statistics from the freezers ice house onepocket

lll · Jul 14, 2018

thank you AtLarge who posted this on azb
Here are some statistics from the 2018 Freezer's Ice House 1-Pocket Challenge, played July 11-13 at Freezer's Ice House (a pool hall) in Tempe, Arizona with free streaming on YouTube by povpool.

This was a 50-player, double-elimination event, with all races to 3 except the final match (to 5). The winner was Dennis Orcollo, beating Josh Roberts in the final match.

Conditions -- The conditions for the streamed matches included:
- Diamond 9-foot table with 4 1/8" corner pockets and blue Simonis 860 cloth;
- Aramith Tournament balls with a measles cue ball;
- triangle rack;
- rack your own with alternating breaks;
- a ball made on a legal break counts;
- no shot clock, but with a "1-plus-1" rule for slow play on the first day -- at the Tournament Director's discretion, one game is added to each player's score if the score is 0-0, 1-0, or 1-1 after 105 minutes of play (did not happen);
- foul on all balls;
- 3 fouls in a row is loss of game (did not happen); and
- lag for opening break in most matches (the winner of the hot seat got the opening break in the final match).

Unless stated otherwise, the stats are for the 13 streamed matches (58 games), which represented 13.5% of the total of 96 matches played in the event and 15.1% of the total of 383 games played in the event. The streamed matches are listed here in the order in which they were played:

Wed. July 11

1. Dennis Orcollo defeated Chris McDaniel 3-1
2. Warren Kiamco d. Bob Herchik 3-2
3. Josh Roberts d. Brandon Shuff 3-1
4. Tony Chohan d. Warren Kiamco 3-2
5. Scott Frost d. Derek Pogirski 3-0
6. Billy Thorpe d. Derek Pogirski 3-0

Thurs. July 12

7. Chip Compton d. Chris Robinson 3-2
8. Orcollo d. Frost 3-2
9. Orcollo d. Alex Pagulayan 3-1
10. Chohan d. Pagulayan 3-1

Fri. July 13

11. Orcollo d. Roberts 3-2 (Hotseat match)
12. Roberts d. Chohan 3-2 (Semifinal)
13. Orcollo d. Roberts 5-1 (Final)

■ Breaks from breaker's right side of table -- 31 of 58 (53%)

■ Games won by breaker

When breaking from his left side of table -- 10 of 27 (37%)
When breaking from his right side of table -- 24 of 31 (77%)
Total -- 34 of 58 (59%)

■ Games won by player who scored the first point (or had it scored for him) -- 38 of 58 (66%)

■ Matches won by winner of lag -- 9 of 13 (69%)

■ High run-outs

9(or more)-and-outs -- none
8-and-outs -- 11 times: 3 by Kiamco (Matches 2 twice and 4), 2 by Orcollo (Matches 1 and 13), 2 by Roberts (Matches 3 and 11), and 1 each by Shuff (Match 3), Thorpe (Match 6), Pagulayan (Match 9), and Chohan (Match 10)

■ Race lengths

Longest in total length (3 hrs., 24 min.) -- Orcollo d. Frost 3-2
Highest in average minutes per game (41 min.) -- Orcollo d. Frost 3-2 and Orcollo d. Pagulayan 3-1
Shortest in total length (39 min.) -- Thorpe d. Pogirski 3-0
Lowest in average minutes per game (13 min.) -- Thorpe d. Pogirski 3-0
Average length of races to 3 -- 1 hr., 51 min.
Average minutes per game -- 26 min.

■ Average score of the 12 tracked races to 3 -- 3 - 1.3. Two matches were shutouts and 6 went to hill/hill.

■ Average score of all 95 races to 3 in the event -- 3 - 1.0. Thirty-two matches were shutouts and 29 went to hill/hill.

■ Ball counts by length of run -- The total ball counts resulted from the following runs and fouls.

1 ball -- 120 times
2 balls -- 32
3 balls -- 23
4 balls -- 24
5 balls -- 15
6 balls -- 11
7 balls -- 4
8 balls -- 11
9+ balls -- 0
Plus balls pocketed by opponents -- 50
Minus fouls -- 76
TOTAL ball count (58 games) -- 580
Average game score (these 58 games) -- 8 - 2.0

■ Distribution of run-outs to win the games:

1 ball -- 21 (36% of 58 games)
2 balls -- 9
3 balls -- 4
4 balls -- 5
5 balls -- 4
6 balls -- 1
7 balls -- 3
8 balls -- 11 (19%)
Average (mean) "out" run -- 3.6 balls
Average (median) "out" run -- 2 balls

[/QUOTE]

lll · Jul 14, 2018

darmoose
what do you (or anyone else ) think of this rule above to quicken the pace of matches to get completed
no shot clock, but with a "1-plus-1" rule for slow play on the first day -- at the Tournament Director's discretion, one game is added to each player's score if the score is 0-0, 1-0, or 1-1 after 105 minutes of play (did not happen);

darmoose · Jul 14, 2018

lll said:
darmoose
what do you (or anyone else ) think of this rule above to quicken the pace of matches to get completed
no shot clock, but with a "1-plus-1" rule for slow play on the first day -- at the Tournament Director's discretion, one game is added to each player's score if the score is 0-0, 1-0, or 1-1 after 105 minutes of play (did not happen);

Hey Larry,

I guess this works to speed things up a little (maybe) without affecting the playing of "the game".

The things that bother me a little about this are:

The TD's discretion. I am not sure why there should be any discretion applied. Seems to me to be fair to all, the rule should be applied across the board once they reach the time limit. Not sure what he knows or what he would base his discretion on.

This rule does allow for some "manipulation" by a player. If a player is losing the third game, and the current game score is 1-1, he is gonna probably do whatever he needs to do to end that game before the bell rings, win or lose, because otherwise this third game ends the match.

Conversely, if a player is winning the third game, and the current game score is 1-1, he may try to extend the current game beyond the bell to end the match on this game.

If the third game can be ended or conceded before the 105min bell, the match is not going to be sped up much.

NH Steve · Jul 14, 2018

lll said:
darmoose
what do you (or anyone else ) think of this rule above to quicken the pace of matches to get completed
no shot clock, but with a "1-plus-1" rule for slow play on the first day -- at the Tournament Director's discretion, one game is added to each player's score if the score is 0-0, 1-0, or 1-1 after 105 minutes of play (did not happen);

They are calling that 1 + 1 but isn't that the same thing as suddenly shortening the race? I don't see it as any different.

LSJohn · Jul 14, 2018

lll said:
darmoose
what do you (or anyone else ) think of this rule above to quicken the pace of matches to get completed
no shot clock, but with a "1-plus-1" rule for slow play on the first day -- at the Tournament Director's discretion, one game is added to each player's score if the score is 0-0, 1-0, or 1-1 after 105 minutes of play (did not happen);

"Tournament Director's discretion" is a terrible idea. Either have the rule and enforce it or don't have it.

IMO, it will cause more trouble than it's worth, but, otherwise, I wouldn't mind it.

I'd like to see a Darmoose Rule experiment (fouls give one of your balls to your opponent.) That would definitely speed things up, maybe enough to let races to 4 get completed faster than races to 3 are now.

darmoose · Jul 14, 2018

LSJohn said:
"Tournament Director's discretion" is a terrible idea. Either have the rule and enforce it or don't have it.

IMO, it will cause more trouble than it's worth, but, otherwise, I wouldn't mind it.

I'd like to see a Darmoose Rule experiment (fouls give one of your balls to your opponent.) That would definitely speed things up, maybe enough to let races to 4 get completed faster than races to 3 are now.

Thanks John,

I obviously agree with you. Seems that "they" would rather try anything but the "give a ball to your opponent" rule, regardless of complications. GABTYO not only would shorten almost ALL games, and thus matches, it provides a deterrent to the game lengthening tactics in use today. Tactics which by the way favor ONLY the better player, whether gambling or playing in a tournament.

"Inferior players, RISE UP":lol:lol:sorry

Island Drive · Jul 14, 2018

darmoose said:
Thanks John,

I obviously agree with you. Seems that "they" would rather try anything but the "give a ball to your opponent" rule, regardless of complications. GABTYO not only would shorten almost ALL games, and thus matches, it provides a deterrent to the game lengthening tactics in use today. Tactics which by the way favor ONLY the better player, whether gambling or playing in a tournament.

"Inferior players, RISE UP":lol:lol:sorry

Your idea, could you explain it, or direct me to the thread where you ''already did''

. Sounds interesting.

Thee most difficult thing to try and accomplish in pool....create a ''Fair Game''.

darmoose · Jul 14, 2018

Island Drive said:
Your idea, could you explain it, or direct me to the thread where you ''already did'' . Sounds interesting.

Thee most difficult thing to try and accomplish in pool....create a ''Fair Game''.

Gladly Bill,

Instead of owing a ball to the table when you commit ANY foul, you owe it to your opponent. If you have balls in your rack, you give a a ball to him. If you don't have any balls, instead of putting a penny by your pocket, you put a penny by his pocket (which penny counts as a ball for him). When you do get a ball, you can replace the penny by his hole and give him your ball. If you NEVER get a ball, the penny by his hole counts as a ball towards his score.

Whomever reaches the goal (usually 8) with any combination of balls and coins wins.

This rule does not change the playing of the game, except that intentional fouls become more "costly" to the shooter, and deter a better player who is giving a spot to a weaker player from changing the game (i.e. from 9/7 to 11/9) by taking and forcing intentionals on the opponent.

The only "exception" I suggest is that when one player is down to game ball and he has it hanging in his hole, the other player be allowed to play the rule we have today, and spot two balls to continue the game. This, I guess, is somewhat arbitrary, but I just don't like the game to end just because someone hung a ball and no escape is possible.

This rule merely changes the way the score is kept. I think some are afraid of the "inevitability" of the game moving forward (and never backward) and of the increased emphasis put on fouls (which I happen to think are undervalued today).

Now isn't that simple and effective.:lol

gulfportdoc · Jul 14, 2018

Larry, nice compilation of statistics by Mr. "AtLarge"! An analyst could spend quite a bit of time mulling over the results.

The breaker winning 59% of the time is slightly below average. Between non pros, and in larger samples, it's up closer to 65%.

Matches won by winner of the lag (meaning he gets first break in the match), at 69%, is higher than games won by breaker, indicating that whoever breaks the first game of the match wins the match 69% of the time, irrespective of the fact that in 59% of the time the game is won by the breaker. Of course in races to 3 the first breaker gets 3 break shots, whereas the opponent only gets 2.

And, a shooter is definitely advised to make the first point, based on these statistics. Because he'll win two-thirds of the time from there!..

Anyone still awake?.

~Doc

Island Drive · Jul 14, 2018

darmoose said:
Gladly Bill,

Instead of owing a ball to the table when you commit ANY foul, you owe it to your opponent. If you have balls in your rack, you give a a ball to him. If you don't have any balls, instead of putting a penny by your pocket, you put a penny by his pocket (which penny counts as a ball for him). When you do get a ball, you can replace the penny by his hole and give him your ball. If you NEVER get a ball, the penny by his hole counts as a ball towards his score.

Whomever reaches the goal (usually 8) with any combination of balls and coins wins.

This rule does not change the playing of the game, except that intentional fouls become more "costly" to the shooter, and deter a better player who is giving a spot to a weaker player from changing the game (i.e. from 9/7 to 11/9) by taking and forcing intentionals on the opponent.

The only "exception" I suggest is that when one player is down to game ball and he has it hanging in his hole, the other player be allowed to play the rule we have today, and spot two balls to continue the game. This, I guess, is somewhat arbitrary, but I just don't like the game to end just because someone hung a ball and no escape is possible.

This rule merely changes the way the score is kept. I think some are afraid of the "inevitability" of the game moving forward (and never backward) and of the increased emphasis put on fouls (which I happen to think are undervalued today).

Now isn't that simple and effective.:lol

On paper............sounds good but.

Not spotting balls changes the game too much.

It feels like your almost changing a preexisting 14.1 rule that will never change, they got it right, the Mosconi era.

I'd rather....If you touch a ball, a ref is Automatically called.

frmn · Jul 15, 2018

The rule for this tournament was if after 90 minutes the score was 0-0 1-0 or 1-1 one game was added to each players score. It was not up to the TD's discretion.

This rule was suggested to me by Ken Shulman who was TD at the recent California Billiards West Coast Swing 1P event. His time limit was different than ours but they had 20 tables for 51 players compared to our 12 for 50. We had a lot of matches to get through and couldn't complete our event with 4 and 5 hour matches. We never wanted to step in and influence the outcome of a match. As it turns out we never had to enforce the rule although we did wind up with a few 4 hour matches( due to the fact that a player would go up 2-0,thereby meeting time control, and from there the match would end up going to the hill). We got close a few times but we were saved from having to interfere with the outcome of the match.

By the 3rd day of the tournament we and Scott decided to suspend the rule because we no longer were under such heavy time pressure. It is always preferable for the players, fans and TD's for the results to play out on the table

Congratulations to Dennis Orcollo for collecting his second One Pocket Championship in the last 2 weeks.

Thanks to all the 50 players and fans who came out to this first event and to Scott Frost and Freezer's Ice House for hosting and adding $3000.
Also thanks to Kenny Shulman and his TD partner Janet Okamoto for all their tips and guidance

darmoose · Jul 15, 2018

Island Drive said:
On paper............sounds good but.

Not spotting balls changes the game too much.

It feels like your almost changing a preexisting 14.1 rule that will never change, they got it right, the Mosconi era.

I'd rather....If you touch a ball, a ref is Automatically called.

Yeah, well, you're in the majority there, Bill. No danger there. But, if there ain't no ref, you're up poop creek.:lol

Unfortunately, while people complain about how long one pocket games can take, and how slow one pocket can get with defensive play and so on, the fact is that short of applying a shot clock there just ain't no way to speed things up without changing some aspects of the game.:sorry

If not spotting balls changes the game too much, then it logically follows that spotting balls from the kitchen, ala the Grady rule does so as well. The same is true of all suggested ideas we have heard so far.

The goal would be, if we wanted to, to change the game the LEAST. Grady's rule does that pretty well, and so does my rule suggestion. The added advantage of my rule is simply to add emphasis to fouls, which I think the game needs.

But, alas, too many sticks in this mud, so, nothing will change. That's fine with me, I like the game just as it is and don't mind the longer strategic games. There is much to enjoy about those games.

Dennis "Whitey" Young · Jul 15, 2018

Darmoose, I like how your moving forward rule has been refined, it has made a lot of progress, good job.
Bill makes a valid point that I do not believe was mentioned during our last go around, and that is spotting a ball is pretty entrenched in One Pocket, and to get away from it would be quite a change. But lets put that aside for now.

But by your rule if I take an intentional then I give a ball directly to my opponent, a returned intentional gives the ball right back (we are still not going backwards). In this situation I once again offer up this rule for consideration; if a 2nd intentional is played by the player who initiated the 1st intentional then the opponent gets ball in hand. Thus thwarting additional intentionals, and speeding up the game! Or another way of putting it; any two consecutive intentionals or fouls by the same player results in BIH.

If we spot up the ball on intentionals and fouls then to off set this and still move forward we then need to pull the closest ball to the head rail off the table, and that way it would satisfy Bill wanting to keep spotting balls and also would eliminate a ball down table which for some seems desirable. The ball count would stay proper that way, and the game is still moving forward!

I recall Steve wanted in this situation or similar situation that the player gets choice of which ball is pulled off the table to add an interesting twist that adds wonderment, anticipation, and excitement not only for the spectators but also the players of which ball is going to be picked! Whitey

LSJohn · Jul 15, 2018

two consecutive intentionals or fouls

You don't want to try to treat intentionals differently than unintentional fouls.

darmoose · Jul 15, 2018

LSJohn said:
You don't want to try to treat intentionals differently than unintentional fouls.

John,

Correctomundo. That would just add more "subjectivity to the game. To be clear about spotting balls, with my rule balls would still get spotted. Foe example when you make a ball and scratch, you would spot the ball pocketed and give your opponent a ball from your rack.

As you can readily see, that would make scratching more dangerous.:heh:heh

darmoose · Jul 15, 2018

Dennis "Whitey" Young said:
Darmoose, I like how your moving forward rule has been refined, it has made a lot of progress, good job.
Bill makes a valid point that I do not believe was mentioned during our last go around, and that is spotting a ball is pretty entrenched in One Pocket, and to get away from it would be quite a change. But lets put that aside for now.

But by your rule if I take an intentional then I give a ball directly to my opponent, a returned intentional gives the ball right back (we are still not going backwards). In this situation I once again offer up this rule for consideration; if a 2nd intentional is played by the player who initiated the 1st intentional then the opponent gets ball in hand. Thus thwarting additional intentionals, and speeding up the game! Or another way of putting it; any two consecutive intentionals or fouls by the same player results in BIH.

Thanks Dennis,

Balls do still get spotted, but hardly ever would you spot two balls. Spotting one ball when you scratch while pocketing a ball would make scratching more dangerous. I obviously feel that the penalty for scratches and intentional fouls is too little, and so am trying to improve on that and shorten the game too.

While I am open to limited changes to help the game move along, I am really against overly complicating the rules. I think by keeping the game moving "forward" that is enough to solve the problem.

Dennis "Whitey" Young · Jul 15, 2018

darmoose said:
Thanks Dennis,

Balls do still get spotted, but hardly ever would you spot two balls. Spotting one ball when you scratch while pocketing a ball would make scratching more dangerous. I obviously feel that the penalty for scratches and intentional fouls is too little, and so am trying to improve on that and shorten the game too.

While I am open to limited changes to help the game move along, I am really against overly complicating the rules. I think by keeping the game moving "forward" that is enough to solve the problem.

Darmoose, I think shortening intentionals & fouls to 1 allowed but the 2nd consecutive intentional or foul results in BIH definitely helps shorten the game.
I still do not see how you spot balls on your 'moving forward' rule when it pertains to an intentional and / or a foul, except during the game winning ball and other instances of ball jumping, ball in behind the line, neutral and forgotten balls, but how does spotting pertain to intentionals and fouls? Whitey

Scrzbill · Jul 15, 2018

All this manufactured talk about how slow one pocket is coming from a player who plays deliberate one pocket. I find it pretty ironic. Darmoose, you play a great game of delibert one pocket, but not everyone wants to play your style. Yet you argue aginst the very style you play.
One pocket is a thinking mans game and therefore requires time to play. When i play Mitch, our games can last anywhere from twenty minutes to an hour an a half. Most of our games average about an hour and we played for four straight daze. And I was in a daze upon completion. I had to eat another piece of cake to get over my depression.:lol During the OPOrg memebers tournament we averaged about an hour per game. Now anyone watching our games would be bored to tears but to us the games went fast.
I dont understand all this effort to change a perfect game. I remember when Texas Express took over nine ball. Now ten ball is played because the game became to easy for the pros. And they still put three four paks together and to me, I cant watch because there is no interest.
Is it the purpose of these discussions to change one pocket so that it is changed fundamentally to where it is no longer one pocket? Like what happened to nine ball?
How about eliminating the “up table” game. More than half the balls are up table, half the balls up table get spotted.
Or a rule that you have to shoot at your hole. If there is a shot at your hole and you dont take it, its a foul. I find all these suggestions to change one pocket fine for beginners but established players should be aghast at these proposed changes.
My thoughts on TD discretion. The TD discretion? I think TD discretion would be appropriate if say the match between Scott and Dennis went over and it was subject to the rule. These guys were not playing a wedge game but shooting at their hole. Would any of you have said, oh the rules, and added a game because it went over? ( By that time they played, the rule was over). If guys are playing the wedge game and it goes over, the TD says add a game. They are not playing the wedge but shooting at their hole and playing beautiful end game safe shots?
I dont know about youse guys but watching Scott and Dennis play and hour of one pocket sake end game was a beautiful game and perfectly played. You could see what happens to your shooting ability after playing twenty safes. Thongt. <made up word describing a missed opportunity.

darmoose · Jul 15, 2018

Dennis "Whitey" Young said:
Darmoose, I think shortening intentionals & fouls to 1 allowed but the 2nd consecutive intentional or foul results in BIH definitely helps shorten the game.
I still do not see how you spot balls on your 'moving forward' rule when it pertains to an intentional and / or a foul, except during the game winning ball and other instances of ball jumping, ball in behind the line, neutral and forgotten balls, but how does spotting pertain to intentionals and fouls? Whitey

Dennis,

When you pocket a ball (in any hole) and scratch on the same shot by today's rules you would spot two ball, correct?

Under the "moving forward" rule when you pocket a ball and scratch, instead of spotting two balls, you spot the ball you pocketed and give the penalty ball to your opponent.

But, keep this between me and you. Bill don't like us even talking bout stuff like this (it's blast-femouse), and upsets him. SShhhh.

darmoose · Jul 15, 2018

Scrzbill said:
All this manufactured talk about how slow one pocket is coming from a player who plays deliberate one pocket. I find it pretty ironic. Darmoose, you play a great game of delibert one pocket, but not everyone wants to play your style. Yet you argue aginst the very style you play.
One pocket is a thinking mans game and therefore requires time to play. When i play Mitch, our games can last anywhere from twenty minutes to an hour an a half. Most of our games average about an hour and we played for four straight daze. And I was in a daze upon completion. I had to eat another piece of cake to get over my depression.:lol During the OPOrg memebers tournament we averaged about an hour per game. Now anyone watching our games would be bored to tears but to us the games went fast.
I dont understand all this effort to change a perfect game. I remember when Texas Express took over nine ball. Now ten ball is played because the game became to easy for the pros. And they still put three four paks together and to me, I cant watch because there is no interest.
Is it the purpose of these discussions to change one pocket so that it is changed fundamentally to where it is no longer one pocket? Like what happened to nine ball?
How about eliminating the “up table” game. More than half the balls are up table, half the balls up table get spotted.
Or a rule that you have to shoot at your hole. If there is a shot at your hole and you dont take it, its a foul. I find all these suggestions to change one pocket fine for beginners but established players should be aghast at these proposed changes.
My thoughts on TD discretion. The TD discretion? I think TD discretion would be appropriate if say the match between Scott and Dennis went over and it was subject to the rule. These guys were not playing a wedge game but shooting at their hole. Would any of you have said, oh the rules, and added a game because it went over? ( By that time they played, the rule was over). If guys are playing the wedge game and it goes over, the TD says add a game. They are not playing the wedge but shooting at their hole and playing beautiful end game safe shots?
I dont know about youse guys but watching Scott and Dennis play and hour of one pocket sake end game was a beautiful game and perfectly played. You could see what happens to your shooting ability after playing twenty safes. Thongt. <made up word describing a missed opportunity.

Bill,

You and I don't know each other very well. I think having met you and spending a limited amount of time with you at Chicago last year, that you are a great guy and good for this organization and for one pocket. My wife liked you, and she is a better judge of people than me for sure.

I do play a deliberate game, and I don't pocket balls as well as I would like or as well as many, but I do hold my own mostly.

I didn't start the discussion about OP taking too much time or players playing too slow, but I do recognize the critisem. As I have said over and over, I love OP just as it is, and anybody whom I have played with knows, I don't get in a hurry. To be clear, I don't like to see players take too long to pull the trigger and I am guilty of that sometimes, but try to improve on that front.

However, as to strategy, if a defensive player typically plays longer games and wins, more power to him. To those that don't like the longer games that you and I enjoy, I always say "shoot at your hole more, it will go faster, i promise".

This talking is just talking, surely you are not afraid that anyone is gonna rip OP out from under you?

I know we have gotten a lil sideways in the recent past, and for no good reason. I am encouraged that we seem to be speaking again. I am very envious of your new table and that is a beautiful cue too, you old codger.

P.S. Yes, that match between Scott and Dennis was the best of the tourney in my book.

statistics from the freezers ice house onepocket

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Administrator

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Attachments

Verified Member

Verified Member