PDA

View Full Version : Luck



Fran Crimi
08-08-2011, 07:33 AM
I came across this quote by Lee Trevino:

"Only bad golfers are lucky. They're the ones bouncing balls off trees, curbs, turtles, and cars. Good golfers have bad luck. When you hit the ball straight, a funny bounce is bound to be unlucky."

I thought it was a really interesting comment. Do you think this is true? If a pro has luck, is it usually bad?

Brian in VA
08-08-2011, 08:23 AM
Hi Fran,

I'm not sure I agree entirely. I've had some really great bounces when I was playing well, too. Maybe I'm not as good a golfer as I once thought I was!

I do think that the more one practices, the luckier one gets. Of course, then it's referred to as skill.

Lee has some great quotes over the years. One of my favorites is, "You can talk to a fade but a hook won't listen."

Brian in VA

JJFSTAR
08-08-2011, 08:40 AM
I think we remember much more vividly what the table takes away from us than what the table gives us. This is probably true in all sports at all levels with most players. Luck (over time) is probably a constant flow of both good and bad (over time).

williamd2
08-08-2011, 09:44 AM
From what I have observed, in most any sport, even pro's have
below average days !
On such day's, even they will welcome GOOD luck, when it
presents itself unexpectedly.
Most pro's probably consider GOOD luck, as a meeting of preparedness
and opportunity, and are well equipped to make the best use of the situation.

071838
08-08-2011, 09:49 AM
Remember what Gene used to say, Franny: "If you hit 'em at the right speed, you get the rolls." GF

Tom_In_Cincy
08-08-2011, 03:29 PM
I agree with Lee's statement to a degree.

Bad Golfers (or bad Pool players) get more LUCK (good and bad) because they are just going to put themselves in that position more often that the Good players.

Good Players will have a higher percentage of shots that do not require good luck to achieve the goal. And, also will have a lower percentage of shots that can be affected by bad luck or bad rolls.

Example.
Good player shoots 100 shots. 80 of them do exactly what is expected. The other 20 are open to be affected by good/bad luck.

Bad players shoot 100 shots and 40 shots are exactly what is expected. The other 60 shots are open for the affects of luck good or bad.

08-08-2011, 03:35 PM
I'll agree with this, Tom.

Just to take it a lil further, it seems like good players are usually inline, wiht a high degree of precision and predictability. They rarely need that much good luck to help them. If anything, they don't need bad luck, or a bad roll to derail them.


Eric

Rich R.
08-09-2011, 05:49 AM
I think luck is a two way street at all levels of play in all sports. Therefore, I don't get too excited when I get some good luck and I don't get too upset when I get some bad luck.

Fran Crimi
08-09-2011, 08:46 AM
You're right, Georgie. He did say that. Gene had some great sayings.

Fran Crimi
08-09-2011, 08:47 AM
Tom, that's what I thought he meant too. I think there's an element of truth to it.

cushioncrawler
08-09-2011, 04:38 PM
With the modern krappamith ball, all players kan expekt bad luck. A soft vitreous ball giving lots of mini-kix and lots of chalk-kix. Bad luck.
Woznt that bad in the oldendays, when we had hard balls, no "vitreous" balls in thems days.

Alltho, if u uze natural outside english, a kick (why iz this called skid in theusofa????) wont rob your score, az long az u hit a bit harder to make sure the ball reeches the pocket.

How many mini-kix and chalk-kix do u see per game?????? Anyhow, bad luck america.
mac.

Fran Crimi
08-09-2011, 08:02 PM
Boy are you ever right, Mac. The new balls do slide. Before it happened mostly with new cloth, but now it doesn't matter if the cloth is old.

We call it skid because the ball does seem to skid or slide off-line when that happens.

I'm seeing more skids (kicks) than years ago. Sometimes you need to use inside spin for position and on certain shots you just stroke it and say a small prayer that the chalk mark doesn't stick. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif

cushioncrawler
08-10-2011, 06:40 PM
In English billiards (12' table) i uze 2 tricks.

[1] I like to uze a little outside english to pot the red (into a near corner pkt) off its spot, to minimize the (red's) throw due to any kick (slide). If i uze more english i kan achieve natural english and get zero throw.

[2] If i am playing an inoff (ie i want the qball to enter a pocket) i like to uze inside english. A chalk-kick or a mini-kick will otherwize make the qball take a wider angle, and u might miss the intended inoff. But inside english givs the qball a konsistent angle, and i get my desired inoff.

I find that the krappamiths hav lots of ball-to-ball impakt marks, especially the qball. Theze impakt marks polish away eventually, but there are allways fresh impakt marks. I kan quickly polish away most of the trouble in say 20seconds by rubbing and twisting the ball tween my bare palms before the game.

But u karnt do much about a chalk-kick. No matter how much u kleen the balls the qball will allways hav one fresh chalk-mark from that shot.
The best way to avoid a chalk-kick from that fresh chalk-mark iz to uze zero english.
Allso i remember years ago on this forum i deskribed a way that i found to reduce or eliminate the chances of getting a chalk-kick (from a fresh chalk-mark) when u needed english.

Dr Onoda did an analysis of the liklihood of getting a kick based on the size of the ball-to-ball impakt (circle) az a ratio of the overall area of a ball.
This sort of analysis explains (kan explain) why (soft) krappamiths get more chalk-kix than (the oldendays) hard balls. Soft balls hav bigger impakt areas.

Dr Onoda's analysis partly explains why krappamiths get more kix. But az i hav explained in the past the vitreous nature of the krapps creates an additional dirty trick -- krapps get more mini-kix. This iz koz of the nature of the vitreous.

If u grab a qball and run your fingernail slowly akross u will find that the fingernail tends to stop whenever u meet an impakt-mark, koz of the high friktion, especially a fresh mark.

I dont like saying that the krapps are a bakelite ball with a vitreous coating, koz the fakt of the matter iz that the krapps are a vitreous ball with a bakelite center.
mac.

cushioncrawler
08-10-2011, 06:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fran Crimi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....I'm seeing more skids (kicks) than years ago. Sometimes you need to use inside spin for position and on certain shots you just stroke it and say a small prayer that the chalk mark doesn't stick. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif </div></div>Fran -- I will havta find what i wrote about minimizing the chances of a chalk-kick when needing english.
I think i sayd that inside english woz okish, but outside english woz poizon.
And i think i sayd that 4:30 o'clock woz best, ie and 7:30 o'clock when uzing left english (ie inside english).
But of course this depends (just a bit) on the range tween qball and objektball.
mac.

cushioncrawler
08-10-2011, 08:11 PM
I found my copy of Dr Onoda's article on "Coping with skid". It iz allso on Bob Jewett's website. Its a great article.
I remember that Dr Onoda's analysis of hitting the ball low-inside or high-outside to avoid a (fresh) chalk-kick iz slightly wrongish, but i karnt remember the exakt details.
mac.

Fran Crimi
08-11-2011, 07:24 AM
OK, I'd love to see the recommendation. I remember years ago learning that low outside was safe and that high outside was potentially dangerous, but that was before videos were shot.

cushioncrawler
08-11-2011, 05:54 PM
Fran -- The thread for SKID started by Paul Mon on 22 Feb 07 iz good and inkloods.......

"...............................
Hi Paul -- I agree with u n Doc n Fran, i think i go along with what Fran sez about hitting low, but here i will havta re-read my posting (to myself), following, from the thread started by "dutchboy" called "efren wisdom" (dated 6Feb06). Here i call Dr Onoda "Dr G" -- karnt remember why, duz G stand for Gordon or something?? ....

.............." G'day cushioncrawler -- i did a few tests of my own this arvo, relating to Dr G's stuff (skidding -- kicks), and relating to Efren's practice of hitting low with a bit of inside english (to avoid skid-kicks) -- i only did 60 minutes of testing, so i dont expect to get a Nobel Prize for billiards, but here we go.

Rule No 1..... If u hit the qball very high, ie at 11 O'clock, or 12, or 1, u will never get a kick (from a fresh chalk mark), unless u are hitting the object ball full.

Rule No 2..... If u hit the qball leftofcenter (high, or low), u will never get a kick (skid) if u are cutting the objectball to the right, if the qball is rolling when it gets to the objectball.

Rule No 3..... If u hit the qball leftofcenter (low), u will never get a kick (skid) if u are cutting the objectball to the left, if the qball is sliding when it gets to the objectball.

Rule No 4..... Rule No 2 is wrong..... if u hit very low and just leftofcenter and slow, a cut to the right might get a kick.

Rule No 5..... For a fine cut, a kick is impossible (for a rolling qball), unless u use a little inside english, and hit a little low.

So, was Efren correct?? I dont know -- i emptied a bottle of 1998 red -- i will have another think in the morning......"

It looks like Rule 2 supports Fran, but Rule 4 givz an exception. madMac
.................................................."

JoeW
08-11-2011, 06:00 PM
Fran Crimi said, “Do you think this is true? If a pro has luck, is it usually bad?”

This is an intriguing question and I wonder if I can reason through it. Let’s say that by definition “Luck” is a 50% probability that something will go right or wrong. So by definition luck (good or bad) happens about half the time. So the simple answer is that everyone is lucky half the time. But, and it could be a big but.

Let’s say that on average, a new player is likely to be twice as far from the goal as an experienced player. Therefore his positional play is not as important as it is to the more experienced player. The newer player’s bad luck doesn’t mean as much because they are as likely to recover from poor position as not. These people often still have a shot in many cases.

The experienced player is playing in a different arena where her position must be within inches of a particular place on the table. In this scenario the more experienced player’s “bad” luck is more important and has more detrimental effects on her game. By the same token, her lucky rolls are also more important as they lead to a game win. For the less experienced player a lucky roll only means he is able to attempt the next shot.

Bad or unlucky rolls are relatively more important to the experienced player and I suspect that in a match between equally experienced advanced players luck plays a much more important roll. It is not that they have more or less luck than a lesser player it is the idea that a few bad or good rolls often determine the outcome of professional matches. Luck is more important to the advanced player especially when inches matter.

So the professional does not have "more" bad luck. Luck, especially bad luck is much more important as a deciding factor to the professional.

JoeW
08-11-2011, 06:06 PM
BTW I also think that we have preferred ways of seeing the world. I have a friend who all too often makes three ball combinations, four rail kick/ banks and other unlikely shots that he says are the results of his skill. A "bad" roll he perceives as bad luck.

I think a good (lucky) roll is often seen as skill and a bad roll is seen as bad luck for some people. In my thinking luck is just that and half the time it runs either way.

cushioncrawler
08-11-2011, 06:09 PM
From a thread called Efren Wisdom on 6 Feb 06........

"...............................................
G'day Fred. Thanks for your info etc, likewize Dr Dave, etc. I have now (re)visited the old (July 05 mainly) threads, & Dr George's (1991 mainly) article(s), & i am now less ignorant. In fact, i think that i can add a few ideas from a down-under (peculiar) perspective.

When the English (amatuer) Billiards Team visited last year, they said that kicks were a big menace on the double-shaved (almost napless) fast & slippery competition snooker cloths, now standard. Their theory was that balls pick up chalk dust (electrostatically), & bigger chalk bits, mainly as the ball slows & stops, & that this is magnified by the almost napless cloths, because the chalk has less space to hide (in the nap). I dont necessaryly agree with this, but it opens up a few lines of questioning.

Object Balls. The cueball might be the main offender in skidding (kicks), but the object ball is often to blame. I myself am amazed at the amount of chalk dust (& solitary big bits) of chalk that can often be seen on object balls for no apparent reason. I uzually only ask for the object ball to be cleaned when i can see chalk on the exact spot that i want to contact -- which happens at least once a night -- where does it all come from?? I think that much of it is not picked up from the cloth, it is direct splatter from the cue-tip.

Cleaning. We use a special ball marker to mark a ball's pozzy before cleaning. It is shaped to fit snugly under the ball, ie it has a spherical cut-out. No arguements.

Brushing. If the English (Team) is correct, we should be brushing the table between frames.

Wiping. Some players even wipe the table with their hands before some shots -- for instance, they wipe all around The Spot before they pot the red, because the red then goes on The Spot, & it is easier to wipe that area before the red is spotted.

Klunking. After chalking-up, some players klunk the tip-end of their cue on the side or leg of the table, to remove excess chalk from the tip. U should see the amount of chalk that comes off.

I agree with the threads that say that central hitting is a good policy for reducing the incidence of kicks (for cut-shots) -- & that a touch of outside english is a good policy for reducing the affect of kicks (for cut-shots).

I dont much agree with Dr G's ways of controlling a fresh chalk mark, nor of the shots to beware -- Dr G's faithfull will attack me here. This is probably the only bit of Dr G's stuff that i have trouble with -- and it isnt just envy at his wonderfull way with words etc. I suspect that Bob J agrees with me, but Bob is too nice, he only says that the orbit of the chalk-spot is too complicated to analyse. Much of Dr G's stuff would i think be almost ok if he used 3 pages -- in pruning it down to 2 pages, i suspect that he left out things like "at short range", & "when hit hard", & "for cut-shots", etc. But much is a little (or a lot) incorrect anyhow. For instance, the drawn orbits are wrong (mostly). The drawn spin axis is wrong (partly) -- a cue-ball hit with say left spin will allways have left spin, for Dr G's axis to be correct, the spin has to change to ryht spin as skidding changes to rolling (but this cannot happen). Anyhow, it is good ground-breaking stuff. I will spend a few hours doing tests of the orbits, and tests of the actual incidence of kicking (skid) also -- i have already spent hours on this sort of stuff, but for a completely different reason, so i know (and Bob J knows i reckon) what i am in for -- it is very frustrating and taxing.

I agree (with u) that a thicker cloth better cleans the ball(s). There is one more thing that might relate to Simonis. The cueball's rate of decay of screw & stun depends on the balltocloth friction. The cueball's rate of decay of spin depends on the balltocloth friction and the depth of the ball's footprint. Roll resistance depends on the depth of the footprint also (a minor matter). Anyhow, if there is a safe place to contact the cueball, ie a safe place to leave a fresh chalkmark, then this place will be different on a Simonis. I like to test a cloth by spinning a ball by hand, to the max, and timing how long it takes to stop spinning, ie u slowly count -- zero kangarooz, one kangarooz, two kangarooz etc. An old or coarse cloth yields about 8 kangarooz, some tournament snooker (spit) cloths yield 12 kangarooz. Then i screw my cue together, shake hands with my opponent, and get my arse kicked.
......................................."

DickLeonard
08-11-2011, 06:50 PM
Fran if I didn't have bad luck I wouldn't have any luck at all.Dick

DickLeonard
08-11-2011, 07:00 PM
Fran years ago I saw Steve Mizerak make a shot against Joe Canton shooting from the end rail. He missed the shot but the skid made the shot. I always thought the round ball turned squared by the sound I heard. Dick

jimmyg
08-11-2011, 10:12 PM
Same principle applies to tennis. Most tennis people know that bad weather (winds, etc) favor the weaker player....enter the luck factor.

j

cushioncrawler
08-11-2011, 11:20 PM
I reckon that most of us play billiards hoping to do better than we deserve.
In other words we are hoping for a very good run, which iz one form of luck.
Or to put it another way, if we all got exaktly what we deserved all the time most of us probly wouldnt be playing.
Near the end of a tight match i karnt help mainly hoping that my opponent will hav bad luck. Few would encourage this sort of thinking, and i try not to, but it seems to work.
But i wouldnt stoop to psychocybernetics. Hmmmm -- praps in a final.
mac.

jjinfla
08-12-2011, 06:25 AM
The great thing about the pros is that they really don't give luck a chance to participate in their game.

I just watched the match between Corey Deuel and Mike Dechaine and there were only two missed shots in the entire match. Mike made a ball and scratched and in the last rack Corey missed a cut shot on the 7.

I only saw one case where luck came into play. Mike made a 6 ball and drew the CB to the left and it went into the 10 ball and headed toward the corner pocket but he hit the point instead. Was it luck that he didn't scratch? Or was it just his being careless and poor execution on the shot where he put himself in the position to scratch?

jimmyg
08-12-2011, 07:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jjinfla</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The great thing about the pros is that they really don't give luck a chance to participate in their game.

I just watched the match between Corey Deuel and Mike Dechaine and there were only two missed shots in the entire match. Mike made a ball and scratched and in the last rack Corey missed a cut shot on the 7.

I only saw one case where luck came into play. Mike made a 6 ball and drew the CB to the left and it went into the 10 ball and headed toward the corner pocket but he hit the point instead. <span style="color: #3366FF">Was it luck that he didn't scratch? Or was it just his being careless and poor execution on the shot where he put himself in the position to scratch?</span> </div></div>

I'd argue both.

J

Fran Crimi
08-12-2011, 07:19 AM
Thanks, Mac. There are so many variables to this that it makes it hard to figure out. We really need a test with a robotic shooter in a controlled environment. Angle, speed, amount of side spin....all varying by miniscules, could make a difference.

For now, all we have is simple common sense. Based on how we know balls roll, how do we reasonably assure ourselves that the chalk mark doesn't wind up at the point of contact with the ob?

Option 1.) It has to wear off by rotating down to the cloth on it's way to the ob.

OR--

Option 2.) The shooter must assure that the surface where the cue tip struck the cb is not the point that contacts the ob.

I think the angle of the shot is the key.

Fran Crimi
08-12-2011, 07:54 AM
I was surprised to find Webster's definition of luck to be more cautious, particularly regarding the word 'chance':
Definition of LUCK
1
a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity
b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual

2: favoring chance; also : success &lt;had great luck growing orchids&gt;


Wikipedia's definition is more specific: "Luck or fortuity is good or bad fortune in life caused by accident or chance, and attributed by some to reasons of faith or superstition, which happens beyond a person's control."


I think it's often really hard to define what is beyond the knowledge of an experienced player. If a player has a certain knowledge base and then doesn't utilize all of it when shooting a shot and get's a freaky result, was that luck? It sure looks like luck from the spectator's stands, but was it really?

JoeW
08-12-2011, 08:12 AM
I would agree that luck favors the experienced player. The experienced player knows what is possible and therefore knows that such and such a shot is more likely to result in a good outcome. The lesser player is not aware of these things and therefore does not as often have the opportunity for a good roll.

For instance the idea of hitting on the “Pro” side of the pocket with enough speed to place a missed shot away from the pocket near the rail is an attempt to take advantage of one’s knowledge if the shot is missed. The more experienced player is aware of how the balls roll and is more likely to try and take advantage and thus appears to have more luck.

The discussion about skid and how to avoid it is another example how to hedge one’s lucky (or unlucky) hits in the game.

While the definition of luck includes the idea that some force is at work in the operation of chance occurrences I prefer simple random actions. The "Pool gods" may exist, I haven't met them yet

bradb
08-25-2011, 07:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fran Crimi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I came across this quote by Lee Trevino:

"Only bad golfers are lucky. They're the ones bouncing balls off trees, curbs, turtles, and cars. Good golfers have bad luck. When you hit the ball straight, a funny bounce is bound to be unlucky."

I thought it was a really interesting comment. Do you think this is true? If a pro has luck, is it usually bad? </div></div>

Fran, did you catch the final match in the US open championship with Alison Fisher against Ga Young?

Both players were shooting scrappy especially Alison who missed several easy shots down the rail and overran her shape on the 9 twice. But in the last game before the hill, Ga Young missed a shot on the 6ball leaving it long to the corner. Alison tried to pocket it but missed it badly sending the Qball into the 8ball on the rail where it caromed into the 9ball knocking it into the corner pocket!!

Alison then broke the final game and ran out giving her the title!

Ga Young was robbed by a total fluke and who should do that but the master of pool herself who was clearly embarrassed when the 9 dropped. Luck is a fickle lady. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif Brad

PS....Thanks to the adminstrator for dumping the spam!!!

Deeman3
08-27-2011, 02:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fran years ago I saw Steve Mizerak make a shot against Joe Canton shooting from the end rail. He missed the shot but the skid made the shot. I always thought the round ball turned squared by the sound I heard. Dick </div></div>

Dick,

You are dead on! I never, ever heard a player say, "It skidded into the pocket, although that is almost as likely as a miss caused by a skid, especially with average skilled players.

Fran and Dick, be careful. I already told Fran on another medium, "You can give The Grim Reaper the 7 and out!" She retorted, "And the break!" Gotta love that woman! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

DeeMan

bradb
08-27-2011, 07:05 PM
In snooker we call that a "chunk" shot. It usually results in the player asking the ref to clean the cue ball... a way to avoid embarrassment. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif BB