PDA

View Full Version : some 9ball rule changes...



06-29-2002, 12:30 PM
Ok it still wouldnt be good but here it is:
- dont have to make a ball on the break to continue (softbreak would be unnecessary and hard break would be an advantage for a nice spread)
- callshot
- no money ball, just clear the table
- 15 balls instead of 9

06-29-2002, 12:41 PM
Id like to have some comments of why this isnt good instead of nothing please ...
Winning would be a lot less random, there is a lot more strategy play, more banks and combos, and better possition play...
The game would still be fast (most seem to think this is important so...)
And the hardbreak would be back!

Ok so if you dont like it please tell me why, thank you.

PQQLK9
06-29-2002, 12:42 PM
Then it wouldn't be 9 Ball but more like Rotation except for the break...try again...insteresting...

06-29-2002, 12:51 PM
It wouldnt have to be called 9ball, and it isnt rotation.
I just said 9ball rules because you know them, so take those rules and add the changes i just said.
Rotation has a different break, no callshot, and it has the stupid points system.
Im not saying i invented this game or anything, im just sugesting these rules.

The game i would realy like would be to 'slow' for american tv and it would require a new ball set so i dont bother to explain the rules here...

So im just sugesting this since im sure they would be a lot better for competition, especialy at the proffesional level.
So now im asking why you think it wouldnt be? And if your only reason is that 9ball is standard and you dont like change, i dont want to hear it.

06-29-2002, 12:53 PM
Malcolm, I agree with your stipulation to not require a ball on the break to continue shooting. This should probably be combined with alternating breaks, though.

Your suggestion of no money ball is also a good one, just make the last ball on the table the game-winner.

While call-shot is a good thing, it must be combined with a pushout rule throughout the game. Or at least a rule stipulating that if the shot played is not the one that is called, incoming player may make the opponent shoot again.

Going to 15 balls is probably not the way to go. You'll see remarkably few runs, even at the pro level, and the game will just be too slow.

- Steve

Ken
06-29-2002, 01:19 PM
You won't necessarily stop the slow break. There would be a premium on getting a good shot at the one and the slow break might still be the best idea. Give a good straight pool player a good shot at the one and he will get to the two and break any clusters eventually. Virtually a guaranteed win.

Call shot is no good as Steve pointed out because that makes safeties too easy. Just call the wrong pocket and get the worst possible position on the next ball. Another big advantage to the breaker.

If you want to fix nine-ball you have to keep the nine balls. Otherwise it is not nine-ball.

Clearing the table to win is a great idea since it eliminates easy combo wins or lucky rolls.

I would suggest making the break less of an advantage by making the shot after the break a mandatory push shot whether by the breaker or incoming player. That would even up the start of the game by giving the shooter a slight advantage due to controlling the table layout but not permitting a run out. This would also be a very simple rule change and there would be no reason for a slow break. It might take some of the predictability and boredom out of the game. It would be more than just a shotmaking exhibition. There would be some early strategic play; some of the best nine-ball games involve an early safety battle and then a great shot due to a push-out.
KenCT

06-29-2002, 01:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Steve_Lipsky:</font><hr> Malcolm, I agree with your stipulation to not require a ball on the break to continue shooting. This should probably be combined with alternating breaks, though.

Your suggestion of no money ball is also a good one, just make the last ball on the table the game-winner.

While call-shot is a good thing, it must be combined with a pushout rule throughout the game. Or at least a rule stipulating that if the shot played is not the one that is called, incoming player may make the opponent shoot again.

Going to 15 balls is probably not the way to go. You'll see remarkably few runs, even at the pro level, and the game will just be too slow.

- Steve <hr></blockquote>

I see nothing wrong with alternating breaks, i think it might be better.

Im not sure what you mean with the pushout rule troughout the game or the other letting your opponent shoot again rule.
Would this still work with safeties?
Ive never played a rule like that so i dont know, maybe you can explain?

I think 15 balls is good, reducing the runs is exactly the reason why i would want this.
Mainly to have more strategy play instead of both players playing alone.
Ofcource the 15 balls is also to have more difficult shots like banks, combinations, tougher possition play and cluster breaking.

I still dont like them a lot, altough they are a lot better.
Reason is you can be in control a whole rack, make one mistake with the clustered 2 last balls and lose the game...
In such situations you might be better not making the 3th last ball...
Well its a gambling situation.

Also since the rules are this way, with 15balls especialy it would be only good at at least near pro level.

Tom_In_Cincy
06-29-2002, 01:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Malcolm:</font><hr> Ok it still wouldnt be good but here it is:
- dont have to make a ball on the break to continue (softbreak would be unnecessary and hard break would be an advantage for a nice spread)<hr></blockquote>

Do you mean that the break becomes a push shot? and you are required to shot again? or can you push after the break?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>- callshot<hr></blockquote>

Fair enough.. but can you still win by calling a combo on the game ball?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>- no money ball, just clear the table<hr></blockquote>
Well I guess this answers my above question.. this is more like call shot rotation..

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>- 15 balls instead of 9<hr></blockquote>
Well, again.. I seem see the demise of 9 ball and an new game that has only a special break rule.. and call shot rotation..

06-29-2002, 07:37 PM
Tom im not saying i made a new game, im just sugesting these rules and asking why not?
It is very close to 9ball and rotation yes, with some changes.
I didnt say this is 9ball, i just said 9ball so you think of those rules and then add the changes i was saying, call it whatever you want.
Break wouldnt be a push, you just break and then you do what you want, just dont foul on the break and you can run, no need to make a ball on the break since this is way to much about luck.
I think it would be stupid not to try to break it very open, since you get the chance to run then.
If you have the rule to make a ball on the break to continue its the opposite, its very risky to break wide open, since when you dont make a ball your opponent has a good chance to run, i think thats very stupid (especialy with only 9balls...).
Anyways, there is just no good reason why there should be that rule...
You just have it because thats the way it is.
I dont think like that.

06-29-2002, 07:48 PM
There is an easy way to solve that safety problem with callshot.
Just make making a ball you dont call a foul, unless you make another ball you did call and allows you to continue.
Problem solved :-)

So what we have now is a game with 15 balls racked randomly with the 1ball on the spot.
Open break required?
After the break the breaker keeps his turn exept if there was a foul.
After the break the possibility to do a pushout.
Rotation.
Callshot. (with that extra rule i just said)
Clearing table wins (no money ball).
Oh and ball in hand on a foul.
And i think the 3foul rule is good also?
And maybe alternating breaks?

I think i have them all?

Ken
06-29-2002, 08:21 PM
Right, you solve the safety problem with another rule. You think this will give you a hard break? Take the call shot out of straight pool. Do you think the hard break will come in?

If it's one rack for everything I want to control the cue ball and the one ball. Therefore: slow break. In a race to one I want to control the table. I soft break to make sure I have a shot and then play a killer safety. If you force me to shoot even if I make nothing on the break I have to be able to see the one: soft break. If the shot goes to my opponent if I fail to make a ball then I soft break and hide the cueball. Just think of a race to one for your life and what would be the best strategy. You don't break the rack wide open. That brings in too much luck.
KenCT

Troy
06-29-2002, 09:20 PM
Do I understand you correctly ???

No ball on the break but I continue anyway ???
And this ELIMINATES the dreaded "soft break" ???

No sir !!! I'll break softly to get shape on the 1-Ball, then I'll shoot the 1-Ball, 2-Ball, etc.... GAME OVER !!!

Try again.

Troy

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Malcolm:</font><hr> Tom im not saying i made a new game, im just sugesting these rules and asking why not?
It is very close to 9ball and rotation yes, with some changes.
I didnt say this is 9ball, i just said 9ball so you think of those rules and then add the changes i was saying, call it whatever you want.
Break wouldnt be a push, you just break and then you do what you want, just dont foul on the break and you can run, no need to make a ball on the break since this is way to much about luck.
I think it would be stupid not to try to break it very open, since you get the chance to run then.
If you have the rule to make a ball on the break to continue its the opposite, its very risky to break wide open, since when you dont make a ball your opponent has a good chance to run, i think thats very stupid (especialy with only 9balls...).
Anyways, there is just no good reason why there should be that rule...
You just have it because thats the way it is.
I dont think like that. <hr></blockquote>

06-30-2002, 04:45 AM
You softbreak and you run 15 balls in rotation?
And then youre gonna tell me 9ball is not to easy?
Now you are realy pissing me off.
I think you just want to disagree with me.

06-30-2002, 04:51 AM
Who sais its one rack for everything?
Well you do but not me.
Why would a hard break be to risky if you break hard when you need to make a ball or your opponent gets the table? I think thats a lot more risky.
It wasnt even about this, i dont care about the hard break.
Its just the stupid 9ball game and you dont even understand it.
Everything is on that break shot and its a luck shot, unless you do the softbreak maybe... but you hate the soft break.
But still you seem to have to disagree with everything i say.

Its realy strange to me that nobody seems to understand what a lotery 9ball is.
example: mika won the world championship then he loses 11-0 in an other final.
Only reason the same people still win so much is because you dont play on the level i was thinking off.
Raise the level a litle higher than mika and its a complete lotery.

cheesemouse
06-30-2002, 06:02 AM
I think a simple change in the pro level nine ball tournaments that would take a players set break away from him plus add another deminsion to the end game is: when the nine is pocketed and the cueball has come to rest the CB will be moved in a straight line to the kitchen line and the next game will begin with the player breaking from that point. I think this adds an easy to understand strategy to the game whether it is winner or loser breaks.
It could be called the cheese rule LOl /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Ken
06-30-2002, 07:45 AM
I understand you quite well. You want to add 6 balls to the game. Then it's not nine ball. If you want to fix 9 ball then do it with 9 balls. You're just foolling yourself if you think 15 ball rotation is 9 ball.

If you give the breaker the next shot you make the break too much of an advantage. I'm telling you if you want to really analyze the game make it just one game for all the marbles. Then what strategy do you use? A hard break is virtually a guaranteed win under your rules. That's a real dumb game. We'd need races to 50 with 25 breaks each under your rules to differentiate who is better. You might as well play like tennis. There each player gets maybe 150 serves and you see who has a slight edge at the end. Great entertainment but it takes hours.

Adding 6 balls is not fixing 9 ball. My suggestion is to make each game a true contest. Make the shot after the break a mandatory push regardless of position. That way the breaker might as well break hard because he won't pay a huge penalty if he fails to make a ball. Whoever takes the push out has only a slight advantage by controlling the difficulty of the next shot. It's a simple change that would make each game meaningful and unpredictable.

The only problem with 9 ball is that making a ball on the break is a huge advantage and not making a ball on the break is a huge disadvantage. Requiring a push out after the break eliminates that problem.

The way the game is now, after the break anyone can predict the outcome of the game. Under your rules anyone can predict the outcome prior to the break.
KenCT

heater451
06-30-2002, 08:41 AM
Regardless of whether it's "one rack for all or not", I think what you said in the earlier post still holds water.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Ken:</font><hr>You won't necessarily stop the slow break. There would be a premium on getting a good shot at the one and the slow break might still be the best idea. Give a good straight pool player a good shot at the one and he will get to the two and break any clusters eventually. Virtually a guaranteed win<hr></blockquote>I occasionally practice rotation with 15 balls, and use a standard/hard break. What generally happens is, there is too much 'traffic' to get a good shot on the one, and it makes even decent position an improbable situation. This usually continues, until several balls are off the table. (If I had to guess, this was a "been there, done that" proposition for whomever created 9-ball. --After all, many people feel that adding one ball to the game makes it more challenging, but you still don't see lots of 10-ball games around. . . .)
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Ken:</font><hr> . . .If you give the breaker the next shot you make the break too much of an advantage. I'm telling you if you want to really analyze the game make it just one game for all the marbles. Then what strategy do you use? A hard break is virtually a guaranteed win under your rules. That's a real dumb game.<hr></blockquote>I don't necessarily agree, that the hard break guarantees a win, as it depends on at which point the balls allow a run-out.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Ken:</font><hr>We'd need races to 50 with 25 breaks each under your rules to differentiate who is better. You might as well play like tennis. There each player gets maybe 150 serves and you see who has a slight edge at the end. Great entertainment but it takes hours. . . .<hr></blockquote>In any game involving such a 'required' amount of 'luck', it would be the case that longer matches would determine the better player (as I said in post http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccbboard&amp;Number=20839&amp; page=0&amp;view=expanded&amp;sb=5&amp;o=7#Post20839 . . .the way to decide who is a better player, is to run longer races--the luck factor isn't decreased, but it becomes outweighed by the skill factor. (And, by "better", I mean under the given 9-ball rules, which places a stronger reliance on shot accuracy (offensive) than safety play (defensive). {Note: Although both require cue ball control, I believe that control for final position is much more useful in defense than offense.} If you want a "better" defensive player, you would have to play a different game.))

Ken
06-30-2002, 08:42 AM
How about requiring that the cueball must be returned to the kitchen on the last shot? If you miss the kitchen the ball gets spotted and your opponent must put the cueball in the kitchen. Break would be by whoever gets the cueball in the kitchen while making the nine. You break from where the cueball ends up. Combos and lucky caroms on the 9 won't count unless the cueball ends up in the kitchen for the next break.

Let's play 8 ball rotation. The one is removed from the rack like in a straight pool rack. You must hit the two on the break and if it is racked in back the breaker must kick at it or execute an accurate jump shot. This would take away some of the breaker's advantage and would result in less balls made on the break since only 8 balls on the table and the one no longer available to go in the side.