Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > Main Forum
Reload this Page Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) for measuring table "toughness"
Reply
Page 1 of 44 1 2311 Last »
 
Share Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 35 votes, 4.89 average.
Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) for measuring table "toughness"
Old
  (#1)
dr_dave
Instructional Author
dr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond repute
 
dr_dave's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 8,170
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Colorado
   
Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) for measuring table "toughness" - 06-21-2013, 08:06 AM

Here's a mobile-friendly online tool (created by "Isaac") and an Excel spreadsheet for automatically calculating the TDF factor from three pocket measurements to determine the difficulty level of a table.

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

name -- table_size:TSF -- pocket_mouth_size:PSF -- mouth-throat_difference:PAF -- shelf_depth:PLF -- TDF (table description)
Vahmurka -- 12':1.25 -- 7.2cm:1.55 -- 125deg:0.97 -- 25mm:0.98 -- 1.84 (12ft Russian pyramid table)
Side Pocket -- 10':1.10 -- 4 1/4":1.10 -- 1 1/4":1.14 -- 2 1/4":1.07 -- 1.48 (10' 1920-1925 Brunswick, modified 9/2016)
Bob Dixon -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 145deg:1.14 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.37 (Pool Sharks, Las Vegas, money table, Diamond Pro-Am, red logo, Ernesto Dominguez-modified)
Ricky Sy -- 9':1.00 -- 3 3/4":1.31 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 5/8":0.98 -- 1.25 (money table at Hard Times in Bellflower, CA)
Bonus Ball -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.25 -- 1/8":0.97 -- 3/4":0.98 -- 1.19 (Bonus Ball table)
Marc Vidal -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/8":1.15 -- 7/16":1.05 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.18 (shimmed Brunswick Tournament Edition)
chevybob20 -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/8":1.15 -- 7/8":1.05 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.18 (Mark-Gregory-modified Centennial)
Qaddiction -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/8":1.15 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.16 (Diamond)
rexus31 -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 3/8":0.98 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.15 (mid to late 50's AMF Commercial Model similar to a Brunswick Anniversary/Sport King)
FatBoy -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.14 (Ernesto-Dominguez-modified GC)
TATE -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 7/8":0.98 -- 1.14 (Ernesto-Dominguez-modified GC)
Mikjary -- 9'-1.00 -- 4":1.15 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 5/16":0.98 -- 1.13 (Brunswick Centurion)
Ralph Kramden -- 9':1.0 -- 4 5/16":1.05 -- 1":1.07 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 1.12 (1962 Nine foot Gold Crown 1)
pocket -- 9':1.00 -- 4 3/16":1.10 -- 7/16":0.99 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.12 (unknown)
Neil -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/8":1.15 -- 1 1/4":1.14 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.10 (modified Valley "bar box")
MahnaMahna -- 10':1.10 -- 5 1/2":0.85 -- 2":1.09 -- 2 1/2": 1.07 -- 1.09 (snooker table poorly converted into a pool table)
Cardigan Kid -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/4":1.10 -- 0.45":0.99 -- 1 5/16":0.99 -- 1.08 (GC II)
MSchaffer -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16:1.00 -- 15/16":1.07 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.07 (GCII, RKC mod)
cigardave -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 1":1.07 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 1.07 (typical Pro-Cut Diamond)
Side Pocket -- 10':1.10 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 1":1.07 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 1.05 (10' 1920-1925 Brunswick)
Pool Hustler -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/4":1.10 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 15/16":0.98 -- 1.05 (modified GC, measured by rexus31)
JC -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 143deg:1.07 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.05 ("Cobrasized" GC III)
SloMoHolic -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 7/8":1.04 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.02 (2005 Diamond Pro with ProCut pockets and Red-label rails)
CoreyClark -- 9':1.00 -- 5":0.91 -- 1":1.07 -- 2 1//8":1.05 -- 1.02 (GC I)
"standard" table -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.00 (average-difficulty table)
Goldball -- 8':0.90 -- 12.2cm:0.91 -- 4cm:1.14 -- 5.4cm:1.07 -- 1.00 (Heiron & Smith)
dr_dave -- 9':1.00 -- 5": 0.91 -- 1 1/8":1.10 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 0.99 (old GC II at MatchUps, Fort Collins)
MVPCues -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.98 (Antique Brunswick Jefferson, circa 1900)
oldschool1478 -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0.625":1.00 -- 1.5":0.98 -- 0.98 (updated Red Badge Diamond Pro)
freds -- 8'+: 0.95 -- 4.9":0.91 -- 1.1":1.1 -- 1.8" 1.03 -- 0.98 (Gandy Big G, oversized 8)
Cardigan Kid -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/16":0.95 -- 0.97 (GC III Table 7 at Premium Billiards, Syracuse, Mark Gregory-modified w/ Artemis cushions)
wigglybridge -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 1/2": 0.98 -- 0.98 (GC 1.5, rails rebuilt & cushions replaced by Jay Spielberg)
BryanB -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.97 (1931 Brunswick with double shimmed pockets)
Poolmanis -- 9':1.00 -- 10.9cm:1.05 -- 1cm:0.97 -- 3.1cm:0.95 -- 0.97 (modified SAM)
Vahmurka -- 9':1.0 -- 12.5cm:0.91 -- 20mm:1.04 -- 45mm:1.03 -- 0.97 (Brunswick Metro)
mamics -- 9':1.00 -- 4 11/16":0.95 -- 143deg:1.07 -- 1 3/16":0.95 -- 0.97 (no-name "Chinese Cheapie" with Uylin cushions)
dzcues -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 11/16":1.02 -- 1 15/16":1.03 -- 0.96 (typical League-Cut Diamond)
dr_dave -- 9':1.00 -- 5": 0.91 -- 1":1.07 -- 1 1/5":0.98 -- 0.95 (Olhausen purchased from Robert Byrne)
dzcues -- 9':1.00 -- 5":0.91 -- 15/16":1.07 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.95 (Gandy Big G)
Sloppy Pockets -- 8'+:0.95 -- 5":0.91 -- 1 1/8":1.10 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.95 (A.E. Schmidt)
44Runner -- 8'+/-:0.925 -- 4 3/8":1.05 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1":0.95 -- 0.94 (8' Diamond Pro-Am - blue label)
Corwyn_8 -- 9':1.00 -- 4 3/4":0.95 -- 1 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.92 (Gandy Winchester)
beetle -- 9':1.00 -- 13.1cm:0.88 -- 2.2cm:1.03 -- 4.3cm:1.00 -- 0.91 (Olhausen York)
frigopie -- 9':1.00 -- 11.5cm:0.95 -- 138.7deg:0.98 -- 3.5cm:0.98 -- 0.91 (Eurotour Dynamic III)
12squared -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.91 (GC home table)
iusedtoberich -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 1":1.05 -- 1 1/2":0.97 -- 0.90 (GC)
MSchaffer -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 3/4":1.01 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.89 (GC II)
mfinkelstein3 -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 7/8":1.03 -- 1 1/2": 0.97 -- 0.88 (GC III)
StraightPoolIU -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.88 (GC I)
Vahmurka -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 7/8":1.03 -- 1 1/2": 0.97 -- 0.88 (GC)
Dopc -- 8':0.90 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.87 (8' Connelly Kayenta)
SloMoHolic -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.95 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.87 (old 8' Brunswick Medalist league table)
RobMan -- 9':1.0 -- 5": 0.88 -- 3/4":1.01 -- 1.5":0.97 -- 0.86 (GC)
SloMoHolic -- 8'+:0.95 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 7/8":1.04 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.85 (Brunswick Medalist at Stardust Club in Manchaca, TX)
buckshotshoey -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.95 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.85 (American Heritage "Independence")
nateobot -- 7':0.85 -- 4 3/8":1.05 -- 1/2":0.95 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.85 (custom-made)
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.95 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.84 (8' Connelly home table)
BRussell -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.91 -- 13/16":1.04 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.83 (8' Olhausen)
jtaylor996 -- 7':0.85 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 146deg:1.09 -- 1.51":1.00 -- 0.82 (7' Legacy home table)
Mooneye -- 7':0.85 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.79 (7' Brunswick "Ranchero")
SloMoHolic -- 6':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.95 -- 5/8":0.95 -- 0.77 (old 6' Valley "bar box")
dzcues -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.95 -- 1/2":0.95 -- 0.77 (7' Valley "bar box")
dr_dave -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.95 -- 3/4":0.95 -- 0.77 (7' Valley "bar box" at West End, Fort Collins)

_______________________________________

Based on ideas from previous threads on this topic (tight pockets thread and pocket answers thread), and based discussion in the Billiard University (BU) thread concerning how to account for table difficulty in scoring and rating drills like the BU Exams, I decided to create a system for determining how difficult a table plays (based on table and pocket geometry only). It is described in detail in the Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) document, which is convenient if you want a printed copy.

Here's how it works:

The Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) is a percentage measure of how difficult or easy a particular table plays. It is based on table size and the three corner-pocket measurements illustrated below. If the cushion is not 2” (5.1cm) thick, measure the throat size 2” (5.1 cm) back from the cushion noses. You can lay down Post-It Notes or masking tape to better define the lines and intersection points to help with the mouth and throat measurements. If you have an angle-measurement device, you can measure the facing angle directly instead of measuring the throat size. The pocket shelf depth should be measured from the pocket mouth line to the slate top lip edge (where the pocket opening first starts).


Four factors are used to account for table size, pocket size, pocket facing angle, and pocket shelf depth. Each factor is a number less than, equal to, or greater than 1, where 1 indicates average or standard. By multiplying the four factors, you get the TDF which is a good measure of table “toughness.” If TDF=1, the table has an average level of difficulty; if TDF>1, the table plays more difficult than average; and if TDF<1, the table plays easier than average.

The four factors are defined as follows:







The total Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) is then calculated by multiplying the four factors:

TDF = TSF x PSF x PAF x PLF

The TDF can be used to adjust numbers from any scoring or rating system like the Billiard University Exams, “playing the ghost” drills, the Hopkins Q Skills drill, or the Fargo rating drill. An effective score, taking table difficulty into consideration, can be calculated with:

(effective score) = (raw score) x TDF


NOTE – The TDF and effective-score numbers should not be interpreted too literally since there are so many other factors that contribute to how difficult a table actually plays (cloth type and condition, ball conditions, pocket facing and shim properties, rail and cushion conditions, table levelness, humidity, etc.). Here’s a rough scale one can use to put the TDF factor in better perspective:


Last edited by dr_dave; 02-18-2017 at 08:49 AM.
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#2)
GeoEnvi
Diamond System Enthusiast
GeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond repute
 
GeoEnvi's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 463
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
   
06-21-2013, 08:26 AM

My MS in Civil Engineering loves what you are doing, Dr. Dave!

I'd love to see how the local league tables stack up around here. I'm going to add a 6 inch engineering ruler to my cue case for measuring on the fly!

In my vocation, we use a similar method of combining partial factors of safety to get an overall factor of safety. Partial factors are usually empirically derived or manually set to get the 'spread' in the data that seems appropriate. I'm curious as to how you decided on the various Factor values...

Last edited by GeoEnvi; 06-21-2013 at 08:35 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
bdorman
Dead money
bdorman has a reputation beyond reputebdorman has a reputation beyond reputebdorman has a reputation beyond reputebdorman has a reputation beyond reputebdorman has a reputation beyond reputebdorman has a reputation beyond reputebdorman has a reputation beyond reputebdorman has a reputation beyond reputebdorman has a reputation beyond reputebdorman has a reputation beyond reputebdorman has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 4,079
vCash: 500
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Chicago area
   
06-21-2013, 08:39 AM

Very interesting. I can't wait to measure the table at our community center. I'm sure it's well under 1.0

The only limitation I see is using the table score to adjust the shooter's score. There is a very good chance that the shooter would have scored nearly as well on a more difficult table since most(?) of the drills are more about CB positioning than OB pocketing. Likewise, a shooter wouldn't necessarily score 20% higher on an easy table than he did on his tough table. You could probably apply another factor to account for pocketing vs. positioning, but I can feel Occam's Razor beginning to cut.
  
Reply With Quote
I think this would only be the case...
Old
  (#4)
Jaden
Dun w/da bullshit 4awhile
Jaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond repute
 
Jaden's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 5875
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern California
   
I think this would only be the case... - 06-21-2013, 08:43 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdorman View Post
Very interesting. I can't wait to measure the table at our community center. I'm sure it's well under 1.0

The only limitation I see is using the table score to adjust the shooter's score. There is a very good chance that the shooter would have scored nearly as well on a more difficult table since most(?) of the drills are more about CB positioning than OB pocketing. Likewise, a shooter wouldn't necessarily score 20% higher on an easy table than he did on his tough table. You could probably apply another factor to account for pocketing vs. positioning, but I can feel Occam's Razor beginning to cut.
I think that what you're describing would only be the case if you were attempting to discern the level of the player with this. It is more about the difficulty of the table.

There is room for improvement, but then you're getting too deep into the weeds. and it's time to take a drop.

I think what Dave has done here is great without getting too deep in the weeds.

Hell, I could see writing an app with this formula for checking a table on the fly.

Jaden
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5)
Mr. Bond
Orbis Non Sufficit
Mr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond repute
 
Mr. Bond's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 4,001
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jun 2010
   
06-21-2013, 08:47 AM

Dave, what is the presumed angle of the cushion facings?

And, do we not suppose that this angle is inconsistent from table to table?

And if so, does this angle not make a difference when it comes down to what stays in the pocket and what doesn't?
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
SpiderWebComm
HelpImBeingOppressed
SpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond repute
 
SpiderWebComm's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 9,703
vCash: 1275
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wilmington, DE
   
06-21-2013, 08:47 AM

There's so much that goes into how a table plays:

type of cloth, tightness of cloth, wear of cloth, type of rails, tightness of rails, type of balls, condition/cleanliness of balls, type of light, position of light, brightness/quality of light, cue ball type/size/condition, type of pocket facing/shim (material) and then, of course, the factors you pointed out with table size and pocket cut.

I see where you're going with the playability factor and it's not a bad idea --- I just think the conclusion can never be as specific as your example. Meaning, you can never say based on the 3 factors, table A plays 27% harder than table B.

The specificity of your result is just too great for something that is clearly subjective. You can never accurately ascertain exact factors since you're not dealing with tables made of the same material and manufactured the same way. For example, the pocket facings/shims can be made of different material and installed WAY differently from table to table and that plays a huge role is whether or not the pocket takes a shot.

Therefore, you can never have a result down to a single percentage and have it mean anything other than conjecture.

I don't think there's any way to scientifically determine table difficulty without having a player play the ghost 100 racks on table A and compare to table B. You might have a bar box that plays tough as hell (generally speaking) and a 5x10 that just accepts everything and has perfect speed.

The rating system would be more meaningful if you changed your calculations in order to reduce your resultants down to 5: super easy, easy, par, hard, very tough

How much harder (%-wise) is an easy table compared to a hard table? You'd never know without collecting data. Even then, you'd never have a margin of error within 1%. You'd have to round to the nearest 10 just to account for variation in a player's ability from day to day.


*******************


Viffer: The Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JFIy2ebJIE

Last edited by SpiderWebComm; 06-21-2013 at 08:50 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
dr_dave
Instructional Author
dr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond repute
 
dr_dave's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 8,170
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Colorado
   
06-21-2013, 08:54 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoEnvi View Post
My MS in Civil Engineering loves what you are doing, Dr. Dave!
Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoEnvi View Post
In my vocation, we use a similar method of combining partial factors of safety to get an overall factor of safety.

I'm curious as to how you decided on the various Factor values...
The table size factor (TSF) was easy. Shot difficulty is directly related to shot distance which is directly related to table size on average, so I just had to look at percentage changes in table size and round off. The pocket size factor (PSF) was also easy. If you look at the effective size of the pocket (i.e., how much you can be off in either direction and still pocket the ball), I just calculated the percentage change associated with each pocket size, and rounded off.

The pocket angle factor (PAF) and Pocket Shelf Factor (PSF) were a little trickier. Luckily, I've done an extensive analysis on these effects in the past. For more info, see the pocket "size" and "center" resource page. I used my TP 3.6 document to analyze changes in each pocket spec. I also interviewed several experienced players asking for their gut feel on each factor. And then I rounded off some.

I also did some calculations on a few tables to see if they came out about where I thought they should. For example, this is what I got for my home table:
size: 8', mouth: 4 3/4", throat: 4 1/8", (mouth-throat): 5/8", shelf: 1 3/8"
TSF=0.90, PSF=1.00, PAF=1.00, PLF=0.95
TDF = TSF x PSF x PAF x PLF = 0.90 x 1.00 x 1.00 x 0.95 = 0.81

and this is what I got for my VNEA league's Valley/Dynamo "bar boxes:"
size: 7', mouth: 4 1/2", throat: 4 1/2", (mouth-throat): 0", shelf: 3/4"
TSF=0.80, PSF=1.05, PAF=0.94, PLF=0.90
TDF = TSF x PSF x PAF x PLF = 0.80 x 1.05 x 0.94 x 0.90 = 0.71

Both of these numbers seemed appropriate to me. My home table seems about 20% easier than standard, and the bar box seems about 30% easier than standard, in general (although the numbers might be a little high). The best test would be to have a bunch of people do the BU Exams on various tables and correlate the factors with the scores. I plan to do this for myself and my students in the future. I also hope some AZBers do the same and share their results.

I look forward to getting feedback from AZB'ers after they take measurements on their favorite tables and comment on how well the TDF matches what they perceive.

Catch you later,
Dave

Last edited by dr_dave; 06-21-2013 at 04:28 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
GeoEnvi
Diamond System Enthusiast
GeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond repute
 
GeoEnvi's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 463
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
   
06-21-2013, 08:55 AM

Not likely applicable for adjusting the scores from the BU tests, as they tend to require hitting to the same pocket, but perhaps there's another factor?

Pocket Variability Factor (PVF) - Adjusts for the variability in the other factors as you move around the table from one pocket to another.

On a poorly set-up bar table, you might have mis-matched rails or uneven pocket cuts that result in each of the pocket's measurements not being alike. If I was trying to quantify the TDF for all the tables in my league, this might be an important extra factor for fitting them all into a model.
  
Reply With Quote
That's what I meant by getting too deep into the weeds...
Old
  (#9)
Jaden
Dun w/da bullshit 4awhile
Jaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond repute
 
Jaden's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 5875
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern California
   
That's what I meant by getting too deep into the weeds... - 06-21-2013, 08:55 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
There's so much that goes into how a table plays:

type of cloth, tightness of cloth, wear of cloth, type of rails, tightness of rails, type of balls, condition/cleanliness of balls, type of light, position of light, brightness/quality of light, cue ball type/size/condition, type of pocket facing/shim (material) and then, of course, the factors you pointed out with table size and pocket cut.

I see where you're going with the playability factor and it's not a bad idea --- I just think the conclusion can never be as specific as your example. Meaning, you can never say based on the 3 factors, table A plays 27% harder than table B.

The specificity of your result is just too great for something that is clearly subjective. You can never accurately ascertain exact factors since you're not dealing with tables made of the same material and manufactured the same way. For example, the pocket facings/shims can be made of different material and installed WAY differently from table to table and that plays a huge role is whether or not the pocket takes a shot.

Therefore, you can never have a result down to a single percentage and have it mean anything other than conjecture.

I don't think there's any way to scientifically determine table difficulty without having a player play the ghost 100 racks on table A and compare to table B. You might have a bar box that plays tough as hell (generally speaking) and a 5x10 that just accepts everything and has perfect speed.

The rating system would be more meaningful if you changed your calculations in order to reduce your resultants down to 5: super easy, easy, par, hard, very tough

How much harder (%-wise) is an easy table compared to a hard table? You'd never know without collecting data.
It's going to have a lot to do with the type of player, do they finesse the balls, do they slam everything, do they try to play pinpoint shape, do they shoot for general areas???

There is an nth degree of depth to the level of difficulty a certain table plays for different players.

For a while I couldn't play well on a diamond proam because I was used to shooting for center pocket, and I couldn't understand why I could consistently run out on a gold crown with 3 7/8" pockets but would hang balls on a 4.5" diamond.

I've adjusted because I realized that I have to shoot for a specific part of the pocket on a diamond and not just shoot center pocket on every shot.

I don't necessarily like it, it adds a different dimension to the game, but I can play well on a diamond now though.

That's why I preferred the tight pockets of the diamond that Glen did up at the golden fleece, I could aim for center pocket and fire away...

Of course, from what I understand, they only allow one hole on that table now...I got to play rotation games on it after it was first done though...

Jaden
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
dr_dave
Instructional Author
dr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond repute
 
dr_dave's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 8,170
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Colorado
   
06-21-2013, 08:59 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdorman View Post
Very interesting. I can't wait to measure the table at our community center. I'm sure it's well under 1.0
Please post the info and your impressions after you do this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bdorman View Post
The only limitation I see is using the table score to adjust the shooter's score. There is a very good chance that the shooter would have scored nearly as well on a more difficult table since most(?) of the drills are more about CB positioning than OB pocketing. Likewise, a shooter wouldn't necessarily score 20% higher on an easy table than he did on his tough table. You could probably apply another factor to account for pocketing vs. positioning, but I can feel Occam's Razor beginning to cut.
Well stated. I agree completely ... especially concerning "Occam's Razor."

Regards,
Dave
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#11)
Mr. Bond
Orbis Non Sufficit
Mr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Bond has a reputation beyond repute
 
Mr. Bond's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 4,001
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jun 2010
   
06-21-2013, 08:59 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
There's so much that goes into how a table plays:

type of cloth, tightness of cloth, wear of cloth, type of rails, tightness of rails, type of balls, condition/cleanliness of balls, type of light, position of light, brightness/quality of light, cue ball type/size/condition, type of pocket facing/shim (material) and then, of course, the factors you pointed out with table size and pocket cut.

I see where you're going with the playability factor and it's not a bad idea --- I just think the conclusion can never be as specific as your example. Meaning, you can never say based on the 3 factors, table A plays 27% harder than table B.

The specificity of your result is just too great for something that is clearly subjective. You can never accurately ascertain exact factors since you're not dealing with tables made of the same material and manufactured the same way. For example, the pocket facings/shims can be made of different material and installed WAY differently from table to table and that plays a huge role is whether or not the pocket takes a shot.

Therefore, you can never have a result down to a single percentage and have it mean anything other than conjecture.

I don't think there's any way to scientifically determine table difficulty without having a player play the ghost 100 racks on table A and compare to table B. You might have a bar box that plays tough as hell (generally speaking) and a 5x10 that just accepts everything and has perfect speed.

The rating system would be more meaningful if you changed your calculations in order to reduce your resultants down to 5: super easy, easy, par, hard, very tough

How much harder (%-wise) is an easy table compared to a hard table? You'd never know without collecting data. Even then, you'd never have a margin of error within 1%. You'd have to round to the nearest 10 just to account for variation in a player's ability from day to day.
I hear what you're saying and I agree. But, the pocket information is not without merit.
It is real and relevant, and without a doubt, gives you very specific insight as to how a table will play, regardless of the various other factors involved. Is the pocket info all that matters ? Certainly not, but at the same time, having this information is certainly better than not having it.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
GeoEnvi
Diamond System Enthusiast
GeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond reputeGeoEnvi has a reputation beyond repute
 
GeoEnvi's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 463
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
   
06-21-2013, 09:01 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bond View Post
Dave, what is the presumed angle of the cushion facings?

And, do we not suppose that this angle is inconsistent from table to table?

And if so, does this angle not make a difference when it comes down to what stays in the pocket and what doesn't?
I think the Table Angle Factor takes care of the presumed angle of cushion facings.

Clearly, the shallower angle facings have higher difficulty factor than the steeper facings. Makes sense to me, given that a shallower cut would likely deflect a ball more toward the other facing than the shelf. Unless I'm getting it backwards, a shallower cut would result in more 'rattles' than a steeper cut for the same shelf.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
dr_dave
Instructional Author
dr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond repute
 
dr_dave's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 8,170
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Colorado
   
06-21-2013, 09:01 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaden View Post
I think that what you're describing would only be the case if you were attempting to discern the level of the player with this. It is more about the difficulty of the table.

There is room for improvement, but then you're getting too deep into the weeds. and it's time to take a drop.

I think what Dave has done here is great without getting too deep in the weeds.
Thanks for the input. I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaden View Post
Hell, I could see writing an app with this formula for checking a table on the fly.
That's a great idea. Do it.

Catch you later,
Dave
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
Bob Jewett
Northern California

Bob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 12,694
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
   
06-21-2013, 09:03 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_dave View Post
... I will be curious to see what you guys think, and I look forward to your suggestions and feedback. ...
I think that the ideal measure would be the size of the pocket as a function of speed, angle and spin on the shot but that is much, much harder to measure than the factors above. It also has a lot more dimensions. It would be nice to have a comparison of the two methods over a variety of tables, but that's probably a few-month project.

As pointed out above, lousy pocket facings can make a table play much more difficult on some shots but I see no easy way to quantify that other than by a lot of shots to determine the effective pocket size.


Bob Jewett
SF Billiard Academy
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
dr_dave
Instructional Author
dr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond repute
 
dr_dave's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 8,170
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Colorado
   
06-21-2013, 09:04 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bond View Post
Dave, what is the presumed angle of the cushion facings?
The angle is not presumed ... it is determined from the (mouth - throat) difference. For the "standard" table (PAF = 1.00), the pocket angle is close to the WPA spec (142 degrees).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bond View Post
And, do we not suppose that this angle is inconsistent from table to table?
The pocket angle can vary significantly among different table brands, models, and builds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bond View Post
And if so, does this angle not make a difference when it comes down to what stays in the pocket and what doesn't?
The pocket angle can make a big difference. That's what the "pocket angle factor (PAF)" is for.

Regards,
Dave
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 1 of 44 1 2311 Last »

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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 Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.