New approach?

Jeff sparks · Aug 22, 2015

Wonder how this would work out as opposed to the age old way of playing one pocket?

Ok, let's say you play a guy even, and for the last 10 times you have played him, you have still broke even. So, the game is very close you could say.

Now instead of betting $50.00 a game, you play for $20.00 a ball and the game doesn't end until all 15 balls are pocketed. At the end of each game you collect or payoff the difference in the count. Wonder if they would still break even over a long haul playing this way?

Has this format ever been tried in one pocket, because I've never heard of it. Played payball on the 6x12 snooker table in ring games many times, but never payed by the ball in one pocket, but it sounds interesting to me.

Wonder how it could be handicapped? If you spotted someone 9/7, what, you'd give them what, maybe a + 3 ball count at the end of each game? I dunno, just guessing, but I'm gonna try it out if I can find a willing opponent, tomorrow.

Any ideas??

wincardona · Aug 22, 2015

Jeff sparks said:
Wonder how this would work out as opposed to the age old way of playing one pocket?

Ok, let's say you play a guy even, and for the last 10 times you have played him, you have still broke even. So, the game is very close you could say.

Now instead of betting $50.00 a game, you play for $20.00 a ball and the game doesn't end until all 15 balls are pocketed. At the end of each game you collect or payoff the difference in the count. Wonder if they would still break even over a long haul playing this way?

Has this format ever been tried in one pocket, because I've never heard of it. Played payball on the 6x12 snooker table in ring games many times, but never payed by the ball in one pocket, but it sounds interesting to me.

Wonder how it could be handicapped? If you spotted someone 9/7, what, you'd give them what, maybe a + 3 ball count at the end of each game? I dunno, just guessing, but I'm gonna try it out if I can find a willing opponent, tomorrow.

Any ideas??

There's a couple guy's who play out of Memphis named..Rosy and Rousy, they play players by the ball quite often.

I'm thinking if you're 9/7 over a player that you might have to play him by the ball with a money line like 120/100 or possibly 125/100. That figures to be fairly close for starters. imo.

Dr. Bill

LSJohn · Aug 22, 2015

Jeff sparks said:
If you spotted someone 9/7, what, you'd give them what, maybe a + 3 ball count at the end of each game?

If you do that you'd better have the nuts at 9/7.

When he wins 7-8 at $20/ball, he wins $40. When you win 9/6, you break even.

Billy I's way is closer at $25/20, but now you have the best of it at those scores. When he wins 7-8 he wins $15. When you win 9-6, you win $30.

(Will you get to 8 more often than he gets to 6? If so, you should be giving him at least 8-6.)

If 9/7 is an even bet, looks to me that a per-ball bet would be at about 13/10. When he wins 7-8, he wins $11. When you win 9-6, you win $12.

Jeff sparks · Aug 22, 2015

wincardona said:
There's a couple guy's who play out of Memphis named..Rosy and Rousy, they play players by the ball quite often.

I'm thinking if you're 9/7 over a player that you might have to play him by the ball with a money line like 120/100 or possibly 125/100. That figures to be fairly close for starters. imo.

Dr. Bill

What, like every ball he makes is worth $25.00 and yours are only worth $20.00 each? Yeah, that would work.

Bill, I just thought of this today, didn't even think it out really, the idea just came to me while I was playing.

Seems a reasonable way to practice all parts of the game, opening game, middle game and end game. I have been practicing a lot lately, ( $10.00 & $20.00 a game ) but I'm not getting to play very many end games, and that's where I need the most practice. So I just thought if the game was played to a 15 ball conclusion every game, with each ball worth money, then I would get to practice my end game every game with something on the line.

beatle · Aug 22, 2015

if you both were exactly even then it would not matter money wise as you would still break even.

however since all the balls will be used where all arent usually used then the person who has the best end game would be the victor as those last balls come into play every game.

Jeff sparks · Aug 22, 2015

LSJohn said:
If you do that you'd better have the nuts at 9/7.

When he wins 7-8 at $20/ball, he wins $40. When you win 9/6, you break even.

Billy I's way is closer at $25/20, but now you have the best of it at those scores. When he wins 7-8 he wins $15. When you win 9-6, you win $30.

(Will you get to 8 more often than he gets to 6? If so, you should be giving him at least 8-6.)

If 9/7 is an even bet, looks to me that a per-ball bet would be at about 13/10. When he wins 7-8, he wins $11. When you win 9-6, you win $12.

Those figures seem exactly right, and I'm gonna try them out tomorrow if I can find a player who's willing to give it a try.

Thanks John

tylerdurden · Aug 22, 2015

It makes a lot more sense. The way we play one pocket now is exactly like the electoral college; win by a landslide or a hair and still get the same.

I once heard Ronnie Allen promoting tournaments played with ball counts in an accustat commentary I think.

one pocket guy · Aug 22, 2015

Guys outa Memphis-

Guys outa Memphis-

Yes they have done that. We have had tournements that run over weeks that are done by ball count and handicapped. Say player A goes to 50 and player B goes to 45 . They are popular tourneys in this area, but we don't see a whole lot of matching up that way. It's funny you guys brought this up because I was talking to a pretty good player yesterday that had just gambled all night with a lesser player 11-6 and lost 2 games. He won last time 10-6, but didn't like 11-6. I suggested playing ball race 60-45.

NH Steve · Aug 22, 2015

tylerdurden said:
It makes a lot more sense. The way we play one pocket now is exactly like the electoral college; win by a landslide or a hair and still get the same.

I once heard Ronnie Allen promoting tournaments played with ball counts in an accustat commentary I think.

Ronnie did advocate that. In fact, he was involved in promoting one big One Pocket tournament that was run that way. Unfortunately I think there were issues with winners getting paid for that event. That might have dampened the idea from catching on even though the scoring had nothing to do with the getting paid part, lol.

There have been more Bank tournaments run that way recently I believe.

Mkbtank · Aug 22, 2015

New approach?

A buddy in the DC area plays similar to this way. Calls it "progression". After the first break, balls are spotted after each inning, and they play to a set number. (One guy goes to 27 and the other goes to 21 (if it is usually a 9-7 game)

jrhendy · Aug 22, 2015

We played mini tourneys at Hard Times with a race to 15 balls. Whoever was behind in balls after the first game got the break in the next game. Players would often fire the last ball in their opponents hole if it was 7/7. They were fun little tournaments. $50 a man and pay $300 & $100. Much faster for tournaments than a race to two because there is never a third game.

A lot more of the end game comes into play. RA did tout this and always thought it would be a better way to match up giving or getting weight because you could figure out a spot in balls for a long session.

wincardona · Aug 22, 2015

If there's a problem playing progression one pocket it's that "playing the score" is all but eliminated when playing by the rack. The ..playing the score strategy.. is not a factor playing progressive one pocket, it's a very different game in terms of shot selection. You can play progression one pocket in different ways, by the rack (15 balls) or racing to a large number (race to 15-20-25-ect.) When playing by the rack (one rack) every ball is of equal value, however, when you play to a certain number like racing to say 15 or 20..ect.ect. then playing the score strategy is again relevant.

Decision making is much simpler when playing progression one pocket by the rack (15 balls) It takes one's ability to gamble pretty much out of the decision making process, not entirely but enough to give the player that understands "game strategy" more of an edge against players that understand "gambling strategy"

Traditional one pocket is an addictive game because it has both game and gambling strategy throughout the entire rack, i'm curious to see how modifying the game to progression one pocket will affect the appreciation of the game. Just my thought.

Dr. Bill

Jeff sparks · Aug 22, 2015

wincardona said:
If there's a problem playing progression one pocket it's that "playing the score" is all but eliminated when playing by the rack. The ..playing the score strategy.. is not a factor playing progressive one pocket, it's a very different game in terms of shot selection. You can play progression one pocket in different ways, by the rack (15 balls) or racing to a large number (race to 15-20-25-ect.) When playing by the rack (one rack) every ball is of equal value, however, when you play to a certain number like racing to say 15 or 20..ect.ect. then playing the score strategy is again relevant.

Decision making is much simpler when playing progression one pocket by the rack (15 balls) It takes one's ability to gamble pretty much out of the decision making process, not entirely but enough to give the player that understands "game strategy" more of an edge against players that understand "gambling strategy"

Traditional one pocket is an addictive game because it has both game and gambling strategy throughout the entire rack, i'm curious to see how modifying the game to progression one pocket will affect the appreciation of the game. Just my thought.

Dr. Bill

TW agreed with you Bill, play the game to a certain ball count, say 25, and bet on the game also, that would bring the SCORE factor back into it. He also suggested that rather than breaking again, it might be interesting to leave the last ball out and re rack 14 balls, like in straight pool. I'm not liking that much, I would prefer break about until the games conclusion, but it's another consideration.

Betting on the game along with betting on each ball would work for me, and I think that playing to a larger # for the win could also be an interesting variant to fool around with. Ball money values could easily be adjusted to fit almost any two players after just a few games.

Like I said before, I'm gonna try it out. Of course there will be skepticism, ( it's a poolroom) as with anything new, but I'll try to start it out for small $'s and see if I can get any takers.

Probably never happen!!! Everybody will automatically think, "Never bet on another mans game!"

beatle · Aug 22, 2015

the longer individual games are the clearer it becomes who has the best of it.

so the best players just win more tournaments and the worst players get to realize that they need more weight.

androd · Aug 22, 2015

I remember Cotton Bolliver (Meathead) from Jackson Tenn. liked to play that way, never saw it played but it seemed interesting.

vapros · Aug 22, 2015

For many people, there is a lot of appeal to gambling without losing, and I have seen it done in bowling, between guys who got together three or four times each week, and bet $20 on every game.

For pool players (this means one-pocket players) the winner of each game must give up a ball to the loser for the following game. So the spot goes back and forth, but there is a bet on every game. You can have a good day, but not a good month,

tylerdurden · Aug 22, 2015

I think playing the score would come into play just about as much myself; maybe not quite, not sure. Of course it matters exactly how they are playing too, as mentioned. There would certainly be more runaway games where the trailer would be forced into taking some very high risk shots to get back in the game, which happens in normal play too of course.

I like it because it seems a bit more fair and logical to me, and if a good player gets a shot there is no telling how many balls he can run, which would be another great aspect of it. One pocket is such a great game, I really see it as being even greater if we could see what these guys could really do offensively speaking in attempts to get every ball on the table. Then again when guys get way ahead we's probably see games go uptable at the start of the rack, which I Would not be a fan of personally.

One Pocket Ghost · Aug 22, 2015

John runs all of the bank pool tournaments at Red Shoes with this format - I forget how many you go to to win - I think it's 24.

u12armresl · Aug 23, 2015

I like a per game + a per ball difference game. Could be 50 on the game, and $5 a ball.

I'm not a ball runner, but if you happened to get an 8-0 you were playing for 100 (close enough)

For sure it changes thinking of taking a flyer.

Jeff sparks · Aug 23, 2015

tylerdurden said:
I think playing the score would come into play just about as much myself; maybe not quite, not sure. Of course it matters exactly how they are playing too, as mentioned. There would certainly be more runaway games where the trailer would be forced into taking some very high risk shots to get back in the game, which happens in normal play too of course.

I like it because it seems a bit more fair and logical to me, and if a good player gets a shot there is no telling how many balls he can run, which would be another great aspect of it. One pocket is such a great game, I really see it as being even greater if we could see what these guys could really do offensively speaking in attempts to get every ball on the table. Then again when guys get way ahead we's probably see games go uptable at the start of the rack, which I Would not be a fan of personally.

Good points Tyler, especially about one being way ahead and pushing the balls up table. Of course it might not happen until the big leader gets close to his game ball or needing only two or three to win the game because of the per ball value. I'm thinking he's going to want some more of that pie also, and not push em up until he has the game on ice.

Anyway it's going to be fun trying it out someday when I finally get someone to play it with.

Appreciate your thoughts,
Thanks

New approach?

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

Verified Member

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