I’ll be willing to bet you’ve missed it more times than you’ve made it.
The table-length bank shot on the 8-ball is the clincher for why I think the official BCA rules are better than bar rules. I’ve made that shot a few times, but it’s not easy (and damn near impossible if the 8-ball is frozen to the top rail).
I agree that someone who scratched intentionally to force me to take that shot would be looked down on. And there are people who can probably do it and make it look like unintentional. But what about a player who genuinely scratches by accident in that situation? That’s a foul which should clearly be penalized, and yet by bar rules it actually works to his advantage. I don’t like that.
I think the bar rules have loopholes, and the BCA rules close them.
Sorry if it appears that way, Sam. I’m just very direct. I’m not taking any of this personally, except, of course, for ntucker’s attempts to intentionally push my buttons. That is clearly personal - on his part. I’ve been working hard to ignore him here, and in other threads. I don’t think he likes me much. Frankly, I think I made him mad when I posted in the cat person thread.
Perhaps you could show me what I’ve said about pool that you interpreted that way?
I’m sort of surprised you’d chime in now, though, especially after not responding to something in a previous post you made, which I thought was uncalled for, and said as much.
If you’re going to call me on stuff, fine, but don’t you think you might answer to yours first?
I’d say it’s about half and half.
As I said earlier, gentlemen, I don’t know the BCA rules and have never played by them so I cannot make any comparisons.
I enjoy playing bar rules. I know most of you think BCA rules are the way to go. You may be right, but I don’t think I’d enjoy playing that strictly. I think it would take some of the fun out of it for me.
Shouldn’t this thread be in IMHO?
Or the Pit? shudders
I mentioned a solution to this before, although not many bar players play it. I’ve seen it in print (I believe it was in a book called something like “The 50 [or 100] Essential Shots in Pool”) and occassionaly in bar play: If your opponent scratches and all your object balls are behind the string, you can respot any object ball (including the 8 if it is your final object ball) on the head spot. You now have a direct shot (and a moderately easy one if you’ve practiced it) on the 8.
Just so you know I’m not nuts and making these rules up:
(emphasis mine).
From here
Really? You should turn pro. Control like that would probably put you among the elite players in the world.
That sounds crazy to me, moving around a ball that’s in play.
One variation I did have success getting people to agree to (before the game) in bar rules was to simply switch to the other line if the only post-scratch shots available required a long bank. You shoot from behind the line as normal if any of your balls were past the line, but if not, you go to the other side of the table and shoot from behind that line.
Still, it just strikes me as silly to not play ball in hand. Everytime I play “behind the line”, it feels like a kiddie game.
From hitting and making only half of all bank shots from behind the line? Be serious.
I’m not that good.
Well, given that it was in the rules at some point in time apparently, it’s not at all that crazy, and quite an appropiate punishment for someone who purposely scratches because one of your balls is behind the string.
Your variation works, though, just as well in my opinion, although I’ve never seen an official source endorse it.
If you’re pocketing “only” half your bank shots going the long way around the table (from behind the headstring to back behind the headstring), then, yeah, you’re among the best in the world.
Well then I must have the percentage off.
We’re talking banking from behind the line, to the opposite rail, back to hit a ball into the called pocket, right?
Or are you talking about something else?
It just occured to me: bar pool is played on much smaller tables, so those bank shots would be easier to make than on a regulation table.
It’s not. As far as I know, I just made it up way back in the day. It seemed like a logical compromise between ball in hand and behind the line.
Unless you’re talking about a miniature table, hitting the cue the length of the table, banking it back the entire length of the table, and hitting a ball in is considered a low percentage shot.
Perhaps you’ve spent countless hours practicing just that, looking to gain an advantage by exploiting the flaws in bar rules, and that’s the reason you have such apparent dislike for a rule system you yourself admit knowing nothing about.
As a disclaimer, I don’t know any official rules myself. I just know that I always ask for ball in hand, and if I get a no, I ask for 9 ball, and if I get a no on that, I ask for alternate line 8 ball. Failing that, I play regular bar rules without complaint.
What really annoys me about behind the line has nothing to do with bank shots. It’s the complete luck involved on how much an opponent’s scratch helps you out. If you have a ball just over the line, then it ends up being an ad hoc ball in hand, basically being a gimme. But if your only balls are kissing the far rail, even without a bank involved, it’s a spectacularly more difficult shot than one would normally expect to be “rewarded” with after your opponent shits the bed by scratching.
The fact that a scratch may help, may hurt, or may have no effect at all (in a medium difficulty setup) seems contrary to the fact that a scratch should be a bad thing.
I could give you an analogy. How about in baseball, if you hit the runner, he takes his base as normal, unless there’s already a runner on first, at which point nothing happens and the count resumes. This would be silly and counter-productive, yet such a setup seems to exist in bar rules pool.
[sarcasm] Yes, I spend hours contemplating how I can exploit the bar rules to my benefit, and then I work on the shots over and over and over … because that’s what we “bar people” do. We just can’t help ourselves. Even those of us who never play for money.
That must be why I hate BCA rules, rules that I’ve said I know nothing about. You are brilliant Ellis Dee, the master of perception, and thanks for not taking this thread personally and for not provoking me simply because I don’t believe the same things you do.
It’s a shame that more people don’t see things your way.[/sarcasm]
You’re the one who claimed you could sink a full table bank shot half the time. I was merely trying to imagine a situation in which that could possibly be true.
I guess if you suck at the bank shot, that would be hard to imagine, even under bar rules.
Yes, they are. But I’d still be willing to bet that even on bar tables, most pros will not make that shot 50% of the time. Of course, the lie of our object ball will determine the %age, but given that it’s any reasonable distance from the pocket, and any reasonable angle (i.e. not a straight-in shot), this shot requires an exceptional amount of control.
I’d be willing to bet they can. Fifty percent = half the time. A person who makes only 50 percent of his shots is not a very good shooter.
If some stupid girl from SoCal can do it, I’m sure the pros can.
Or is it just because I’m a girl that you all find it so hard to believe?
And does anyone have any stats they can cite? I’m curious.
Ya know, despite your name being Large Marge, it never even occurred to me you’re a girl.
Yes, I know what 50% means. And yes, anybody making only 50% of their shots is not a great player. However, that is not the issue at play here. Anybody making 50% of their bank shots across almost two widths of the pool table is a very good player.
Lemme put it more precisely: Place an object ball on the head end of the table, centered between the head rail and the head string and between the two side rails (IOW, in the exact center of the rectangular area behind the headstring). Now, take your cue ball and feel free to place it wherever you want behind the head string. If you can bank it off the far (short/end) rail and nail the object ball into the pocket 50% of the time—hell, I’ll even give you 33% of the time—you should be out playing Allison Fisher and not wasting your time with bar games.
Ahem, that should read “across two lengths of the table,” not “widths.”