Cowboy Dennis
Verified Member
The score is 2-2 and it's Putnam's shot. What would you do?
S. Putnam vs. B. Shuff 2011 D.C.C.
- Thread starter Cowboy Dennis
- Start date
lll
Verified Member
id hit the 8 ball and draw back to the middle diamond
but what do i know...
but what do i know...
androd
Verified Member
I'd try to roll up on the 4 ball and send the one to the rail. Looks like the back two balls will stay together.
Rod.
Rod.
Attachments
-
untitled.jpg
fred bentivegna
Verified Member
New 2 You Qs
Verified Member
The back two balls will not stay together in a straight line from the foot spot when rolling up on them with the cue ball in the shown position. They will try to spread out with the bottom ball moving to the right. There is a possibility of leaving a cross side bank if this shot is not handled with care. It's a little more difficult than meets the eye in the picture.
I still believe it is the correct shot in this situation, but you have to be very precise on the hit and speed.
John Brumback
Verified Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,747
Very well stated imo. I might shoot that shot too,but I would be scared to death of selling out.I might even try to draw back off the side rail and back down.Either way it's tricky situation.If the balls are not real clean it would make the shot eaiser,imo. JB
New 2 You Qs
Verified Member
I tried this shot a few times this afternoon on my table and I believe the above stated shot creates the most consistent and best results in this situation.
Cowboy Dennis
Verified Member
I also think I'd roll into the 7 ball or, if the angle was there I'd go the the siderail off the 7 and come back to where the cueball is.
Putnam went 3D on us though. He jumped over the three spotted balls and cranked the 2 ball straight-back.
He left himself here:
Putnam went 3D on us though. He jumped over the three spotted balls and cranked the 2 ball straight-back
.He left himself here:
New 2 You Qs
Verified Member
I think any good bank pool player would welcome him to shoot that shot every time...
One Pocket Ghost
Verified Member
Putnam went 3D on us though. He jumped over the three spotted balls and cranked the 2 ball straight-back
View attachment 7349
View attachment 7350
..........
wincardona
Verified Member
This would be one of the rare times I would strongly consider taking an intentional playing bank pool. The intentional I would take would put my opponent in a very compromising position. I would freeze the cue ball on the rail (to the left of where the cue ball is laying) by the chalk. From that position your opponent will clearly have the worst of the exchange...unless he takes an intentional right back. My reason for taking an intentional would be that in situations like the one Shawn is faced with you should want to extend the game as much as possible.
Another thing to consider is, the strength of the players competing. The stronger the players are, the more the intentional is a viable option.
Dr. Bill
Another thing to consider is, the strength of the players competing. The stronger the players are, the more the intentional is a viable option.
Dr. Bill
John Brumback
Verified Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,747
Good points Bill but the reason you never see anyone take an intentional in BP is because "A" ball in banks is just to big to just give away. A ball in banks is way bigger than any pool game i can think of and therefore that's why you never see anyone just give them back,me included. The only time I will take one is if I'm cornered hooked.Otherwise,I'm doing something but I'm not just going to give them away:lol It's good to know that you see what a precarious stiuation that is. JB
PS: glad to have you over here too,I like to hear and see your thinking!!!
wincardona
Verified Member
Good points Bill but the reason you never see anyone take an intentional in BP is because "A" ball in banks is just to big to just give away. A ball in banks is way bigger than any pool game i can think of and therefore that's why you never see anyone just give them back,me included. The only time I will take one is if I'm cornered hooked.Otherwise,I'm doing something but I'm not just going to give them away:lol It's good to know that you see what a precarious stiuation that is. JB
PS: glad to have you over here too,I like to hear and see your thinking!!!
I do understand your thinking on 'the value of a ball' playing bank pool as opposed to other games. However, I believe also that you have to take into account the precarious position the shooter is in. The score at two apiece, and the position of the balls on the table. If there was no score then I would be more willing to gamble with the safety, feeling that I for certain will get back to the table. If the balls were in a more difficult position I again would be more willing to play the safety. Another thing that you should take into account is.....what you gain with the intentional... Whenever I buy something I look for value, and i'm buying a guarantee that i'm coming back to the table, along with the possibility of stepping up to a possible winning situation. Whenever I give away something (like the 1 ball loss) I look for something in return which I feel that I get in this situation...Imo the intentional has a lot of value (even more for a strong player) that should not be overlooked. In actuality what you're giving up is ...not the value of a ball... but rather the value of a ball...minus the value of reversing the situation..Is it clearly the right choice? No However, it is Imo a viable option for better players who are playing top players.
Dr. Bill
Last edited:
Cowboy Dennis
Verified Member
...the reason you never see anyone take an intentional in BP is because "A" ball in banks is just to big to just give away. A ball in banks is way bigger than any pool game i can think of and therefore that's why you never see anyone just give them back,me included. !!!
This is a standard, recurring, defensive position that every Bankpool player has seen hundreds of times. If you took a foul from here you wouldn't have a "still" to hang your hat on
. P.S. A ball playing One-Pocket on a tight Snooker table is worth more than a ball playing Banks on a pooltable.
Dennis
John Brumback
Verified Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,747
This is a standard, recurring, defensive position that every Bankpool player has seen hundreds of times. If you took a foul from here you wouldn't have a "still" to hang your hat on
P.S. A ball playing One-Pocket on a tight Snooker table is worth more than a ball playing Banks on a pooltable.
Dennis
Snooker table.... POOL table..get it
:lol CFBPS: can you regurgetate your first part? I'm not so sure I understand what you mean
John Brumback
Verified Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,747
It's very hard to agrue with that reasoning.I'll for sure give that some thought the next time something like that comes up on me.Your right too,the score does mean alot. JB
ChrisBanks
Verified Member
I've seen Putnam jump a ball leading 6-2 in a game of one pocket. Ended up selling out and his opponent ran out the game.
So I guess I am not surprised he would jump here!
So I guess I am not surprised he would jump here!
wincardona
Verified Member
Your willingness to open your mind to things tells me that you're eager to continue to grow. Not that my assessment of this particular situation is spot on, but it's certainly something that deserves some thought. Particularly when talking about 'upper echelon' players. Many times I have won games playing one pocket where the intentional didn't 'seem' to be a viable option. However, forcing your opponent to play a shot he's not comfortable with can be rewarding in more than one way.
Again, I understand that a ball is worth more playing bank pool than it is playing one pocket. However, there are situations where the intentional playing bank pool is a viable option, not many, but they exist. Particularly when top players are battling.Thanks for your response.
Dr. Bill
ChrisBanks
Verified Member
Regard should also be taken in this manner:
If I take a foul I am giving up 1 ball with 100% certainty.
Now, if I could play a safe where AT WORST I would only give up 1 ball if I sold out, then I should play safe. Because I also have the chance to play the safe successfully.
So perhaps I could look to reposition the cueball in a spot where if my opponent does manage to score, he will have an extremely low likelihood of getting position on another ball.
With that being said, a ball lost by yourself is preferable to a ball gained by your opponent. As each ball carries slightly more value as you move closer to the game winning ball.
But all of this calculating may be splitting one too many hairs.
If I take a foul I am giving up 1 ball with 100% certainty.
Now, if I could play a safe where AT WORST I would only give up 1 ball if I sold out, then I should play safe. Because I also have the chance to play the safe successfully.
So perhaps I could look to reposition the cueball in a spot where if my opponent does manage to score, he will have an extremely low likelihood of getting position on another ball.
With that being said, a ball lost by yourself is preferable to a ball gained by your opponent. As each ball carries slightly more value as you move closer to the game winning ball.
But all of this calculating may be splitting one too many hairs.
wincardona
Verified Member
Chris, you're correct with your assessment. However, in this situation there really isn't a decent safety available where you can be assured not to lose more than one ball. That was one of my reasons for taking the intentional if you recall. Score and ball position dictates much in the decision making process. From the position referenced the only decent safety (if available) would be to roll up with a medium soft speed and try to freeze on the bottom ball. (Rodney's shot) Drawing off the bottom ball to the side rail and then to the bottom cushion is a very weak safety that you can easily lose the game with. With that shot you have problems controlling both the cue ball, and the top ball. Please notice the cue ball position...a chalks distance from the bottom cushion...
Too tough to control the balls.I tried the safety on my table several times and i'm convinced that controlling the top ball is not possible. Plus there's no guarantee that you're going to control the cue ball to within 2 to 3" from the bottom rail. If Rodney's safety is not available i'm taking an intentional. For sure playing an upper echelon player.
Dr. Bill