AzBilliards.com Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) for measuring table "toughness"
 Page 11 of 45 « First < 91011 121321 > Last »
(#151)
dr_dave
Instructional Author

Status: Offline
Posts: 8,277
vCash: 1700
Join Date: Dec 2004

06-23-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rexus31 Here's the data on my friend's Gold Crown: Table: 9' = 1 PSF: 4.25" = 1.10 PAF: 4", .25" difference = 1.0 PLF: 15/16" = 1.0 1 x 1.10 x 1 x 1 = 1.10
I've added it to the list.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rexus31 Although my table rates higher, I feel his table plays a bit tougher because of the speed of the cloth (Simonis 760, Tournament Blue) and the responsiveness of the cushions.
Some people might think of it the other way around, preferring a faster table with responsive cushions (requiring less work to get the CB around the table) ... right? Cloth speed and cushions responsiveness are definitely in the "qualitative" category that might be difficult to factor in logically and simply (with easy and reliable measurements or "judgements").

Thanks for the input.

Here's the current updated list:

Data reported by AZB users in table difficulty factor (TDF) order, based on the table size factor (TSF), pocket size factor (PSF), pocket angle factor (PAF), and pocket shelf factor (PLF):

name -- TSF -- PSF -- PAF -- PLF -- TDF
example "B" -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.20 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.24
rexus31 -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 3/8":1.00 -- 1":1.00 -- 1.20
FatBoy -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/4":1.00 -- 1":1.00 -- 1.20
TATE -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/4":1.00 -- 7/8":1.00 -- 1.20
Qaddiction -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/8":1.10 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":1.00 -- 1.10
rexus31 friend GC -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/4":1.10 -- 1/4":1.00 -- 15/16":1.00 -- 1.10
cigardave -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.05 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 1.07 (typical Pro-Cut Diamond)
SloMoHolic -- 9':1.00 -- 4 3/8":1.05 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.03
JC -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.05 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.03
Sloppy Pockets -- 8'+:0.95 -- 5":0.95 -- 1":1.10 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.02
"standard" table -- 9':1.00 -- 4 9/16":1.00 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.00 ("standard")
Dopc -- 8':0.90 -- 4.5":1.05 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":1.00 -- 0.96
12squared -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.95 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.95 (typical Gold Crown)
MSchaffer -- 9":1.00 -- 5 1/10":0.90 -- <3/4":1.02 -- >1 3/4":1.03 -- 0.95
Neil -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/8":1.10 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":1.00 -- 0.94
BRussell -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.95 -- 13/16":1.05 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.88
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.95 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.84
example "A" -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.95 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.82
Valley "bar box" -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.05 -- 0":0.94 -- 3/4":0.95 -- 0.80 (typical Valley/Dynamo "bar box")

(#152)
Sloppy Pockets
AzB Silver Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 2,820
vCash: 500
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Just outside the Blue Line

06-23-2013, 02:18 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by dr_dave Here's the current updated list: Sloppy Pockets -- 8'+:0.95 -- 5":0.95 -- 1":1.10 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.02

Dr. D., my pocket shelf is only 1 3/4" deep, not 1 7/8". The actual calculations according to your modified criteria are now:

8'+: 0.95 - 5": 0.95 - 1":1.10 - 1 3/4":1.0 - TDF = 0.99

Which seems right to me. Not real easy, not real tough. "Challenging" is a better description. Anyway, sorry for the confusion on the pocket shelf depth.

I like the way you keep tweaking things as recommendations come in. Optimizing generalized factors like this can take some time and a lot of thought, and they may not cover all tables or playing situations. Still, I think this will be a nice addition to the existing knowledge base. Keep up the good work.

BTW I just measured the down angles on my pockets facings, and it'd be generous to say they are 10º. With the acceptable standard being between 12º and 15º, this may be yet one more reason my pockets reject well-hit balls. I'm tired of the way they play. If I can't find someone to work on my table, I just may undertake the job myself.

(#153)
dr_dave
Instructional Author

Status: Offline
Posts: 8,277
vCash: 1700
Join Date: Dec 2004

06-23-2013, 02:27 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sloppy Pockets Dr. D., my pocket shelf is only 1 3/4" deep, not 1 7/8". The actual calculations according to your modified criteria are now: 8'+: 0.95 - 5": 0.95 - 1":1.10 - 1 3/4":1.0 - TDF = 0.99 Which seems right to me. Not real easy, not real tough. "Challenging" is a better description. Anyway, sorry for the confusion on the pocket shelf depth.
Thanks for the correction. I've change it (see below).

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sloppy Pockets I like the way you keep tweaking things as recommendations come in. Optimizing generalized factors like this can take some time and a lot of thought, and they may not cover all tables or playing situations. Still, I think this will be a nice addition to the existing knowledge base. Keep up the good work.
This is not the best way to do it. It would be better to collect a bunch of data first and then correlate. But it has been fun, and it seems to be working a little better now.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sloppy Pockets BTW I just measured the down angles on my pockets facings, and it'd be generous to say they are 10º. With the acceptable standard being between 12º and 15º, this may be yet one more reason my pockets reject well-hit balls. I'm tired of the way they play. If I can't find someone to work on my table, I just may undertake the job myself.
Be careful. We don't want you to end up with "Sloppy Pockets."

Here's the latest:

Data reported by AZB users in table difficulty factor (TDF) order, based on the table size factor (TSF), pocket size factor (PSF), pocket angle factor (PAF), and pocket shelf factor (PLF):

name -- TSF -- PSF -- PAF -- PLF -- TDF
example "B" -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.20 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.24
rexus31 -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 3/8":1.00 -- 1":1.00 -- 1.20
FatBoy -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/4":1.00 -- 1":1.00 -- 1.20
TATE -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/4":1.00 -- 7/8":1.00 -- 1.20
Qaddiction -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/8":1.10 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":1.00 -- 1.10
rexus31 friend GC -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/4":1.10 -- 1/4":1.00 -- 15/16":1.00 -- 1.10
cigardave -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.05 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 1.07 (typical Pro-Cut Diamond)
SloMoHolic -- 9':1.00 -- 4 3/8":1.05 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.03
JC -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.05 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.03
"standard" table -- 9':1.00 -- 4 9/16":1.00 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.00 ("standard")
Sloppy Pockets -- 8'+:0.95 -- 5":0.95 -- 1":1.10 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.99
Dopc -- 8':0.90 -- 4.5":1.05 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":1.00 -- 0.96
12squared -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.95 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.95 (typical Gold Crown)
MSchaffer -- 9":1.00 -- 5 1/10":0.90 -- <3/4":1.02 -- >1 3/4":1.03 -- 0.95
Neil -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/8":1.10 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":1.00 -- 0.94
BRussell -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.95 -- 13/16":1.05 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.88
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.95 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.84
example "A" -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.95 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.82
Valley "bar box" -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.05 -- 0":0.94 -- 3/4":0.95 -- 0.80 (typical Valley/Dynamo "bar box")

(#154)
Dopc
www.PoolActionTV.com

Status: Offline
Posts: 484
vCash: 1700
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Columbus, Ohio

06-23-2013, 03:38 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by dr_dave Thank you for your kind and encouraging feedback. I appreciate it. I get the following: Dopc -- 8':0.90 -- 4.5":1.05 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":1.00 -- 0.96 Please check me on this, being careful with the "<" and "<=" signs and the "If" clauses after the factor tables. Thanks again, Dave
Dr.Dave.
Thanks for the correction, advanced math isn't one of my strongest skills.

In regards to the Bonus Ball table. While I have no access to the table for measurements, I recall a thread ( here http://forums.azbilliards.com/showth...s+ball+pockets ) that may allow you to at least get in the neighborhood until hard numbers surface.

A lot of assumption and guessing are involved. From what I've read, I believe the pockets are 4", with a throat not far off from that as well. Also, that post has a couple images of a pocket with balls.

In that post a few things are mentioned such as "push the facings back towards parallel so they're around 138 (rather than 141-142), and then ditch the shelf". And from the picture viewpoint, they sure did a good job of ditching it.

I hope this may offer some insight and wish I could be of more help.

Dopc.

Cues: Huebler & several other production cues.
Table: 8' Connelly Kayenta in walnut.
Cloth: Simonis 860hr Tournament Blue.
Balls: Aramith Tournament Pro-Cup with a DIY bucket ball polisher.
Seating: Two American Heritage King Spectator chairs.

 (#155) JC Needs Moderation     Status: Offline Posts: 7,623 vCash: 500 iTrader: 21 / 100% Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: PNW 06-23-2013, 05:38 PM Here are the three evolutions of my own GC in the dozen years I've had it. The center photo played much easier than it does now in the bottom photo although they would both rate "average" using this thread's formula. John Chaplin Coos Cues jchaplin@charter.net It's not what you don't know that get's you in trouble. It's what you know that just ain't so.
(#156)
cigardave
Who's got a light?

Status: Offline
Posts: 2,431
vCash: 25
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle area

06-23-2013, 06:06 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sloppy Pockets Sorry, I misinterpreted what "rail re-calibration" means. I'm obviously not a table mechanic. So, they re-calibrate the angle that the cushion back meets the sub-rail, if that is what I think you mean? That must be done to change the height of the cushion nose above the slate, right? Yeah, I can see why that would have no effect on the pocket mouth opening.
In essence, yes.

The only clarification I would make is they first take down the thickness of the subrails by 1/16" and then to get the nose of the cushion back up to where it belongs, they re-bevel the cushion attachment face by 3 degrees and then re-attach the cushions at the proper height above the slate.

(#157)
Sloppy Pockets
AzB Silver Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 2,820
vCash: 500
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Just outside the Blue Line

06-23-2013, 06:20 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by JC Here are the three evolutions of my own GC in the dozen years I've had it. The center photo played much easier than it does now in the bottom photo although they would both rate "average" using this thread's formula.
What makes that pocket play hard is the facing angles, not the actual measurements. They had to be cut that way because your pocket liners are way too wide to have the cushion terminate in a point at the throat.

I put in some lines on the Diamond spec pocket to show what the real angle is. It's even worse than your numbers would indicate.

Knowing the width of the cushions (usually 2" I'm told), you can measure along the long sides to the points I've drawn at the back of the throat and use a little trig to get the actual facing angles. That's all that matters when you are considering the acceptance/rejection of balls hit into it.

Not trying to nitpick, but these small errors in measurement are another fly in the ointment in building a database with info garnered from various sources.

And, yes, I'll bet they play real hard.
Attached Images

(#158)
cigardave
Who's got a light?

Status: Offline
Posts: 2,431
vCash: 25
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle area

06-23-2013, 06:21 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cigardave Looks like you and I need to double-check our measurements because I'm the one that supplied Dave with the Diamond measurements and I doubt very much if Diamond has changed their slate or their pocket dimensions. For example, I believe that it's well known that Diamond corner pockets are 4 1/2" at the throat yet you submitted a dimension of 4 1/8", which is a pretty big discrepancy. Re-check that, okay? And I'll re-check the my measurement of the pocket shelf depth.
I just got done re-checking my table's (9' Diamond Pro Am) pocket shelf depth and have verified that it indeed is 1 3/4".

The method that I use was to lay a straight edge with some sighting-down depth (a level laying flat) with one side of the level intersecting both points of the cushions. Next, I laid a tape measure on the slate with the index on the edge of the slate at the centerline of the pocket and with the tape bisectinthe pocket's mouth. Next I sighted down from above with my eye looking down along the vertical face of the level to see where its projection of the planeof the level's vertical face intersects the tape measure... and it intersects it at 1.75"... the depth of the shelf as defined by Dr. Dave.

I'll post a photo when the pic on my smart phone posts automatically to my computer's Dropbox folder.

Last edited by cigardave; 06-23-2013 at 06:26 PM.

(#159)
Sloppy Pockets
AzB Silver Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 2,820
vCash: 500
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Just outside the Blue Line

06-23-2013, 06:24 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cigardave In essence, yes. The only clarification I would make is they first take down the thickness of the subrails by 1/16" and then to get the nose of the cushion back up to where it belongs, they re-bevel the cushion attachment face by 3 degrees and then re-attach the cushions at the proper height above the slate.
Sounds easy!

So, what was the original nose height above the bed and what is it now? I'd like to know to see how mine compares to the current Diamond spec.

(#160)
JC
Needs Moderation

Status: Offline
Posts: 7,623
vCash: 500
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW

06-23-2013, 06:41 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sloppy Pockets What makes that pocket play hard is the facing angles, not the actual measurements. They had to be cut that way because your pocket liners are way too wide to have the cushion terminate in a point at the throat. I put in some lines on the Diamond spec pocket to show what the real angle is. It's even worse than your numbers would indicate. Knowing the width of the cushions (usually 2" I'm told), you can measure along the long sides to the points I've drawn at the back of the throat and use a little trig to get the actual facing angles. That's all that matters when you are considering the acceptance/rejection of balls hit into it. Not trying to nitpick, but these small errors in measurement are another fly in the ointment in building a database with info garnered from various sources. And, yes, I'll bet they play real hard.
Good points. I suspected this table plays tougher than the formula rendered using my measurements. Donny terminated the facings there obviously to allow for a nice fit and finish of the pockets. Since it's behind the ledge it matters not for play. I believe the table has 143 degree pockets with about 14 degree down angle now. With the center photo the angle was about 138.

John Chaplin
Coos Cues
jchaplin@charter.net
It's not what you don't know that get's you in trouble.
It's what you know that just ain't so.

(#161)
JC
Needs Moderation

Status: Offline
Posts: 7,623
vCash: 500
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW

06-23-2013, 06:46 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sloppy Pockets Sounds easy! So, what was the original nose height above the bed and what is it now? I'd like to know to see how mine compares to the current Diamond spec.
The nose height didn't change from about 1 7/16. The rubber was just rotated slightly at the nose toward the sky to bring it back to that height after shaving a sixteenth off the thickness of the rail. This slight rotation of the rubber makes the ball compress it differently and is supposed to solve the banking short. Diamond tables still bank short IMO, especially with a firm hit. We just adjust our aim to accommodate it and call it fixed.

JC

John Chaplin
Coos Cues
jchaplin@charter.net
It's not what you don't know that get's you in trouble.
It's what you know that just ain't so.

(#162)
Sloppy Pockets
AzB Silver Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 2,820
vCash: 500
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Just outside the Blue Line

06-23-2013, 06:57 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by JC Diamond tables still bank short IMO, especially with a firm hit. We just adjust our aim to accommodate it and call it fixed.
My rails bank horribly short, so maybe that's another reason to get them worked on. I've gotten to using outside on every bank shot or I won't even be able to get close to the pocket. I think the combination of deflection and spin gets me where I should be. Of course, I live 1000 miles from Kentucky, so banks have never been a real strength of mine.

(#163)
cigardave
Who's got a light?

Status: Offline
Posts: 2,431
vCash: 25
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle area

06-23-2013, 07:00 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sloppy Pockets Sounds easy! So, what was the original nose height above the bed and what is it now? I'd like to know to see how mine compares to the current Diamond spec.
1 7/16" is the correct nose height.

It's that before the re-cal and the same afterwards.

Taking 1/16" off the thickness of the subrails is counteracted by the 3 degree change in the bevel of the subrail's face to which the cushion is glued.

Last edited by cigardave; 06-23-2013 at 07:21 PM.

 (#164) JC Needs Moderation     Status: Offline Posts: 7,623 vCash: 500 iTrader: 21 / 100% Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: PNW 06-23-2013, 07:02 PM Anyone having trouble getting an accurate shelf depth I think the way Iusedtoberich measured it in his BU video is very accurate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gEdrVSAFok John Chaplin Coos Cues jchaplin@charter.net It's not what you don't know that get's you in trouble. It's what you know that just ain't so.
(#165)
Sloppy Pockets
AzB Silver Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 2,820
vCash: 500
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Just outside the Blue Line

06-23-2013, 07:31 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by JC Anyone having trouble getting an accurate shelf depth I think the way Iusedtoberich measured it in his BU video is very accurate.
Yes, very good. You have to use a square of some sort to get a true measurement of the shelf depth. The 1 7/8" distance between the cushion nose and the table bed would surely introduce a ton of parallax error if you just tried to eyeball it.

The more I think of it, the likelihood of everybody being able to measure accurately is a big downside to this database that can't be ignored. I've been a precision woodworker my whole life, so extremely accurate measuring is second nature to me now. Most folks probably think they can do a fine job of measuring their table dimensions, but tight tolerances are actually rather difficult to maintain. Little errors are cumulative, and the results can become quite skewed.

Back when I worked in the lab we had to measure tumor volume in mice. We used a cheap plastic dial caliper to measure the tumors in three axes. I was shown how to do it, but then an older and much more experienced worker did the actual measurements for our records.

I felt a bit insulted given my previous experience in measuring things. When I compared both his volumes and mine I found out that there was up to a 20% difference in the volumes we derived because the small difference in each measurement was multiplied through. They used his because he was consistent over the years, and consistency (precision) often trumps accuracy in studies such as these.

 Page 11 of 45 « First < 91011 121321 > Last »

 Thread Tools Rate This Thread Rate This Thread: 5 : Excellent 4 : Good 3 : Average 2 : Bad 1 : Terrible

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Main Category     Main Forum     Live Stream Area     Wanted/For Sale         For Sale Items         eBay Auctions         Wanted     Room Owner Discussion     14.1 Pool     Canadian Pool     Snooker     Carom Billiards     Memories of Steve Mizerak     English Pool     Billiard and Pool History in the U.S.     BEF Juniors Pool     Non Pool Related     Test Area     Cuesports: Rules & Strategies     AzB Hall of Fame     Pool Room Reviews Tournament Talk     U.S. Tournament Announcements     European Tournament Annoucements     Asian Tournament Announcements     Super Billiards Expo     Junior National 9-Ball Championships     World Championships     US Open Championships     Derby City Classic/Southern Classic     BCAPL 8-Ball Championship     US Bar Table Championship     WPBA     Matchroom Events     Eurotour     Other Tours & Events Products Talk     Pool Tables and Accessories Reviews     Cue Reviews     Cue and shaft reviews     Cue Case Reviews     Cue Machinery and Supplies     Cue & Case Gallery     Ask The Cuemaker     Cue Accessory reviews     Other Item reviews     Talk To A Mechanic Instruction & Ask the pros     Aiming Conversation     George 'Ginky' San Souci     Instructional Material reviews     Instructor Reviews     Melissa Morris     Sarah Rousey     Ask The Instructor