Talk:Ten-ball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Cue sports, a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of pool, carom billiards and other cue sports. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Contradiction

How can ten-ball be "preferred" on the basis that money-ball breaks are hard, if money-ball breaks are not actually game-winners? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is not a contradiction. It is saying that it is harder to sink ANY ball on a break, not just the 10-ball. [The previous unsigned commented was added by 69.109.234.255 (talk • contribs), February 10, 2007 ]

That seems counter-intuitive to me: I thought that 9-ball diamonds were supposed to be harder to "smash and hope" than 15-ball triangle racks, and I'd have assumed that 10-ball triangles would be broadly similar. But maybe not. Is this really true? Or better yet, can you cite some notable pool player (or other authority) asserting it, that could be used as a source? Alai 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Alai on this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looked into the stats on this; while I can't find a scientific study or anything, the general impression is that nine-ball racks are easier to sink a ball off of than eight-ball (or otherwise more crowded, and especially more self-crowding, i.e. triangular) racks. The gist is that likihood of pocketing (or potting, if one prefers) is primarily a factor of ball travel and only secondarily of ball collisions that happen to deflect a ball into a pocket; every collision saps energy (i.e. travel) from the balls involved in the collisions, stopping many of them dead or near-dead, and forming clusters. Updated article text to at least make sense pending reliable sources on the matter; removed "Contradict" tag (as pointed out above, it wasn't ever really a contradiction in the first place; it was just inclarity of wording.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)