Room Size - What Would You Do?

[Mikjary]

Another thought...cushion nose to cushion nose is 50". A cue stick @ 58" x 2 = 116". That's 166". You've got 171 inches. That leaves 2 1/2 " between the butt of the cue stick and the wall on either side. If you have a stick less than 58", that's more room. You slightly elevate on rail shots anyway, so you'll gain another inch or so.

You can short stroke and roll balls or slightly elevate for speed. That's what I do and like I said, get the 9 footer!

Best,
Mike

 

[Tennesseejoe]

Offsetting like this would be my thought too. Of course interior walls don't need covering on both sides for anything but decoration anyway. I'm sure your significant other will understand you having to knock down the sheetrock or paneling to get an important extra four inches except when a stud is in the way!

Been might near a hunnert years but I owned an eight foot table. Neither fish nor fowl, I can't imagine owning another unless it comes with a house or something like that. Unlike Valleys and big tables the seven foot diamond plays just like a nine footer. I think I'd do some high level cyphering to figure out the pocket size reduction to have the same difficulty playing on the seven footer as a tournament nine and put in the seven footer unless going with the offset nine footer.

Hu

Yes... small table with smaller pockets

 

[Cornerman]

Another thought...cushion nose to cushion nose is 50". A cue stick @ 58" x 2 = 116". That's 166". You've got 171 inches. That leaves 2 1/2 " between the butt of the cue stick and the wall on either side. If you have a stick less than 58", that's more room. You slightly elevate on rail shots anyway, so you'll gain another inch or so.

You can short stroke and roll balls or slightly elevate for speed. That's what I do and like I said, get the 9 footer!

Best,
Mike

This is the analysis I went through and why I'm going with the 9' table.

So although 14' - 10" is the preferred minimum on paper, I think most of us would compromise some shots to get the big table in. And if things gets unbearably tight, I'll think about putting in Pink Floyd.

Freddie <~~~ needs a Dirty Woman

 

[ideologist]

I took almost three months trying to find a home that could house a nine footer. It was worth the wait.

Excellent answer

 

[Bambu]

This is the analysis I went through and why I'm going with the 9' table.

So although 14' - 10" is the preferred minimum on paper, I think most of us would compromise some shots to get the big table in. And if things gets unbearably tight, I'll think about putting in Pink Floyd.

Freddie <~~~ needs a Dirty Woman

Yo Fred- Why do you need 14' 10"? Isn't 14 X 18 all you need?
Look at the Brunswick recommended size chart here:

https://www.brunswickbilliards.com/room-size-requirements/

 

[drhanson]

I put a 9' Diamond Pro-Am in a room with nearly identical dimensions as the one you're looking at (14' 3" X 25'). I bought a 56" house cue but almost never have to use it, maybe once every 20 hours of play at the most. Most shots where the cue ball is frozen to the rail don't require you to approach them at exactly 90 degrees to the rail / wall. I find that I can just jack up slightly with my playing cue which has a 30" shaft the vast majority of the time. A few degrees either side of 90 deg. on a cue ball frozen to the rail and you'll be able to keep your cue level. Get the 9' table, you won't regret it!

 

[jsp]

I'd get an 8 foot table with super-tight pockets. Don't compromise your cue or stroke.

Not compromising your stroke is justification for getting the 9-footer. You'll only encounter a very small fraction of shots where you'd ever need the shorter cue. I'd be MUCH more worried about losing the >9' shots (that occur at a much greater rate) by purchasing the 8-footer.

If this were me, it'd be very close to a no-brain decision. Get the Diamond, and buy a 52" cue for the very small fraction of shots you'd ever need it.

 

[Cornerman]

Yo Fred- Why do you need 14' 10"? Isn't 14 X 18 all you need?
Look at the Brunswick recommended size chart here:

https://www.brunswickbilliards.com/room-size-requirements/

Those charts suck.

 

[abbassi]

How big is the Master Bedroom Freddy?

 

[Mikjary]

How big is the Master Bedroom Freddy?

If he's married, not the right size. :grin:

Best,
Mike

 

[Bambu]

Those charts suck.

Thanks, good to know.

 

[Cornerman]

Thanks, good to know.

LOL!!!

I was going write up something, in case other people hadn't read it.

That 14 x 18' size is the minimum size just to fit a 58" cue if the cue ball was up against a cushion and you were shooting perpendicular to the table. Little to stroke available for that shot!. With a 1/4" or so for tip, and another 1/4-1/2" for bumper, suddenly, most players today just lost another inch of space.

If we want to really stroke anything with the cue ball frozen or nearly frozen to the cushion, the room size has to start creeping up from 14' 0".

14' 10" gives around 5"-6" of stroke per side for the width for that scenario, which isn't a bad number if you bridge off the outside of the table to maximize the stroke length on a ball frozen on a cushion. 14" 0" give no such option to bridge off the outside of the table for that scenario.

Some people like the 14' 6" number for the width. I think those people will be surprised the lack of stroke they have with that width because they didn't do the math.

Anyway, that's my analysis for me. The 14' 10" is what I prefer to not have any stroke issues. 14' 3" will come with compromises, but I'd rather have the compromises than the smaller table. I did the smaller table for 20 years, I figure I'll do the bigger one for the next 20

 

[Cornerman]

How big is the Master Bedroom Freddy?

To quote Mikjay, "Not big enough."

Freddie <~~~ empty nester

 

[Double-Dave]

I actually have 2 pool tables in my house. 1 is a 6-foot table in a room that is really only big enough for a 5 foot table
on both the long and short rails. The other is a 9-foot in a room that is perfectly sized for it.

I have a 52" cue in the room that is too small but only use it probably once every other game and really it doesn't bother me
much at all. It is what it is and I would most certainly prefer this setup over having a table that is foot smaller.

gr. Dave

 

[Sealegs50]

Personally, I would go with the larger table. A 9' Diamond would be worth the trouble (at least for me). I agree with your analysis. My advice has been to add 58" to the outside of the table, not the inside width of the playing surface. That adds about another 6" to each side.

While you still have some time to decide, have you considered moving your 7' table in your current home closer to one wall and test for your self how you will like the compromises? If moving the table is too much trouble, perhaps you could put something against your walls to match the distances you expect to be accommodating in your new house. Either of these tests would take some time, effort, and probably expense, but a 9' Diamond is a more expensive investment.

If you are only dealing with 7" difference between actual and ideal width, your shorty cue can be longer than 52".

 

[dawgcpa]

Room Size

I have a small one care garage on my house which is about 11.5 feet wide. I got a deal on a nice 8 footer for $500 so I bought it. I put it up against one wall and can play on 3 sides with no problems. I can practice all types of drills and shots. Also, I'm up to beating a 5 ball ghost with only being able to shoot on 3 sides. For me, it makes those drills even more fun knowing I've got to set up the shots to shoot on 3/4 of the table. I love it and haven't looked back.

I'd go with a 9 footer and set it up the same at your house.

With that being said, I have a great pool hall about 15 minutes from home that I can go to several times a week to actually play. If your only place to shoot is a long way from home, this may change my decision.

Hope this helps.

 

[ceebee]

I didn't want to hijack the other amusing Room Size question, so I'm starting my own.

My previous table was (well, technically still is) a 7' that's actually smaller than a bar table 7'. The room I have it in is smaller than the ideal size, but I had some semblance of stroke (the room is smaller than the 17' x 13'10" that I would have liked to have had).

At the time, the choice was no table or a small table with tight stroke conditions, so it was an obvious choice.

Now I am in the middle of home purchase down here in FL, and the room in question is at 14' 3" width (>22" in length), which is less than my ideal minimum of 14' 10" for the width. If it were, say, 14' 6", it would be a no brainer for me: slightly tight, but nothing that would prevent me from getting that 9' Diamond.

However, at 14' 3", I'm at that crazy decision of 8' table with ideal minimum of 6" stroke or 9' table that for sure will be tight. I'm actually already asking a cue maker to make a loaded cue butt that would copy the balance of a normal 58" cue, but only end up being 52".

What would YOU do?

Freddie <~~~ could have worse troubles

Hi Cornerman... I have a room that is 35 x 45, but I went with an 8 footer because I play on BarBoxes & 9 footers. The 8 footer gives me a little of both worlds.

Good Luck with selecting your new table...

 

[Eric.]

Things could be worse....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw8gGX2I50M


Eric

 

[AtLarge]

... Anyway, that's my analysis for me. The 14' 10" is what I prefer to not have any stroke issues. 14' 3" will come with compromises, but I'd rather have the compromises than the smaller table. I did the smaller table for 20 years, I figure I'll do the bigger one for the next 20

Right you are, Freddie, regarding the 14' 10". That's 178". Subtract the 50" for the table bed and you have 128". Divide that by two and you have 64". And that's why I suggested offsetting the table in the 14' 3" room -- 64" from one wall and 57" from the other. Put the 7" compromise all on one side, leaving 3 sides with no compromises.

 

[td873]

Fred,

I just measured my table and room. I have exactly 14'10" - BUT - the room isn't divided perfectly in half because of it's shape. The table has ~62" on one side and 66" on the other. This is measured from the cushion facing the table. From the outside of the table, it's 56" and 60".

I've played this way for quite a while and it is fine. But just to be sure, I did a few confirmation strokes all the way around. There isn't any issue with a normal cue on the 66" side. The 62" side is pretty comfortable for most shots (i.e., not hitting the wall) although one hole might need a shorter stick to get the cross bank bridging just right. But only a few inches. I have never had any real issues playing any games with the table set up this way.

At 14'3", you aren't that far off from my 62" side (only 1.5" [per side]). I think you would be OK at 60.5" for over 90% of normal shots. For the other 10%, you might be a little tight, but only if you need to shoot exactly perpendicular to the wall (odds are you wouldn't be shooting a power shot anyway, so a long stroke wouldn't be necessary). And even then, a short stick would cure any issues.

As for the 8' table, you would have another 2.5" of room to stroke per side (63" total). So you shouldn't have any issues fitting one of those.

On a related note, is the room perfectly square? My room is upstairs and the "entrance" leaves a pretty big area for playing one pocket (which is primarily why the table is offset). I play one-hole on the side with the room opening, and the other player also can execute a full stroke.

-td