Equal Schmequal

[Patrick Johnson]

To be the best and most versatile banker and kicker I can be I want to understand the intimate details of how speed, vertical spin and sidespin make balls rebound off the rails as if they never heard of angle in = angle out. Comparing the ball's actual path with the equal-angle path it would take if there were no ball/cloth friction helps me visualize the ball/cloth interactions that produce the changes in direction. This in turn helps me visualize the exact paths balls will take, which helps me aim them and adjust to different tables/conditions.

The differences between equal angles and actual angles can be dramatic. As an example, below are pictures of how some actual 2-rail bank tracks on my home table compare with the idealized "equal-angle" paths they'd follow without ball/cloth friction.

These are bank tracks for object balls hit straight on with no sidespin at pocket speed, rolling when they hit the first rail. The tracks would be different for OBs closer to the rail, hit harder, cut or hit with sidespin - and being better able to estimate those adjustments are one of the benefits (for me) of this comparison.

I made these drawings to help me visualize the "family" of short-rail-first two-rail-to-the-corner banks, and thought some other rank student like me might also find them helpful.

One visible lesson from this comparison is that while the first and third legs of the equal-angle tracks are parallel, they diverge for the actual tracks. The sidespin picked up when balls hit the first rail causes them to rebound longer off the second rail, which is why two-rail banks and kicks have to be hit shorter (closer to the "doubled" corner) than the equal angle - how much shorter depends on the specific ball/table conditions.

Can anybody tell by looking at the differences here whether the balls and/or cloth on this table are relatively clean or dirty?

pj
chgo

 

[gulfportdoc]

Can anybody tell by looking at the differences here whether the balls and/or cloth on this table are relatively clean or dirty?

Patrick, I'd say the table used for the "Actual Tracks" illustrations is super dry, and probably new cloth. Probably a Gold Crown. The balls would be squeaky-clean. The actual tracks appear to be on average 1/2 diamond long, in comparison to typical equipment.

For this particular system I notice that both you and Beard use the measurement points opposite the diamonds, rather than the diamonds themselves. In my case I've always felt it easier to visualize using the actual diamonds as aiming points. It doesn't matter, as long as a guy knows how he's computing.

Doc

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick, I'd say the table used for the "Actual Tracks" illustrations is super dry, and probably new cloth. Probably a Gold Crown. The balls would be squeaky-clean. The actual tracks appear to be on average 1/2 diamond long, in comparison to typical equipment.

Right you are, Doc. I accidentally put the drawing up for my home table, which was newish at the time. The picture below is the one I meant to post - it shows the tracks for the sticky-railed tables at a local pool hall.

For this particular system I notice that both you and Beard use the measurement points opposite the diamonds, rather than the diamonds themselves. In my case I've always felt it easier to visualize using the actual diamonds as aiming points. It doesn't matter, as long as a guy knows how he's computing.

Doc

It's easier to see the diamonds alright - I wish there was something visible like that at the gutter points. I use the gutter points for comparison with the equal-angle points, which are measured at the gutter.

pj
chgo

 

[gulfportdoc]

Right you are, Doc. I accidentally put the drawing up for my home table, which was newish at the time. The picture below is the one I meant to post - it shows the tracks for the sticky-railed tables at a local pool hall.

It's easier to see the diamonds alright - I wish there was something visible like that at the gutter points. I use the gutter points for comparison with the equal-angle points, which are measured at the gutter.

Is your home table a Gold Crown? What brand of tables are at the local poolroom?

I'm not familiar with the term "gutter points". Is that where the rail meets the table bed adjacent to the diamonds? I'd be interested to try aiming at something else to see how it works.

Doc

 

[SJDinPHX]

Is your home table a Gold Crown? What brand of tables are at the local poolroom?

I'm not familiar with the term "gutter points". Is that where the rail meets the table bed adjacent to the diamonds? I'd be interested to try aiming at something else to see how it works.

Doc

Doc,

Are you venturing into the science and engineering method, for an accurate computation of what the hell is going on,...on a freaking pool table ???

PJ and I, have had minor words over on AZB, and he is a self professed promoter of the "science and mathematics of pool".
Let me just say... I truly admire his "stick-to-itivness, but I have at times, questioned his (and the other "science guy's) sanity.

I will not bemoan his principles, or say they are wrong. (he may have me killed) He works very hard at trying to solve, all the the angles, gutter point, BHE, SES, CTE, collision induced effect, and all the other things that can, AND DO vary...from table to table, cue ball to cue ball, AZ to TX,...etc.

If you've ever seen a "science thread" on AZB...(they average about 4-500 posts) Many of those guys have actual bonafide engineering degrees, but they appear to be very frustrated...that it does not help them make a ball, (or do whatever it is, they are trying to do)..very often.

"Aiming Systems" can be even more fun, and can lead to even longer threads. (ie...more bloodshed)...There is NO ONE who EVER agrees with the others theory...It usually winds up in a name calling, blood soaked, flame war...There has NEVER been a clear cut winner !

And believe me, P.J. IS a "Science Guy". He can, (and most often does) club his opposition into submission when they disagree with his findings.
Dry, wet, dirty cloth, clean cloth, new cloth, old cloth...live rails, dead rails...all change everything to the point where there is NO WAY to "computerize" any facet of the game. You most often are reduced to "best guess"... until you learn that particular table. (one who learns fastest, gets the mostest)

I think his time would be better spent, learning how to adjust to these variables...just my humble opinion !!!

San <---As you may have noticed...is ANTI-"science or aiming system"....as a way to learn the intricacies of the game.

PS..Sometimes I think El Beardo just might be "pro-science"....I know the Ghost isn't !!!

 

[lll]

Doc,

Are you venturing into the science, and engineering method, for accurate computation of what the hell is going on,...on a pool table ?

PJ and I, have had minor words over on AZB, and he is a self professed promoter of the "science of pool"

I will not bemoan his principles, or say they are wrong. He works very hard at trying to solve, all the the angles, gutter point, BHE, SES, imparted collision induced effect, and all the other things that can, and do vary...from table to table...In other words, he is a "Science Guy".

just for discussion
who uses "thru the diamonds vs at the side of the diamonds as their reference points.?????
i must give grady credit his dvds (vhs when i learned them) used thru the diamonds as reference points and parrallel lines to those points past a certaian point it was cut in half.
id be curious which system do you guys use,??
come on legends spill some beans its not all feel.

 

[SJDinPHX]

just for discussion
who uses "thru the diamonds vs at the side of the diamonds as their reference points.?????
i must give grady credit his dvds (vhs when i learned them) used thru the diamonds as reference points and parrallel lines to those points past a certaian point it was cut in half.
id be curious which system do you guys use,??
come on legends spill some beans its not all feel.

lll...See post #5...The only "system" I ever relied on was experience, and what worked for me ... I also happen to know, (almost for sure) that Grady is/was, NOT a proponent of "engineering" as a way to excell at ANY pool game. (except possibly 3C billiards)
He may throw a few bones in there (for the "science minded guys") to help sell his DVD's...but believe me, he plays 95%...on pure instinct,... Just like almost all truly accomplished pool player's do.

Low (draw english) versus running english, changes EVERYTHING radically, when coming off a rail...I'm sure you know that, but I am just trying to prove a point... Instinct and experience, will overcome "engineering and systems" every time..

San <---Hopes Grady, Billy I, Rod and Senor...will weigh in on that subject.

 

[beatle]

if you have played 3 cushion you aim thru the diamonds. in pool the same thing applies. but also it is where you can see to hit. across the diamonds it hard to see when down and at the other end of the table.

 

[androd]

If I'm going to play on a unfamilar table I practice a coupla long 1 railers, a coupla 3 railers, and a coupla short rail first 2 railers. Then aim at the appropriate spot. It aint rocket surgery or brain science. Just do what the table dictates.
Rod.

 

[senor]

Duck,

I agree with everything said posts #5 and #7. In my mind, all aiming and measuring systems should be used as references to supplement what you have learned through trial and error. Many times I would measure something out, get down on the shot and know that I was off, then I would make a small adjustment by feel. But I did use a system to point me in the right direction. From there knowledge from past experience took over.

And while I don't care to know the intricacies of BHE and CIS, I know that something is happening and I was pretty good at it. At the same time, I can see why others would try to figure it out. Pool (at it's finest, at least) is played on a 4.5 by 9 foot table. It would make sense that a game played within defined dimensions like that could be boiled down to a tangible equation or some kind of factual truth and written down in a book.

I suppose this could be done if all equipment were the same, but it is not. Different cue balls (especially red circles), different cues, but most importantly, different tables. Every table out there has it's own personality. I don't want to worry about that stuff when I am, or my opponent is, running out. I just want to worry about my turn at the table and making sure I'm ready to do the most with my opportunity. Seems like enough to worry about.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Dick:
P.J. IS a "Science Guy". He can, (and most often does) club his opposition into submission when they disagree with his findings.

I can't help it; they remind me of baby seals.

I don't remember what "words" we had, so I'm afraid you'll have to do this feud alone, Dick. All I know about you is you play great 1 pocket for a curmudgeon.

pj
chgo

 

[SJDinPHX]

I can't help it; they remind me of baby seals.

I don't remember what "words" we had, so I'm afraid you'll have to do this feud alone, Dick. All I know about you is you play great 1 pocket for a curmudgeon.

pj
chgo

Patrick,....I wasn't always a "curmudgeon",(sp)...I used to be a "perfeshunal" traveling pool sucker..

 

[One Pocket Ghost]

If you've ever seen a "science thread" on AZB...(they average about 4-500 posts) Many of those guys have actual bonafide engineering degrees, but they appear to be very frustrated...that it does not help them make a ball, (or do whatever it is, they are trying to do)..very often.

"Aiming Systems" can be even more fun, and can lead to even longer threads. (ie...more bloodshed)...There is NO ONE who EVER agrees with the others theory...It usually winds up in a name calling, blood soaked, flame war...There has NEVER been a clear cut winner !



PS..Sometimes I think El Beardo just might be "pro-science"....I know the Ghost isn't !!!

I'm right here with you Papie...but don't be too hard on my good buddy Pat - he means well....

-Ghosty

 

[One Pocket Ghost]

If I'm going to play on a unfamilar table I practice a coupla long 1 railers, a coupla 3 railers, and a coupla short rail first 2 railers. Then aim at the appropriate spot. Just do what the table dictates.
Rod.

Rod.....That's exactly what I do - I shoot the banks that you said (also a long rail first two-railer), and I also shoot a ball very slowly down the long rails, and across the foot rail between the pockets to see if slow-pocket-speed-shot-balls are going to be rolling straight, or in, or out on straight-backs, long thin cuts, and short cross corner banks....At the DCC, when I'm called for a match and go to my assigned table, I don't bother to hit balls - instead, what's important to me is shooting these test shots to see how the table rolls.


- Ghost

 

[lll]

rod or ghost when you shoot your "test shots" you start by aiming at a certain reference point and then adjust accordingly. my point is your starting reference point is determined somehow. heres an example
if you put the q at the corner pocket and want to go 3 rails to the other corner if you aim thru the 2nd diamond (as starting reference point) use running english and medium speed you should get close to the other corner. on some tables the spot might be thru 2 1/2 diamonds or 1 3/4 diamonds but once you find out where the spot is on that table you have a "feel" for where to adjust from your usual spots for the 3 railers from different positions.
at least for me. and i think thats what senor was saying
ghost with your 3c background dont you use some type of diamond system as a GUIDE????
dick in reality dont you really do the same thing but may not think of it that way? you have certain aiming points for basic banks. when you miss aiming at your usual spot you make adjustments.
if the table is a quarter diamond long you will aim your banks a quater diamond long for as long as you play on that table until that quauter diamond long reference point stops working (like because the air conditioning got turned off somehow)