[Pin]

Do you have some types of opponents you seem to struggle with? People who aren't necessarily the best players, but you don't seem to be able to get results against?

For me there are two types:


1. The no-tactics potting machine:

These kinds of guys you see playing in bars quite often - they don't know how to play a tactical game, and they couldn't care less. But they pot well and play good enough position to be able to string good runs together when you let them in.

It took me a long time to understand why I was so average against these guys (I'd probably win roughly as many as I'd lose against these guys, depending on exactly how well they knocked balls in.

In casual pool circles, many players see safety and tactical pool as 'bad form', and when I found myself playing against someone who clearly took the game casually and wouldn't play tactically, I'd oblige and do likewise. These guys were good natural ball-runners. I'm probably a pretty average potter, probably around the same level as most of these guys, worse than some, and make my headway against stronger potters through smart decision-making.

In hindsight, I was giving away most of the only edge that I had.



2. The 'fudger':

At the opposite extreme: some rules sets in English pool (it's a political minefield of petty squabbles and personal empires - or at least it was when I ducked out of 'serious' organised competition a couple of years ago..) anyway, some rule sets don't require you to hit a rail, and from local league top division up to higher levels of play, opponents will mercilessly roll up behind their ball to snooker you, and repeat until you foul. Then they use their first 'visit' (the penalty a player gives up for a foul) to improve their situation a little (often by taking your easy balls off the table, so you have less to shoot at) then go snooker you again.

Most players *hate* this style of play, because it's absolutely none of the things they want the game to be (loose free potting action), and because they spend all game trying to get out of snokers, then lose, and repeat until they surrender.

I accepted that they were making effective tactical choices, but didn't like playing that kind of game, and gravitated towards 'hit a cushion' rulesets.

Only more recently have I actually tried to understand that kind of game. Now I see that this game isn't really about potting balls very much. It's about control of the table. While you have control, your opponent doesn't get a shot, and you can exploit his inevitable mistakes (which result from the impossible situations you consistently hand to him). With good tactics you never have to hand back control - the opportunity to make good tactical moves - to your opponent at any stage in the game. And even if you do, most people play the game so badly that they only make things easier for you - running their easy balls and making it easier for you to tie them up with safety play.




What have I learned from these findings? 3 things:

1. Control of the table is crucial. If you can prevent your opponent having a decent shot, while improving your own position, you can leave him for dust.
This doesn't have to mean constant hooks. Leaving him close to a rail with no pot greatly restricts his control of the table and his options for his turn. As snooker players will attest, it also makes it harder for him to leave you in a tough position next visit. If you have nothing on, but can put the CB somewhere that your opponent will have to leave you something next time, that's a great option.


2. Most people play tactically inferior pool, because they want to play a run and gun game, not a control game.
I think most of us want to do this. It's fun, it's what attracted us to pool in the first place. To win we need the discipline not to immediately grab at the sweet stuff, but to hold back and prepare. The balls have to be potted at some stage, but to win we first need to set ourselves up for victory.


3. People don't like playing against tactical 'grinders'.
I knew those casual players didn't appreciate tactical battles with me, and I didn't enjoy paying for a game and hardly getting a decent shot at a ball against the uber-tacticians. (Although I did enjoy tactical battles in hit a cushion rules that force the game to be a little more open.)

What do we make of this? I guess it means that unless you can find someone who appreciates a good tactical contests, you might not be popular playing a control game. This is especially true if the rules make a tactical game a total grind to play.

When and whether you want to do it is up to you. I guess Fast will take a no mercy approach to crushing your opponents. In competition I agree.
In social games, I guess I'm not so sure I want to play that way. But playing 'soft' probably hurts your game. A good ruleset where tactical play doesn't make the game completely miserable for your unfortunate victim helps.

A middle way might be to 'safe' by leaving the CB in a bad position, and not doing so completely obviously (ie, you achieve something with the OB at the same time), instead of persistently hooking.



There is one other question that still plays on my mind:

When you're up against those non-tactical ball-runners, playing your best tactical game, do you want to lock them up every time so they never see an easy pot, or do you want to leave them the chance to run some of their balls, with the expectation that they'll take their easy ones, and leave themselves a couple of tough balls, and make much more space for you on the table?

I'm not sure.

If you do let them run balls, they may just need a couple more visits to loosen up their problem balls and finish the table. If they can get those remaining balls into centre table, it can be tough to control the game by keeping CB hidden somewhere.

However, if you keep all their balls on the table, you create traffic for yourself, and maybe prevent yourself finishing.


Perhaps the answer is to deny them a good shot until you've developed all your balls into pottable positions, then if you're confident they won't get out, or leave themself in a strong position, to allow them to run a few balls.

Then you go for the finish with an open table, hook if it goes wrong, and they only have a couple of awkwardly placed balls to shoot at. You keep control and finish next time.

It probably needs field testing against this type of player to see how it tends to work, but I quite like the structure. Only allow them a chance to run some of their balls when you're ready to go for the finish after they miss and when they won't finish on their go.

I guess earlier in the game you can let them shoot at balls if they only have a couple in pottable positions.

[JoeS]

I totally agree with you about the non-tactical potting machines. Sometimes I adjust to my opponent's level and then it just doesn't work out. They know how to play pool their way usually better than I can.

[jagg]

For me pool is like a game of chess. It is tactical. You have to develop your position while keeping your opponent tied up and exploiting thier weakness. Most of my playing takes place in a bar, playing against opponents who are drinking. And as they drink they get chatty, giving you valuable information. Like what kind of shots they don't like. They may not like shooting off the rail, or over a ball, or bank shots, or long green shots. Whatever they it may be. When they volunteer this information I keep it in mind and use it against them. I have won many a game against a potter who after about three innings has one ball left ( not including the 8) and I have 3 or 4 by simply continuing to try to develop my balls and hooking them. Since most of them don't know how, or simply don't want to play defense they will eventually leave me my run out.