In what circumstances does the weaker player get more advantage from tighter pockets?

Tight pockets....LOL Chinese 8ball tables, i said a long time ago they'll never fly in this country and those that bought into that dream....are selling them off as fast as they can find a buyer once they find out they're a waste of space in a pool room because no one really wants to play on them! Catering to a few players is not worth losing the square footage of a pool table most all would pay to play on. These threads about tight pockets vs loose pockets and how much weight can i give up, or not give up, should i do this or that, what kind of effect will tight pockets have on my game.... don't mean a damn thing! When the top players in the world PRACTICE, AND PRACTICE, AND PRACTICE to hone their skills to be the best.....do ANY of you really think they're concerned about how tight or loose the pockets are on the tables in the next tournament they're playing in???? This whole thread once again is all about gambling and how to match up against another player of lesser skill, and the effect pocket size has on the outcome. Giving up weight is no more than trying to find a more equally ballanced game to to an otherwise unbalanced set of players skill level wise. By the better player giving weight to the weaker player he's giving up some of his abilities to win by increasing the weaker players chances of winning....plain and simple. If the better player ends up losing, it has nothing to do with the pocket sizes of the pool table they played on, but the loss has 100% to do with the transfer of weight given to the weaker player, therefore weakening the better players chances of winning....in order to entice the weaker player into a game, in the hopes of making some money off the weaker player, whereas without a correction for the skill level difference between the weaker player and the better player....there would be no chance at making a dime!
 
Last edited:
The harder, more difficult the table, re: size & pockets....5x10 vs. 4 1/2x9 or a 9' vs 7', the edge goes to the stronger player.
It's just like a slope rating on a golf course.........a course with a slope of 130 is much harder than a golf course with 112 slope.

Sure on any given day, even a golfer with a 16 handicap might beat a player with a 6 handicap but doesn't happen often.
Now play that match again on a course with a much higher slope rating, the odds change and become likely impossible.

I sincerely doubt whether a high handicap player would ever beat a low handicap player at Spyglass Hill golf course.
There isn't any edge any weaker player gets from playing a much stronger opponent on a table with tight pockets.
 
Last edited:
An "A" player might have a margin of error on pocketing a ball of +/- 1/4".

A "C" player might be +/- 10".

The C player when he misses he might miss by a diamond.

The A player when he misses it's by a hair.

Put a C player on a tight table, or a loose table, he will miss every other shot on both tables. It won't make much of a difference.

Put an A player on both tables, he might run 3 racks on buckets, yet miss 1 shot per game on 4" pockets.

I stand by the harder the table, the more it favors the weaker player.

The easier the table, the more it favors the better player, and the more he will run away with the match.

Having differences of opinion is graat, and is what gets us to the table gambling in the first place:)
 
[/QUOTE]I stand by the harder the table, the more it favors the weaker player.[/QUOTE]

Unless there's a spot/weight being given to the weaker player, the weaker player will lose even worse on a table with tighter pockets vs the better player;)
 
There is only one scenario that I can think of where the tight pockets may increase the weaker players chances.

If Player A usually practices and competes on loose equipment and then plays a tournament with tight pockets against player B who, although the weaker player, is used to the more difficult equipment, there might be a slight advantage. In this scenario, Player B is more comfortable and relaxed and may become a tougher opponent than if they were in Player A's home room.

Ultimately, Player A should still prevail unless the skill level difference was marginal to begin with.

Aside from that, all things being equal, Player B may get a few extra innings due to more safeties and maybe the odd unforced error, but it works both ways. Player B should be equally affected and still lose. Their best hope is some late rack misses to pick up some easy 1-3 ball outs.
 
I saw John Schmidt post on Facebook awhile back regarding this subject and I thought what he said was interesting. Making the pockets too tight can be an equalizer among a great player like himself and an amateur in a game like straight pool. The reason he gave is that no matter how tight you make the pockets someone who runs anywhere from 0 to 30 balls in an inning is likely to still run 0 to 30 balls in an inning, but someone like John, who is capable of raining hundreds under normal conditions, has his high run ceiling lowered substantially because a run of 50 may be the maximum the conditions allow. Or in a rotation game an amateur may still be able to break and run 1 rack like normal, but the potential to run packages for either the amateur or the pro are the same.

In other words overly tight pockets have more of an effect of limiting high end performance than the effect they have on the low end. I really think there is a sweet spot of pocket size in this regard and it's the standard 4.5".
 
StraightPoolIU said:
I saw John Schmidt post on Facebook awhile back regarding this subject and I thought what he said was interesting. Making the pockets too tight can be an equalizer among a great player like himself and an amateur in a game like straight pool. The reason he gave is that no matter how tight you make the pockets someone who runs anywhere from 0 to 30 balls in an inning is likely to still run 0 to 30 balls in an inning, but someone like John, who is capable of raining hundreds under normal conditions, has his high run ceiling lowered substantially because a run of 50 may be the maximum the conditions allow. Or in a rotation game an amateur may still be able to break and run 1 rack like normal, but the potential to run packages for either the amateur or the pro are the same.

In other words overly tight pockets have more of an effect of limiting high end performance than the effect they have on the low end. I really think there is a sweet spot of pocket size in this regard and it's the standard 4.5".
Click to expand...
I've played against John in the past and i can tell you this for sure, the straighter shooter is always going to win no matter what unless you adjust the spot, tight pockets or not. I out safety played John in racing to 100 points a game, but when i had the chace to pocket a ball to start my run, missing a key ball is all it takes to lose, and you can't ever do that playing a better player, pocket size wouldn't have made a difference. And for the record, we played even up, so that also comes into play on Johns part, self confidence goes up drastically when you know my chances of running out on him if he misses a shot is not all that great, so he shot at everything.
 
Last edited:
StraightPoolIU said:
I really think there is a sweet spot of pocket size in this regard and it's the standard 4.5".
Click to expand...
The Standard should be a True, Angle Corrected 5" Pocket. Even Tournaments.
or compromise.......
4-3/4" True, Angles Corrected Pockets as a Standard Everywhere. Even Tournaments.

But this trend toward smaller and smaller pockets with no set standard is bad for Pocket Billiards in the long run.
4-1/4" or 4" Pockets? Krazy!

Qbilder and BC21 get it.
 
Last edited:
mchnhed said:
The Standard should be a True, Angle Corrected 5" Pocket. Even Tournaments.
or compromise.......
4-3/4" True, Angles Corrected Pockets as a Standard Everywhere. Even Tournaments.

But this trend toward smaller and smaller pockets with no set standard is bad for Pocket Billiards in the long run.
4-1/4" or 4" Pockets? Krazy!

Qbilder and BC21 get it.
Click to expand...

Define "true angles" corrected pockets please;)
 
realkingcobra said:
And how would you achieve that?
Click to expand...
I defer to a True Table Mechanic who knows how a pocket works. Only a few truly do.
You should talk to one of the guys here on AzB called Glenn.
He really knows what's what when it comes to a pocket.
Ask him how a True 5" or 4-3/4" Corner Pocket Should be Constructed.
If anybody knows, he does.

I am not anything near a Table Mechanic or even a Hack so I only know what I have read from this Glen guy.
I want to verify the Pockets on my GCIV at 5" or maybe 4-3/4".
I wish his knowledge was written down some where for the future's reference.
I'm even willing to pay him for his time to tell me how to check and trim my GCIV pockets to the correct size and angles.
 
Last edited:
Years ago, I was getting a spot in one pocket by a better all around player. The spot was quite large (11-7 I believe). I was losing because he kept hitting me with big runs (7, 8, 9 balls). I felt I moved close to his speed and he was beating me because of his ability to run balls so well. We switched to a snooker table and it removed his big runs. I won back my money.
 
i hate tight pockets
i agree with the replies that prefered5 inch pockets as a standard
or even 4.75

big pockets make for more fun
 
So, bottom line, if a weak player wanted to play a race to 10 in 8ball but you got to pick the table, are you picking the Valley or the 7ft Diamond. The Diamond is going to hamper him a lot more, as he can actually run out occasionally on a Valley.

If you are spotting him a few games, why in the world do you want him to run out :) put him on the tougher table and his flaws, stoke errors, and even position play are going to suffer greatly.

I can't think when it would be wise to play on a loose table.

If SVB shows up in Chicago tomorrow and wants to play a race to 20 9ball and he's giving me 10 games on the wire, then Valley it is ;)
 
Wire.
Weight.
Spot.
Race.
Straight Up.

I can't find references to these terms anywhere in any of the rule books from any of the associations.

Could someone help me understand what these terms have to do with playing competitive pocket billiards?

Thank You
 
Last edited:
pdcue said:
This is entirely second hand, but... I asked pretty much the same question to 2 very
strong shortstops I know quite well, Both replied the same.

1. If you are playing even against a player you are sure is of lesser speed than you,
you want tight pockets.

2. If spotting a weaker player - you want looser pockets.

Both these guys have decades of experience, good judgement, and considerable success in money matches.

Dale
Click to expand...

This would be my exact answer. While in general tighter pockets favor the better player in even games (the better player has more precision in shot making and can play tighter shape), giving weight, like the 7 and 8 for example in 9 ball, the better player can get jumpy on the money balls and rattle them.
 
I think it depends on how tight the pockets are.and how good the better player is.

My friend is probably a decent low end A player. He thinks well, understands the game but misses more than he should, and does not really string racks together. He plays two way shots often, avoids sell out shots and generally plays a solid, risk adverse game.

He played in the Brendan Crockett tournament, One of the tables at On Cue is silly tight. I dont know the exact measurement but it is really severe. He played two players on that table, Rodney Morris and Mike Massey.

He played Rodney on that table first and Rodney missed a LOT. So much that my friend should have been up 6-1, but with the pockets, he too missed shots he would normally make. Rodney eventually realized he was in no danger from my friend and missed less but my friend probably had a decent shot of winning 10 of the 13 game, before losing 9-4. Tough to say what effect the table had but on an easier table if he made those same early misses he would have been 6-1, but then again Rodney wouldnt have missed those shots so it would have been less close.

The Massey match was different. Now, despite his ability to still draw a ball rails around the table when both balls are frozen to the end rail (I asked him to do it once), he clearly is no longer a top level pro, but still better than my friend.. And the table definitely was an equalizer. They both missed a lot and at 8-8 my friend missed a somewhat easy side pocket shot and left it jawed in the corner. Any difficult shot and Mike might have missed.it. I am almost certain my friend would not have been able to compete at that same level on an easier table.

One other factor, great players miss less against players they know they will beat, so that sort of overrides the difficulty of the player. A long time ago, I realized I had become a good player when Jay Swanson started missing against me.
 
I think a smart weaker player who doesn't pocket balls as well can use tight pockets to their advantage. I played at edgie's in milpitas once and they have 3 7/8" pockets on their tournament tables. Even though I was playing good I soon realized that I wasn't going to run out...and neither was anyone else except the very best players. So I played a strategy to let everyone shoot basically and then just cleaned up the rack when they rattled. Lots of 1 and 2 ball outs. If in doubt I just left then long. I won more games than I lost that way and ended up in the money before I ran into a player that actually could run out more than he missed. Many of the players I beat were rated higher than I am and were probably the favorites to beat me on a 4 1/4" table.

Looser pockets than that and I would be the favorite again because I play well, just never really played on tight equipment so wasn't used to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top