Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by JA » Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:51:24


This controversy seems to be cropping its head up more and more as of late.

In the Planet Pool 9-Ball Tour, the winner racks their own, as opposed to loser
racks.

All of us have seen arguments erupt when two players don't agree with the rack.

It is thought on the PP 9-Ball Tour that having the WINNER rack prevents a lot
of wasted time arguing about getting the "perfect" rack.

How many of us have witnessed players arguing at the end of the table about the
rack, pressing the felt to ensure a smooth surface, hitting the head ball with
another ball, et cetera?

This past weekend, I watched a side-armed player in a match, and his opponent
racked the balls after each win, pressing and caressing the balls in the wooden
rack, examining the rack from every angle, touching the balls with his fingers.
 After he removed the wooden rack, I saw him place his fingers on the 1-ball
moving it in place, I would think, to get a TIGHT rack.

Somebody on the rail actually said if he***ed his finger and touched the
1-ball that it would cause some sort of friction and make it fly on the break
better (LOL).  I have a hard time believing this one, but now I'm beginning to
wonder.

I have been told each table has a "sweet spot" relating to breaking, some
better than others.  However, I witnessed the 1-ball fly in the side pocket 8
out of 9 times on the break in one match after the guy's***ed finger touched
the 1-ball.

In another match, with another player racking his own, I witnessed the 9-ball
move to the corner pocket within 1 to 2 inches EVERY SINGLE TIME, actually
pocketing the 9-ball on the break one time.

Is this a coincidence, I thought, or just good breaking and racking.

The TD, who was sitting next to me on the rail, actually suggested to me that
the side-armed player needs to make his opponents re-rack because he is
allowing "them" to place a gap between the two balls BEHIND the 9-ball, which
according to this guy makes the balls fly in better.

I'm not a racking guru, but I find this theory incredulous, but if this is the
case and players can "rig" the rack, it seems like the winner-racks format
sucks (IMO).

The alternative is to have the loser rack.  Just as there are ways to rack the
balls to enhance one's break, it works the other way, too.  An opponent can
"rig" the rack and make it impossible for the breaking player to pocket
anything.

I have read the many pros and cons of the Sardo rack.

There is one school of thought that the BREAK is 50 percent of one's game when
competing at a higher level.  We have all heard of top players running 6-packs,
et cetera.  If it is a fair rack, then that's good shooting!

I would think one's racking capabilities would be an important feature and
figure into that "50 percent of one's game" equation as it pertains to
breaking.

If a player is capable of adjusting a rack to make or not make balls, I think
this stinks just as bad as playing poker with a marked deck (IMO).

I would be interested to read some other thoughts on this topic. ;>)

JAM

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by Ninebal3 » Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:55:33

Quote:

>If a player is capable of adjusting a rack to make or not make balls, I think
>this stinks just as bad as playing poker with a marked deck (IMO).

>I would be interested to read some other thoughts on this topic. ;>)

>JAM

    Of course a rack can be "adjusted". By using spit, it changes the amount of
"throw" on the head ball. By making the rear balls loose, the balls in front of
the loose ball/s will have a tendency to remain in place. By moving the
headball (one ball in 9 ball), it can be set to go in the side. There are other
tricks with different games.

   To make racking as fair as one can, there should be a designated racker that
is only there to rack, not play. But even then, there is the possibility of
problems.
Hank

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by triple » Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:20:13

Any time any one puts spit between the balls that should not be allowed
and both balls picked up and cleaned and dried.  I would stop the game
right there and refuse to continue, that is total bull shit, excuse my
francee.  The one ball tends to come up short potting in the side, when
you put spit between balls they throw more and you can hit the rack
fuller and still pot in side with the one.  This is an old move in
trick shots, freeze two balls going up the long rail and challenge
people they cant make the shot and they can't because the shot is not
on and misses every time.  When you shoot you wipe your forehead with
your index finger to pick up some grease or when they are not looking
run your index finger on your toungue and place that between the balls
and they now throw several more inches and the shot goes down.

Spinning the 9 ball out of the rack towards the bottom left corner, is
a skill thing I can do, but the rack can be set up to help that which
is not freezing the balls behind the 9 so none of them are touching it.
Level cue, hit 3:00 one tip right, its called a spin break.

There is nothing wrong with taping the head ball to freeze it, on some
tables and cloths, that is the only way it can be froze, you just tap
it lightly, you don't pound it.  This is how we freeze balls in trick
shots.  When I go through the rack, I tap any ball that is not froze, I
want all 15 froze with no gaps, which is really hard to do.  The reason
everyone freaks out on this is because they don't know s***.

Winner racks his own balls is the way to go, but you still have to
watch him because he can cheat to help him self and knowing the moves
he can make helps you to prevent that.

Triple D....

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by Bob Jewet » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:37:44

[Racking breaker touches one ball just before breaking...]

Quote:
> Somebody on the rail actually said if he***ed his finger and
> touched the 1-ball that it would cause some sort of friction
> and make it fly on the break better (LOL).  I have a hard time
> believing this one, but now I'm beginning to wonder.

Of course, if he were doing that, it would be grounds to DQ him
from the tournament with forfeiture of all prize money he might
be due.

Quote:
> I have been told each table has a "sweet spot" relating to
> breaking, some better than others.  However, I witnessed the
> 1-ball fly in the side pocket 8 out of 9 times on the break in
> one match after the guy's***ed finger touched the 1-ball.

Did you see him*** his finger?

Quote:
> In another match, with another player racking his own, I
> witnessed the 9-ball move to the corner pocket within 1 to 2
> inches EVERY SINGLE TIME, actually pocketing the 9-ball on the
> break one time.

At Reno about two years ago, they were doing "rack your own" and
one table consistently moved the nine ball towards a particular
pocket.  One player on that table seemed genuinely apologetic
after he made the nine on the break.

Quote:
> ...  because he is allowing "them" to place a gap between the
> two balls BEHIND the 9-ball, which according to this guy makes
> the balls fly in better.

The nine ball moves because the rack is not tight.  This is very
clearly shown by the Sardo rack -- the nine usually doesn't move
at all when the Sardo is working.

Quote:
> The alternative is to have the loser rack.  Just as there are
> ways to rack the balls to enhance one's break, it works the
> other way, too.  An opponent can "rig" the rack and make it
> impossible for the breaking player to pocket anything.

I think it's impossible to make it impossible, but one tactic is
to give a different rack each time.

Quote:
> If a player is capable of adjusting a rack to make or not make
> balls, I think this stinks just as bad as playing poker with a
> marked deck (IMO).

Well, yes.  This is why nine ball needs impartial referees.

How about an alternative break rule: Breaker always has the second
shot, and no push-out is allowed.

--

Bob Jewett
http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by Bob Jewet » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:39:02

Quote:
> At Reno about two years ago, they were doing "rack your own" and
> one table consistently moved the nine ball towards a particular
> pocket.  One player on that table seemed genuinely apologetic
> after he made the nine on the break.

Which reminds me of a story...

    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=tim+peculiarity+kip%27s

Bob

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by JA » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:45:52

Quote:
>Which reminds me of a story...

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=tim+peculiarity+kip%27s

Very interesting and great story.  I had never heard of anything like that
before! ;>)

JAM

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by JA » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:49:36

Quote:
>Of course, if he were doing that, it would be grounds to DQ him
>from the tournament with forfeiture of all prize money he might
>be due.

Never knew that before.

Quote:
>Did you see him*** his finger?

Not every single time, but did see the finger-licking several matches.

Quote:
>I think it's impossible to make it impossible, but one tactic is
>to give a different rack each time.

Makes me think of bowling.  If they have the exact same "rack" every time for
bowling pins, it should be the same in pool (IMO).

Very enlightening post.  Thanks for your thoughts! ;>)

JAM

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by Bill » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:58:17

I recently started inspecting each and every rack during my league games
(loser racks). Well only one rack out of about 10 was a perfect rack!  Just
about every rack is different. Most racks had a gap or multiple gaps here
and there.

I stand at the head of the table and watch them rack to be sure the entire
rack is not slanted. Then I walk down to the foot of the table, lean over
the balls, and look down at all the balls. I only ask for a re-rack if the
1st ball is not touching either ball behind it or the last ball is not
touching either ball in front of it (9-ball). This averages only once or
twice an evening BTW.

I recently bought a new ball rack and it was not capable of giving a
perfect rack due to poor manufacturing of the rack. My old plastic rack
will rack the balls differently on all three corners!

These gaps can give an advantage to the person breaking. Also if the entire
rack is placed a little above or below the foot spot, it can give an
advantage.

So a player who can look at the gaps and understand what will happen when
that rack is hit a certain way would have an advantage if there are gaps
*or* if it is a perfect rack.

A good way to learn about what happens when you break is to use one of
those inexpensive security cameras along with a VCR and play back the
breaks in slow motion or frame by frame.

I did this and noticed that I was hitting the head ball in different spots
for each break. I've video taped my friends breaks and they do the same
thing.

I did find a sure fire 9 ball break, but I don't see how it is humanly
possible to shoot as accurately as is required for the shot even 1 out of
10 times.... You break with a precise amount of  left or right English
depending on which side you break from, then you carom off the 1 ball so
the cue ball hits the long rail in the same spot each time, then bounces
back to hit the 9-ball into the corner pocket. (This shot clears the way
for the 9-ball to have a clear path to the corner pocket.) I've done it a
few times, but I have difficulty making the cue ball hit the same spot on
the rail each time and also using the same amount of English each time.

Before I can do any more experimenting, I need to learn to hit the cue ball
hard and have perfect aim and speed. Then I should be able to try different
racks and see what is happening on my VCR.

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by Dan Whit » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:36:08


Quote:

> I did find a sure fire 9 ball break, but I don't see how it is humanly
> possible to shoot as accurately as is required for the shot even 1 out of
> 10 times.... You break with a precise amount of  left or right English
> depending on which side you break from, then you carom off the 1 ball so
> the cue ball hits the long rail in the same spot each time, then bounces
> back to hit the 9-ball into the corner pocket. (This shot clears the way
> for the 9-ball to have a clear path to the corner pocket.) I've done it a
> few times, but I have difficulty making the cue ball hit the same spot on
> the rail each time and also using the same amount of English each time.

Luther Lassiter used to make this shot, and said he could make it something
like 3 or 4 out of 10.  I don't remember exactly what percentage success he
claimed.

dwhite

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by Smorgass Bor » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:51:40

Bill blasts em open:
I did find a sure fire 9 ball break, but I don't see how it is humanly
possible to shoot as accurately as is required for the shot even 1 out
of 10 times.... You break with a precise amount of left or right English
depending on which side you break from, then you carom off the 1 ball so
the cue ball hits the long rail in the same spot each time, then bounces
back to hit the 9-ball into the corner pocket.

 (*<~  That's called a 'cut break' and can be very effective if done
properly...

                   NEXT,

                  Doug
 ~>*(((><  Big fish eat Little fish  ><)))*<~

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by triple » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:12:42

I used to do that back in the late 50's, 60's, gave it up because the
cue ball flies off the table to many times.  I will give this up, this
is the secret to how I set the world record on the most balls made on
the snap at 9 ball when 8 fell this way, the only ball that did not pot
was the 9 ball.  This record set in 1961 has never even been tied and
has stood un touched for 43 years.  

Triple D...

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by triple » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 05:15:29

Hey smorgie, after you put up that get fl thread and an entire page of
nothing but false lies, slanders and ***ing bull shit, shit for
brains, there are a lot of people who have your ***in number, they
know you are some 300 lb plus piece of human dog shit who is nothing
but a ***in drunk on top of it.  You have been doggin my ass on my
posts for over a year, every time, its this negative or that dig, so I
exposed your fat ass, you got what you ***ing deserved ass hole.  You
have nothing on me, so you have to make up lies, you twisted ***.
I just got in this email, he is one of your fans, this is your fan
mail, what some others think of you pal.  Note, I did not write this,
one of your admirers did.

Good to see you posting on AZ again.  I refuse to post on RSB ever
again.  Pat Johnson wants to rule it with his idiotic physics bullshit
and the ***er can't play, never could play, and never will play worth
a damn.  It's just disgusting with him.  But I see that you've run into
all of the flaming ***s that I said you would...Pat Johnson, Smorg,
Dan White, Mike Page, and a few more here and there. Ron Shepard will
come out eventually but he hides most of the time.

Here's a website that you can post on RSB for Smorg and any of those
***s that want to control you with the language issue that so many
try to do when they have no where else to go nor the brains to out talk
someone.

http://SportToday.org/

Smorgi, has a nice day shit for brains.  I hear the smorgrasboard you
go to, offered you 20 bucks not to come in each time you show.  I hear
when you get your shoes shined, you have to take their word on it.  You
cant even get around back to wipe your ass any more, how pathetic is
that.  5' tall and 300 lbs, I did not know they could stack shit that
tall in Tampa.

Triple D...

Quote:

> Bill blasts em open:
> I did find a sure fire 9 ball break, but I don't see how it is
humanly
> possible to shoot as accurately as is required for the shot even 1
out
> of 10 times.... You break with a precise amount of left or right
English
> depending on which side you break from, then you carom off the 1 ball
so
> the cue ball hits the long rail in the same spot each time, then
bounces
> back to hit the 9-ball into the corner pocket.

>  (*<~  That's called a 'cut break' and can be very effective if done
> properly...

>                    NEXT,

>                   Doug
>  ~>*(((><  Big fish eat Little fish  ><)))*<~

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by Bob Jewet » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 06:12:07

Quote:

>>Which reminds me of a story...
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=tim+peculiarity+kip%27s
> Very interesting and great story.  I had never heard of
> anything like that before!  ;>)

The day-time house man there used to sit by that front table and
read a paperback and offer a game of chance to any hapless prey
who wandered by.  I think he may have neglected to inform his
clients about the special house rule.

--

Bob Jewett
http://www.sfbilliards.com/

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by Joey » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 06:33:32

No need to*** your fingers.............It is reported that some players
don't drink cold long necks for the taste, nourishment or the buzz but for
the moisture that goes on their fingers so that the moisture can be applied
to the balls while racking.

A little observation can go a long way.  When do they dry their hands or do
they dry them at all?

JoeyA, drinking beer or wine this weekend.  I have played 100% sober in
practically all of tournaments for most of my life so now I am going to try
relaxing just a bit.  See if anything changes....   :-)


Quote:
> >Of course, if he were doing that, it would be grounds to DQ him
> >from the tournament with forfeiture of all prize money he might
> >be due.

> Never knew that before.

> >Did you see him*** his finger?

> Not every single time, but did see the finger-licking several matches.

> >I think it's impossible to make it impossible, but one tactic is
> >to give a different rack each time.

> Makes me think of bowling.  If they have the exact same "rack" every time
for
> bowling pins, it should be the same in pool (IMO).

> Very enlightening post.  Thanks for your thoughts! ;>)

> JAM

 
 
 

Winner Racks versus Loser Racks

Post by Alex Kanapil » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:13:21

Quote:
> The TD, who was sitting next to me on the rail, actually suggested to me that
> the side-armed player needs to make his opponents re-rack because he is
> allowing "them" to place a gap between the two balls BEHIND the 9-ball, which
> according to this guy makes the balls fly in better.

> I'm not a racking guru, but I find this theory incredulous, but if this is the
> case and players can "rig" the rack, it seems like the winner-racks format
> sucks (IMO).

I believe that a gap between the two balls behind the 9ball results in
the 9ball moving around "a lot" more than if there is no gap. I have
no stats or figures to back this up (if I ever get to that point just
shoot me), but I've done plenty of racking over the years and that's
been my experience.

Alex <-- will not allow a gap behind the 9ball... unless I'm racking
my own.