One Pocket rule change

[androd]

I'm pretty sure Mike used to play Grady for $500 a game before he saw the light and quit gambling.

I doubt either of them had a stake horse that would bet that much at that point in time.
Mike was a mess before drying out or the nut house or whatever it was. He was living in Ft.Worth when he went off the air.

He'd been in Houston before going there, I don't remember if Grady was there yet, but they were both broke and trying to get staked. Neither had reached their potential playing yet.

Mike is a super nice guy and maybe the physically strongest person I've been around.(Hence the nickname "Tennessee Tarzan")
Rod.

 

[gulfportdoc]

You're right about that, Rod. Mike is a bull of a guy, with meat hooks for hands, and a lion-sized head on him. His powerful stroke seems almost effortless.

I get the impression that he gave up the sauce and/or drugs years back, and got help at least partially from religion or spirituality. As a result he's a very contented man who really enjoys showing people trick shots, at which he is a gifted master.

He said he now lives in Utah with his wife.

Doc

 

[JohnInNH]

lfigueroa on AZB suggested that there should be some rule changes to speed up the game. He suggested that the three foul rule should be modified to a 'two foul rule' loss of game. He also suggested that there should be a 35 or 45 second shot clock put into effect. Others suggested that the play of the game should be altered, such as balls in the kitchen being re-spotted ect.ect.


I don't agree with altering the play of the game, one pocket is the most interesting game in the world, all games included. As far as the three foul rule goes, yes that could be modified. I have a suggestion on a rule change that would not only speed up the game, it would also apply more pressure to the game which would possibly make the game more exciting and interesting. I propose it's an automatic loss of game whenever a player accumulates three fouls, regardless of when they happen. This rule will challenge strategy, particularly in the 'intentional fouling' part of the game. It wouldn't necessarily omit the intentional foul but it would certainly put a higher price on choosing that option.Also there will be more suspense whenever either player is on two fouls...talk about heart break talk about tough losses However, the good thing is, it can go either way.

Does anyone have a suggestion on rule changes? Like to hear some.

Bill Incardona

Hi Bill,

As we all know the lag or coin flip at the beginning of a match is for the first game break, alternate from there to the last game, normally the break is a big advantage for the player, if a match goes hill hill, I would like to see another lag or coin flip for the deciding game, this rule change could easily be implemented at the start of any tournament.

John

 

[Cary]

I doubt either of them had a stake horse that would bet that much at that point in time.
Mike was a mess before drying out or the nut house or whatever it was. He was living in Ft.Worth when he went off the air.

He'd been in Houston before going there, I don't remember if Grady was there yet, but they were both broke and trying to get staked. Neither had reached their potential playing yet.

Mike is a super nice guy and maybe the physically strongest person I've been around.(Hence the nickname "Tennessee Tarzan")
Rod.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uXRzinI4abE[/ame]

 

[One Pocket Ghost]

As we all know the lag or coin flip at the beginning of a match is for the first game break, alternate from there to the last game, normally the break is a big advantage for the player, if a match goes hill hill, I would like to see another lag or coin flip for the deciding game, this rule change could easily be implemented at the start of any tournament.

John

John....What you're asking for would not make a short race any more equitable, re. the extra break - it would only switch the benefactor of the luck from the first 'coin flip winner' to the second 'coin flip winner'...I'm assuming that you didn't read this whole thread, because I posted in it earlier about how I did come up with a way to even out the flip-winning luck factor - this was my post ------>

Re. that...I've always hated how winning the lag or the flip of a coin gives that player such a HUGE advantage in winning a short race - just as I've always hated the overtime rule in football that gives the flip winner a chance to win the game while the other team gets no chance - that rule is an abomination in my opinion...anyway, back to One Pocket...

I posted this up once before a few years ago, about how many years ago when I used to run the Chris's Billiards monthly One Pocket tournaments I negated that lag-winning advantage...the rule that I invented and instituted in those tournaments was this...

If the match went to hill-hill, the had to spot his opponent 9-8...however the second part to my rule was a slight nod to the lag/flip winner - he had the choice of spotting his opponent the 9-8, or relinquishing the break to his opponent and taking the 9-8 spot for himself instead, if he liked that better...

Everybody liked this rule, which as I said, made the hill-hill matches more fair.

- Ghost

PS, Although the lag-winner would still be profiting some with his lagging skills - since it's pretty much accepted, that the break is worth more than 9-8.

 

[JohnInNH]

John....What you're asking for would not make a short race any more equitable, re. the extra break - it would only switch the benefactor of the luck from the first 'coin flip winner' to the second 'coin flip winner'...I'm assuming that you didn't read this whole thread, because I posted in it earlier about how I did come up with a way to even out the flip-winning luck factor - this was my post ------>

:sorry
Hey Ghost,

Your suggestion seems to be a fair and equitable choice, however! if there are handicaps involved how would you handle that part of the equation?

How is everything in Chicago?

John

 

[darmoose]

How bout this.....

How bout this.....

I am a purist also and love one pocket, I rarely play anything else, maybe GOLF if I can get the guys to play ( I mean on a snooker table)

I wouldn't mind a shot clock, if the players could violate that rule, pay a penalty of one ball and start the clock over. That would keep a player from completely selling out just because of the clock. However, clocks wouldn't help much in everyday play cause nobody travels around with clocks.

My suggestion to help the everyday game as well as tournament games is this...

Fouls are too cheap, pro players think nothing of commiting intentional fouls and lining up coins to keep from selling out when their opponent has them in a trap. Traps by the way are part of the game and should be rewarded.

Fouls should not be penalized by spotting a ball. Fouls should be penalized by transferring a ball from the "fouler to the "foulee". Every foul, then, would add to someones score Move the game closer to a conclusion.

The only exception would be that if a player is on the "hill" a foul by his opponent will result only in the spotting of a ball (as is currently done). This exception allows one to continue to pocket a ball and scratch behind it, when your opponent is on the hill. So a player will not win the game while sitting in the chair.

I believe the beauty of this rule would be that intentional fouls and all other fouls now would shorten the game rather than lengthen the game.

 

[jrhendy]

I am a purist also and love one pocket, I rarely play anything else, maybe GOLF if I can get the guys to play ( I mean on a snooker table)

I wouldn't mind a shot clock, if the players could violate that rule, pay a penalty of one ball and start the clock over. That would keep a player from completely selling out just because of the clock. However, clocks wouldn't help much in everyday play cause nobody travels around with clocks.

My suggestion to help the everyday game as well as tournament games is this...

Fouls are too cheap, pro players think nothing of commiting intentional fouls and lining up coins to keep from selling out when their opponent has them in a trap. Traps by the way are part of the game and should be rewarded.

Fouls should not be penalized by spotting a ball. Fouls should be penalized by transferring a ball from the "fouler to the "foulee". Every foul, then, would add to someones score Move the game closer to a conclusion.

The only exception would be that if a player is on the "hill" a foul by his opponent will result only in the spotting of a ball (as is currently done). This exception allows one to continue to pocket a ball and scratch behind it, when your opponent is on the hill. So a player will not win the game while sitting in the chair.

I believe the beauty of this rule would be that intentional fouls and all other fouls now would shorten the game rather than lengthen the game.

I like it.

 

[darmoose]

I like it.

John

Thank you. We've been discussing possible rule changes to speed up play a little over on AZ Billiards mainly because one pocket tournaments can take so very long.

While I don't mind a long tough defensive game myself, I do agree that some rooms, including mine, don't have many one pocket tournaments due to the time it takes.

I also am a great believer in KISS (keep it simple stupid). This simple rule change could force games to move forward, and coerce players to attempt to shoot out of a jam, rather than take an intentional foul.

I am very interested in what some of the more experienced and accomplished players on this board think of it.

 

[gulfportdoc]

Interesting idea, Darmoose. However a swing of two balls for an unintentional foul or scratch to me is too severe. After all, a normal scratch gives the opponent BIH in the kitchen.

However, the idea bears some consideration for intentional fouls. Yet I still see no need for a rules change for normal play; but only when a particular tournament match drags on and on.

Doc

 

[tylerdurden]

Interesting idea, Darmoose. However a swing of two balls for an unintentional foul or scratch to me is too severe. After all, a normal scratch gives the opponent BIH in the kitchen.

However, the idea bears some consideration for intentional fouls. Yet I still see no need for a rules change for normal play; but only when a particular tournament match drags on and on.

Doc

I am curious Doc why you think it is too severe? The one ball penalty is completely arbitrary anyway. One way to figure out how much intentionals are worth is to watch the guys and see how many scratches they will take to get at (or keep their opponent from) an open table. We have the three foul rule of course, which kind of muddies the waters, but think about if we didn't have the 3 foul rule. How many intentionals would these guys be willing to take? A lot. I think there are very strong arguments that an intentional should be worth more than a ball, especially at the professional level. I would love to hear arguments why it is in fact only one ball (I have asked this question on here before, never got an answer). If anybody wants my opinion, I think scratches (into the pocket) in one pocket can't be overpenalized. CB control is the soul of the game, and if you go into the hole there should be severe consequences. In short, I don't agree that what Darmoose proposed is too severe at all.

I think what this 2 ball swing would do is guys would be put in really tough spots more often, and we'd see them shooting more interesting/risky/intricate shots to try and get out of it (as opposed to a little bunt).

I have brought this up before, meaning I think it would be great if pros were penalized 2 balls from their side. But the proposed one ball from them, going to the other player I do like even better. That is a great idea I think if your goal is to speed up the game and make it more interesting. Perhaps like all things brought up here, this does have the potential to slow the game even more though by way of players playing much more conservatively.

I personally think we just need to face it: this is a slow game. To be honest, in today's society of .25 second attention spans and every body constantly being on the move, I think its pace is one of the things we have going for us. The more I think about it we just need to drop this and focus on how to promote the clearly not broken game that we already have.

 

[Island Drive]

Speed it up

Speed it up

Someone make one pocket chairs, one down by the foot rail and one on each long rail. Make it a 45 degree leaning pad, such that your never sitting down all the way....your half standing.

 

[NH Steve]

You would have to try these ideas, because as good as they sound, it is often difficult to predict unintended consequences. The double penalty for a foul might make players more cautious and I tend to relate extra caution to extra time -- i.e. the extra caution might make players both take less risks and take more time in shooting, both of which could add back in whatever time is saved by shorter ball counts from scratches.

If we are trying to deal with the time problem, I would rather see more risk-taking rather than less.

Thinking along those lines, having pocketed balls count double could invite more aggressive shots as opposed to having scratches count double.

 

[One Pocket Ghost]

I am very interested in what some of the more experienced and accomplished players on this board think of it.

No offense moose, but, I hate it...knowing how and when to take intentional scratches is one of the strategic skills of the game - it should not be fukked with...

- Ghost

 

[One Pocket Ghost]

I don't know if B. Stroud was serious or joking when he said this twice, as a solution for making the game faster ---> "make the pockets bigger"...but I'll tell you what, I view that as a serious suggestion - I'd do that in a heartbeat, before I would change the game in any way......play on 5" pockets - that'll get guys shooting at their hole more, taking chances on tougher straight in shots, tougher banks, tougher combinations, tougher caroms & 'trick shots'...this, besides speeding the game up, would make the game more exciting to watch.

- Ghost

 

[jrhendy]

I don't know if B. Stroud was serious or joking when he said this twice, as a solution for making the game faster ---> "make the pockets bigger"...but I'll tell you what, I see that as a serious suggestion..I'd do that in a heartbeat, before I would change the game at all......play on 5" pockets - that'll get guys shooting at their hole more - taking chances on tougher straight in shots, tougher banks, tougher combinations, caroms & 'trick shots'..all of this, besides speeding the game up, would make the game more exciting to watch.

- Ghost

I am sure he is serious and I agree. Most of the old timers, including me, would prefer to play with bigger pockets.

I know for sure, R A hated smaller pockets and he always said, the bigger, the better. Bigger pockets complimented his style of moving multiple balls towards your hole.

A lot of my own game, because of the tight pockets, is leaving you long, hopefully on the rail or jacked up on a ball (You will see this first hand in Chicago:heh). I even converted more to this style after playing Artie a couple times.

We will never see bigger pockets again because the new generation is learning and getting used to playing on 3.75" to 4.25" pockets in tournaments and in action pool rooms. The livelier rails, cloth and cut of the pockets also tighten the table up.

 

[bstroud]

I was serious as a judge.

Larger pockets are the real solution to slow play.
They also make the game much more exciting for spectators.

One pocket has changed in recent years because of the small pockets.
Too much up table game now. No one will shoot at an end rail bank unless it is dead safe or a free bank.

Bill S.

 

[Frank Almanza]

I am sure he is serious and I agree. Most of the old timers, including me, would prefer to play with bigger pockets.

I know for sure, R A hated smaller pockets and he always said, the bigger, the better. Bigger pockets complimented his style of moving multiple balls towards your hole.

A lot of my own game, because of the tight pockets, is leaving you long, hopefully on the rail or jacked up on a ball (You will see this first hand in Chicago:heh). I even converted more to this style after playing Artie a couple times.

We will never see bigger pockets again because the new generation is learning and getting used to playing on 3.75" to 4.25" pockets in tournaments and in action pool rooms. The livelier rails, cloth and cut of the pockets also tighten the table up.

Bigger pockets would certainly be a viable solution to speed up tournament play. No changes to the game will be needed. The only down side with bigger pockets is when you try to dig out balls from the hole. Much harder to do with bigger pockets.

 

[darmoose]

No offense moose, but, I hate it...knowing how and when to take intentional scratches is one of the strategic skills of the game - it should not be fukked with...

- Ghost

No offense taken there, Ghost. We agree to disagree. Intentional fouls are the scourge of one pocket, employed by unimaginative players while hoping no one will notice what they just didn't do, and serve only to delay the game.

I make it a point, when my opponent intentionally fouls to do likewise, until he is on two and must pay the piper.:sorry ..so where's your strategic advantage then?

 

[NH Steve]

Bigger pockets would certainly be a viable solution to speed up tournament play. No changes to the game will be needed. The only down side with bigger pockets is when you try to dig out balls from the hole. Much harder to do with bigger pockets.

...and all the TD would have to do if Diamond would simply slot their rail bold holes, would be to loosen a few bolts on the lower section of the long rails, and slide the lower rail section a half inch closer to the side pockets -- that would make the corners a half inch bigger and we don't use the sides in One Pocket anyway, lol


Steve <------- (not so serious)

Seriously, even though I like a little bigger pocket myself, I don't see that changing, unless for all tournament games the trend changes.