what dennis said made the difference this time

Tom Wirth said:

Go ahead Bill, you explain it. I'll provide a post of mine from a year ago to help set you up. If anyone wishes to search back, the thread name was "Tight pockets vs Loose." Then if they don't get it they don't get it.

Old 10-03-2016, 04:05 PM
Tom Wirth's Avatar
Tom Wirth Tom Wirth is online now
Verified Member

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delray Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,273
Default

Many of the points which have been brought up here focus on how tighter pockets lessen the shooter's ability to pocket balls, but doesn't this also affect the mover's ability to do the same?

Frank, you point out how you might lag a straight back toward your hole and leave a long straight in shot to your straight shooting opponent knowing that if he shoots at it, he can score only one ball. Isn't this is a strategy shooters will also be aware of and employ? I'm not talking about shooters who are entirely ignorant of the game but even if I were, logic tells us that these shooters will still pocket balls on tight tables better the fellow that relies on his moving skills. Just because the mover thinks out the game better than the shooter does not mean the shooter plays recklessly or stupidly on all occasions. And guys, who do you think in long sessions will improve their game quicker? If the shooter's IQ is anything above double digits, his shooting skills will remain strong while progressively learning the various traps and using them against his opponent. Conversely, the mover's shooting skills will not change with anywhere near the same speed.

A shooter's ball pocketing skills will certainly be adversely affected the tighter the pockets but he will still pocket balls better than the mover won't he? And what happens when the mover is placed in a position where his best option is to shoot at his hole a "must make" shot where the safety is more difficult? Wouldn't you rather be the guy with the shooting skills in that situation? Even shooters can set traps!

It was pointed out that Mr. 400 won't be running many balls on a table with 4 1/4 inch pockets and this is true, but if you look at the other side to that coin if the pockets are now 5 inches in width, isn't it true that a player who on average can run only 4 or 5 balls on tight equipment should now be able to run eight balls nearly as well as the shooter? Wouldn't this neutralize much of the shooter's advantage while doing little to affect the mover's ability to set traps?

This is why I lean towards the belief that the mover will fare better on looser equipment than he will on very tight tables. I welcome your responses and I'm still open to arguments on the other side.

Thanks,

Tom
__________________

"Controlled Aggression" trwirth369@gmail.com

Click to expand...

I gotta come clean and say I had trouble following that.

If I simplify it, and we talk about nine ball (which maybe I’m wrong about applying this to nine ball?), if parica gives a lesser ball striker the 8 and it’s a perfectly even game (take that as a given), then parica can now give him some degree more on tighter pockets? Also, are you saying the tighter the pockets get, the more he can give him?

Let’s just assume you guys are right, which I’m sure you are, it seems much too simple of a statement to me. I gurantee, if you’re right, there’s some threashold pocket size where the better ball striker no longer benefits as much, if at all. The tighter the pockets get (we are talking super tight), the more innings there will be, and thus the better thinkers or manueverers would have an advantage, IMO anyway.

Well, in the area where I play we have some rooms with looser tables and some rooms with much tighter tables.

The older more experienced one pocket players (movers) given a choice will always migrate to the tighter tables when going up against lesser experienced, but younger better shooters.

The tightest pockets I know of are found on a "golf table", and you wouldn't wanna be a shooter going up against a better mover in a game of golf which many compare to one pocket, and many older one pocket players play.

Take a look at SVB (perhaps the sharpest shooter of them all) playing golf with Hawaiian Brian at Hard times on you tube.

Kybanks said:

Didn't they play an event this year at Buffalos where the T.V. table was super tight with worn cloth? I believe Dennis won that if I am not mistaken. I believe if you tighten any playing surface it will always favor the guy who is more accurate.

Click to expand...

Bingo!! Give that man a cigar I aint no E.F.Hutton but thank you..thank you..thank you so very much.

Dr. Bill

Think of it this way: if the pockets were 10-inches wide, no one would ever miss. So, large pockets equalize the shot-making aspect of the game, making the moving aspect less important. Once you tighten the pockets, the creme rises to the top.

Just yesterday, someone I usually give 9-7 to asked me to play, but he insisted on playing on one of the Diamond tables vs. the GC III we usually play on. He knew the Diamond had looser pockets and would therefore allow him to let his stroke out more. Thanks, but no thanks.

wincardona said:

Bingo!! Give that man a cigar I aint no E.F.Hutton but thank you..thank you..thank you so very much.

Dr. Bill

Click to expand...

OneRock said:

Think of it this way: if the pockets were 10-inches wide, no one would ever miss. So, large pockets equalize the shot-making aspect of the game, making the moving aspect less important. Once you tighten the pockets, the creme rises to the top.

Just yesterday, someone I usually give 9-7 to asked me to play, but he insisted on playing on one of the Diamond tables vs. the GC III we usually play on. He knew the Diamond had looser pockets and would therefore allow him to let his stroke out more. Thanks, but no thanks.

Click to expand...

I could be reading this wrong Peter but if the shot making was equalized, then wouldn't it make the moving part more important?

Like if you and I played on loose pockets and you thought we both had an equal chance at making balls, then the person who wins will probably be the better mover of the 2 correct?

It seems like post # 18 by BRlongArm explains it. Dennis knew to get into Tony's head then go with tighter pockets. We probably all agree Tony did not play as well as he could, so there you go!

But other than getting into Tony's head, I feel the pocket size had little to do with actual shot making. For when either player missed it was by quite a bit, and not a little and then the ball rattles. I seen a ball fired in by Dennis and it rattled hard and dropped. I seen plenty of banks by Dennis the caught the very outside jaw of the pocket by the point, and still drop like a lead balloon, and no sign of a rattle. I believe those banks could of been a miss on a GC.

I feel diamond pockets play forgiving. And for this reason going a 1/4" tighter does not have as much of an effect as one would think. Although straight away shots would be harder of course. And this is where the difference is, looking at that smaller hole gets into your head. And Dennis's head is on straight when pocketing balls. I agree an advantage to the straighter shooter. And I agree with Bill's defensive play advantage.

Diamond makes a big deal out of the pocket cut of 41 degrees, and from what I just witnessed it sure seems this cut really directs the ball in the hole.

Which plays tighter; a GC with 4-1/2 pockets or a Diamond with 4-1/4 pockets, on shots with slight angles into the pocket and catching the rail before the pocket? I am asking because there is no Diamond table within a 100 miles of me, so I cannot do a very good comparison, except what I view on videos.

I agree with BR that the tighter pockets made a huge difference based on his thread # 18.

But, obviously playing Tony on his own turf the first match, made for a no-brainer to go elsewhere and change up the table and pocket size. Whitey

All I can say is I’ve played Efren four times. The only times I was competitive with Efren was on tight tables. I know he’s not the ball striker of old but I just got whooped on 5” pockets. I want 4 1/8 against Efren

Nope. You go for more shots when pockets are large. Moving becomes less effective.

cincy_kid said:

I could be reading this wrong Peter but if the shot making was equalized, then wouldn't it make the moving part more important?

Like if you and I played on loose pockets and you thought we both had an equal chance at making balls, then the person who wins will probably be the better mover of the 2 correct?

Click to expand...

OneRock said:

Nope. You go for more shots when pockets are large. Moving becomes less effective.

Click to expand...

I realize you go for more shots with larger pockets but you said if the shot making part was equal, then that would cancel each other out...its dead even.

So then what would be the deciding factor on who the winner is? If its not shot making then it would be.....?

(hint: moving)

But on a side note, I can see both sides of the argument. I am still in the camp though that the tighter pockets will always favor the better shooter.

Once the shot making is equalized, and the weaker player catches a stroke, you'd be scrambling to find a move to keep him off a shot. His shot making improves relative to yours because you'd still be making the same shots you were making on the tight pockets, but he'd be making the shots that he was previously missing. He'd also be making the banks that a tight pocket would normally spits out. It changes the whole complexion of the game. It just turns into a shot-making game on 4.5-inch and larger pockets.

cincy_kid said:

I realize you go for more shots with larger pockets but you said if the shot making part was equal, then that would cancel each other out...its dead even.

So then what would be the deciding factor on who the winner is? If its not shot making then it would be.....?

(hint: moving)

But on a side note, I can see both sides of the argument. I am still in the camp though that the tighter pockets will always favor the better shooter.

Click to expand...

One-Pocket isn't always a contest between movers. Moving is a means to an end. If the pockets are large enough for you to feel comfortable shooting, you'd be less compelled to move.

If a player's excuse for losing is that his opponent shot at everything and didn't "play good One-Pocket", what does that mean exactly? Did he want his opponent to refrain from shooting and play a safety instead? If the shooter's odds of pocketing a particular ball are high, and that ball opens the door to several more shots, then pocketing the ball is undoubtedly the "best move".

So, going back to the subject at hand, if you're spotting someone 9-7, it's because you feel you're a more accurate shooter and also a better mover. But his accuracy will increase on looser pockets, making many allegedly effective moves much less so.

In reality we know nothing, since the truth is at bottom. -- Democritus, 410 BC

:heh

El Chapo said:

I gotta come clean and say I had trouble following that.

If I simplify it, and we talk about nine ball (which maybe I’m wrong about applying this to nine ball?), if parica gives a lesser ball striker the 8 and it’s a perfectly even game (take that as a given), then parica can now give him some degree more on tighter pockets? Also, are you saying the tighter the pockets get, the more he can give him?

Let’s just assume you guys are right, which I’m sure you are, it seems much too simple of a statement to me. I gurantee, if you’re right, there’s some threashold pocket size where the better ball striker no longer benefits as much, if at all. The tighter the pockets get (we are talking super tight), the more innings there will be, and thus the better thinkers or manueverers would have an advantage, IMO anyway.

Click to expand...

Let me preface with something we all know. One Pocket is a cumulative game where each player tries to reach a specific number of balls to win the game. It is a cat and mouse game where each player plays both cat and mouse simultaneously. The cat being a player who relies on his trapping skills more than his shooting skills. Some players play the role of cat far better than others and that can be a huge advantage if the cat can also shoot as well as the mouse. Many times the mouse runs balls far better than the cat but hasn’t the same trapping skills. Each player has a tendency to play to their specific strength. That may be one reason weaker shooters gravitate to One Pocket. The idea being that they can better protect against exposing their weaker shooting skills. There is some truth in this thinking. It may also be the reason shooters preferred Nine Ball.

Times are changing though and shooters are realizing that they can quickly learn many of the moves in One Pocket, but if they choose to play a good mover with limited shooting skills on a table with big pockets they quickly find they have given away their shooting advantage and not done anything to mitigate the mover’s main asset.

It is a given that shooters are more accurate. They frequently split the center of pockets where everyone else relies on the wide birth bigger pockets offer. If the pockets are big enough this mover can now readily pocket many more balls per inning and will need fewer traps to score big. His moving skills become the dominate factor. Shrink the pockets to a size that intimidates him but not the shooter and the shooter’s skills become a dominate factor in the outcome.

Now for Nine Ball. Totally different game. Here it might be better to look at it from extremes. Suppose the pockets were 3 ½” and nether player can run a single rack but on rare occasions. Now to spot this player the 8 might turn out to be foolish because of the additional money ball. A one and stop game gives the handicapped player almost a 2 to 1 advantage. Had these players played on a table with 5” pockets the stronger player’s shooting skills will have a greater impact because he will be running far more racks than his counterpart.

This same thinking was talked about by Dr. Bill in a previous thread when he spoke of playing One Pocket on very tight equipment. Now both players shooting skills are compromised nearly to the point of one and stop. Should a player be getting 8 to 6, that spot translates into 25% of the game. Turn that around and with the same spot on a table with loose pockets 8 to 6 may not amount to much if the two players are capable of running the game out should they get an open shot. Now moving skills becomes far more important because shooting skills have now been all but equalized.

Tom

If you go one and stop in one pocket (ie super tough pockets), how does that not favor the mover to a greater extent?

Like I said, I know you guys know what you’re talking about of course, and I am sure you’re right (ie tighter favors better shooters), but that principle has got to give at a certain pocket tightness. You can’t make that statement, and have it be correct as pockets keep getting smaller and smaller imo. I think you guys are talking about going from buckets to tighter tables, and I’m sure your assertion is true in that case. But if pockets start restricting a ball strikers main strength (ie running balls), those conditions will no longer be as favorable to him.

And that brings up the point, what is that threashold pocket size where the stronger shooter no longer benefits as much from the tighter pockets?

El Chapo said:

If you go one and stop in one pocket (ie super tough pockets), how does that not favor the mover to a greater extent?

Like I said, I know you guys know what you’re talking about of course, and I am sure you’re right (ie tighter favors better shooters), but that principle has got to give at a certain pocket tightness. You can’t make that statement, and have it be correct as pockets keep getting smaller and smaller imo. I think you guys are talking about going from buckets to tighter tables, and I’m sure your assertion is true in that case. But if pockets start restricting a ball strikers main strength (ie running balls), those conditions will no longer be as favorable to him.

And that brings up the point, what is that threashold pocket size where the stronger shooter no longer benefits as much from the tighter pockets?

Click to expand...

Good questions here, and my answer is that the threshold for when the pockets begin to help the mover again is when the pockets get so tight that both player's ball running ability are greatly hampered. The ball striker's ability to pocket balls are still better than the mover's but this player will not be running many 8 and outs. He might be running 3s and 4s where the mover is running 1s and 2s. That said, the mover will be scoring in more innings possibly making it a more even proposition again. However, until that threshold is met the ball striker will benefit more should the pockets be tight enough to intimidate the mover but not the ball striker.

In other words, the shooter will benefit more if the mover's ability to score a reasonable number of balls with his traps are restricted to 2 or 3 balls on average as long as the shooter's ability to still run many balls during his innings is not severely hampered. This could be called the "Goldie Locks" of tables for the ball striker. One is intimidated while the other is not. This is what Dennis was talking about in his statement after the second match. As the better ball striker he benefited in the second match by playing on tighter equipment that did not hurt his ball pocketing ability but did challenge Tony more. Tony benefited more in the first match because his ball striking was not hampered by the size of the pockets. First match table; "Goldie locks" for Tony, Second match, "Goldie locks" for Dennis. Third match may be on a super tight 12' snooker table. Who knows? Now that would be interesting!

So, the mover benefits more than the ball striker with larger pockets because he can now pocket balls more readily, thereby neutralizing the ball striker's advantage while maintaining his own advantage of greater moving skills. These ideas are all relative to each players abilities and in no way means one player has the best of it over the other given the conditions. It only means some conditions mitigate the advantage one player has while other conditions do the same for his opponent.

Any better?

Tom

Yeah that sounds right on point to me. Scary thing Is if you watch this video, orcollos threashold is very tight. I know how tight that table plays and it’s downright scary he plays like this on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH1tuvo0zXc

darmoose said:

Well, in the area where I play we have some rooms with looser tables and some rooms with much tighter tables.

The older more experienced one pocket players (movers) given a choice will always migrate to the tighter tables when going up against lesser experienced, but younger better shooters.

The tightest pockets I know of are found on a "golf table", and you wouldn't wanna be a shooter going up against a better mover in a game of golf which many compare to one pocket, and many older one pocket players play.

Take a look at SVB (perhaps the sharpest shooter of them all) playing golf with Hawaiian Brian at Hard times on you tube.

Click to expand...

This is my belief also. I think that the real problem here is the definition or explanation of shooter vs mover. You can be a shooter playing against a mover who pockets balls as well or better. Its not their ability that makes them a mover or shooter, it is their approach and style of play. Smaller pockets make it harder for both players to pocket balls. The assumption that a shooter is going to make everything on smaller pockets that he does on bigger pockets is absurd. You make the pockets smaller, everyone's ball pocketing is going to decrease. A mover isnt shooting at shots that have consequences, they are moving balls to their side and setting traps, or shooting 2 way shots. The shooter either has to become more of a mover or accept the losses caused by a lower percentage of ball pocketing when shooting from the trap positions. Straight in from 9 feet on my side of the table with 5 inch pockets and im not even thinking about whats on your side of the table except what im banking next. If its 4 1/4 or 1/8, I may have to be a mover. Also something that no one has brought up is poor movement getting a shooter out of shape during a run and the amount of cheating you can get away with on a bigger pocket to get back into shape as opposed to a smaller pocket. No one has mentioned that yet, I don't believe. I guess im just not good enough for it to mater the other direction yet, ill keep working on it.

darmoose said:

Well, in the area where I play we have some rooms with looser tables and some rooms with much tighter tables.

The older more experienced one pocket players (movers) given a choice will always migrate to the tighter tables when going up against lesser experienced, but younger better shooters.

The tightest pockets I know of are found on a "golf table", and you wouldn't wanna be a shooter going up against a better mover in a game of golf which many compare to one pocket, and many older one pocket players play.

Take a look at SVB (perhaps the sharpest shooter of them all) playing golf with Hawaiian Brian at Hard times on you tube.

Click to expand...

Dar. Though Golf and One Pocket are similar in that they are both strategic games they are distinctly different in that in Golf one player is never allowed to shoot directly at an opposing player's ball. Can you imagine how that would change the game for the "movers" vs. the "shooters"?

Tom

OneRock said:

Nope. You go for more shots when pockets are large. Moving becomes less effective.

Click to expand...

Peter, this is where I respectably disagree, moving may not decide as many games because there will be less moving, however, the effectiveness of the moves will swing the edge to the better mover. When playing on a table where the pockets are large enough to allow the weaker ball striker to be as effective in pocketing balls as the better ball striker than the player that earns the most opportunities will win a higher percentage of games played.

In today's one pocket the disparity in the moving game has lessened in comparison to years ago. There are many more instructional videos available to learn from in addition to the expert commentary that we have today have not only educated the masses but also the players as well. As a whole, players today are much more familiar with how the game should be played which is due in part of how popular the game has become. We as players recognize and share with one another the benefits of certain shots which in turn educates us all along the way. Yes, the disparity in the moving end of today's one pocket among the players that play the game has lessened greatly, and because of that the edge swings to the players that have the better ball striking skills, which was evidenced in the Chohan/Orcollo match.

However, when we talk about tight pockets favoring the better ball striker we must be cognizant that we are speaking of two players that are even, in terms of efficiency. We cannot misconstrue the statement to believe that the better ball striker has the advantage over the lesser ball striker when giving up weight, that's an entirely different scenario with many more intangibles that need to be considered.

Tip of the day.

Whenever there is a match between two players that are playing even one pocket, particularly top players, bet on the better ball striker.


Dr. Bill

Tom Wirth said:

Good questions here, and my answer is that the threshold for when the pockets begin to help the mover again is when the pockets get so tight that both player's ball running ability are greatly hampered. The ball striker's ability to pocket balls are still better than the mover's but this player will not be running many 8 and outs. He might be running 3s and 4s where the mover is running 1s and 2s. That said, the mover will be scoring in more innings possibly making it a more even proposition again.

Tom

Click to expand...

What this says to me is this. The threshold being talked about is different for each and every player. Orcullo may not get intimidated on 4.25" inch pockets, but a great % of other humans will. Movers know that once I find the pocket size that affects my opponents shooting, and get on that table, my chances of winning go up. First reason: shooters don't excel in making great decisions, they still gonna try to shoot when they shouldn't. Movers don't do that, they move balls, trap, and hang balls in their hole. Movers are focusing on cue ball placement.

Shooters, when playing a good mover on a tough table are most often starting their inning from where the mover put them on purpose. Movers quite often are starting their inning from a position that came from the shooter missing a shot at his hole.

We all know that beating the opponent to the shot is imperative in one pocket. The more times that is contested (the more innings) the better the mover likes it.

Movers tend to play more long drawn out games, while shooters tend to play quicker run out games. In order for a mover to beat a shooter, he has to affect the shooter's game, he has to get him out of stroke. He has to get him "moving" instead of "shooting".

So, I'm gonna agree with Tom here. Reducing the pocket size doesn't help the mover until it intimidates the shooter. Conversely, increasing the pocket size does not help the mover, until the pocket gets so big that the mover can't miss it. I have never seen a table that I can't miss on.:frus

At any given pocket size, the shooter will still enjoy an advantage if shooting is all that mattered. The mover must find conditions that allow him to bring other factors into the equation.

The fact that Orcullo won on tighter pockets than in match one does not mean that if they continue to move to tables with tighter yet pockets that Orcullo's advantage will increase or even continue to exist.

What I would say about the first match is that the pocket size allowed Tony to shoot close enough to Dennis's skill level that his superior moving skills made the difference. In match two, the pocket size affected Tony/s shooting, but not Dennis's, so Tony's superior moving skills could not make a difference. If they find a small enough pocket size that hampers Dennis's shooting ability, surely Tony's superior moving will once again become a factor.