable/changeable to all situations and matches.
The other changes seem to affect the integrity/strategy of the game itself.
You might want to look into the SPONSORSHIP idea.
You would be perfect to promote it with your history & credibility

TY & GL

[SactownTom]

I'm confused... <--not all that unusual for an old fat man----

How would a Chess clock be conducive to faster play? especially if there is no penalty? if there is going to be a penalty, what would it be?

Even a casual observer would be able to tell which player was taking more time on their shot. And, without a penalty (which would in essence be changing the rules) there isn't any strength to the Chess Clock.

Slow players only slow down tournament formats that have a set time period for the match. There aren't that many in a tournament but the few that are can reek havoc with the brackets.

A good tournament director should be able to spot the slow match and put both players on a shot clock (45 seconds) prior to the match ending time to eliminate the possibility of the match causing problems. I.E. if the time limit is 2½ hours, at the 1 hour and 45 minute mark and the score is 1-1 in a race to 3, start the shot clock. Penalty is just like any foul, loss of ball.

If the two players get riled and start missing and fouling from the shot clock, the TD can make it a sudden death short rack of 10 ball.. first one to make 3 balls in their pocket.

There has to be a fair penalty for the fast player playing against the slow player when the TD takes over the match.

[OldHasBeen]

I'm confused... <--not all that unusual for an old fat man----

How would a Chess clock be conducive to faster play? especially if there is no penalty? if there is going to be a penalty, what would it be?

Even a casual observer would be able to tell which player was taking more time on their shot. And, without a penalty (which would in essence be changing the rules) there isn't any strength to the Chess Clock.

Slow players only slow down tournament formats that have a set time period for the match. There aren't that many in a tournament but the few that are can reek havoc with the brackets.

A good tournament director should be able to spot the slow match and put both players on a shot clock (45 seconds) prior to the match ending time to eliminate the possibility of the match causing problems. I.E. if the time limit is 2½ hours, at the 1 hour and 45 minute mark and the score is 1-1 in a race to 3, start the shot clock. Penalty is just like any foul, loss of ball.

If the two players get riled and start missing and fouling from the shot clock, the TD can make it a sudden death short rack of 10 ball.. first one to make 3 balls in their pocket.

There has to be a fair penalty for the fast player playing against the slow player when the TD takes over the match.

The shot clock is impartial to all. No grips or bitches. Can be set different for different matches.

TY & GL

[fred bentivegna]

I have sent Steve Booth a copy of my copyrighted, Speedo One-Pocket Rules. It's simple, one page in length, including a diagram, and addresses the root causes of lumbering matches. To wit, balls sent up the table, balls hanging or clustered around the pockets up the table. The latter results in the banking lanes for straight-backs, 2 and 3-in-the-corners being blocked. The balk-lines I use can easily be determined by eye, as we do now in determing if a ball in "the kitchen" or not.
On another note, I must mention this. I just got my Universal SmartShaft today from my friend Billy Stroud (the inventor). It's a monster. I can't believe how well it plays. It comes with an adaptor that adjusts to any cue. It's got me thinking (God forbid) about playing people again.
The Beard

[Grady]

Sactown, The chess clock works like this. Let's say that the promoter feels that 3 hours should be more than enough time for two players to finish a race to 4. Each player gets one and a half hours to complete the match. The penalty for having your time run out is loss of match.
With a regular shot clock, say 45 seconds, some players will use almost the whole 45 seconds on every shot, thus still making the match be slow.
I'd like to add this: When I thought I was the best One Pocket player in the world, I robbed all slow players. Cases in point: Earl Heisler, Artie and Jack Clooney. For the cash, I liked to play slow guys but for tournaments, it's awful to have 4 to 6 hour matches.

[NH Steve]

I have sent Steve Booth a copy of my copyrighted, Speedo One-Pocket Rules. It's simple, one page in length, including a diagram, and addresses the root causes of lumbering matches. To wit, balls sent up the table, balls hanging or clustered around the pockets up the table. The latter results in the banking lanes for straight-backs, 2 and 3-in-the-corners being blocked. The balk-lines I use can easily be determined by eye, as we do now in determing if a ball in "the kitchen" or not.
The Beard I just put these rules up here on OnePocket.org (linked from the Rules page)
Freddy's Speedo One Pocket rules (http://onepocket.org/SpeedoRulesOnePocket.htm)

My first time using Flashpaper for pdf, so let me know if you have trouble seeing these the way I have them posted.