Good 1P Vids Thread

Patrick Johnson

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
1,447
A heartbreaker - Alex needs 1 ball to win the match and Ike is stuck. He tries the z-kick safety (the right choice, I thought), but the CB rolls long, he scratches and sells the farm.

Both Ike and Alex looked like they thought it was odd. What do you think? Did Ike lose to a funny roll?

I superimposed multiple frames from the video to show the exact CB path - the dashed line is the equal angle "theoretical" path. All tables roll a little long on these lag kicks, but this seems a little much to me. My experience is mostly on GCs, but I thought Diamonds were supposed to rebound shorter...?

pj
chgo

View attachment 14884
 

Attachments

  • ike0.jpg
    ike0.jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,647
A heartbreaker - Alex needs 1 ball to win the match and Ike is stuck. He tries the z-kick safety (the right choice, I thought), but the CB rolls long, he scratches and sells the farm.

Both Ike and Alex looked like they thought it was odd. What do you think? Did Ike lose to a funny roll?

I superimposed multiple frames from the video to show the exact CB path - the dashed line is the equal angle "theoretical" path. All tables roll a little long on these lag kicks, but this seems a little much to me. My experience is mostly on GCs, but I thought Diamonds were supposed to rebound shorter...?

pj
chgo

View attachment 14884

That’s about right where I’d aim on a Brunswick, where the side pocket diamond would be, with maybe just favoring the right side of the cb (not necessarily right English). I’ve only played in diamond bar tables and yeah I am not sure how to answer for a diamond I suppose I would be thinking that area would be about proper. If it’s new cloth would seem that’s about what it should have done though at slow speed, diamond and all.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
Just finished watching game between Sylver and Rafeal and I thought I would conduct a little experiment on this as well as the Scott/ Sylver games.

I applied the "going forward" rules to these games as best i could, recognizing that I couldn't remove balls. However, it didn't appear that this made much difference.

The results were:

Rafeal made 4 fouls and Sylver made 2 fouls.

Sylver made 2 additional balls, and Rafeal made 6 additional balls to win the game.

The game would have ended at 31:45 instead it actually ended at 42:30; the "going forward" rule would have saved 10:45 or about 25%.

On the other hand in the four games between Sylver and Scott there was only one foul, commited by Sylver in the whole four games. The games took 13.5, 4.0, 10.0, and 4.0 minutes, so no effect with the "going forward" rule.

Doesn't say alot, except perhaps that the rule is only effective when some fouls are involved.

Incidentally, in the first game between Scott/ Sylver at the 3:56 mark it appears that Sylver fouls while kicking the 8 ball and nobody called it.
 

Cory in dc

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Messages
1,657
Just finished watching game between Sylver and Rafeal and I thought I would conduct a little experiment on this as well as the Scott/ Sylver games.

I applied the "going forward" rules to these games as best i could, recognizing that I couldn't remove balls. However, it didn't appear that this made much difference.

The results were:

Rafeal made 4 fouls and Sylver made 2 fouls.

Sylver made 2 additional balls, and Rafeal made 6 additional balls to win the game.

The game would have ended at 31:45 instead it actually ended at 42:30; the "going forward" rule would have saved 10:45 or about 25%.

On the other hand in the four games between Sylver and Scott there was only one foul, commited by Sylver in the whole four games. The games took 13.5, 4.0, 10.0, and 4.0 minutes, so no effect with the "going forward" rule.

Doesn't say alot, except perhaps that the rule is only effective when some fouls are involved.

Incidentally, in the first game between Scott/ Sylver at the 3:56 mark it appears that Sylver fouls while kicking the 8 ball and nobody called it.

It's tough to evaluate the actual effect because with the Moose Rule, the penalty for a foul is larger so we should expect to see fewer fouls. Time savings wouldn't come so much from the increased penalty directly but rather from the fact that people would play fewer intentionals -- presumably in ways that are more offense-oriented and speed up games.
 

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,647
It's tough to evaluate the actual effect because with the Moose Rule, the penalty for a foul is larger so we should expect to see fewer fouls. Time savings wouldn't come so much from the increased penalty directly but rather from the fact that people would play fewer intentionals -- presumably in ways that are more offense-oriented and speed up games.

I agree it’s very difficult to evaluate what would actually happen speed wise. I can’t help but think though, as moose pointed out in a way, fast games would go fast under either rule. But, games that get much more technical and one or both players are in a very tight spot (like frozen to the stack etc), are going to move much faster. Those “technical” games seem to be very prevalent in one pocket.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
I agree it’s very difficult to evaluate what would actually happen speed wise. I can’t help but think though, as moose pointed out in a way, fast games would go fast under either rule. But, games that get much more technical and one or both players are in a very tight spot (like frozen to the stack etc), are going to move much faster. Those “technical” games seem to be very prevalent in one pocket.

El Chapo,

I think your analysis is right on. In these simulations I can't remove balls from up table to pay for fouls, but it didn't appear to make that much difference in these games. As you say, fast games go fast under any rules. It is where games become bogged down that these rules make a difference.

This rule is so simple in it's application, and is no more intrusive to the playing of the game than the Grady rule which also moves balls from up table, but puts them on the spot. Actually, you could make the argument that the Grady rule is more intrusive in that it will "artificially create" shots that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Likewise, the Grady rule doesn't guarantee the game won't go backwards, while the "darmoose" rule definitely does.

There is a realization of the inevitable progression of the game that becomes obvious. I believe if players who wanna see faster one pocket begin to play this way, they will quickly see there is no appreciable down side.
 

Miller

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
5,524
From
East St. Louis Area
hunter v pratico
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCet8P28RMo


cliff notes.....

i spy a chicago mike....

47:00 balls locked up bobby's top corner pocket

57:00 monster shot and out by pratico

1:03 2nd rack - good WWYD and nice shot by hunter

1:35 brief wedge exchange

1:42 nice out by hunter

2:13 4th rack - nifty 3 railer pratico from the stack

:)
 
Top