World Snooker Championships Discussion

[Billy]

Poomjaeng 'not full shilling' says Maguire

I'm sure most of you have seen it, but for those who haven't: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/22279476

Applauding his own shots, yes, but I don't recall him willing Maguire's to go awry??

Does anyone else sense some controversy arising over this player?

[iNko]

Poomjaeng 'not full shilling' says Maguire

I'm sure most of you have seen it, but for those who haven't: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/22279476

Applauding his own shots, yes, but I don't recall him willing Maguire's to go awry??

Does anyone else sense some controversy arising over this player?

It's pretty misjudged for Maguire to make such comments. I havnt seen much of him play however what I saw from him in this match plus his comments just show him to be a petulant and miserable person.

I found Poomjaeng refreshing to watch and it was good that he was taking things light heatedly. Hopefully this won't count against him later down the line.

Just to add, I watched a fair bit of that match and I don't recall him wishing his opponents shots to go awry. Perhaps I missed it.

[nrage]

Applauding his own shots, yes, but I don't recall him willing Maguire's to go awry??

Just to add, I watched a fair bit of that match and I don't recall him wishing his opponents shots to go awry.

I didn't see him do this either, and I watched the whole match from start to finish.

In fact, I recall him congratulating Maguire on a snooker escape that ultimately left a pot which he made. It was just a super tough escape, which Maguire hit .. but left a pot.

Poomjaeng was refreshing because he was displaying his emotions for everyone to see, that might have made Maguire uncomfortable because like most snooker players he tries to supress his emotions .. ok Maguire isn't the best at this, but I reckon he still thinks that's what a snooker player should do.

The other "problem" is likely a cultural one. Every culture has it's own definition of "normal" and people who act differently are seen as crazy, but when one culture meets another someone who is "normal" in the first culture might seem a bit whacky in the other.

[gavpowell]

I was surprised to see that Maguire had apparently been driven mad by Poomjaeng being slow. I missed a lot of the first session and only saw half a dozen frames or so of the match, but he didn't seem all that slow to me.

[Valiullin]

I was surprised to see that Maguire had apparently been driven mad by Poomjaeng being slow. I missed a lot of the first session and only saw half a dozen frames or so of the match, but he didn't seem all that slow to me.

Oh to be honest I think he was pretty slow, but it was not the kind of deliberate slowness some players use to kill the rhythm of their opponents. He took his time to choose the right shots, to pull himself together when he was in trouble, and he did it well. Looks like a poor excuse from Maguire to me.

Having said that, the comments made on this forum about Maguire's behaviour seem very unfair to me. It's like he's all black and Poomjaeng's all white. When Mag kicks the black to concede the frame it's unacceptable, when Poomjaeng punches the table it's ok. These double standards aren't good for the game, you can consider Poomjaeng is a "breathe of fresh air" - I also think so - but there's no way you should treat two players in a different way. What's wrong for one isn't right for another.

Now I hope Maguire has had a pint and moved to something else. He made himself sound like a sore loser and he should keep it shut from now on instead of making things worse for him. He's really a nice guy, I hope all that story will be forgotten soon.

[gulliver]

What do you expect? He's spent most of his commentating career wondering where a cue ball has gone.

Speaking of JV -- Trump & Dale second session, beginning of frame 12, JV is commenting with Ken Doherty. Right after the break off shot:

JV: Just one small point Kenny I just noticed that a few players break off from the left. Any idea why they would not break off from the right side of the pack? I believe the first player I've seen doing this was John Spencer.

KH [not the best commentator but obviously not comfortable making fun of JV], being very nice and polite: well JV you know it really depends on the players' ability and preference as to how they can put right of left side on the cue ball to swing it around 4 cushions, and safely back to baulk. Might be more natural for left handed players to do it from the left side of the rack [...].

Really, JV? Why does it matter? Why such an idiotic question? Let's talk about symmetry....an equilateral triangle of 15 red balls, all of equal size and weight, placed on a central location inside that huge 6x12 rectangle. Since when does it matter to break off from the left or the right??

[vmax4steve]

Luck is an illusion created by the human mind to explain things which are either too complex to comprehend, or too large or small a scale to understand.

Here is a possible partial explanation for you..

Shot selection plays a large part in "luck", as does how shots are played. Some players more consistently pick shots with slightly lower chances of "unlucky" outcomes, and slightly higher chances of "lucky" outcomes. This, over time, makes them seem "unlucky" or "lucky" but it's not luck, it's poor/good shot selection/execution.

Luck plays a large part in snooker. Those who think that when a player gets perfect position on a red when splitting the pack actually played for that exact outcome is seriously deluded. Hendry got the run of the balls for ten years, as did Steve Davis. Sure they had great ability to back that up but so indeed has Maguire and many others.
And it's not all about you own good or bad luck but also that of your opponent and especially at crucial times in crucial frames.
When Magure had his good spell a while back when he won the UK and was cited as a major force that could go on and dominate the game he was a getting good run, but it dried up very soon after and hasn't returned.
Dominic Dale generally gets bad running, as his loss to Trump last year showed and those scars were evident this year.
John Higgins is currently in a spell of getting bad running. I watched Luca Brecel get beaten in the qualifiers and he got a terrible run of the balls and couldn't overcome it despite having tremendous talent.

If you believe that shot selection and execution is what makes your luck then explain to me how every single break off shot splits the fifteen reds differently every single time no matter how well or poorly the shot is selected or executed.

Another thing to mention is the rise in the number of kicks that are happening with the phenolic resin balls in the modern game. Bad contacts are part and parcel of the game now and not all are obvious to those who are spectating as not all bad contacts cause the ball/s to jump. When you get one is in the lap of the gods and they are happening so often now that when I see a player miss a simple pot on the thick side I automatically think kick.

[armstm]

Luck plays a large part in snooker. Those who think that when a player gets perfect position on a red when splitting the pack actually played for that exact outcome is seriously deluded. Hendry got the run of the balls for ten years, as did Steve Davis. Sure they had great ability to back that up but so indeed has Maguire and many others.
And it's not all about you own good or bad luck but also that of your opponent and especially at crucial times in crucial frames.
When Magure had his good spell a while back when he won the UK and was cited as a major force that could go on and dominate the game he was a getting good run, but it dried up very soon after and hasn't returned.
Dominic Dale generally gets bad running, as his loss to Trump last year showed and those scars were evident this year.
John Higgins is currently in a spell of getting bad running. I watched Luca Brecel get beaten in the qualifiers and he got a terrible run of the balls and couldn't overcome it despite having tremendous talent.

If you believe that shot selection and execution is what makes your luck then explain to me how every single break off shot splits the fifteen reds differently every single time no matter how well or poorly the shot is selected or executed.

this is a very strange way of looking at. you've convinced yourself that hendry 7* champion and davis 6* champion were lucky players?

at some point on a winning streak in a skillful game, you have to admit skill.

it's amazing how people will see what they want to see.

as nrage said, luck is important on any individual shot, but over time with thousands of shots, the importance of luck dwindles to almost zero.

[vmax4steve]

this is a very strange way of looking at. you've convinced yourself that hendry 7* champion and davis 6* champion were lucky players?

at some point on a winning streak in a skillful game, you have to admit skill.

it's amazing how people will see what they want to see.

as nrage said, luck is important on any individual shot, but over time with thousands of shots, the importance of luck dwindles to almost zero.

It's not about being lucky, it's about not being unlucky.
There is a difference.

[iNko]

Luck eventually evens out however you may need an indefinite amount of time to see it.

To give an example if a poor player sits down to a poker game with seasoned pros and goes all in with poor odds with a player having to call him if he has sufficient implied odds if the poor player makes his hand with the last card then he would be lucky to have won. If he stopped playing he would be a winner and would have been lucky to have won however as in most cases he will continue to play and he will be beaten as he will only be lucky a small amount of time against being outplayed the rest of the time.

The problem with snooker as I can see it is that if you see your opponent being lucky a lot during your match then this has the impact of affecting your game mentally so when you no longer getting the run of the balls you may be creating unforced errors on the table down to your mental state.

Sorry for the tangent

[rich45]

It annoys me when commentators lament how the person losing often suffers from a bad run of the ball. Definitely not the case, just that they notice it a lot more as they are already feeling pretty grim, and this just adds to it. The same as when I am running late for work in a morning, it seems that every single traffic light is on red, when it is probably no different to other days when I am on time and in a more relaxed state of mind.

I also found it pretty ridiculous to read about Maguire being a generally unlucky player, and even more so regarding Hendry and Davis!

[nrage]

If you believe that shot selection and execution is what makes your luck then explain to me how every single break off shot splits the fifteen reds differently every single time no matter how well or poorly the shot is selected or executed.

This turned into a bit of a novel, hopefully you find it interesting..

To clarify, what I'm saying is that "Luck" as an attribute a person or thing can have, does not exist. We attribute people and things with some amount of luck only because we cannot predict what we are seeing, and because we like to detect patterns whether or not they actually exist.

The break shot in snooker is an example of a complex or unpredictable system, this is a system which is very sensitive to tiny variations.

This is a great video about it, and it even uses snooker as an example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WepOorvo2I4

Every break is different but that doesn't stop you, as the player, from taking that shot in a certain way, why? Obviously, it's because certain shots produce better results more often.. or in other words, you could say you get "lucky" more often than not if you play a certain way.

Now.. most people wouldn't call it "luck" because the chance of a good outcome is very high and happens often. Most people wouldn't call it "luck" because they can predict the outcome, to some degree. "luck" tends to only be used when the outcome is seen as being unlikely.

But, people aren't really that good at judging likelyhood. For example you can imagine a pack of reds where if a certain red is struck, from any angle, it results in another red being potted into the corner (because the first red plants onto a 2nd, which can only move in one direction, where it will strike another red on exactly one angle, into a 4th, and so on .. ).

The chain of events here may be complex, but there is only 1 possible outcome so that outcome is 100% likely. But, show a bunch of people that shot and that outcome and they will see an apparently unpredictable thing happening and incorrectly give it a low likelyhood, calling it "bad luck".

The example was contrived but only to make it simpler, in reality there is still room for tiny variations and those magnify making several outcomes possible, the key point is that the likely outcome may not be seen as the likely outcome by observers because the system is too complex to predict.

Of course most shots are not actually that predictable, and players look for plants specifically because they are predictable. Likewise players know that taking on a pot can be "risky" because the result is unpredictable and usually the chance of leaving your opponent in is "likely" but in some cases this may be false, and therefore when we see that "fluked" snooker, it may actually have been more likely than we assumed, and not as "lucky" as you might think.

I'm not suggesting players consciously "see" these events, but the brain does a lot of work unconsciously, especially detecting patterns. So, if in the past a player has played a shot and got "lucky" and if then the brain detects the same pattern of balls, it will probably suggest the same shot and the player might have a good chance of getting "lucky" again. Was it luck? No, the pattern was the same, the outcome was more likely than we might assume and the shot selection determined the result.

[nrage]

It's not about being lucky, it's about not being unlucky.
There is a difference.

Not really. "Lucky" and "unlucky" exists purely in the eyes of the beholder, the reality is simply cause, event, and probability. The universe does not "have it in" for certain individuals, and "bless" others, it acts at a predictable (if highly complex) way (at least at a macroscopic level).

[nrage]

Another thing to mention is the rise in the number of kicks that are happening with the phenolic resin balls in the modern game. Bad contacts are part and parcel of the game now and not all are obvious to those who are spectating as not all bad contacts cause the ball/s to jump. When you get one is in the lap of the gods and they are happening so often now that when I see a player miss a simple pot on the thick side I automatically think kick.

It does seem like the probability of a kick has increased, this will alter the probabilities of the outcomes for any given shot and any change, like this, will mess with any unconscious pattern based bias as mentioned in my novel above.

[armstm]

It annoys me when commentators lament how the person losing often suffers from a bad run of the ball. Definitely not the case, just that they notice it a lot more as they are already feeling pretty grim, and this just adds to it. The same as when I am running late for work in a morning, it seems that every single traffic light is on red, when it is probably no different to other days when I am on time and in a more relaxed state of mind.

I also found it pretty ridiculous to read about Maguire being a generally unlucky player, and even more so regarding Hendry and Davis!

there are a couple of things that might influence "luck" also.

1) if you hit the ball very hard (e.g. trump) you are more likely than average to get a fluke, since there are 15reds flying round the table etc. also if a red doesn't go in, more speed = more likelihood black goes safe.

2) the worse you are, the more likely you are to get a fluke.


also worth considering is the nrage point. if you go into the pack, there are ways to play it to improve your odds. yes, on an individual shot, it is still luck whether you finish on one, but over 19 frames, if you do it in a way that is 60/40 rather than 40/60 then you are going to be "luckier" more often.

when u listen to hendry he is very specific about the type of cannon he wants to play when going into the pack, the pace used, the spin on the cueball etc.