Sid System Kick

seymore15074

seymore15074

So what are you saying?
Silver Member
Ok, I've reviewed the Sid System from the posts by DeadAim. The difficulty with this system is the diamond numbering convention. I am used to counting the diamonds starting with zero at the pocket. Only the one rail in this system does not do this, and starts at 1. It is difficult (for me, anyway) to remember where and what to start counting for this kick.

I have come up with a small extra step to simplify this, and I figured that maybe someone would find this useful. Does anyone else have a better method of remembering this system?

Ok, I count from zero at the pocket from the pocket that is between the rail that I am kicking off of and the rail that I am kicking to. The rail parallel to the rail that I am kicking off of is numbered the same. I take the object ball position and then add 1 (because I started at zero rather than 1 like DeadAim's diagrams) and then multiply that number by the cue ball position for the target... This lets me count all diamonds as 1, and starting at zero at the pockets. In the event of the object ball being on the long-rail, I divide by 2 before added the 1...

Here's a summary:

1. Count from the pockets being zero (each diamond = 1)
2. Get OB (object ball position)
3. If OB is on the long rail, 1/2 it.
4. Add 1 to OB
5. Get CB (cue ball position)
6. Multiply OB * CB
7. Count rail in 10's and hit the spot

I have never actually tried this system, but if I can finally remember it, I will tonight. I'm not sure if it'll be worth all of the thinking or not, yet...I'll give it a chance.
 
I saw that system in a Preacher Feeny vidieo. The way he explained it was very simple, however due to old_timers disease I have forgotten it. I have seen it on some web site but it is much more complicated than Preacher described it. It is very accurate I might add. If any of you members know of it, I'd like to hear from you.

Thanks.
 
blackeee said:
I saw that system in a Preacher Feeny vidieo. The way he explained it was very simple, however due to old_timers disease I have forgotten it. I have seen it on some web site but it is much more complicated than Preacher described it. It is very accurate I might add. If any of you members know of it, I'd like to hear from you.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I too learned the system from the Preacher video. Seems to me to be very easy the way he explained it. I even taught it to my wife, and she remembers it. I know that because last night I used it in league play. My opponent played safe and left me a one rail kick with the object ball at position 4.5 and the cue at the second diamond at the end rail. Kicked the ball sweet in the corner, and then banked the 8 to win.

My wife commented to the others that I counted out the rails with the Sid system. Hung around for 15 minutes at the end of the night to show one of my teammates the system. He's like "wow you hit the ball every time with that."

The big drawback to that system is that it only works well for those one rail kicks where the object ball is somewhere on the long rail, but I have been working on applying it to other object ball positions like one diamond away, or kicking towards the center of the table.
 
blackeee said:
I saw that system in a Preacher Feeny vidieo. The way he explained it was very simple, however due to old_timers disease I have forgotten it. I have seen it on some web site but it is much more complicated than Preacher described it. It is very accurate I might add. If any of you members know of it, I'd like to hear from you.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I just learned it the regular way off of Tom Rossman's video and find it pretty easy to remember and very useful.
 
The second picture in this link is the Sid System.

http://pl.cuetable.com/showthread.php?p=399

I count the end rails where the cueball is differently then in the picture shown. In this example the OB is near the side pocket (postion 3) so at short rail where my cueball is each diamond becomes 3, then 6 then 9 (start with 3 for the first diamond, add 3 for the next, and so forth)

If you Google One Rail Kicking Systems you will have better results.

And yes I have been doing the same thing for balls that have moved off of the rail.

Neil said:
I'm not very computer literate. somewhere around third grade? I typed out how to use the sid system and then somehow I lost it. If you can't find somewhere, p.m. me and I will type it out again. Also, when the object ball is say, sis inches off the rail, figure it the same way and move your kick spot over three inches- half the distance.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
can't figure out why the scale changes

Hi,

I have been looking at the diagrams, which are very nice. For
now I'm trying to figure out why the second system works.
What is confusing me, is why the scaling changes on the top
long rail. To be more clear, why is the first diamond assigned
the value 1 instead of 1.5, where 1.5 would be the value if
consistent with all the other diamonds spaced at .5 increments.

There is nothing magical, or different from that diamond, and
I can't see why all of a sudden at the point of diamond 2,
all the values to the left of it become 1/2 of their normal
value. I think there is something going on here, and I really
(I mean really) want to understand it. Later today, I'm going
to draw some diagrams, assuming the angle of incidence equals
the angle of reflection, and try to measure exactly what values
I come up with. I expect that if I do find a change in scaling
required, it will not be as simple as a complete change at
diamond 2.

Comments welcome.
 
tougher than I thought

Darn, it seems I would need some HUGE graph paper, and
a HUGE protractor in order to figure this out "manually", that
is by hand.

I also noticed in the upper diagram, a similar scale-change
takes place at the first upper diamond on the right short rail.
After that, going upwards, the diagram dictates that the
midpoint is value 1 instead of 1.5 if the scale was linear.

So, I think I'm going to try to figure this out mathematically
sometime in the near future. My instincts tell me that there
is absolutely no way the scaling can change at just one point.

Also, trying this out for a little while on a real table, I found
that if the cue ball is off the rail, the starting rail position is
not known, since it would depend on the angle to the first rail,
which is also not known, and is actually the root problem that
this system tries to solve. So I found it necessary to use a
trial and error system, in order to arrive at a set of numbers
that work.

I'm surprised no one has offered comments, this system seems
to have amazing potential.
 
Last edited:
The only thing that I can think if is once you kick beyond two diamonds, you need to count by halves to make up for the dimensions of the table. In most 3 rail systems you count the diamonds by half, again for the dimensions of the table, and the distances involved.



whitey2 said:
Hi,

I have been looking at the diagrams, which are very nice. For
now I'm trying to figure out why the second system works.
What is confusing me, is why the scaling changes on the top
long rail. To be more clear, why is the first diamond assigned
the value 1 instead of 1.5, where 1.5 would be the value if
consistent with all the other diamonds spaced at .5 increments.

There is nothing magical, or different from that diamond, and
I can't see why all of a sudden at the point of diamond 2,
all the values to the left of it become 1/2 of their normal
value. I think there is something going on here, and I really
(I mean really) want to understand it. Later today, I'm going
to draw some diagrams, assuming the angle of incidence equals
the angle of reflection, and try to measure exactly what values
I come up with. I expect that if I do find a change in scaling
required, it will not be as simple as a complete change at
diamond 2.

Comments welcome.
Click to expand...
 
whitey2 said:
... I have been looking at the diagrams, which are very nice. For now I'm trying to figure out why the second system works. What is confusing me, is why the scaling changes on the top long rail. ...
Click to expand...
The scale changes to keep the numbering relatively simple, according to a conversation I had with Walt Harris. If you wanted to have accurate numbers on the cushions to make the system perfectly correct and self-consistent, they would mostly be fractions. I think that the error caused by the simplified numbering is less than 1/4 diamond and the usually shallow angle involved means that you will probably hit the ball you're after even for the worst-case point in the system.
 
thanks for the info, and I'm working on an in-depth analysis

Thanks for the info! I'm still not sure if the numbers along the
right (in the diagram) will actually stay constant, even if in
fractions, when kicking at different angles. I am developing some
software to allow me to analyze various systems, and also to
allow me to create and manage custom diagrams. I have posted
an image of my current rough draft diagram below. Unfortunately I had
to shrink it down to 640x480 to preserve some detail but get it under the
100K limit.
 

Attachments

  • table3.png
    table3.png
    80.2 KB · Views: 512
Last edited:
A better diagram

I have posted a link to a better diagram, that is larger, and I
have also added "tick marks" to make it easier to identify
ball positions on the cushion. Tomorrow I plan to create a
mirror image of the right short rail extending upward, which
should make it a lot easier to determine the exact numerical
values for the points on the cushion near the corner.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i30/miskinis_2006/table/table3.png

Comments are welcomed as always.
 
possible system flaw, or compensation required

Wow, the diagrams I have been working on, are truly allowing me
to analyze that kicking system. I believe that the system as
published uses numerical values assigned to the point that the
ball is located at. In other words, the ball positions are in the rail
gutter, and the aim point on the rail is also where the ball hits
in the gutter.

Using this premise, I believe the system is flawed. In the
diagram below I have indicated the top rail gutter with a
purple line, and the right rail gutter with a blue line. I have
mirrored the right short rail, to make it easier to visualize the
cue ball path as a straight line. The cue ball path is white,
and in order to hit the red ball, it seems that you would have
to aim THROUGH a diamond value of about 28, but at a
rail gutter point of about 31. I will be experimenting with
a few more cue ball start points, and target ball points shortly.

NOTE - I also need to research exactly how far from the
cushion edge the diamonds are supposed to set into the rail.
I've come this far, and want to be exact in my diagrams.
I'm going to measure this on a real table rail, but I'm also
interested in the rationale behind the distance.

NOTE - SHRANK DIAGRAM FIT 100K LIMIT AND LOST ABOUT 2/3 OF THE DETAIL

SEE FULL VERSION AT A FRIEND'S SITE: http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i30/miskinis_2006/table/table3_mirror.png
 

Attachments

  • table4_mirror.png
    table4_mirror.png
    96.7 KB · Views: 345
Last edited:
whitey2 said:
... Using this premise, I believe the system is flawed. ...
Click to expand...
Yes, it is known to be inaccurately numbered, as I mentioned before. The problem is to come up with a numbering scheme that is both more accurate and possible to remember. Some people can do the math accurately, including that fact that the reflection plane is the gutter. Most have no hope of being that accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top