Go Back   OnePocket.org Forums > One Pocket Forum
Register FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:51 AM
androd's Avatar
androd androd is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Braunfels tx.
Posts: 7,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by androd View Post
Not a bad idea ! Although I'm a lucky player, it probably wouldn't help me.
Again Not a bad idea, I like it !
__________________
Rod.

Rodney Stephens.
(e-mail) rod.stephens0105@att.net(e-mail) #713-973-0503 is now working
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:54 AM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve View Post
If you look at our official rules, in many places there are alternate rules that have a history of being popular in different locales, etc. So it is not out of the realm of possiblity to try some alternate rules that would start there, and if they were to grow in popularity then ultimately who knows, the old rule could become the alternate rule (such as essentially what happened with an object ball coming off the table -- it used to not be a foul, but now it is, as the standard).

And particularly with all the issues of how long tournaments run and the worst case of current or potential tournament hosts possibly avoiding One Pocket because they are concerned about time issues -- I am very much in favor of seriously exploring time saving alternative rules that might mitigate those issues and encourage more One Pocket tournaments.

I have already collected a few ideas and bunched them into sort of an express version of One Pocket. So some of the ideas might work in that direction, but some of them also might work (like the Grady rule) as alternatives built right into options in our rules that are highlighted particularly for tournament directors to control match/tournament time over-runs. Kind of a menu of back-up options in case a tournament director feels they need to rein in the time matches are taking. So this paragraph describes two ways these good ideas could be used.

So yes, I am listening.

Steve,

Appreciate that you are listening. So, as our leader, I must ask you. If there are people out there making changes to the rules of OP (whether for just tournaments or in general) like officially, is this organization (your organization) desirous of having at least some input?
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:57 AM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by androd View Post
Again Not a bad idea, I like it !
Rod,

You are a man of (too) few words. Thank you again.

__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:00 PM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,250
Default

If you really think about it, OP is an expertise demanding game, that only the very top players can play up to the expectations of the game. Like Efren for instance, and quite a few others, that possess the talent, touch, and finesse to control the ob and the cb.

Well, by going to Darmoose Moving Forward combined with Any Foul Accept or Pass Back then in fact the standard bar of excellence has been greatly raised.
For you are then trying to play a clean game without fouling, and especially without doing an intentional. Because, for every foul your opponent gets a ball, except the last game winning ball.

Well I do not possess the talent to pull off the shots to correctly play this game of OP. So playing by these rules I would definitely need to up my speed, it would pose a challenge.

I think if I was a young man and seriously wanted to get into OP, I would like the challenge of playing by these rules. Whitey
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:19 PM
lll lll is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post

Larry has emerged as the most vocal, let's say, against this idea and while I don't agree with his opinion or his idea as to how something like this should be pursued, there is no animosity involved. I would simply like to change his mind.
darrell
in spite of my smart ass remark about opinions in a prior post (which i edited)
frank and jerry against the idea and jeff and rod and whitey for the idea
these are people who i respect greatly
they have ALOT of onepocket experience frank/jerry/rod/and jeff for sure have gambled for years and all of them have been around the block more than just a few times
so when they speak .....i listen
my resume is a grain of sand on the beach compared to them
for the record
i do think your idea has potential..is an interesting concept (as an alternative )
but i think no conclusions yea or nay can be made until it is tried on the table
everything else is speculation and debate
i will say you are a pro at persuasion and debate....
you say you play every day
play somebody cheap
get some of your buddies to try it out
if get a chance i will try to play with your rules and see how it goes.....
i just dont get to play much onepocket
after there has been experience in its use
then a meaningfull discussion can take place
and i dont think a change should be made without table time experience
i dont think you will change my opinion about that
and just like everyone else
i have an opinion and you know what too.....
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:21 PM
Billy Jackets Billy Jackets is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,081
Default

I used to play a guy who would shoot safeties by shoving the cueball gently between a ball and the cushion, freezing to the ball, every chance he got , he would never once admit to a foul ,even though it was obvious to anyone watching.
I still beat him, but it sure made it a lot tougher.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:23 PM
bstroud bstroud is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,413
Default

I have played one pocket a long time. It is a great game.
The intentional foul is part of the game and call benefit any cognizant player.

I still give up big spots and find it invaluable.

Ball in hand has no place in any Billiard game.

For Tournament play however a shorter game like my 10 ball one pocket (Phoenix one pocket) with the 10 ball worth 2 could work.

Bill S.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:12 PM
catkins's Avatar
catkins catkins is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: oakland california
Posts: 439
Default

The thing I like about this rule over nay of the other ways to speed up one pocket is that it honestly makes intentional fouling much more strategic. It does not take it out of the game it just means that you have to really think about how you are going to use it. You no longer can just keep a guy in the same position they put you in but have to move the ball whee you would not mind shooting and your opponent would not want to shoot from but has to. I jsut feel that this would actually improve the play of the game while still allowing the intentional but making them more of a skilled shot and not less

just my opinion
chris
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-12-2019, 05:38 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lll View Post
darrell
in spite of my smart ass remark about opinions in a prior post (which i edited)
frank and jerry against the idea and jeff and rod and whitey for the idea
these are people who i respect greatly
they have ALOT of onepocket experience frank/jerry/rod/and jeff for sure have gambled for years and all of them have been around the block more than just a few times
so when they speak .....i listen
my resume is a grain of sand on the beach compared to them
for the record
i do think your idea has potential..is an interesting concept (as an alternative )
but i think no conclusions yea or nay can be made until it is tried on the table
everything else is speculation and debate
i will say you are a pro at persuasion and debate....
you say you play every day
play somebody cheap
get some of your buddies to try it out
if get a chance i will try to play with your rules and see how it goes.....
i just dont get to play much onepocket
after there has been experience in its use
then a meaningfull discussion can take place
and i dont think a change should be made without table time experience
i dont think you will change my opinion about that
and just like everyone else
i have an opinion and you know what too.....
Thanks Larry, I understand and I can get a little sarcastic too. I try to be subtle and sneaky about it, but, it usually shows through and sometimes gets me in trouble, no big deal as far as I'm concerned, guess we should try to keep it friendly.

I don't disagree that at some point we must take it to the table, I get that. I haven't been able to get anybody to try these ideas as yet, because the guys I play with all wanna play $20-$50 a game, won't try anything new, and don't even wanna play a cheaper game cause they would miss an opportunity to gamble for more by doing so. I keep trying. If you, or anyone else who comes to the MOT in Philly, I will try it with them or you.

I wanna say something about "changing the game" that I will repeat in your new thread, but I'm gonna put it here too. When I think about this, I don't think about whether the "rules" change much or not. I want rules made that are unambiguous, simple, clear, reduce/eliminate subjectiveness/interpretation, few or NO exceptions. More than that though, I want the nature of the game to remain in tact.

The game is full of options, strategies, decisions, etc. Exchanging one strategy like forcing the opponent to take intentionals by doing so yourself, for an "option" after all fouls (decision making) and improved value added to traps, I don't think changes the nature or the playing of the game much. Still as strategic, may require more skill, and more honest to what OP is supposed to be about.

I think when we consider things that change the game too much, playing to a lower number of balls (5 or 6) does that. The end game is affected, the breakshot is changed, the spacial relationships are changed, ball runners will win more cause it will be easier.

I think if we can get speedier games by doing things like the "moving forward" rule or the "option after a foul" rule that may switch one strategy for another, but not do away with important segments of the game, that is good.

Hard to put words to and explain, but you know it when you see it kinda thing.

__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-12-2019, 06:23 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis "Whitey" Young View Post
If you really think about it, OP is an expertise demanding game, that only the very top players can play up to the expectations of the game. Like Efren for instance, and quite a few others, that possess the talent, touch, and finesse to control the ob and the cb.

Well, by going to Darmoose Moving Forward combined with Any Foul Accept or Pass Back then in fact the standard bar of excellence has been greatly raised.
For you are then trying to play a clean game without fouling, and especially without doing an intentional. Because, for every foul your opponent gets a ball, except the last game winning ball.

Well I do not possess the talent to pull off the shots to correctly play this game of OP. So playing by these rules I would definitely need to up my speed, it would pose a challenge.

I think if I was a young man and seriously wanted to get into OP, I would like the challenge of playing by these rules. Whitey

Whitey,

I gotta say, this is a great post. NOT because it supports my ideas at all, but because it is succinct, displays a solid understanding of what makes OP great, and is uplifting.

I had not thought of combining the two, and this might be too aggressive. I would not want one of these to fail to get consideration because put together they were just too much. This is true, though. The "moving forward" idea was conceived to speed up the game and maybe increase the penalty for fouling. The "option after a foul" rule is an effort to fix a problem with intentionals, but also raises the penalty for fouls somewhat, and might also speed up the game a bit.

I think you are correct, though, together they create a faster, higher skilled format that requires greater attention to playing mistake free OP. Could actually be quite interesting.

My personal opinion is that the "moving forward" rule is more difficult and complicated to understand, and it purports an "inevitability" to the end of the game that OP players can find uncomfortable..

Thanks for the support.

__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All original content Copyright Onepocket.org and/or the original author. All rights reserved.