8-ball league stats
Carter Adams
seen that there is some discussion of game stats.
Below are the stats from 178,130 ACS and BCA league games (scored by
the standard BCA/ACS 10 point system) that I have compiled over the
past 4 years. They are a combination of 7' and 9' table play (and
probably some 8' as well). Not all league operators record break-and-
runs, so the figures are on the low side. The percentage of 10-0s is
probably close to run-outs from either the breaker or non-breaker when
no balls are made on the break - however, that is purely a guess as
there are many break-and-runs where balls of the loser's group were
made on the break (or some other legal shot).
AVG Score 7.2759
AVG of Diff 5.4891
Total Games 178,130
% of 10-0s 8.919
% of 50s 2.017
% of BROs 1.075
% of 8ROs 1.027
% Non-Breaker wins 49.76
% Breaker wins 50.24
If you have any questions, feel free to ask...
Regards,
Carter Adams
www.LeagueOperator.org
www.CartersBilliardsLibrary.com
poolp...@gmail.com
JakartaDean
> Below are the stats from 178,130 ACS and BCA league games (scored by
> the standard BCA/ACS 10 point system) that I have compiled over the
> past 4 years.
> AVG Score 7.2759
>
> AVG of Diff 5.4891
>
> Total Games 178,130
>
> % of 10-0s 8.919
>
> % of 50s 2.017
>
> % of BROs 1.075
>
> % of 8ROs 1.027
>
> % Non-Breaker wins 49.76
>
> % Breaker wins 50.24
>
> If you have any questions, feel free to ask...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Carter Adams
> www.LeagueOperator.org
> www.CartersBilliardsLibrary.com
> poolp...@gmail.com
Hmm.. the one that jumps out at me (and I haven't played in a
handicapped league) is that breaking is almost no advantage (about one
extra win in 400 games). I would have thought that breaking in 8-ball,
assuming you make a ball, is a big advantage as you get to select which
group you play. What am I missing?
Dean <== misses lots
Ed McCune
stats I've seen and my own experience, shooting first after the break is
overrated...but I suppose that depends on the level of play. For pro
players (65-70% finish rate at 8 ball) obviously it matters. Not so sure
it does at my level where the finish rate is much lower(maybe 20-30% for
average players and 50-60% for the top ones.)
Just choosing sides isn't that big an advantage either. Knowing the
table and which balls are the critical ones is more important. A game of
8 ball (on small tables) can turn on the darnedest things. An unintended
bump here or a breakout not quite played right can change
everything.(Which is why 14.1 experience should be useful.)
Quite often (on small tables at least) the inning opener can't even
choose the most runnable set of balls, depending on cue ball lie.
Ed
Carter Adams
was happening, but was going against common opinion... I've double and
triple check my search criteria and it is correct. These are the
leagues that send teams to Vegas, so the players are not all
"bangers".
If anyone can think of any other stats that would be of interest
please let me know - just keep in mind that the only data I have is
that captured on the standard BCA/ACS scoresheets.
Regards,
On Dec 17, 8:27 pm, JakartaDean <deanb43...@forteinc.com> wrote:
> Carter Adams wrote:
> > Below are the stats from 178,130 ACS and BCA league games (scored by
> > the standard BCA/ACS 10 point system) that I have compiled over the
> > past 4 years.
> > AVG Score 7.2759
>
> > AVG of Diff 5.4891
>
> > Total Games 178,130
>
> > % of 10-0s 8.919
>
> > % of 50s 2.017
>
> > % of BROs 1.075
>
> > % of 8ROs 1.027
>
> > % Non-Breaker wins 49.76
>
> > % Breaker wins 50.24
>
> > If you have any questions, feel free to ask...
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Carter Adams
> >www.LeagueOperator.org
> >www.CartersBilliardsLibrary.com
Ron Shepard
JakartaDean <deanb...@forteinc.com> wrote:
> Hmm.. the one that jumps out at me (and I haven't played in a
> handicapped league) is that breaking is almost no advantage (about one
> extra win in 400 games). I would have thought that breaking in 8-ball,
> assuming you make a ball, is a big advantage as you get to select which
> group you play. What am I missing?
For a sample size of 178000, the statistical uncertainty is about 1
in 420, so that particular statistic on break shots has no
significance.
I don't really have an opinion about the break shot in 8-ball. It
seems to depend a lot on the table and how the balls spread. On
some tables, I think you really do want to break. These league
stats include all kinds of tables, so I'm not surprised to see no
advantage one way or the other, but it would not have surprised me
to see a small difference either. It would surprise me to see a big
difference, but that possibility is eliminated by these stats.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
JakartaDean
> I think it is a myth that breaking is an big advantage in pool. From
> stats I've seen and my own experience, shooting first after the break is
> overrated...but I suppose that depends on the level of play. For pro
> players (65-70% finish rate at 8 ball) obviously it matters. Not so sure
> it does at my level where the finish rate is much lower(maybe 20-30% for
> average players and 50-60% for the top ones.)
>
> Just choosing sides isn't that big an advantage either. Knowing the
> table and which balls are the critical ones is more important. A game of
> 8 ball (on small tables) can turn on the darnedest things. An unintended
> bump here or a breakout not quite played right can change
> everything.(Which is why 14.1 experience should be useful.)
>
I think that's also true on bigger tables. I played 8-ball in a bar
last night, on a challenge table -- first time in a month I've touched a
cue. For some reason, I played much better than I deserved. At first,
I was potting balls and getting close to, but never exactly, where I
wanted the cue ball. Soon I could see how to get on clusters, played
smart, and got out of a couple of "almost safeties" with long banks and
kicks. (although I admit I placed one or two of those difficult shots
on myself). The whole time, though, I was watching how the table
changed. I missed one shot into a corner pocket, and because I'd hit it
hard for position the OB went down to the opposite corner and created a
new cluster (my ball, his ball, 8 ball). We both got careful, played to
get on the ball to break that out, but in the end it was a shot where he
broke his ball out poorly that settled the game. I played the same
(strong) player a few more times, even after a few more beers, and
continued to play well, for me, and to be fascinated by how the layout
changed.
Having said all that, I still think selecting the group should be worth
more than one extra win in 400.
> Quite often (on small tables at least) the inning opener can't even
> choose the most runnable set of balls, depending on cue ball lie.
Yup.
>
> Ed
>
> JakartaDean wrote:
>> Hmm.. the one that jumps out at me (and I haven't played in a
>> handicapped league) is that breaking is almost no advantage (about one
>> extra win in 400 games). I would have thought that breaking in
>> 8-ball, assuming you make a ball, is a big advantage as you get to
>> select which group you play. What am I missing?
>>
>> Dean <== misses lots
Dean
Carter Adams
You said: "Having said all that, I still think selecting the group
should be worth more than one extra win in 400."
You're not understanding the stat correctly. Just because you break,
doesn't mean you get to choose the group - I think choosing the group
is an advantage, I just don't have the data captured to back that
up...
~Carter
Ron Shepard
Ed McCune <mcc...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> I think it is a myth that breaking is an big advantage in pool.[...]
It depends on the game. The break is certainly not an advantage in
14.1. It is common practice in 14.1 for the winner of the lag (or coin
toss) to force the opponent to break. On the other hand, the break in
one-pocket is usually considered to be worth about a one ball advantage
in the score. When players gamble at one-pocket, the break is one of
the negotiating points, and sometimes the nonbreaking player is given a
ball spot to compensate. Other games, such as 8-ball, 9-ball, and
10-ball have their own conventions in matchups and in tournaments. Many
players, for example, think the break is a disadvantage in 10-ball,
while being an advantage in 9-ball. I remember some statistics from
Accustats for pro tournaments that the breaker wins 55% of the time.
That was one of the justifications for the introduction of the "break
box" in pro 9-ball tournaments. In contrast, Allison Fisher's first
tournament statistics showed that she won a higher percentage of games
when her opponent broke than when she broke. So the advantage in 9-ball
seems to depend on the runout ability of the players involved (and in
Fisher's case, perhaps on her relatively weak break shot that first
year). In 8-ball, any advantage or disadvantage depends also on the
specific ruleset being used -- e.g. is 8-ball on the break a win for the
breaker, is the table always open after the break shot, and so on.
In this thread, BCA/ACS rules were mentioned, so the 8-ball on the break
is *not* a win with those rules. That rule alone affects about 1 out of
20 games, so it might be a more significant factor than the observed 1
out of 400 game statistical advantage would suggest.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> In this thread, BCA/ACS rules were mentioned, so the 8-ball on the break
> is *not* a win with those rules. That rule alone affects about 1 out of
> 20 games
Perhaps a person who has worked to specialize on breaking the 8-ball in can
do it 1 in 20 but I think in the general league population, the 8 will go in
on the break far less than 1 in 20.
John Black
Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
That number was just from memory of discussion here in RSB, I don't have
a real source to cite. In any case, I think it is a much larger factor
than 1 out of 400, which is the statistic that was reported for the
BCA/ACS league.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ed McCune
JakartaDean wrote:
> I think that's also true on bigger tables. I played 8-ball in a bar
> last night, on a challenge table -- first time in a month I've touched a
> cue. For some reason, I played much better than I deserved. At first,
> I was potting balls and getting close to, but never exactly, where I
> wanted the cue ball. Soon I could see how to get on clusters, played
> smart, and got out of a couple of "almost safeties" with long banks and
> kicks. (although I admit I placed one or two of those difficult shots
> on myself). The whole time, though, I was watching how the table
> changed. I missed one shot into a corner pocket, and because I'd hit it
> hard for position the OB went down to the opposite corner and created a
> new cluster (my ball, his ball, 8 ball). We both got careful, played to
> get on the ball to break that out, but in the end it was a shot where he
> broke his ball out poorly that settled the game. I played the same
> (strong) player a few more times, even after a few more beers, and
> continued to play well, for me, and to be fascinated by how the layout
> changed.
All this above is why I find 8 ball a fascinating game. Most players I
know don't really notice what a game turns on. Many run outs I see are
of the marginal nature with often a very low % shot (in terms of overall
table position) featured. Many times you'll hear guys complain of the
"tic-tac-toe" run out they failed at without realizing that it was much
more challenging than they thought. By the same token they rave over an
out featuring a couple of "dead on" combos, banks and simple breakouts.
Watching others play and trying to figure the key to the table is
favorite pastime of mine, as is also trying to figure what some of the
better players are going to do to finish. Often they do things I would
never have thought of.
Ed
lfigueroa
balls are breaking. Hand in glove with that, is that the guy who was
racking the most carefully (players could rack their own) was getting
the best spreads. Given that he was also one of the straightest
shooters in the event, made a big difference in his win percentage,
because he was the one running multiple racks.
Sooo: pay more attention to the racking is what I learned.
Lou Figueroa
Carter Adams
Lou,
Do you think he was placing the balls in a particular order, and/or
was he just making sure of the rack placement and that the balls were
tight?
Also, do you know his percentage of B&Rs?
~Carter
Jack Stein
> What I learned at the tournament was that what really matters is how the
> balls are breaking. Hand in glove with that, is that the guy who was
> racking the most carefully (players could rack their own) was getting
> the best spreads. Given that he was also one of the straightest
> shooters in the event, made a big difference in his win percentage,
> because he was the one running multiple racks.
>
> Sooo: pay more attention to the racking is what I learned.
I've said that a thousand times in RSB. People get all hyped up about
an ounce here or there in the break cue, how hard the break tip is, and
all sorts of stuff but about 90% of it is in the racking, 8% of it in
the table, and 2% of it in the stars. The rest is BS.
My question for you is did you notice side breaks vs center table vs off
center table breaks? Hand on the rail vs hand on the table breaks?
--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors =====> Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
I think it's a good bit lower as well, but, unless someone is tracking
it, it's just speculation. I make the 8 a few of times a year...
--
Jack
Got Change: Global Warming =====> Global Fraud!
http://jbstein.com
Ron Shepard
Jack Stein <jbst...@comcast.net> wrote:
> John Black wrote:
> > In article <ron-shepard-C3AD...@news60.forteinc.com>, ron-
> > she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> >> In this thread, BCA/ACS rules were mentioned, so the 8-ball on the break
> >> is *not* a win with those rules. That rule alone affects about 1 out of
> >> 20 games
> >
> > Perhaps a person who has worked to specialize on breaking the 8-ball in can
> > do it 1 in 20 but I think in the general league population, the 8 will go
> > in
> > on the break far less than 1 in 20.
>
> I think it's a good bit lower as well, but, unless someone is tracking
> it, it's just speculation. I make the 8 a few of times a year...
I expect some of the APA league players know this, or could get this
statistic, in their leagues because it is one of the things that is
marked on the scoresheets.
Another way to get an idea of how often it occurs is to think of the
number of times you see the 8-ball made twice in a row (or the number of
times you do it yourself). You tend to remember these more than
individual 8-balls. If an individual 8-ball is made 1/N break shots,
then two in a row will occur about 1/(N*N). So if you think you make
two in a row about, say, one out of a thousand breaks (which might be
once every three or four years for a typical league player), then your
individual rate would be about 1/32. Or if you do twice in a row every
500 breaks, then the individual rate would be about 1/22 of the time.
I think this first statistic is about right for me in my league, but I
don't have a particularly strong 8-ball break, so I think it is probably
higher than that for a few other players in my league, probably
approaching the latter rate. (Of course, they probably scratch or jump
the table more than me too, but that is a separate issue.) We play on
9ft tables that are usually in pretty good condition (clean cloth, new
cloth about once a year, lively rails). Unfortunately, we don't keep
this statistic on our scoresheets so I don't know for sure.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black
says...
> I think it's a good bit lower as well, but, unless someone is tracking
> it, it's just speculation. I make the 8 a few of times a year...
That sounds about right. No way that a few times a year is 1 in 20. 1 in
20 would be one about every couple of weeks. And there are plenty of
players who don't even do it a few times a year. Then there are the few
"specialists" who pride themselves on making it better than 1 in 10. But
they are far too few to make up for the masses who don't come close to that.
John Black
lfigueroa
me (and not really an 8ball player at heart), I didn't think about it
and watch him closely enough until the match was just about over. But I
think, working from the front, it was something like: solid, two
stripes, two solids on the outside, then two stripes on the corners. I
didn't look in time to see what was going on inside the rack. Damnit.
But really, what I think was really working for him was that he was
making sure he was giving himself a perfectly tight rack, because he was
getting some amazing and perfect spreads and it didn't matter what suit
he choose because they were *all* open after the break.
lfigueroa
breaking from the left of center, on the table, maybe a diamond in.
Lou Figueroa
lfigueroa
didn't automatically win! The 8 stayed down and you had to run out a
suit. If you didn't run out, the 8 spotted back up.
Under the gun, I ran out :-)
Lou Figueroa
Ron Shepard
lfigueroa <lfig...@att.net> wrote:
> I made one 8 on the break once at this tournament. BUT the rule was you
> didn't automatically win! The 8 stayed down and you had to run out a
> suit. If you didn't run out, the 8 spotted back up.
>
> Under the gun, I ran out :-)
Anyone ever heard of an 8-ball rule like this? I don't think I have.
Is this common in the St. Louis area?
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Jack Stein
> I made one 8 on the break once at this tournament. BUT the rule was you
> didn't automatically win! The 8 stayed down and you had to run out a
> suit. If you didn't run out, the 8 spotted back up.
That's an interesting twist. Around here, Pgh. PA. I've never seen
anyone play any way other than 8 on break wins, 8 and scratch looses. I
don't particularly like the BCA rules on this but this unusual rule
sounds pretty good. You get rewarded for making the 8 but not the whole
match, and the opponent doesn't loose but doesn't get rewarded either.
I could live with that one.
--
Jack
Got Change: 2008 =====> 1984
http://jbstein.com
John Black
says...
> I made one 8 on the break once at this tournament. BUT the rule was you
> didn't automatically win! The 8 stayed down and you had to run out a
> suit. If you didn't run out, the 8 spotted back up.
Never heard of this but I like it! Why should you have to make the 8 TWICE?
John Black
lfigueroa
Lou Figueroa
lfigueroa
know how it'd play out over the long term.
Lou Figueroa
lfigueroa
Lou Figueroa
PatH
> I made one 8 on the break once at this tournament. BUT the rule was you
> didn't automatically win! The 8 stayed down and you had to run out a
> suit. If you didn't run out, the 8 spotted back up.
>
> Under the gun, I ran out :-)
>
> Lou Figueroa
>
That's a strange way to do it but I kind of like it. We use the BCA/
VNEA variation that the 8 on the break is the breakers option either
spot it right away or rebreak at the option of the breaker or racker
if there is a scratch on the break. I would imagine using Lou's
rules you wouldn't have to put any more $$ in the table if the person
ran out . Otherwise there is the expense of getting the 8-ball out to
spot it. You do loose the option of the rerack though.
PatH
lfigueroa
Lou Figueroa