9' table... Real world room size needed

RussPrince

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Where's the "sigh" button?

Freddie <~~~ covered this one

I don't understand what you're going on about. Why is 4 and a half feet plus 10 feet not 14 and a half feet? You say it's 14 foot 10 inches. why is that?

are you saying a 9 foot table in reality has a 4 foot 10 inch width? i thought tables were required to be a 2 : 1 ratio
 
Last edited:

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
I don't understand what you're going on about. Why is 4 and a half feet plus 10 feet not 14 and a half feet? You say it's 14 foot 10 inches. why is that?

are you saying a 9 foot table in reality has a 4 foot 10 inch width? i thought tables were required to be a 2 : 1 ratio

Yes. A tables is never 2 : 1. Is that a surprise?

Only the inside dimension are 2:1. (50 x 100). That's why most of us having the "fancy technical answers" base everything off of the inside, known dimensions.

The outside dimensions of course are not 2:1 since you don't double up rails or cushions on the length versus the width. The outside dimensions are approximately 112" x 62" or whatever the specific rails and cushions will get it to past the 100" x 50" dimensions. If the rails and cushions are 4", then the outside dimensions would be 108" x 58" (9' x 4' 10").

It actually makes no sense after all these years to come to this board and ask for a minimum size and get a 19' x 14.5' answer. We should be better than this. 19' x 14.5' gives a 6" stroke on the long side at a minimum, but it gives a 4" stroke minimum on the width. Why would we tell people that? Surely we aren't saying that your minimum stroke requirement is different for the long way versus the short way!!! The person who asked and then actually buys a house at 19' x 14.5' is going to be quite surprised when he realizes that he is smaller on the side than the length. Thanks AZB.

Of course, we all can live with smaller rooms, but at least let's stop giving baseline answers that don't make any table sense. If we're going to add 10' to the dimensions, adding it to the actual measured outside dimensions at least gives an answer with equal stroking all around. I'd rather do the fancy math to the inside.

You're welcome.

Freddie <~~~ there's a reason why I go on
 
Last edited:

9andout

Gunnin' for a 3 pack!!
Silver Member
9' table is 100" × 50" inside playing dimensions.
8'-4" × 4'-2".
58" cue. Basically 5'-0".
Add 10' to the length and width.
....
Minimum room dimensions = 18'-4" × 14'-2".
....
But as others have said you need room to sit of course.
I have one wall that is about 5'-2" from the table.
The others sides have 6' or more clearance.
....
9' is where it's at!
Good luck.
Sorry if I repeated stuff. At work and just posted. Didnt read many posts.
.......
Just wanted to add without bumping thread:
I really only have 2 walls near the table. The other 2 sides are open to the rest of the basement so that helps a lot.
If your putting the table in a regular room with 4 walls definitely go bigger!
 
Last edited:

9andout

Gunnin' for a 3 pack!!
Silver Member
Yes. A tables is never 2 : 1. Is that a surprise?

Only the inside dimension are 2:1. (50 x 100). That's why most of us having the "fancy technical answers" base everything off of the inside, known dimensions.

The outside dimensions of course are not 2:1 since you don't double up rails or cushions on the length versus the width. The outside dimensions are approximately 112" x 62" or whatever the specific rails and cushions will get it to past the 100" x 50" dimensions. If the rails and cushions are 4", then the outside dimensions would be 108" x 58" (9' x 4' 10").

It actually makes no sense after all these years to come to this board and ask for a minimum size and get a 19' x 14.5' answer. We should be better than this. 19' x 14.5' gives a 6" stroke on the long side at a minimum, but it gives a 4" stroke minimum on the width. Why would we tell people that? Surely we aren't saying that your minimum stroke requirement is different for the long way versus the short way!!! The person who asked and then actually buys a house at 19' x 14.5' is going to be quite surprised when he realizes that he is smaller on the side than the length. Thanks AZB.

Of course, we all can live with smaller rooms, but at least let's stop giving baseline answers that don't make any table sense. If we're going to add 10' to the dimensions, adding it to the actual measured outside dimensions at least gives an answer with equal stroking all around. I'd rather do the fancy math to the inside.

You're welcome.

Freddie <~~~ there's a reason why I go on
My Diamond has wide top rails. So the 6" is covered going with the fancy inside math lol.
 

RakRunr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Just so I understand, the formula sounds pretty simple:

X = playing surface in inches
Y = cue length
Z = stroke length

X + 2Y + 2Z = Required dimension (in inches)

Applied to Width:
50 + (2 * 58) + (2 * 6)
50 + 116 + 12
178

Applied to Length:
100 + (2 * 58) + (2 * 6)
100 + 116 + 12
228

Width converted to feet:14.83 [.83 converts to 9.96 inches, rounds up to 10] = 14' 10"
Length converted to feet: 19 = 19'

SO, MINIMUM dimensions for play are 19' x 14'10", exactly as @Cornerman said.
 

JazzboxBlues

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks for the replies they've been extremely helpful. I posed this question because I found the table manufacturer's charts very optimistic. I had figured 15' x 19' would be real nice. I now have a much better understanding of what will be needed. I really want a 9' Diamond and don't want to compromise with a 7'.To be quite honest I'm hoping for a 9' Diamond and a 7" Valley.

Unfortunately the northwest suburbs of Chicago is a pricey home market and finding the space has been challenging. We do have our eyes on a home that offers 14'8" to a pole and would most likely
work for me but wouldn't be perfect. I'd end up centering the table to be 14'10" to the wall and be 14'6" at the pole. It'd also give me 14' on the other side of the pole for a 7' Valley. There also is a space 15' pole to pole I could use which would be perfect but not for the side to side tables. Fortunately we have a solid offer on our house this morning. Finger crossed for the house in our sights.
 

jasonlaus

Rep for Smorg
Silver Member
I think this chart and accompanying information, Heath, is exactly what gets MOST if not ALL prospective table owners and players in near dire straits....and leaves a terrible taste in their mouth every minute of every day they try to play on it. Unless they want to use gimmick shorty cues because of limited room for those shots that come up more often than anyone selling this chart will admit...

IF anyone follows that chart and plan, and puts their treasured 9' pool table in a 14' wide room, they'd have exactly 59" from the playable edge of a rail to the wall on the sides and exactly 62" on the ends. Literally ONE INCH to a maximum of 3 inches of movement for a rail shot - and we ALL know how that goes.

Isn't it about time someone other than a pool table manufacturer or reseller publishes real-world charts to help would-be table owners make important decisions with correct room sizes?

Come on guys.

K.



Hi Members,

K2craze my reply was exactly what the original post asked for.
I agree that a room should be larger to accommodate a number of obstacles however the post asked for the minimum size and nothing more.
Many home owners don't have much room and want to know what the absolute minimum is.
I also suggested that they give me a call and I would discuss in detail with them.
This would allow me point them in the right direction.
I'm not hear to debate your point of view and I'll continue to provide service and promote the game in a positive manner.

Again if you read the original post it clearly asked for the Minimum size requirements.
I offered free support for this poster and my customer service is second to none.
I have not left one client in dire straits or mislead them.
I'm a honest guy and don't deserve your criticism.
Instead of criticizing my reply and suggesting someone else publish a real world chart why don't you invest your time as I have to assist this poster.
I look forward to your release of a real world chart.

Members I apologize for this rant... but it hurts my feelings and challenges my integrity that a member on AZ billiards would imply I'm misleading this poster.
I care far to much about this community and our members to ever do this.

Wouldn't the minimum size be ths size of the table then:rolleyes:

Just give the guy a REAL answer and you wouldn't be here defending yourself.

Btw, I've always heard good things about you and I doubt anybody would actually imply that you are not a 100% stand up guy:thumbup:
 

RussPrince

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes. A tables is never 2 : 1. Is that a surprise?/QUOTE]

no of course not. if you add an even border around any rectangular shape the outer border will not be the same ratio as the inner border. (the larger the outer border the closer to square it will get)

But I still don't get what your getting at. If you add 120 inches to the width and length of the playable surface of a 100x50 table you'll get 220x170 which will be the playing surface with a perfect 10 foot border around the whole table. With 116 inches allotted for the cuestick that leaves 4 inches around the whole table.

220 - 100 - 116 = 4
170 - 50 - 116 = 4

Maybe not quite enough for ideal, but good enough for a playable bare minimum...
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
Yes. A tables is never 2 : 1. Is that a surprise?/QUOTE]

no of course not. if you add an even border around any rectangular shape the outer border will not be the same ratio as the inner border. (the larger the outer border the closer to square it will get)

But I still don't get what your getting at. If you add 120 inches to the width and length of the playable surface of a 100x50 table you'll get 220x170 which will be the playing surface with a perfect 10 foot border around the whole table. With 116 inches allotted for the cuestick that leaves 4 inches around the whole table.

220 - 100 - 116 = 4
170 - 50 - 116 = 4

Maybe not quite enough for ideal, but good enough for a playable bare minimum...

Considering you changed your entire point to match mine, if you don't see the difference in your two posts, then nothing I write will make any sense.
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
My poolroom is in the former living room of my house. It's 16'x20' and quite adequate for my 9' Diamond table. That said, I am very limited by the furniture options that will fit around the table. I do have four high chairs placed at intervals around the table, none of them at either end rail as it would impede a player shooting from there. There is a cue rack that extends out approx. 3" from one side wall (the table is slightly closer to this side). Players have been known to contact cues in the rack on their back swing if they're not careful.

At one time I had a couch along one side of the table (The side opposite the cue rack). It was no problem to cue over the seating area of the couch, but it affected the players stance so I finally decided to remove it. So even with more than adequate room for my table, I have limited options on the furniture around it and even what extends from the walls. There is no furniture of any kind at either end of the table! Those are both open areas in a 20' long room. Once again, more than enough room to shoot, but not enough room to have chairs, tables or anything else. A properly situated shelf or shelves would work if I wanted them. I don't need them as I have an adjoining dining room with a large table to set drinks or food on.

This is another area where I see poolrooms and homes make a mistake in locating a shelf. You better place it high enough so you can cue comfortably underneath it, and that's quite a bit higher than the playing surface of your table. The back end of your cue is elevated several inches, as is your arm on the back swing. A low shelf (or narrow table) actually works better in many situations. Okay that's about it for my table tutorial. Carry on. :wink:

P.S. You will often find that the four corners of your room have the most space for small tables or chairs.
 
Last edited:

JazzboxBlues

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well it looks like I've settled at 14'8" x 26'. The only obstruction at 14'8" is a 3.5" pole. I may cheat the table off center in the width of the space to gain 2" along the wall. I know I don't want the pole inline with the center pocket. What do you all think?
 

RussPrince

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Considering you changed your entire point to match mine, if you don't see the difference in your two posts, then nothing I write will make any sense.

Alrighty then...

So in conclusion people yes you can add 10 feet to each dimension and get a good minimum room size for your table. 19' by 14.5' works absolutely fine. On a regulation 100x50 table you end up with 12 stroke inches on the length and 8 on the width. More than enough. As far as I'm concerned this rule is fine as a minimum guideline to see if a pool table can even feasibly be placed in a room.
 
Last edited:

Baxter

Out To Win
Silver Member
I just recently bought a house and put in a 9' AMF Grand Prix. I bought a house with a 2 car garage, and the garage is sufficient space for the table with room for seating and minimal storage. I put down EVA foam floor tiles to make playing more comfortable and prevent ball chips should a ball leave the playing surface or be dropped accidentally.
17760134_10154518586692913_7511775074819543801_n.jpg

17796805_10154518539787913_3255234709713340480_n.jpg

17634788_10154518024647913_6694423636547300050_n.jpg
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
Alrighty then...

So in conclusion people yes you can add 10 feet to each dimension and get a good minimum room size for your table. 19' by 14.5' works absolutely fine. On a regulation 100x50 table you end up with 12 stroke inches on the length and 8 on the width. More than enough. As far as I'm concerned this rule is fine as a minimum guideline to see if a pool table can even feasibly be placed in a room.

Hope that's worth it. You could have easily said that you got the point, since that's what you were asking. I'm glad you got it. I know you did. Everyone else does, too. When you repeat it to someone else, now that you see the 12" vs 8" error in the "add 10ft " mistake that I've been talking about, it will eat you up. Have fun with it.


Freddie <~~~ always glad to help
 
Last edited:

RussPrince

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
No not really haven't thought about it until I logged into az just now. Even the 4 inch margin you get if the playing surface was actually 108x54 is still good enough as a minimum. Anything more than that is just bonus. I'm glad you were right though it was definitely worth the journey. When I repeat this to others I will tell them to add 10 feet to each side thus 19'x14.5' and I will sleep easy...


Hope that's worth it. You could have easily said that you got the point, since that's what you were asking. I'm glad you got it. I know you did. Everyone else does, too. When you repeat it to someone else, now that you see the 12" vs 8" error in the "add 10ft " mistake that I've been talking about, it will eat you up. Have fun with it.


Freddie <~~~ always glad to help
 
Last edited:

Brags

Banned
I am currently shopping for a new home and one of the requirements is being able to have a 9' table unobstructed. I've seen room size recommendations and question if they're really enough. What size room have you found to be the minimum. The width so far seems like the biggest obstacle.

You can get some balance rite shorty cues (52,48,42,36) and get away with 15x12
 
Top