PDA

View Full Version : Who should rack



jjinfla
06-17-2002, 05:50 PM
The last two big tournaments I went to I noticed that they were letting the players rack their own balls. Supposedly this was to eliminate all the complaints about bad racks and making them keep on re-racking. But now I notice that there are even more complaints because players are saying that letting a player rack his own balls gives him an advantage. Yesterday Grossman was all over Kennedy during their match because Tommy was making 2,3,4 balls on every break and the 9 headed for the pocket each time. And when Dave broke his own rack he never made a ball. finally they got someone else to rack for both of them and all of a sudden Tommy wasn't making any balls on the rack. Just a coincidence? I know that Tommy looks like mister innocent but I heard he knows a few racking tricks. Anyway, do you think letting the players rack their own rack is a good idea? Maybe the tournament should have a couple of neutral rackers. Jake

Doctor_D
06-17-2002, 06:33 PM
Good evening:

In my opinion, the loser should rack. A loose rack will allow for the 9 ball to move sooner and chase it to a corner pocket. If the rack is tight the 9 ball should not move unless hit by another ball coming off the cushion or another ball.

Dr. D.

Barbara
06-17-2002, 07:56 PM
Jake, get yourself a copy of "Racking Secrets" by Joe Tucker and you'll read how certain "gaps" in the rack make certain balls go in.

I gave up 5 9's on the break in one match and noticed that the 2 balls behind the 9 weren't frozen to it each time I racked. Now I know why. /ccboard/images/icons/frown.gif then, /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif now.

Barbara~~~loves Joe T...

Troy
06-17-2002, 08:39 PM
No matter who is racking, players have the opportunity and responsibility to inspect the rack.

Troy

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: jjinfla:</font><hr> The last two big tournaments I went to I noticed that they were letting the players rack their own balls. Supposedly this was to eliminate all the complaints about bad racks and making them keep on re-racking. But now I notice that there are even more complaints because players are saying that letting a player rack his own balls gives him an advantage. Yesterday Grossman was all over Kennedy during their match because Tommy was making 2,3,4 balls on every break and the 9 headed for the pocket each time. And when Dave broke his own rack he never made a ball. finally they got someone else to rack for both of them and all of a sudden Tommy wasn't making any balls on the rack. Just a coincidence? I know that Tommy looks like mister innocent but I heard he knows a few racking tricks. Anyway, do you think letting the players rack their own rack is a good idea? Maybe the tournament should have a couple of neutral rackers. Jake <hr></blockquote>

06-17-2002, 09:29 PM
Troy, that's not going to solve the problem with winner racks.

Once a player finds the "sweet spot" at which to rack for himself, where the corner ball keeps flying in, he'll rack in exactly that spot continually. As long as the balls are tight, the opposing player won't have any legitamite justification to ask for a rerack.

Inspecting the rack may stop a flurry of nines, but it won't stop the corner ball issue.

- Steve Lipsky

Doctor_D
06-18-2002, 06:18 AM
Good morning:

Excellent point! I have learned, from painful experience, to ALWAYS check the rack before I break.

Dr. D.

jjinfla
06-18-2002, 07:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Barbara:</font><hr> Jake, get yourself a copy of "Racking Secrets" by Joe Tucker and you'll read how certain "gaps" in the rack make certain balls go in.

I gave up 5 9's on the break in one match and noticed that the 2 balls behind the 9 weren't frozen to it each time I racked. Now I know why. /ccboard/images/icons/frown.gif then, /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif now.

Barbara~~~loves Joe T... <hr></blockquote>
Have it. That's why I think letting the winner break is a bad idea. It just gives them that little edge. Watching Mika when he was racking, the 9-ball didn't move much at all on his breaks but the back ball always hit the end rail and headed toward the opposite corner pocket. The 1-ball went toward the side pocket. And it seemed he always made at least one ball. Could it just be luck?

Five 9-balls in one match? Aaarrgghh! I had a guy make two in a row a couple of months ago in a race to three and since then nobody has made the 9 when I rack. One of Kennedy's secrets when racking is to raise the 9 when you are pushing on the balls and let it drop. I noticed he wasn't doing that when he was racking for himself. Jake

PoolFan
06-18-2002, 07:28 AM
I believe that you can fix the corner ball issue by changing the game to 10-ball. I believe that this game removes a lot of the Breaking issues in pro events.

I believe that 9-ball should be played in amateur events and 10-ball in pro events.

Troy
06-18-2002, 08:31 AM
Provided the 1-Ball is properly on the Spot and the rack is properly tight, making a ball(s) on the break is just part of the game.

However, if by "sweet spot" you mean the rack is being manipulated, inspection should catch that manipulation.

Troy

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Steve_Lipsky:</font><hr> Troy, that's not going to solve the problem with winner racks.

Once a player finds the "sweet spot" at which to rack for himself, where the corner ball keeps flying in, he'll rack in exactly that spot continually. As long as the balls are tight, the opposing player won't have any legitamite justification to ask for a rerack.

Inspecting the rack may stop a flurry of nines, but it won't stop the corner ball issue.

- Steve Lipsky <hr></blockquote>

06-18-2002, 09:00 AM
Troy, there's always a little leeway, relative to the spot, where the racker can place the one ball. Usually this means going a little higher - and note that I'm not talking a half-inch or anything. More like an 1/8 of an inch. Sometimes this can make all the difference.

Watching pro tournaments, you've probably seen one player make the wing ball (or the 1-ball) two or three straight racks. All of a sudden, on his next break, they miss. And then they barely, if ever, go again the rest of the set. This is no accident, and it's because the racker has become cognizant of the "sweet spot".

Remember, the rack will still be tight and on the spot. There is no cause for a re-rack. And the breaker still has a good chance to make a ball, but it's probably not going to be the 1 in the side or the wing in the corner.

- Steve

Troy
06-18-2002, 10:18 AM
So what I think you are really saying Steve, and I agree, is that even if the rack is CORRECT a ball(s) MAY go into a pocket.

Troy...~~~ So be it..... Practice your breaks folks..... /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Steve_Lipsky:</font><hr> Troy, there's always a little leeway, relative to the spot, where the racker can place the one ball. Usually this means going a little higher - and note that I'm not talking a half-inch or anything. More like an 1/8 of an inch. Sometimes this can make all the difference.

Watching pro tournaments, you've probably seen one player make the wing ball (or the 1-ball) two or three straight racks. All of a sudden, on his next break, they miss. And then they barely, if ever, go again the rest of the set. This is no accident, and it's because the racker has become cognizant of the "sweet spot".

Remember, the rack will still be tight and on the spot. There is no cause for a re-rack. And the breaker still has a good chance to make a ball, but it's probably not going to be the 1 in the side or the wing in the corner.

- Steve <hr></blockquote>

Drake
06-18-2002, 10:55 AM
Rack your own balls is great for the game. It dramatically reduces the amount of time for the balls to get racked. Nobody can claim that their opponent only won because of slug racks. This really levels the playing field. BUT, this argument brings us back to the SARDO problem. Winner breaks causes to many upsets. Alternate breaks is a better format.

cheesemouse
06-18-2002, 01:17 PM
PoolFan,
I'm with you. The ten ball rack is nearly impossible to manipulate, easy to rack and will bring more players into the major tournaments; the weak breakers would be back in the action as even powerfull breakers come up dry all the time with the 10 ball rack.

Troy
06-19-2002, 08:44 AM
Sorry Drake, but NOTHING will support use of the SARDINE GIZMO . I've "trained" tables for their use and I've used them; they are junk plain and simple.

Troy

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Drake:</font><hr> BUT, this argument brings us back to the SARDO problem. <hr></blockquote>

Jay M
06-19-2002, 09:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Troy, there's always a little leeway, relative to the spot, where the racker can place the one ball. Usually this means going a little higher - and note that I'm not talking a half-inch or anything. More like an 1/8 of an inch. Sometimes this can make all the difference. <hr></blockquote>

There's also the possibility of a slight tilt to the rack. Not enough to be obvious, but enough to cause a straight hit on the one to push the bottom ball down table off center and back up into the 9 sending it towards the top corner of the table. There is more leeway than you would think in a table that doesn't have a vertical mark showing where true center is.

Personally, I like winner break and rack your own. Winner break adds the excitement of a long run into the game. If players are alternating breaks then the spectators don't really connect with the fact that both players have just run 8 racks in a race to 9, they only perceive one rack at a time because the players are switching each time. Rack your own is preferable to rack your opponent. BUT neutral racker wins every time... Sardo loses every time...

Jay M

06-19-2002, 09:30 AM
Here are my choices in order of worst to best:

Worst: Neutral racker

Almost worst: Winner racks for himself

Best: Loser racks for winner

IMO, pool should be a hands-on game---meaning hands-on by both participants. Add a neutral racker to the picture and you're adding an 'outside' element to the game. You're also adding a potential for favoritism...even if on a subconscious level, as well as accusations of favoritism, even if there isn't any. As far as I'm concerned, when I'm playing a match, I don't want anyone handling the equipment other than my opponent and myself.

Rack your own? I don't care for it, although I think it's better than a neutral racker. I don't like the prospect of sitting in my chair, watching my opponent make 2 and 3 balls on the break, wondering if he's doing something for himself I can't see, even if I check his rack. It works on your mind.

I'd rather take my chances with my opponent racking with me checking his rack. At least I have some control over my own destiny.

Fran

06-20-2002, 11:23 AM
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You. A dream I'm always working on.