As I mentioned before on another thread, I used to play a lot of one ball one pocket. It's a good game for players that get frustrated with all the moves in the stack, and a seasoned one pocket player still has an edge over someone who hasn't learned the moves. It is a great way to introduce one pocket to a nine-ball player. The rules are simple - we always played winner breaks (it is a disadvantage). You freeze the one object ball on the end rail on the middle diamond. You freeze the cue ball on the other end rail on the center diamond & break from there. We always played the breaker has the right hand pocket to avoid confusion.crawdaddio said:Any of you experienced one holers ever play short rack one pocket? If so, please share some thoughts on breaks, advantages, dis-advantages, different strategies, likes or dis-likes about it.
Thanks,
DC<<<<just curious......
Or break from a 'break box' on your own side of the headstring as your own pocket. John, I've also found this to be a great way to entice non-One Pocket players to play a little One Pocketjrhendy said:
If they won't try this, then I like to suggest 9-ball bankHow would you rack 5 or 9? If you racked like regular 9-ball, the wing ball would be a very high percentage make I would think -- which might mess the balance up. For three balls, I've tried three lined up on the spot, rather than a triangle -- the three ball line-up being a fairly common situation in any standard One Pocket game. The problem with 5 balls lined up is that the 5th one cuts right into your pocket!jrhendy said:
NH Steve said:Or break from a 'break box' on your own side of the headstring as your own pocket. John, I've also found this to be a great way to entice non-One Pocket players to play a little One Pocket
How would you rack 5 or 9? If you racked like regular 9-ball, the wing ball would be a very high percentage make I would think -- which might mess the balance up. For three balls, I've tried three lined up on the spot, rather than a triangle -- the three ball line-up being a fairly common situation in any standard One Pocket game. The problem with 5 balls lined up is that the 5th one cuts right into your pocket!
Six balls would make a standard triangle, which might work -- all you would have to do is both go to four and whoever makes the first legal ball, spots it up after they finish their inning, and then they only need 3 more, while their opponent still needs four. That would make the ball count come out right.
Ten balls could work the same way (going to six balls each and the first player to score spots one), but then you're getting up pretty close to needing eight anyway, so why bother.
I've never tried 6 or 10 balls or anything else other than 1, 3 or 15 balls so if anyone else has, I'd be curious to hear how it worked...
Some guys do play that way. But it's also easy to put an 11th ball in the last row of a 10 ball rack froze between the 2nd and 3rd balls. Then you can play first player to six wins.Skin said:
I will give you a Idea for a shorter game of one pocket. Nine ball one pocket is no good unless you can rack the balls a different way. because you can make a ball on the breack with a nine ball rack. And the balls spread to easy playing one pocket with a nine ball rack. So her is what I sugjest use 10 ball rack and the first player to get 5 balls wins. It does not matter if thier is one ball left on the table. And the will be learning different stratage with a ten ball rack. And it will speed p the game. And it will be easier for women to learn the game also. But I dont no if people are ready for those kind of changes. But its just a Idea. Or you can rack one ball then two balls then two 3 balls. Or one ball and 4 two balls thier are some different racks. And if everyone gives thier idea then you will come up with a answer.gulfportdoc said:
gulfportdoc said:
Artie Bodendorfer said:
The 7 ball rack would be an interesting proposition! My room doesn't have one of those racks, so I wouldn't be able to set it up. My guess is you'd just have to come off the outermost ball and roll the CB back up to the 3rd diamond or so. There might not be a "pocket" in the rack to hit.Skin said:
Skin said:Artie, I agree you'd need to rack 9 balls other than the normal way. I putzed around with a square configuration - 3 across the foot string and then 2 rows of three directly behind. I also tried racking them in a normal 9 ball diamond but rotating it 90 degrees. Both were very weird for the break.
I like the 10 ball rack also and thought about just going to 5 like you suggest, but that eliminates the fight for the last ball like you get in a 7-7 game. That's great part of the game. To me, that would be a lot to give up. But the game would go faster and would be different than with 15 balls.
What do you think about racking them like for 7 ball? I think this game would have a lot of potential but I have never heard of it being played. I imagine if anybody has played it before, it would be you!
Skin
SJDinPHX said:Skin,
To really simplify things, Artie stated the same thing weve been doing here in Phx. for 30 yrs. Rack 10 balls, first one to 5 wins (no ties) Likewise racking 6 balls first one to 3 wins. Very short, and simple. Granted, you won't have a last ball battle, but last 2 left on the table can be just as challenging most times.
Dick
Is the break so little an advantage with these undersized racks, that it would not work to have the breaker go that extra ball -- 6-5 or 4-3?SJDinPHX said:Skin,
To really simplify things, Artie stated the same thing weve been doing here in Phx. for 30 yrs. Rack 10 balls, first one to 5 wins (no ties) Likewise racking 6 balls first one to 3 wins. Very short, and simple. Granted, you won't have a last ball battle, but last 2 left on the table can be just as challenging most times.
Dick
gulfportdoc said: