| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Showtime
USA
73 Posts |
 Posted - 10/21/2010 : 8:33:05 PM
|
Has it ever been discussed on the boards to change 9 ball scoring to 15 points per rack?
Currently, 9 ball isn't really 9 ball. It's more like straight pool. And although the scoring system is a good idea, could it be changed to make the game more like real 9 ball. Here's what I've come up with.
First, change the 9 ball from 2 points to 7 points and keep all other balls at 1 point. Thus, a rack would then be worth 15 points. Then, change the current points you need to get to 150% (i.e. SL 5 currently needs 38 points, and now 150% of 38 = 57 points).
A person would still be able to win by making all the other balls (8 points) except the 9 ball (7 points).
Time wise, it should take the same amount of time a current match takes, with the exception that people would more more careful (and most likely defensive) when it comes to the 9 ball.
What do you think.
If I disagree with you, it is because I am right. |
|
|
Keith
USA
242 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2010 : 04:03:34 AM
|
| I have a question about your proposed system change. What would the number of points needed be for 2s, 3s, 4s, 7s, 8s, and 9s? All of these ratings need an odd number of points. Also do you think the score sheet should be longer or smaller print to get all the way to 112 or 113 points? I think there are some other issues but am very interested to see how it works. It would have changed the outcome of almost all my matches this season as I seem to be breaking over 70 percent of the time. It might mess with the final scoring system a bit too. |
Edited by - Keith on 10/22/2010 04:13:39 AM |
 |
|
|
Showtime
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2010 : 10:28:45 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Keith[/i]
[br]I have a question about your proposed system change. What would the number of points needed be for 2s, 3s, 4s, 7s, 8s, and 9s? All of these ratings need an odd number of points. Also do you think the score sheet should be longer or smaller print to get all the way to 112 or 113 points? I think there are some other issues but am very interested to see how it works. It would have changed the outcome of almost all my matches this season as I seem to be breaking over 70 percent of the time. It might mess with the final scoring system a bit too.
I would suggest rounding up to the next digit (i.e. a SL 4 would need 46 points). The difference shouldn't make a difference because there are those that strong, weak, or just right a their SL.
As for the score sheet, the scoring 4 rows, where we keep innings and dead balls could be made nominally smaller to accommodate for 113.
I suspect that little to no changes will ever come from this topic. However, I think it would get us closer to 9-ball and further away from straight pool.
Thanks for the response.
If I disagree with you, it is because I am right. |
Edited by - Showtime on 10/22/2010 10:30:36 PM |
|
|
|
Torsten
USA
401 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2010 : 9:21:16 PM
|
It's kind of a fun sounding idea, and may work for a tournament format if you wanted to get some friends together to play, but a concern i would have with it is that it encourages attempting looney nine ball combo attempts because of the drastically increased value of the 9. Or what if a low player slopped in two 9 balls in one match. It just seems a bit unfair to me to make hard work at the beginning of a frame practically negated by either a bad shot on the 9 or bad luck. As it currently stands, the reward for getting really lucky is a point or two. Not 7.
There are some similarities to straight pool the way our 9 ball system currently is played, but bottom line, you must still shoot sequentially starting with the lowest numbered ball available. that makes it 9 ball. I'm actually hoping that maybe one day we can start a 7 ball or 10 ball division. Just change it up a bit.
I think the worst time to have a heart attack would be during a game of charades... or during a game of fake heart attack. |
|
|
|
Keith
USA
242 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2010 : 03:15:18 AM
|
I spoke with Sal about this topic. He seemed interested and agreed that it would be more like 9 ball while still being able to be handicapped. He also asked me to post that he would be willing to hold a tournament using the format for those who might be interested. I also tried it out and liked it better than the current format.
Remember the person you have to impress the most is the one you sleep with every night. |
|
|
|
Showtime
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2010 : 11:10:25 AM
|
Torsten,
I went through high school playing 9 ball. At that time if I had to rate me and the people I played with we were probably all SL 3's and 4's with one 6. We had about 4 to 8 people waiting to play at any one time. Thus, 9 ball was the faster game. Also, the possibility of sinking the 9 ball early made us take some crazy combo caroms. If we were lucky, about 30% of the time, we would make the 9 ball early when trying. The other 70% of the time we would leave the 9 ball in front of the hole and the opponent would make the 9. Typically, it didn't pay to go for the 9 ball early.
If a lower skilled player can get lucky, a higher skilled players can get lucky too. And, I see luck as a derivative of skill. So, the higher the SL the more luck your likely to have.
The similarities to straight pool, I would venture to say, are 75% straight pool and 25% 9 ball. The 25% being that you need to shoot the balls in order. I think the scoring system outweighs that. To articulate, a person can make every ball, but the 9 ball and win the game. This is the complete opposite of what 9 ball is all about, making the 9 ball.
As for 7 ball or 10 ball, I think these would be technically to difficult for lower SL players, but I would be interested in playing these in a league. Just a question, is 10 ball a point system too in league play?
Thanks for the response.
If I disagree with you, it is because I am right. |
|
|
|
Showtime
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2010 : 11:14:03 AM
|
Keith,
Did you play against someone else or by yourself?
What was the other player's SL?
What was the final score?
Did you win?
I'm glad to hear you liked it.
If I disagree with you, it is because I am right. |
|
|
|
Moose Dragon
USA
128 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2010 : 12:36:19 PM
|
Showtime,
I like your idea, I think it would be a fun format. I agree that there will most likely not be any change to the scoring format because of this idea, or any idea for that matter. I just don't see them changing a proven system (yes it is proven, just look at the size of the APA) that is used nationwide. The expense in changing the scoresheets alone would more than likely shoot the idea down, and how would you like to explain to tens of thousands of players that the system they know and have played by is being changed.
I play both 8 and 9 ball and enjoy the differance between them. 9 ball is more relaxing and is more about just making balls not trying to win games. The only change I would like to see is making the 9 ball worth more then 2 points.
These are the opinons of this poster and are not necessarily shared by me or anyone else. |
Edited by - Moose Dragon on 10/26/2010 12:38:13 PM |
|
|
|
Phil
USA
829 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2010 : 5:14:08 PM
|
There's only one reason a system like this won't be adopted by the APA. It would break the handicap system. Making the 9 worth so much more would produce wild swings in the scores people shoot, and it would be nearly impossible to rate them consistently.
Now, about the game being 75% like straight pool. The ONLY similarity in the two is a point per ball. Just as an example, a 12-ball run in straight pool isn't a huge feat, but 75% of that in 9-Ball is something. 
Seriously, you said yourself Showtime, trying to cheese the 9 doesn't pay in "real" 9-Ball. So why give someone incentive to shoot that way? When you stop trying those crazy shots and concentrate on running the balls, your 9-Ball game improves tremendously. That's what APA 9-Ball does.
I've always said the one thing I dislike about traditional 9-Ball is that you can do way less work than your opponent and still win. 9-Ball and its derivatives (7-Ball, 10-Ball, etc.) are the only games where that is true. In straight pool, one pocket, 8-Ball, snooker, and pretty much any other game you gotta do the work to win. That's what makes it possible to handicap players, and that's why the 9 is only two points in APA 9-Ball.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Keith
USA
242 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2010 : 6:56:35 PM
|
I played a 4 and the final score was 83 to about 21. There is also a very simple way to keep the handicaps. have teams mark who made the 9 ball after each rack. you can do this by circling the points of the 9 ball or the cumulative total.
Remember the person you have to impress the most is the one you sleep with every night. |
|
|
|
Phil
USA
829 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2010 : 10:38:53 PM
|
I don't mean to confuse anyone. Yes, it's easy to record who made the 9. No, it's not easy to measure a player's ability when they get half the points in the rack from one ball.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Showtime
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2010 : 12:14:56 PM
|
Phil,
I understand that handicapping would be messed up to begin with, but I suspect it could work itself out relatively quick. Unless, you are talking about the specific statistics that make up the SL's wouldn't make sense or equate any longer.
As for your argument to 75%/25%, I like your argument, but the point system is what straight pool and APA 9 ball are all about.
I believe you misunderstand what I was trying to get across regarding "cheesing in the 9 ball." It sounds like we both agree that it is typically not a good idea to go for an early 9. And, part of learning the game is learning this too. However, there are times in the APA version and the real version of 9 ball to make the 9 ball early. I further understand, that the higher points on the 9 can be perceived as more incentive to go for the 9 early.
As for doing most of the work, there are other strategies that prevent you from doing most of the work. For example, let's look at 8 ball. Just because can break and run once in a while doesn't mean it is the best strategy to try and break and run (or even just run 8) every rack. After all, when you run 6 or 7 balls and open up the table for your opponent, you've done most of the work.
The same is true in 9 ball. If I can consistently run 5 balls and I know my opponent can do the same, I'm going to play to get to start somewhere about the 5 ball or after and I'm going to try to make sure my opponent doesn't get to start until 3 ball or before. Plus, how defense could then come into play means that I'm not going to do all the work and then let my opponent get the 9 ball.
I understand the system we have is the system we will probably always have and I appreciate you entertaining the ideas of change here on the boards.
Thanks for the response.
If I disagree with you, it is because I am right. |
Edited by - Showtime on 10/27/2010 4:08:02 PM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
9 ball scoring
