One Pocket Question: Speeding up the game?

I'm new to the site and we are running our first one pocket tourney.
My question is how to speed the game up fairly?

I hope you get

I hope you get

some helpful responses from the experienced tournament directors who post here. The word 'fairly' will always be a matter for debate. Most measures for speeding up the game will be directed toward the defensive side, disallowing deliberate scratches, allowing only a certain number of balls behind the head string, or using a shot clock or a time limit on the matches, etc. Some players will not find these to be fair.

Whenever you deviate from what are generally accepted as 'official one-pocket rules', be sure everybody understands before they put up their entry fees.

Except for tournaments, a lot us are not in favor of speeding up the game. Anyone who wants to save time playing one-pocket should just shoot at his hole on every shot.

I don't remember if it was Grady or whom but someone had rules in a tournament once that it was a race to like 25 balls and you left the last ball from the previous game on table kinda like 14.1 onepocket that ball could be used as a break ball or a ball to get to a safe break was very interesting and sped things up quite a bit

Speedo One pocket rules.
Here are rules that I copyrighted that were designed to keep tournament matches from taking too long. Go to this link and scroll down the page to these rules.

http://bankingwiththebeard.com/?p=354

Beard

I allowed Grady to use them once in a tourn he held. They are mistakenly often called, Grady's Rules.

If I wanted to speed up a one hole tournament, provided I had a little funds and resources, I'd set each match for a certain amount of time (the positive implications of that are priceless, think about a tournament ending exactly when it should, every time), and i'd have each shooter play off of a shot clock (maybe at around a minute and a half or 2 minutes), and I would not even worry about games... just make the match whoever is ahead on total balls the winner. There would obviously have to be a shot clock on racking as well. If you do that, your tournament will the the shiz as far as i'm concerned. Good luck.

I saw a simple solution played in one of the streamed tournaments from California. You place a limit on the number of balls that can be in the kitchen (say three). If more than the maximum number of balls wind up in there after the shot, you spot the one(s) closest to the head rail. That limited the uptable game a bit, but it did seem to speed things up.

Skin

If you start doing things like: a time clock, ending the game after a certain amount of time and whoever has the most balls is the winner, or spotting balls that are above the headstring then you are no longer playing one pocket. The game is perfect just the way it is. Some games are played where all the ball wind up uptable and there is nothing you can or should do about it. It is part of the game. Of course if you have a player or two that is playing unreasonably slow you must deal with that individual not with the rules of the game! In other words dont let the tail wag the dog.

My opinion is to limit the number of players so the event will finish sooner and play by the standard rules of the game. keith

tylerdurden said:

If I wanted to speed up a one hole tournament, provided I had a little funds and resources, I'd set each match for a certain amount of time (the positive implications of that are priceless, think about a tournament ending exactly when it should, every time), and i'd have each shooter play off of a shot clock (maybe at around a minute and a half or 2 minutes), and I would not even worry about games... just make the match whoever is ahead on total balls the winner. There would obviously have to be a shot clock on racking as well. If you do that, your tournament will the the shiz as far as i'm concerned. Good luck.

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that it would leave room for the rules to be manipulated. If I had a lead with little time left I would go into ridiculously conservative mode and stall until the time expired. This would ruin the the game imo. The best part of one pocket is trying to accomplish as much benefit as you can in each inning.

The best option for speeding up the game in my opinion is to limit the balls uptable as that is usually when the game slows down the most.


Dud

tylerdurden said:

If I wanted to speed up a one hole tournament, provided I had a little funds and resources, I'd set each match for a certain amount of time (the positive implications of that are priceless, think about a tournament ending exactly when it should, every time), and i'd have each shooter play off of a shot clock (maybe at around a minute and a half or 2 minutes), and I would not even worry about games... just make the match whoever is ahead on total balls the winner. There would obviously have to be a shot clock on racking as well. If you do that, your tournament will the the shiz as far as i'm concerned. Good luck.

Click to expand...

Dudley said:

The problem with this is that it would leave room for the rules to be manipulated. If I had a lead with little time left I would go into ridiculously conservative mode and stall until the time expired. This would ruin the the game imo. The best part of one pocket is trying to accomplish as much benefit as you can in each inning.

The best option for speeding up the game in my opinion is to limit the balls uptable as that is usually when the game slows down the most.


Dud

Click to expand...

Dudley,

Any rules in any sport/game are meant to be manipulated/exploited to their fullest extent without exceeding their limits. That's what rules are for. We are to play within their constraints. Because of that we cannot "manipulate" the rules, only use them to our greatest advantage.

Tyler is on the right track with a shot-clock but it should be a "total-time" clock, ala a chess clock. I would allot 1 hour per game, 30 minutes per player. I would think a "time-out" for racking or calling a foul, with it's possible subsequent argument would be in order to prevent any chicanery by either player.

True enough that as soon as the rules are changed then you are no longer playing one-pocket but in a tournament setting this may work out O.K..

P.S. The N.B.A. has no problem with teams going into a "ridiculously conservative mode" near the end of a game when a team has a lead and their only goal is to inbound the ball and get fouled. They make a few more $$$ than poolplayers do or ever will. Maybe they're on to something?

P.PS. I hate the end of N.B.A. games but can't think of any better way to play it other than shortening the number of timeouts in a game.

Dennis

Dudley said:

The problem with this is that it would leave room for the rules to be manipulated. If I had a lead with little time left I would go into ridiculously conservative mode and stall until the time expired. This would ruin the the game imo. The best part of one pocket is trying to accomplish as much benefit as you can in each inning.

The best option for speeding up the game in my opinion is to limit the balls uptable as that is usually when the game slows down the most.


Dud

Click to expand...

You mean like football has been ruined? I see your point, I just don't think it is bad at all for a guy/team that gets ahead to be able to play defensively. I personally dont like the balls uptable "solutions." There are far too many instances where it could hurt a guy real bad just because a ball leaked over or whatever... or what if he is hooked by one of the uptable balls, which balls do you move. If i did anything, i'd do what i posited.

Mind you all please, I don't want to change one hole at all, I was just trying to answer the op's question

Cowboy Dennis said:

Dudley,


but it should be a "total-time" clock, ala a chess clock. I would allot 1 hour per game, 30 minutes per player. I would think a "time-out" for racking or calling a foul, with it's possible subsequent argument would be in order to prevent any chicanery by either player.



Dennis

Click to expand...

I actually do like that solution better, just never have put much thought into even thinking about this. I dont like putting a time limit on any single game though.

I truly think a tournament run with a chess style shot clock and matches won based on total number of balls would go off well (eg you could potentially win a match by making only one ball). There would be good one hole, an efficiently run tournament, and the best players would definitely win.

sappo said:

If you start doing things like: a time clock, ending the game after a certain amount of time and whoever has the most balls is the winner, or spotting balls that are above the headstring then you are no longer playing one pocket. The game is perfect just the way it is. Some games are played where all the ball wind up uptable and there is nothing you can or should do about it. It is part of the game. Of course if you have a player or two that is playing unreasonably slow you must deal with that individual not with the rules of the game! In other words dont let the tail wag the dog.

My opinion is to limit the number of players so the event will finish sooner and play by the standard rules of the game. keith

Click to expand...

Keith, I agree with everything you said 100%....and as a matter of fact, I said as much 8 years ago here on the site, in a thread that was also discussing speeding up the game....I went into the archives and found my post from back then - here it is ------>

One Pocket Ghost said:

I Played in Gradys "Legends" tournament in South Carolina last September, with Grady implementing the 'speeded up' rules for the first time = (spotting up balls that are in the kitchen)...and call me a traditionalist, but I didn't like it, and am totally against it....and the players that I talked to at the tournament didn't like those rules either - at all.....it's not real One Pocket - just to name one real bad thing about those rules - it took away a lot of straight back banks and 2 rail banks - and those are shots that are a big part of the skill and beauty of One Pocket....about the only players that these rules would favor, and who might like them, are straight pool players...

One Pocket - AIN'T BROKE AND DON'T NEED TO BE FIXED - The game is perfect just the way it is...

And games don't usually slow down all that much anyways, unless you're playing against one of the mega-safe player types like Varner or Hopkins, etc. ( of which there aren't all that many of in these current modern times ).

- Ghost

Click to expand...

Speed up the game?

Speed up the game?

Play 9 ball or 10 ball. If they ain't fast enough, play 6 ball.

Next stop is 3 ball.

Sheesh.

I think the differences between playing a well thought out one pocket tournament with a shot clock and a normal one pocket tournament are being way overstated here though. To me it would be like the difference between playing a game at Fenway vs Oakland Coliseum -- in other words, different yes.... but not in a bad way at all, and not in a way that would deteriorate the game in any way whatsoever.

I have been thinking about it more.... I think my favored way at this point would be Z minute shot clocks, race to Y, and after X amount of time (time limit) has been reached and race to Y games is not complete, give victory to the player with the greatest number of balls in the match, perhaps even if that means he is loser in games. This certainly would produce pure one pocket. Substitute in X, Y and Z accordingly of course.

tylerdurden said:

You mean like football has been ruined? I see your point, I just don't think it is bad at all for a guy/team that gets ahead to be able to play defensively. I personally dont like the balls uptable "solutions." There are far too many instances where it could hurt a guy real bad just because a ball leaked over or whatever... or what if he is hooked by one of the uptable balls, which balls do you move. If i did anything, i'd do what i posited.

Mind you all please, I don't want to change one hole at all, I was just trying to answer the op's question

Click to expand...

Point taken, Although I don't think football is a fair comparison. They don't play to a limit of points with a secondary time frame. Pool is a race to a number of games won, not an unlimited number of points.

I don't think the balls uptable rules are perfect either as it changes the strategy of the game. Maybe if this rule only would be in effect after a set amount of time to speed up slow moving matches it would be a viable option.

I personally don't like any change in the rules but matches running a long time make it difficult to run weekly one pocket tournaments which I would like to see more of.

No strong opinions about this coming from me. Just thoughts.

Dud

Cowboy Dennis said:

Dudley,

Any rules in any sport/game are meant to be manipulated/exploited to their fullest extent without exceeding their limits. That's what rules are for. We are to play within their constraints. Because of that we cannot "manipulate" the rules, only use them to our greatest advantage.

Tyler is on the right track with a shot-clock but it should be a "total-time" clock, ala a chess clock. I would allot 1 hour per game, 30 minutes per player. I would think a "time-out" for racking or calling a foul, with it's possible subsequent argument would be in order to prevent any chicanery by either player.

True enough that as soon as the rules are changed then you are no longer playing one-pocket but in a tournament setting this may work out O.K..

P.S. The N.B.A. has no problem with teams going into a "ridiculously conservative mode" near the end of a game when a team has a lead and their only goal is to inbound the ball and get fouled. They make a few more $$$ than poolplayers do or ever will. Maybe they're on to something?

P.PS. I hate the end of N.B.A. games but can't think of any better way to play it other than shortening the number of timeouts in a game.

Dennis

Click to expand...

The total time shot clock is a good idea but the comparison of of one pocket to a game the has time built in to it's design (like football or basketball) is a little stretched in my opinion. The comparison to chess is a better match.

Dudley

Thank you all for your help.

Thank you all for your help.

With all the options you guys have gave me I now have some great incite for this game they call One Pocket. I do believe players and people in general don't like change. I do have restraints or guide lines that the room has offered. I know the first one pocket tourney I will be a cluster F$%#! But now I have some options that will come in handy.
1. Numbering the balls in the kitchen, limit to 3 everything else gets spotted starting with the ball closest to the rail.
2. Shot clock per match is a nice idea but costly with this being our first.
3. Shorten the race on loser side to 2 instead of 3.
4. Time limit per match of 1hr and 30min. After the time has elapsed count games and if there's a tie there count balls pocketed by players.
5. One pocket nine ball, I've seen it played.
There all good but I'm going to leave it up the the players to chose.
Thank you for your help, I will keep you posted on the turn out.
You can check out our site we are in the stages of remolding for a user friendly site.... www.breaknnrun.com I greatly appreciate all your help in this!!!

One thing to remember

One thing to remember

in all these gymnastics; the better player is stilll going to win.

Ive been experimenting with shorter one pocket games.

im not a fan of the spot balls from the kitchen rules.

3ball, racked in a diamond pattern on spot.
Pros/ very offensive from the break and very qwick games. Ball on break is possible. all end game moves ,good fast gamble game. good for trapping 9 ballers who hate the standard game.
Fast games.

5 ball, i racked em with a 3 ball triangle and 2 spotted balls behind (arrow)
You can actualy break em with some defensive mindset.. balls dont easily go on the break (if at all). a standard break doesnt "naturally "sell out any ball to opponents hole(unless hit real bad) when racked this way.
semi mid and lots of end game play. good Fast games.
not suitable for real competition play.

7ball, racked in a 6ball triangle pattern with 1 spoted ball behind.
same a 5 balls, breaks well with more mid game strategy and inevitable end game play . ball on the break is tough to make.
maybee the minimum you could play with in a tournament , just make the races longer.

9ball, standard diamond rack.
tried a few different breaks here,
balls on the break are easier to make (wing) , risk of scratch on the break is there.
the break leaves alot of shot possibilities with all 9 balls down table and wide open. conservative break isnt easy.
can be done in tournaments with a little tweaking.

11ball, 10ball triangle rack and 1 spotted behind.
lots of options here, you can break aggressive or conservative, risk of scratch is there, risk of sell out corner ball is there. a ball can be made on the break .
conservative break leaves rack clusters intact. good all around game play ensues.
this might be the ticket.

13ball.....why bother.

hopefully one of these catches on someday.