Statistics showing the break has minimal effect on game outcome

[Jeff sparks]

I think the edge from being spotted the break is larger than the % advantage from breaking in regular matches. First, with the spot and breaking every rack, the breaker is going to dial in the break and get stronger and stronger breaks. Second, always having to start out from behind and equalize can wear you down a bit faster than doing that half the time.

So if in a gambling setting, the break is 1.5 balls, it may well be less than that in a tournament race to 3 setting.

All I was trying to get across is that the players need to be close in ability in order to get an accurate read on the value of the break... a good player playing a bad player isn’t going to render an accurate percentage... the good player will escape the break more often and win more games, nullifying an accurate stat, and skewing the overall study... I suppose it would be difficult to achieve a completely accurate breaker win percentage using any means... I think tournament matches and gambling matches would have to be in separate statistical categories for the obvious reasons...

It’s an interesting question to ponder though and I’d like to know more than the age old adage of “it’s worth a ball or two balls depending on who you’re playing.”

It’s my opinion that when two players of equal ability play, the player who breaks the best will win the money most of the time in gambling matches...

I also believe that to be true in a tournament format, but to a lesser extent due to the shortness of the contest...

Jerry M. suggested the breaker win advantage at 5%, which is 55/45...
I agree that should be close...

 

[lll]

I think the edge from being spotted the break is larger than the % advantage from breaking in regular matches. First, with the spot and breaking every rack, the breaker is going to dial in the break and get stronger and stronger breaks. Second, always having to start out from behind and equalize can wear you down a bit faster than doing that half the time.

So if in a gambling setting, the break is 1.5 balls, it may well be less than that in a tournament race to 3 setting.

freddy" the beard "bentivegna always said what i bolded above from you cory
he always said he wanted to give up balls instead of the break
(R.I.P. freddy )

 

[jalapus logan]

We should have our own stats for our next tournament

Certainly, more stats would reveal more of the story.

Interesting perspectives here, thanks for the replies. I may compile some of my own stats and see what they say.

 

[androd]

Two players of equal ability, playing a long session, with one player breaking all the time will render an actual value to the break...

Statistical information gathered from random matches with players of varying abilities means little, as it isn’t able to assign a true value to the break... Jmho

Yes and the longer they play the stronger the break will be.
I've had both sides of it.

 

[LSJohn]

Jerry M. suggested the breaker win advantage at 5%, which is 55/45...
I agree that should be close...

I'd say that's 10%.

5% advantage would be 52.5 - 47.5

 

[tucson9ball]

I think the edge from being spotted the break is larger than the % advantage from breaking in regular matches. First, with the spot and breaking every rack, the breaker is going to dial in the break and get stronger and stronger breaks. Second, always having to start out from behind and equalize can wear you down a bit faster than doing that half the time.

So if in a gambling setting, the break is 1.5 balls, it may well be less than that in a tournament race to 3 setting.

If you are giving up the break, make them alternate corners. This keeps them from getting dialed in too good ....JMHO

 

[ChicagoFats]

Do they have the same stats for the last 5 rounds vs the first 5 rounds or whatever?

I think you will find the last 5 round to be a better indicator of 2 players of closer caliber.
When you lump them all together, you have a lot of very heavy mismatches that will skew the results.

 

[kkdanamatt]

One-Pocket is similar to chess...

One-Pocket is similar to chess...

...where even a 1% advantage becomes significant as more games are played. I think that given the break every game between two high level equally talented players, the player with the break will win about 55 games out of 100.
That's huge in a long race. But in a race to 3 or 5 or 7, the advantage of the break becomes less predictable.

 

[Jeff sparks]

I'd say that's 10%.

5% advantage would be 52.5 - 47.5

Then I believe among equal ability players, the break win percentage would be closer to 10% or perhaps even higher... Originally I was thinking in terms of above 50%, so 05 % above 50% is 55%... :sorry John, thinking ain’t my long suit!!! So out of say 21 games played, at a true 05% advantage, the breaker would only win 11 games, while the non breaker would win 10? Is that correct?

I’d like to bet it’s higher if the players are equal in ability... I’d bet the breaker would win 12 games or more out of the 21 games... that would be at least 12/09 in favor of the breaking player... I could be totally wrong, because the stats compiled over the studies published thus far suggest otherwise... what would 12/9 equate to percentage wise? A 15% advantage?

I’ll still bet on it if we can find a match in the near future where we agree the players are very close in ability.. I’ll wager a couple of hundred just to make watching the match more interesting... mail box money anyone?

 

[jalapus logan]

If someone were to have the time, it would be interesting to compile these break statistics on both of the Orcullo/Chohan matches, the Alex/Frost match and the Orcullo/Frost match plus any other long onehole set. Would be interesting for sure.

Oh yeah, the Gabe/Danny match that went on forever would be good too.

 

[baby huey]

Good posts by one and all. I think we all agree that the player breaking does have some advantage assuming the skills are comparable. Determining the percentage is another matter. Using the Tony/Dennis matches, I never saw either one scratch or sell out the wing ball. So if I'm correct, those two had respective wins of 40/38 Tony which meant over the match he held serve and broke through one additional time. We know they both broke through the other many times but the raw % number = 2.5 %. Dennis on the other hand won the second match I think 40/34? The raw % for him is higher around 7.5%. Now over both matches that equates to about 5%. This clearly is assuming many things and is not empirical and my hypothisis can be shot full of holes but I think I'm pretty close to the actual percentage.

 

[BrookelandBilly]

“I was always under the impression that the break was a stronger advantage, now I'm rethinking this.“

What’s to rethink? Are you going to give up your break? Are you going to break and think you only have a slight advantage? I don’t understand the thought process.

 

[jalapus logan]

“I was always under the impression that the break was a stronger advantage, now I'm rethinking this.“

What’s to rethink? Are you going to give up your break? Are you going to break and think you only have a slight advantage? I don’t understand the thought process.

You are not curious as to what the specific average % advantage is relative to conventional wisdom? I'm not trying to be pugnacious, but it seems that given the thoughts and theories presented in this thread suggests that many players are interested. And no, I'm not giving up the breaks.

 

[Jeff sparks]

Good posts by one and all. I think we all agree that the player breaking does have some advantage assuming the skills are comparable. Determining the percentage is another matter. Using the Tony/Dennis matches, I never saw either one scratch or sell out the wing ball. So if I'm correct, those two had respective wins of 40/38 Tony which meant over the match he held serve and broke through one additional time. We know they both broke through the other many times but the raw % number = 2.5 %. Dennis on the other hand won the second match I think 40/34? The raw % for him is higher around 7.5%. Now over both matches that equates to about 5%. This clearly is assuming many things and is not empirical and my hypothisis can be shot full of holes but I think I'm pretty close to the actual percentage.

Jerry,
No disrespect intended...

:sorry. I’m not understanding what you are saying? Do you mean the non breaking player only won 1 game out of the entire 78 games they played? If that’s what you are saying, that is impossible... it would mean the breaker won an amazing 77 out of 78 games... That can’t be what you are saying, I’m just not understanding what you are saying... what are you saying?

I would like to know the total # of games the breakers won in those matches, along with the other long matches, (alex/frost) as they would certainly give us curious people a good break win percentage among fairly equal opponents over a long haul...

 

[baby huey]

Jeff, my use of the Tony/Dennis matches was only to illustrate that in the end assuming both players broke through the opponents break, that the eventual winner broke through a few times more to secure their respective win. Obviously my analysis can be viewed as suspect as we don't know how many times each broke through the others serve. I still believe that with comparable skill sets that the 5% advantage of the player breaking is pretty close to reality.

 

[LSJohn]

what would 12/9 equate to percentage wise? A 15% advantage?

Good guess: .575 X 21 = 12.075; .425 X 21 = 8.925

 

[Jeff sparks]

Jeff, my use of the Tony/Dennis matches was only to illustrate that in the end assuming both players broke through the opponents break, that the eventual winner broke through a few times more to secure their respective win. Obviously my analysis can be viewed as suspect as we don't know how many times each broke through the others serve. I still believe that with comparable skill sets that the 5% advantage of the player breaking is pretty close to reality.

Ok Jerry, I understand ya now...
I just watched a 2017 match from I believe it was the west coast swing between Frost and Bustamonte, the match went to the hill game and busty won 4/3...
The break stat on that small race was 5/2 in favor of the breaking player... in other words, the person who broke, won 5 out of 7 games... I wouldn’t expect this stat to hold water over a much longer race, but as I said in an earlier post, I’d bet the win percentage for the breaking player would tally very near 10%, perhaps even higher...

 

[LSJohn]

You are not curious as to what the specific average % advantage is relative to conventional wisdom? I'm not trying to be pugnacious, but it seems that given the thoughts and theories presented in this thread suggests that many players are interested. And no, I'm not giving up the breaks.

If one doesn't gamble, the question comes down to plain curiosity. If one does gamble and doesn't care, maybe that means he's never going to negotiate a handicap anyway, either way, so difference does it make?

 

[Jeff sparks]

Good guess: .575 X 21 = 12.075; .425 X 21 = 8.925[/QUOTE

Or 12/21= 57.14. 09/21= 42.85

Meaning 57.14 - 42.85 = 14.39% in favor of the breaker... is that correct?

 

[LSJohn]

I’d bet the win percentage for the breaking player would tally very near 10%, perhaps even higher...

.55 X 21 = 11.55; .45 X 21 = 9.45

This means that the 10% advantage only yields 1 extra game out of 21, since each player was theoretically entitled to win 10.5 games out of the 21 planned.