Have your cake and eat it too,, a new rule proposal

L

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
19,098
From
vero beach fl
as you all can tell by now i am not in favor of dramatically changing the rules by which we play one pocket
so
in order to speed up the game in tournament play and still play onepocket as we know it
here is the new rule ( its not larry's rule since i have seen it mentioned before )
play each match to 5 balls win...or 6 balls win......:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
this would be on the list of alternative rules
there still could be uptable games but they shouldnt take as long since the number of balls to win is less
the down side is you would lose the exciting part of the end game where one guy needs 2 and the other needs 1 or when you both need one
but from my limited experience the % of games that come down to 3 balls or less is small
the up side is there is no seismic change to the rules except for ball count
so strategy/shot choices i dont think will change much
since everyone has one.......:D
your opinions are welcome.......:)
i am sure there are issues i have overlooked
so
obviously this would have to be tried out in the real world to see how feasible or not it is
EDIT
i posted this in post #20
for those of you that dont always read thru the whole thread
let further responces be from real life experience
from post #20
going forward we dont need more speculation
if you try out this idea
playing regular onepocket with normal rules
the only difference is you decide beforehand whether 5 or 6 balls makes you winner
please report here
how did it go and your observations on how it did or did not change the game
and is it a good /bad/ or medium idea to use mainly in tournaments as a way to speed up the game
thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
L

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
19,098
From
vero beach fl
after thinking about this alittle more
it really may not work because the balls will go up table sooner perhaps
since at 3 balls you have a big jump in the score
i dont know
what do you think?
 
B

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
I’ll,

Some time ago I proposed 10 ball one pocket where the 10 ball was worth 2.

Bill S.
 
B

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
|||,

Some time ago I proposed 10 ball one pocket where the 10 ball was worth 2.

Bill S.
 
D

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,969
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
Well, I recon when entering a tournament a guy would know a head of time that your only going to 5-6 balls to win a game.
But, going to a lesser ball count means you get to play less OP. I do not know how much approval you are going to get for this one. Usually this would be reserved for games or tournament going way over schedule.
I believe for me, I would rather opt for Darmoose Moving Forward to speed things up. That way you can play a full game count, and if you foul, it is on you!
I think going to 5-6 would change the game more than going to Darmoose Moving Forward rule. A lot of players think his rule would change OP a lot, but I think it would hardly change it at all, unless you foul a lot or like to do intentionals. Just my invalid opinion, for I really do not get to play much OP.

What was the avg. fouls/game @ DCC, was it 1 or 1-1/2, I do not think it was 2? Whitey
 
Last edited:
L

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
19,098
From
vero beach fl
Dennis "Whitey" Young said:
Well, I recon when entering a tournament a guy would know a head of time that your only going to 5-6 balls to win a game.
But, going to a lesser ball count means you get to play less OP. I do not know how much approval you are going to get for this one. Usually this would be reserved for games or tournament going way over schedule.
I believe for me, I would rather opt for Darmoose Moving Forward to speed things up. That way you can play a full game count, and if you foul, it is on you!
I think going to 5-6 would change the game more than going to Darmoose Moving Forward rule. A lot of players think his rule would change OP a lot, but I think it would hardly change it at all, unless you foul a lot or like to do intentionals. Just my invalid opinion, for I really do not get to play much OP.

What was the avg. fouls/game @ DCC, was it 1 or 1-1/2, I do not think it was 2? Whitey
Click to expand...
whitey
in the past one suggestion to not have the tournament run over time was to shorten the races
that is less onepocket
i respectfully disagree that going to 5 or 6 would change the game more than darmooses rule since the rules of the game hasnt changed except the win happens sooner
i started a separate thread out of respect to darmoose (darrell)
because i didnt want to side track his thread in any way
and i would prefer if everyone sticks to the good and bad of this idea and not compare it to any other ideas/proposals/or rules
thanks in advance
 
D

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,969
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
Larry, yes this is a good alternative rule. And I think One Pocket has done this in his tournaments, at least he may have went to it when the tournament started getting behind.

Ramifications could be if the tournament was played entirely this way; 1.tendency to play more cautiously, for giving up a few balls is huge with a lesser win ball count.
2. A player getting a jump on the game by 3 balls just might go into a defensive mode and send balls down table.
3.Stack play may dimension sooner, for the better player may go to a down table game quicker so as not to give up a shot, and a possible out for a run out is much easier.

The positives; Games should go somewhat quicker, allows for more players to participate in the tournament. Tournament stays on schedule.

I am sure others could be more informative on this subject than I. These are just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Whitey
 
darmoose

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
lll said:
after thinking about this alittle more
it really may not work because the balls will go up table sooner perhaps
since at 3 balls you have a big jump in the score
i dont know
what do you think?
Click to expand...

Ha Ha, I totally agree with you on this one. Good catch.
 
darmoose

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
lll said:
as you all can tell by now i am not in favor of dramatically changing the rules by which we play one pocket.

i am sure there are issues i have overlooked
Click to expand...

Good Morning Lar...

I don't feel the need to get into a lot of detail here, since you don't much like this idea either, just a bad idea, but it can happen to anybody.:sorry Chin up.:D

When considering rules one needs a specific goal/problem being achieved or solved. Less is more. KISS is important. Clarity, unambiguity, and few or no exceptions is a must. Also, keep subjectivity and judgement out of it.

Elegance counts.

Moving forward is simple and elegant."After a foul give opponent a ball rather than spot a ball", says it all. The effect on the game is "silent", but easily worked out. It has minimal affect on playing the game on the table, it is simply a change in scorekeeping.

Option after a foul is the same. "After any foul, the incoming player has an option to accept or return the table to the fouling player". The effect on playing the game is minimal and silent, but easily worked out. Playing the game is very much the same. "

There is a certain elegance to these rules, minimal consequence to the game, other than to the target problem, and several benefits which have been previously discussed.

Unfortunately, one will probably never convince the "stuck in the mud" traditionalists.:frus

We can only try....:)
 
L

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
19,098
From
vero beach fl
lll said:
whitey
in the past one suggestion to not have the tournament run over time was to shorten the races
that is less onepocket
i respectfully disagree that going to 5 or 6 would change the game more than darmooses rule since the rules of the game hasnt changed except the win happens sooner
i started a separate thread out of respect to darmoose (darrell)
because i didnt want to side track his thread in any way
and i would prefer if everyone sticks to the good and bad of this idea and not compare it to any other ideas/proposals/or rules
thanks in advance
Click to expand...

darmoose said:
Good Morning Lar...

I don't feel the need to get into a lot of detail here, since you don't much like this idea either, just a bad idea, but it can happen to anybody.:sorry Chin up.:D

When considering rules one needs a specific goal/problem being achieved or solved. Less is more. KISS is important. Clarity, unambiguity, and few or no exceptions is a must. Also, keep subjectivity and judgement out of it.

Elegance counts.

Moving forward is simple and elegant."After a foul give opponent a ball rather than spot a ball", says it all. The effect on the game is "silent", but easily worked out. It has minimal affect on playing the game on the table, it is simply a change in scorekeeping.

Option after a foul is the same. "After any foul, the incoming player has an option to accept or return the table to the fouling player". The effect on playing the game is minimal and silent, but easily worked out. Playing the game is very much the same. "

There is a certain elegance to these rules, minimal consequence to the game, other than to the target problem, and several benefits which have been previously discussed.

Unfortunately, one will probably never convince the "stuck in the mud" traditionalists.:frus

We can only try....:)
Click to expand...
I GUESS YOU DID NOT READ MY POST QUOTED ABOVE.......:frus
 
darmoose

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
lll said:
I GUESS YOU DID NOT READ MY POST QUOTED ABOVE.......:frus
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Larry. I guess this is a transgression. I did read your referenced post and I did think that your approach and request was valid.

I just forgot about it when I got carried away, my bad.:sorry

I'd like to chalk it up to old age (senior moment) if you'll buy that.

I'll be happy to delete that post if you want.
 
L

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
19,098
From
vero beach fl
going forward we dont need more speculation
if you try out this idea
playing regular onepocket with normal rules
the only difference is you decide beforehand whether 5 or 6 balls makes you winner
please report here
how did it go and your observations on how it did or did not change the game
and is it a good /bad/ or medium idea to use mainly in tournaments as a way to speed up the game
thanks in advance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top