J. Brumback vs. J. Miller 2004 D.C.C.#2

Cowboy Dennis

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
From
Detroit,Michigan
Jason banked the 9 ball cross-side from where John left him and went up & down the table with the rock to this position. What would you shoot from here?

CAUTION: Pictures are sometimes deceptive:D


CapturedPicture_8.Jpeg

CapturedPicture_9.Jpeg
 

fred bentivegna

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
6,690
From
chicago illinois
First principle

First principle

Definitely, do not shoot the 3 ball straight back and follow the cue ball to the rail and behind the 6 and 7. At first glance it looks like a "free" shot, when actually you are taking the worst of it. You see, whatever straight back he leaves you either the 6 or 7, is going to be a better and easier bank than the one he is shooting at, if for no other reason than you would be at least 4 feet closer to the object ball.

The principle you would be violating -- and its a strong one-- is, If at all possible, do not shoot at a difficult shot if you are going to leave an easier one if you miss. Simple and effective, and will keep you ahead of the percentage game. In this case the 3 ball can be classified as a difficult shot due to distance. And since I do have an option, I would shoot the 2 ball in.

The maneuvering's at that point we can discuss later.

Beard
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,693
From
Dallas Tx.
Jason banked the 9 ball cross-side from where John left him and went up & down the table with the rock to this position. What would you shoot from here?

CAUTION: Pictures are sometimes deceptive:D


View attachment 5645

View attachment 5646
If the 3 ball is bankable I would bank it and float the cue ball to the center of the bottom rail. With this shot you are either going to make the 3 ball and put yourself in the one hole, or position the 3 ball in an almost dead position, leaving only two balls that are open for banks. This option lends to Freddies point of keeping only as many balls in play as you need, and less than your opponent needs.

Dr. Bill
 
Last edited:

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,693
From
Dallas Tx.
Jason banked the 9 ball cross-side from where John left him and went up & down the table with the rock to this position. What would you shoot from here?

CAUTION: Pictures are sometimes deceptive:D


View attachment 5645

View attachment 5646
You have a point with your reason for not shooting the 3 ball, but imo the score and the position of the balls should supersede your logic.

If you're not going to shoot the 3 ball, why would you make the 2 ball?
I think by making the 2 ball you increase your opponents chance of winning by putting another ball in play, and also by making the 3 ball a better option for him, than it was for you. If anything I would play softly into the 2 ball without making it and offer my opponent the same shot on the 3 ball that you didn't like. And if he makes the 2 ball you will then have an option of either banking the 3 ball or doing something else. But regardless, I would shoot the 3 ball bank and gamble from that position, I like my gamble with that shot considering the score and the ball position.

*Lets take the 6 ball off the table and now both players need two balls, shooting the 3 ball bank from this position is much less of an option then before. Plus pocketing the 2 ball now becomes a better option then it was before.*Different score, different ball position.

Making the 2 ball is a shot I definitely wouldn't shoot from the position referenced. Banking the 3 ball is playing the percentages, imo.

Dr. Bill
 
Last edited:

fred bentivegna

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
6,690
From
chicago illinois
Musnt be worth much...

Musnt be worth much...

If the 3 ball is bankable I would bank it and float the cue ball to the center of the bottom rail. With this shot you are either going to make the 3 ball and put yourself in the one hole, or position the 3 ball in an almost dead position, leaving only two balls that are open for banks. This option lends to Freddies point of keeping only as many balls in play as you need, and less than your opponent needs.

Dr. Bill

Then I guess the principle below mustnt be worth much, since you certainly blew right past it. You even suggested that the percentages were with you. That can only mean that the straight back on the 6 or 7 which is only 2 feet away from the cue ball is harder, percentage wise than shooting the 3 ball bank which is 8 feet away from you??
If at all possible, do not shoot at a difficult shot if you are going to leave an easier one if you miss.

All I can say is that it is certainly worth it to me. I believe it is one of the strongest axioms you can follow in bank pool.

Beard
 

fred bentivegna

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
6,690
From
chicago illinois
You have a point with your reason for not shooting the 3 ball, but imo the score and the position of the balls should supersede your logic.

If you're not going to shoot the 3 ball, why would you make the 2 ball?
I think by making the 2 ball you increase your opponents chance of winning by putting another ball in play, and also by making the 3 ball a better option for him, than it was for you. If anything I would play softly into the 2 ball without making it and offer my opponent the same shot on the 3 ball that you didn't like. And if he makes the 2 ball you will then have an option of either banking the 3 ball or doing something else. But regardless, I would shoot the 3 ball bank and gamble from that position, I like my gamble with that shot considering the score and the ball position.

*Lets take the 6 ball off the table and now both players need two balls, shooting the 3 ball bank from this position is much less of an option then before. Plus pocketing the 2 ball now becomes a better option then it was before.*Different score, different ball position.

Making the 2 ball is a shot I definitely wouldn't shoot from the position referenced. Banking the 3 ball is playing the percentages, imo.

Dr. Bill


You are incorrectly assuming that I wasnt fully aware of the consequences of shooting the 2 ball in. I said, quote:
"I would shoot the 2 ball in.The maneuvering's at that point we can discuss later."

I didnt want to go into the depth of the 2 ball shoot in at that point. I had already spent a lot of conversation on not shooting the 3 ball.

Of course I was aware that just shooting in the 2 ball and staying right there would not turn the 3 ball shot into a legitimate one. With the spotting of the 2 ball behind the 7 ball, you would be protected sufficiently to be able to roll at the 3. You would need to be bad luck to leave a nice return shot on the 6.

Rather than just "shoot in the 2 ball," Depending on how I felt, I would either shoot in the 2 and roll forward trying for a corner hook (I provide lessons on my site as to the different ways to corner hook an opponent), or I would shoot in the 2 and pull the cue ball far enough up the long rail to put the 3 ball into kiss (or even less cue ball control) territory.

Beard

This makes the 44th straight shot option that I was wrong on -- in your humble opinion. Amazing. Is this a pattern? As weak a shotmaker as I was, how the hell did I ever beat a human?
 

Cowboy Dennis

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
From
Detroit,Michigan
This makes the 44th straight shot option that I was wrong on -- in your humble opinion. Amazing. Is this a pattern? As weak a shotmaker as I was, how the hell did I ever beat a human?

Beard
Freddy,

I don't want to pump up your ego too much but I think it's only the 43rd straight bank-pool shot-option that you were wrong on:D.

RBL
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,693
From
Dallas Tx.
Whether it be the 43rd. 44th. or 50th. straight time I disagreed with you, I present my case and explain my reasons.

As far as this situation is concerned by shooting the 3 ball leading 3 balls to 2 balls, you're not only shooting a shot that can put you in the one hole, but you're positioning another ball out of play (3 ball) Now there are only two balls that are considered in play, the 6 and 7 balls. Even if you don't make the 3 ball, from the position you leave the cue ball in, your opponent is lucky to get one from there. And he's certainly not going to get more than one.

We all have our way of thinking at the table, and it's basically related to how we gamble. You say that you should never shoot a bank that is more difficult than the one you leave if you miss. I say bullshit, that's the 44th straight time I disagreed with you. I can name many scenarios where your axiom doesn't apply, and this happens to be one of them, imo.

And as far as shooting the 2 ball in, to me that would be inviting problems, and i'm not going to do that.

You make a lot of good points, as do I, and if either you or I disagree all we can do is offer an explanation why we see it differently and move on. Let the players that want to learn make up their own mind, who knows maybe the'll take a little from both of us.

Dr. Bill
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,693
From
Dallas Tx.
That was one-pocket:p:D. I agreed with you anyway even though I didn't completely write it down, I would've hit the bank with inside-draw (on a forgiving table) and spun up behind the balls near the spot:eek:.

RBL
Yes you're right, that was one pocket but the game had nothing to do with what I said. I know how much 1 tip of english is, and I also know how much turn stays with the cue ball when it travels a certain distance. And if you're going to try to play position for the balls that Freddie and you are referring to, you need a hell of a lot more than 1 tip of inside english.

You say that's one of your favorite shots on a forgiving table, well to me it's a tough shot on any table. Now if you didn't have to draw the cue ball 4 ft. before it hit the bottom rail I can see your point, and 1 tip of english would probably suffice.

Another thing, why didn't Daulton use the inside english playing position for the other balls? Maybe he thought it would make the shot play too tough, that's what i'm thinking. Plus he's got a much better stroke than you, Freddie, and me.

Dr. Bill
 

Cowboy Dennis

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
From
Detroit,Michigan
Yes you're right, that was one pocket but the game had nothing to do with what I said. I know how much 1 tip of english is, and I also know how much turn stays with the cue ball when it travels a certain distance. And if you're going to try to play position for the balls that Freddie and you are referring to, you need a hell of a lot more than 1 tip of inside english.

You say that's one of your favorite shots on a forgiving table, well to me it's a tough shot on any table. Now if you didn't have to draw the cue ball 4 ft. before it hit the bottom rail I can see your point, and 1 tip of english would probably suffice.

Another thing, why didn't Daulton use the inside english playing position for the other balls? Maybe he thought it would make the shot play too tough, that's what i'm thinking. Plus he's got a much better stroke than you, Freddie, and me.

Dr. Bill

Bill,

I don't know what a tip of english is, I either hit it over there, over here, up there or down there.

Yes, it's a tough shot but it was always one of my favorites because nobody ever expected that shot from there. I'll give you this though, the distance on this shot would give me pause but maybe not dissuade me from shooting it. It's much tougher with inside-draw.

Dennis
 

fred bentivegna

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
6,690
From
chicago illinois
Paying attention

Paying attention

... And as far as shooting the 2 ball in, to me that would be inviting problems, and i'm not going to do that. ---Thats absurd. I described what I would do re shooting the 2 ball in. Please inform me what sort of "problems" might I encounter, either "corner hooking" you or moving the cue ball up along the long rail and leaving you with a now, bad angle on the 3 and the cue ball 7 feet away from the closest ball.

You make a lot of good points, as do I, and if either you or I disagree all we can do is offer an explanation why we see it differently and move on. Let the players that want to learn make up their own mind, who knows maybe the'll take a little from both of us.
Since you havent agreed with any suggestion I have made in a month (or more), just what were some of those "good points" that you found in my posts? I dont seem to remember any.


Dr. Bill

and finally,
.... You say that you should never shoot a bank that is more difficult than the one you leave if you miss. I say bullshit, that's the 44th straight time I disagreed with you. I can name many scenarios where your axiom doesn't apply, and this happens to be one of them, imo.


Either you missed the first part of my axiom that stated, "If at all possible...you should never shoot a bank that is more difficult than the one you leave if you miss." Well, I gotta tell the truth, that is probably the absolute best advice I have to give regarding bank pool. That is the best I got. If that dont get it, than I am out of place on this here bank forum.
You call that bullshit, and apparently either everybody agrees with you or they are too intimidated to say anything. In either case, I'm wasting my time, and I am not going to waste anymore defending something as obviously correct as that axiom. I take this shit too seriously. I will leave you to lead the pack into banking stardom.

Beard
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,693
From
Dallas Tx.
[QUOT
Originally Posted by wincardona

... And as far as shooting the 2 ball in, to me that would be inviting problems, and i'm not going to do that. ---Thats absurd. I described what I would do re shooting the 2 ball in. Please inform me what sort of "problems" might I encounter, either "corner hooking" you or moving the cue ball up along the long rail and leaving you with a now, bad angle on the 3 and the cue ball 7 feet away from the closest ball. Aren't you forgetting about the most important principle? That would be not putting more balls in play when your opponent can't win with the balls that are in play, but you can?

You make a lot of good points, as do I, and if either you or I disagree all we can do is offer an explanation why we see it differently and move on. Let the players that want to learn make up their own mind, who knows maybe the'll take a little from both of us.
Since you havent agreed with any suggestion I have made in a month (or more), just what were some of those "good points" that you found in my posts? I dont seem to remember any. You really can't be serious right? I have agreed with a lot of what you say, but there were many times that your shot choice imo didn't fit into the scenario. What's wrong with having a different opinion? We've been arguing for over 40 years, mostly with you hassling me on how badly I move with my "east coast mentality" like Chicago's got the market cornered on knowledge.:frus

So now you're going to take your ball and go home.:lol

You remind me of these egotistical basketball players that are on the same team and think they should be the one to always take the last shot and if not, they want to be traded.:sorry

Billy I. < The bad guy:lol
 
Last edited:

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,693
From
Dallas Tx.
and finally,
.... You say that you should never shoot a bank that is more difficult than the one you leave if you miss. I say bullshit, that's the 44th straight time I disagreed with you. I can name many scenarios where your axiom doesn't apply, and this happens to be one of them, imo.


Either you missed the first part of my axiom that stated, "If at all possible...you should never shoot a bank that is more difficult than the one you leave if you miss." Well, I gotta tell the truth, that is probably the absolute best advice I have to give regarding bank pool. That is the best I got. If that dont get it, than I am out of place on this here bank forum.
You call that bullshit, and apparently either everybody agrees with you or they are too intimidated to say anything. In either case, I'm wasting my time, and I am not going to waste anymore defending something as obviously correct as that axiom. I take this shit too seriously. I will leave you to lead the pack into banking stardom.

Beard
Freddie, would you please describe to me what "If at all possible" means.

You say your not going to waste anymore of your time defending something as obviously correct as that axiom. On the contrary, I think what we have here with this situation is a dilemma, which then your axiom shouldn't be applied to.

Dr. Bill
 

fred bentivegna

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
6,690
From
chicago illinois
Last point

Last point

This is the last incorrect example that I am going to address. You are trying to hang me on my own petard. That is, not putting enough balls into play to allow your opponent to win on one shot. Every rule and principle on earth has to be tempered with common sense.
I will put it in the form of another bank pool axiom:

Balls hanging in the back pockets of the head rail, barely count as being out of play! The reason being, unlike balls hanging in the pockets at the foot rail, they are usually easy to pocket and play safe off of. While your opponent cannot win on one shot if a needed ball is hanging back there, defensively you are not in good shape because if he makes all the balls open he has an option to go a move up on you by either corner hooking you or just shooting the ball in and leaving you a mile away from paydirt.

Taking a ball out of play in bank pool usually means that you hang a ball in the pockets by the foot rail, or if it is buried deep enough, a ball hanging in the side pocket.

Beard

I will now turn the forum over to the resident experts, Dr Bill and HackerPuss.
Maybe when somebody can explain the weakness of the, "dont shoot a bad one if you are going to give up a good one," theory to me, I'll realize the error of my ways.


Plus, in the particular instance of this diagram, the 2 ball is not yet out of play by any means. It can be banked 4 rails, 2 rails, or even straight back.
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,693
From
Dallas Tx.
This is the last incorrect example that I am going to address. You are trying to hang me on my own petard. That is, not putting enough balls into play to allow your opponent to win on one shot. Every rule and principle on earth has to be tempered with common sense.
I will put it in the form of another bank pool axiom:

Balls hanging in the back pockets of the head rail, barely count as being out of play! The reason being, unlike balls hanging in the pockets at the foot rail, they are usually easy to pocket and play safe off of. While your opponent cannot win on one shot if a needed ball is hanging back there, defensively you are not in good shape because if he makes all the balls open he has an option to go a move up on you by either corner hooking you or just shooting the ball in and leaving you a mile away from paydirt.

Taking a ball out of play in bank pool usually means that you hang a ball in the pockets by the foot rail, or if it is buried deep enough, a ball hanging in the side pocket.

Beard

I will now turn the forum over to the resident experts, Dr Bill and HackerPuss.
Maybe when somebody can explain the weakness of the, "dont shoot a bad one if you are going to give up a good one," theory to me, I'll realize the error of my ways.


Plus, in the particular instance of this diagram, the 2 ball is not yet out of play by any means. It can be banked 4 rails, 2 rails, or even straight back.

This is by far one of your weakest post to date. Balls hanging in the top pockets are not out of play.:[/B :frus Give me a break. You my friend sound like a desperate man who is drowning, grasping for straws.:sorry

Dr. Bill
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,693
From
Dallas Tx.
This is the last incorrect example that I am going to address. You are trying to hang me on my own petard. That is, not putting enough balls into play to allow your opponent to win on one shot. Every rule and principle on earth has to be tempered with common sense.
I will put it in the form of another bank pool axiom:

Balls hanging in the back pockets of the head rail, barely count as being out of play! The reason being, unlike balls hanging in the pockets at the foot rail, they are usually easy to pocket and play safe off of. While your opponent cannot win on one shot if a needed ball is hanging back there, defensively you are not in good shape because if he makes all the balls open he has an option to go a move up on you by either corner hooking you or just shooting the ball in and leaving you a mile away from paydirt.

Taking a ball out of play in bank pool usually means that you hang a ball in the pockets by the foot rail, or if it is buried deep enough, a ball hanging in the side pocket.

Beard

I will now turn the forum over to the resident experts, Dr Bill and HackerPuss.
Maybe when somebody can explain the weakness of the, "dont shoot a bad one if you are going to give up a good one," theory to me, I'll realize the error of my ways.


Plus, in the particular instance of this diagram, the 2 ball is not yet out of play by any means. It can be banked 4 rails, 2 rails, or even straight back.
You say that the 3 ball bank is a bad one, well that's your opinion, not fact. Then you say that you will give up a good one with the return shot. Well again that's your opinion, the bank you give up may not be as good as the one that was just missed. Doesn't that depend on where the cue ball ends up? Then I say that you shouldn't pocket the 2 ball, for the reasons I discussed, that you also believe in. So what we have here is a dilemma, if so, your so called axiom shouldn't apply.
Whenever two top players are playing one another the principle that I alluded to about, not putting balls in play to allow your opponent to win when only you can with the balls that are in play, is much more important to comply to, as opposed to two average players playing one another.

Unfortunately for you there's always heat in the kitchen, it's up to you to stay or leave. Your certainly not on my list for the "all foxhole team".

Dr. Bill
 
Last edited:

Cowboy Dennis

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
From
Detroit,Michigan
If I may interject for a moment. Bill, if you don't understand what Freddy wrote here then you should read it until you do or stop arguing it. I'm not colorizing, highlighting, or enlarging anything. If you can't understand that what Freddy wrote here is different than what you said he wrote then you simply can't read & comprehend.


fred bentivegna said:
Balls hanging in the back pockets of the head rail, barely count as being out of play! The reason being, unlike balls hanging in the pockets at the foot rail, they are usually easy to pocket and play safe off of.

Beard



wincardona said:
This is by far one of your weakest post to date. Balls hanging in the top pockets are not out of play.:[/B Give me a break. You my friend sound like a desperate man who is drowning, grasping for straws.

Dr. Bill

Carry on fellas:D

Dennis
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,693
From
Dallas Tx.
If I may interject for a moment. Bill, if you don't understand what Freddy wrote here then you should read it until you do or stop arguing it. I'm not colorizing, highlighting, or enlarging anything. If you can't understand that what Freddy wrote here is different than what you said he wrote then you simply can't read & comprehend.



Dennis
Ok, barely out of play are you serious. If a ball is hanging in a pocket, regardless of what pocket, it's out of play. There are positions that we refer to as good positions and not so good positions, in regard to balls that are in play. Then there are balls that are out of play (balls hanging in the pocket) Whenever you have the lead, late in games (like the game we're debating)it's to the advantage of the player leading to have balls in play that only he can win with, and his opponent can't. Also if balls are not out of play then balls that are in a difficult position will favor the player with the lead. That's the point, and that's always been the point with my reasoning about this dilemma.

If it's not clear that a shot is correct, then at least you should comply with the principle of 'not putting balls in play" for the reasons previously stated. Don't you think? Like I said before, you have other jobs beside creating controversial situations that you can stir the pot with.

Dr. BILL
 
Top