Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) for measuring table "toughness"

[dr_dave]

my pockets are 3.99" at the points, 3.75" at the back and the shelf is about 1"(Standard GC shelf) in the middle-had to eyeball that. 9' table.

so that comes to about 110% with the math you suggested.

Therefore(if i'm understanding this right) my table would get a 10% increase in scoring due to the tight pockets. If thats the premise here, its flawed. My table is much tougher than a 10% adjustment would account for.

Eric,

With the new numbers (and corrections to the PAF and PLF based on PSF), this is what I get for your table now:

TSF: 9'=1.00, PSF: 4"=1.20, PAF: 1/4"=1.00, PLF: 1"=1.00
TDF = 1.00 x 1.20 x 1.00 x 1.00 = 1.20

That would imply that your table is about 20% more difficult than a standard-spec 9' table. Does that sound reasonable?

Thanks,
Dave

 

[Neil]

Done. Check out the latest Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) document. Here's the addition:

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:

Thanks again,
Dave

Dave, I love what you are doing, but, again, I must disagree. I have had a number of people over to my house to play on my table. Not a one has said that it is an easy table, which your chart shows it to be. In fact, everyone of them have said that my table is too tough, they would rather play on a diamond table that is easier.

 

[dr_dave]

Here's what I came up with on my home table.

9' Table = 1
4" Pocket Mouth = 1.15
3 5/8" Pocket Throat equals 3/8" difference = 1.0
1" Shelf = .90

1 x 1.15 x 1.0 x .90 = 1.04

With the new numbers (and corrections to the PAF and PLF based on PSF), this is what I get for your table now:

TSF: 9'=1.00, PSF: 4"=1.20, PAF: 3/8"=0.95, PLF: 1"=1.00
TDF = 1.00 x 1.20 x 1.00 x 1.00 = 1.14

That would imply that your table is about 15% more difficult than a standard-spec 9' table. Does that sound reasonable?

Thanks,
Dave

 

[rexus31]

With the new numbers (and corrections to the PAF and PLF based on PSF), this is what I get for your table now:

TSF: 9'=1.00, PSF: 4"=1.20, PAF: 3/8"=1.00, PLF: 1"=1.00
TDF = 1.00 x 1.20 x 1.00 x 1.00 = 1.20

That would imply that your table is about 20% more difficult than a standard-spec 9' table. Does that sound reasonable?

Thanks,
Dave

That sounds about accurate Dr. Dave. Thanks!

 

[Neil]

Neil,

Here is what I have for your table with the latest numbers:
TSF: 7'=0.80, PSF: 4 1/8"=1.10, PAF: 5/8"=1.03, PLF: 1 3/8"=0.95
TDF = 0.80 x 1.10 x 1.03 x 0.95 = 0.86

That would imply that your tricked-out bar box is about 15% easier than a standard-spec 9' table. Does that sound reasonable in general (neglecting the BU score implications for now).

Thanks,
Dave

Off hand, without any real data to back it up, I'd have to say no. I don't feel it's really any easier than a regular 9' for the most part. Some things are a little easier, some things are harder. However, yesterday I had a guy over that wanted to practice with a good player because he is going to NAPA Nationals today. He has a 9' at home, but I convinced him he would be better off on my table for practice for a tournament on bar boxes.

Halfway through the "session" he stated that next time we play, it will be on his table. He was tired of missing balls that he is used to making on his bigger table. I told him my table will teach you to put the ball through the points, not just close to them. He agreed, but didn't much like it at the time because it was killing him.

So, is my table 15% easier than a 9' ? He sure doesn't think so.

 

[dr_dave]

For giggles, I went down and measured my oversize 8' A.E. Schmidt:

8' home table = 0.90
PSF = 0.95
PAF = 1.15
PLF = 1.05

Table Difficulty Factor = 1.03

I have a few observations to add.

1. My large 8' plays and feels pretty much like a 9' table to me. I don't think it's quite correct to neglect the difference between a standard 8' and a large 8'. I know they are not common these days, but they really feel like a bigger table for a lot of reasons. Maybe bump it up to a 0.95 instead of a 0.90? That would boost my table's difficulty factor to a 1.09.

2. All of your pocket angle factors move up by 0.05 for each 1/8" increment in difference, but you limit this at > 3/4". The back of my pocket openings are 4" while the front is 5". That is a full 1'' difference, creating a facing angle of 144º compared to a standard Diamond with 141º pocket facing angles. My corner pockets spit balls out so bad it's alarming. They play very tough compared to the Diamonds at my local pool room. My side pockets, however, play a lot softer than a Diamond. I can easily squeak narrow-angle shots into them that pros would play safe on a Diamond. So it's a trade off at times IMO.

With the new numbers, this is what I get for your table now:

TSF: 8'+=0.95, PSF: 5"=0.95, PAF: 1"=1.25, PLF: 1 7/8"=1.05
TDF = 0.95 x 0.95 x 1.25 x 1.05 = 1.18

That would imply that your table is about 15-20% more difficult than a standard-spec 9' table. Does that sound reasonable? It sounds a bit high to me. Maybe I need to not allow the PAF and PLF to be so high if the PSF is less than 1. What do or others you think?

Thanks,
Dave

PS: I was guessing a little on your shelf depth because you didn't provide it directly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[dr_dave]

Neil,

Here is what I have for your table with the latest numbers:
TSF: 7'=0.80, PSF: 4 1/8"=1.10, PAF: 5/8"=1.03, PLF: 1 3/8"=0.95
TDF = 0.80 x 1.10 x 1.03 x 0.95 = 0.86

That would imply that your tricked-out bar box is about 15% easier than a standard-spec 9' table. Does that sound reasonable in general (neglecting the BU score implications for now).

Off hand, without any real data to back it up, I'd have to say no. I don't feel it's really any easier than a regular 9' for the most part. Some things are a little easier, some things are harder. However, yesterday I had a guy over that wanted to practice with a good player because he is going to NAPA Nationals today. He has a 9' at home, but I convinced him he would be better off on my table for practice for a tournament on bar boxes.

Halfway through the "session" he stated that next time we play, it will be on his table. He was tired of missing balls that he is used to making on his bigger table. I told him my table will teach you to put the ball through the points, not just close to them. He agreed, but didn't much like it at the time because it was killing him.

So, is my table 15% easier than a 9' ? He sure doesn't think so.

Neil,

In your best judgement, which of the four factors for your table do you think are inappropriate, and what do you think (in your estimation) they should be instead?

This is part of my "data" collection.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[Fatboy]

I am playing with new sets of balls and clean and polish them daily with a Diamond ball polisher.

They still gear, kick and skid all the time compared to the old Centennials.

Perhaps the cloth is a factor?

Bill S.

yup, me and Bobby Cotton (you sold him his cue in 74) came to this conclusion too. we played for 2 years with several brand new centennials and have a Diamond polisher. We got less skids and kicks when the balls were clean. We think its the cloth as well, when it gets dirty(from chalk and talc) we would get more skids hitting 1/2 ball hits playing 1P than anything else, we played in Vegas and I am certain the dry air there adds to that problem, in LA when the tables are wet there are less skids than when the tables are dry.

We used Aramith balls(the good ones) & Centennial balls(they both the same interms of bad contacts, skids, kicks, hops etc) we used measles CB and mostly blue circle CB, never the red circle CB.

Sometimes on a full ball hit (straight it or close to it) the CB would hop you can hear it land on the slate, if it would make contact with the OB where there was a chalk dot on the CB the CB would bite the OB and climb up on it 1/4" and drop down on the slate, you ight still make the ball but lose the english on the CB. Again this is because of chalk marks on the CB from previous shots-happens in snooker often on that super fast cloth in the UK and 2 1/16" balls that are lite.

Some days it would be worse than others, we played 4-5 days a week for 2 years. Was always a problem. i'd polish the balls every 20-30 hours of play and vacuum the table everyday. When I kept up on it like that-we didnt have many problems. I think its the fast cloth these days, the old cloth had "Fuzz" on it to wipe the balls clean back i the day.

I dont have those problems near as often in LA as I did vegas , I mention Cottons name cause he has played 45 years and i know you know him and respect his opinion, since you dont know me. I'm just sharing what we saw together and conclusions we came up with.

keeping everything clean as possible helps the most, as far as new vs used cloth. was about the same. the first 2 weeks with new cloth there are very few problems-i attribute that to it being clean,


I had a pool room at my house that got 30-70hours a week in play 52 weeks/yr. it was a good set up, i didnt play that much but there was always a champion there playing on it. Or Cotton and me or someone else, it was great. So it go almost the amount of use the front table would at a poolroom, no bangers allowed. So the table was only played on by players and never mistreated, i'm the only one who cleaned it-no maid screwing things up etc. I have noticed in LA new cloth also dosnet have the problems the first couple weeks, after 50 hours of use then the skids showed up, but much less often than dry vegas .


thats what we came up with,

 

[Neil]

Neil,

In your best judgement, which of the four factors for your table do you think are inappropriate, and what do you think (in your estimation) they should be instead?

This is part of my "data" collection.

Thanks,
Dave

Well, I would say it's the one not even considered. As someone else mentioned, the downangle of the pocket facing plays a large part in how hard the pocket plays. For example, at our local room, the diamond pockets are the same size as the valley pockets. (surprised a lot of people on that one). However, the shelf is a little deeper, but the big thing is the down angle of the pocket facings. Not just the angle created by the pocket opening to the pocket back, but the biggy is the down angle of the pocket facing itself. That is what determines to a large degree on whether the pocket is soft or hard. (easy or tough).

So, to answer your question, I would say the pocket opening combined with the depth of shelf combined with the down angle, combined with the pocket angle. Without the down angle figured in somehow, it makes the rest of the pocket too misleading.

The biggest problem I have is with the size of the table. The size of the table also is dependent on the level of player. An extra diamond distance from a 7' to a 9' means very little to a player that is going to make the ball anyways. A 9' table is generally easier to play position on in rotation games than a 7' table is. Less traffic. A 7' table, one can pretty much reach everything, whereas a 9' you have to know how to use a bridge and pay attention when playing position that you can reach the cb. Kind of a wash IMO.

However, I do agree that at lower levels, the size table is a larger factor. Equal size pockets, and all equal except the size of the table, lesser players will miss more on a larger table. They just aren't as accurate.

So, I don't really know just how to answer your question, because I think it depends on the level of player. How do you factor that one in?? I have no idea. I just feel that playing on my table compared to a diamond 9' is pretty much a wash with the exception of paying attention to being able to reach the cb.

I will try over the next week to try it out on a 9' diamond at the pool room, but I won't be able to video it. At least not more than 25 minutes of the first part of the first exam. Won't have any way to download the card in my camera to my computer. So....you will have to take my word for it on whatever score I get.

 

[Mr. Bond]

The vertical angle is not measured or included in the calculation. If you wanted to include this, it would need to be added as an additional factor. I personally have no feel, data, or analysis that assesses the relative importance of this variable. Do you?

Regards,
Dave

If a cushion facing was perfectly vertical, I believe the pocket would play harder (or at the very least " different") than if it were tilted downward to some degree. So it does seem like the degree of 'tilt' would make a difference. Perhaps not as much as the shelf, but a notable difference nonetheless.

Keep up the good work Dave.

 

[SloMoHolic]

Here are the measurements and TDF for my home table:

TSF: 9' table --> 1.00
PSF: 4 3/8" --> 1.05
PAF: 5/8" --> 1.03
PLF: 1 3/8" --> 0.95

TDF: 1.03

That seems to be a little low. If my table is average, I might consider giving up the sport.

However, my interpretation could very well be influenced by some of the following reasons:

My cloth is old and pretty slow, so it takes more force to play shape (in general).

I think the old cloth may also cause the table to play harder due to the way the OB rebounds off of the rail. If an OB contacts the rail nose before entering the laws of the pocket, it simply will not drop. Even a very shallow shot (near perpendicular to the rail) will rattle or pop out if there is any OB contact with the rail. On this table, the OB must hit the pocket facing first in order to drop. I'm not sure, but I believe new cloth on the rails would allow the OB to slide a little more.

I'm also used to playing on easy tables in the pool halls. I would guess their TSF would be about 0.80, possibly even lower. From that perspective, I would agree that my home table is about 25% harder than my league tables. I'll measure them next time I'm there.

Thanks for all your hard work on this. I think it's a great idea, and I'm sure you will get plenty of additional feedback.

-Blake

P.S.
Thin_Ice, nineball_6970, and elvicash have all played on my table. I'll PM them and ask them to give their opinion of my table's TDF rating. All three are better players than me, and I'm sure they also have more experience with other tables, too.

 

[bstroud]

yup, me and Bobby Cotton (you sold him his cue in 74) came to this conclusion too. we played for 2 years with several brand new centennials and have a Diamond polisher. We got less skids and kicks when the balls were clean. We think its the cloth as well, when it gets dirty(from chalk and talc) we would get more skids hitting 1/2 ball hits playing 1P than anything else, we played in Vegas and I am certain the dry air there adds to that problem, in LA when the tables are wet there are less skids than when the tables are dry.

We used Aramith balls(the good ones) & Centennial balls(they both the same interms of bad contacts, skids, kicks, hops etc) we used measles CB and mostly blue circle CB, never the red circle CB.

Sometimes on a full ball hit (straight it or close to it) the CB would hop you can hear it land on the slate, if it would make contact with the OB where there was a chalk dot on the CB the CB would bite the OB and climb up on it 1/4" and drop down on the slate, you ight still make the ball but lose the english on the CB. Again this is because of chalk marks on the CB from previous shots-happens in snooker often on that super fast cloth in the UK and 2 1/16" balls that are lite.

Some days it would be worse than others, we played 4-5 days a week for 2 years. Was always a problem. i'd polish the balls every 20-30 hours of play and vacuum the table everyday. When I kept up on it like that-we didnt have many problems. I think its the fast cloth these days, the old cloth had "Fuzz" on it to wipe the balls clean back i the day.

I dont have those problems near as often in LA as I did vegas , I mention Cottons name cause he has played 45 years and i know you know him and respect his opinion, since you dont know me. I'm just sharing what we saw together and conclusions we came up with.

keeping everything clean as possible helps the most, as far as new vs used cloth. was about the same. the first 2 weeks with new cloth there are very few problems-i attribute that to it being clean,


I had a pool room at my house that got 30-70hours a week in play 52 weeks/yr. it was a good set up, i didnt play that much but there was always a champion there playing on it. Or Cotton and me or someone else, it was great. So it go almost the amount of use the front table would at a poolroom, no bangers allowed. So the table was only played on by players and never mistreated, i'm the only one who cleaned it-no maid screwing things up etc. I have noticed in LA new cloth also dosnet have the problems the first couple weeks, after 50 hours of use then the skids showed up, but much less often than dry vegas .


thats what we came up with,

Thanks for the info.

I didn't think about the cloth getting dirty because I vacuum it and brush it frequently.

I have been using the Kamui chalk lately and have noticed it is more like Ladies rouge and seem to get in the cloth more.

I seem to have more skids lately. Could be a connection I had not thought of.

Bill S.

 

[dr_dave]

If a cushion facing was perfectly vertical, I believe the pocket would play harder (or at the very least " different") than if it were tilted downward to some degree. So it does seem like the degree of 'tilt' would make a difference. Perhaps not as much as the shelf, but a notable difference nonetheless.

I would also think that if there were no vertical tilt, the pocket would play harder. However, is it is common for there to be no vertical tilt? The WPA spec indicates that the vertical draft angle should be in the 12-15 degree range (although, I know tables are often built way out of "spec").

I don't understand why the amount of draft would make that big of a difference in how "tight" a pocket plays, assuming the draft isn't too small. Could somebody explain what might cause a 20-degree draft angle to change the dynamics of the ball in the pocket, say compared to a 10-degree draft? Is it because the effective height of the nose on the facing changes as the OB compresses the facing at faster speed, and spin has a greater effect if the effective height is closer to the ball equator? Or is it something else? Or is the effect maybe not a big as some people think? I don't know. If anybody has some data or lots of experience on this topic, please share your thoughts.

Keep up the good work Dave.

Thanks.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Neil]

I would also think that if there were no vertical tilt, the pocket would play harder. However, is it is common for there to be no vertical tilt? The WPA spec indicates that the vertical draft angle should be in the 12-15 degree range (although, I know tables are often built way out of "spec").

I don't understand why the amount of draft would make that big of a difference in how "tight" a pocket plays, assuming the draft isn't too small. Could somebody explain what might cause a 20-degree draft angle to change the dynamics of the ball in the pocket, say compared to a 10-degree draft? Is it because the effective height of the nose on the facing changes as the OB compresses the facing at faster speed, and spin has a greater effect if the effective height is closer to the ball equator? Or is it something else? Or is the effect maybe not a big as some people think? I don't know. If anybody has some data or lots of experience on this topic, please share your thoughts.


Thanks.

Regards,
Dave

Glenn (realkingcobra) covered that pocket angle pretty well in his posts on pocket tightness. He feels it makes a rather large difference in how tough a pocket plays. Don't have a link to those threads right now, but I think you posted a link to them earlier.??

 

[dr_dave]

Here are the measurements and TDF for my home table:

TSF: 9' table --> 1.00
PSF: 4 3/8" --> 1.05
PAF: 5/8" --> 1.03
PLF: 1 3/8" --> 0.95

TDF: 1.03

I've made a few more small changes in the pocket angle factor values. The new value for your table is:
PAF: 5/8" --> 1.00
giving a total TDF of 1.00

You table is the first matching the "standard" table very well.

That seems to be a little low. If my table is average, I might consider giving up the sport.

However, my interpretation could very well be influenced by some of the following reasons:

My cloth is old and pretty slow, so it takes more force to play shape (in general).

I think the old cloth may also cause the table to play harder due to the way the OB rebounds off of the rail. If an OB contacts the rail nose before entering the laws of the pocket, it simply will not drop. Even a very shallow shot (near perpendicular to the rail) will rattle or pop out if there is any OB contact with the rail. On this table, the OB must hit the pocket facing first in order to drop. I'm not sure, but I believe new cloth on the rails would allow the OB to slide a little more.

Thanks for the input. Again, cloth, cushion, and other factors are not considered in the TDF (even though they can have big effects on how a table plays).

I'm also used to playing on easy tables in the pool halls. I would guess their TSF would be about 0.80, possibly even lower. From that perspective, I would agree that my home table is about 25% harder than my league tables. I'll measure them next time I'm there.

Sounds good. I look forward to seeing the data and how well it matches your perception.

Thanks for all your hard work on this. I think it's a great idea, and I'm sure you will get plenty of additional feedback.

I want to thank you and others for all of the feedback (positive and negative), insight, and input. I appreciate it.

P.S.
Thin_Ice, nineball_6970, and elvicash have all played on my table. I'll PM them and ask them to give their opinion of my table's TDF rating. All three are better players than me, and I'm sure they also have more experience with other tables, too.

Sounds good. Thanks.

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[Neil]

Dave, try this thread- http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=145007&highlight=pocket+rating

edit: I see you have already posted in it. Post #50 has the most pertinent data. Although earlier in the thread he did state that a 15 degree downangle will reject balls a lot more than a 12 degree downangle will, but never got around to saying why that is.

 

[dr_dave]

I have been using the Kamui chalk lately and have noticed it is more like Ladies rouge and seem to get in the cloth more.

I seem to have more skids lately. Could be a connection I had not thought of.

If the chalk sticks to the balls as well as they claim it sticks to the tip, cling could be a bigger concern. Wipe the CB as often as possible.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

FYI, at the bottom of the first post of the thread, I've added all of the table data provided to date, along with corrected values after my recent tweaks. I will continue to update this list as changes are made and as new data is offered.

Here's what we have so far:


Data reported by AZB users in decreasing order of 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 -- TSF -- PSF -- PAF -- PLF -- TDF
example "B" -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.20 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 7/8":1.05 -- 1.26
rexus31 -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 3/8":0.96 -- 1":1.00 -- 1.15
FatBoy -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/4":0.94 -- 1":1.00 -- 1.13
Sloppy Pockets -- 8'+:0.95 -- 5":0.95 -- 1":1.15 -- 1 7/8":1.05 -- 1.09
"standard" table -- 9':1.00 -- 4 9/16":1.00 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.00
SloMoHolic -- 9':1.00 -- 4 3/8":1.05 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.95 -- 1.00
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.95 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.95 -- 0.81
Neil -- 7':0.80 -- 4 1/8":1.10 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.95 -- 0.84
example "A" -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.95 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 3/8":0.95 -- 0.80
Valley "bar box" -- 7':0.80 -- 4 1/2":1.05 -- 0":0.94 -- 3/4":0.90 -- 0.71



Please keep the comments, suggestions, and data coming.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[Fatboy]

Well, I would say it's the one not even considered. As someone else mentioned, the downangle of the pocket facing plays a large part in how hard the pocket plays. For example, at our local room, the diamond pockets are the same size as the valley pockets. (surprised a lot of people on that one). However, the shelf is a little deeper, but the big thing is the down angle of the pocket facings. Not just the angle created by the pocket opening to the pocket back, but the biggy is the down angle of the pocket facing itself. That is what determines to a large degree on whether the pocket is soft or hard. (easy or tough).

So, to answer your question, I would say the pocket opening combined with the depth of shelf combined with the down angle, combined with the pocket angle. Without the down angle figured in somehow, it makes the rest of the pocket too misleading.

The biggest problem I have is with the size of the table. The size of the table also is dependent on the level of player. An extra diamond distance from a 7' to a 9' means very little to a player that is going to make the ball anyways. A 9' table is generally easier to play position on in rotation games than a 7' table is. Less traffic. A 7' table, one can pretty much reach everything, whereas a 9' you have to know how to use a bridge and pay attention when playing position that you can reach the cb. Kind of a wash IMO.

However, I do agree that at lower levels, the size table is a larger factor. Equal size pockets, and all equal except the size of the table, lesser players will miss more on a larger table. They just aren't as accurate.

So, I don't really know just how to answer your question, because I think it depends on the level of player. How do you factor that one in?? I have no idea. I just feel that playing on my table compared to a diamond 9' is pretty much a wash with the exception of paying attention to being able to reach the cb.

I will try over the next week to try it out on a 9' diamond at the pool room, but I won't be able to video it. At least not more than 25 minutes of the first part of the first exam. Won't have any way to download the card in my camera to my computer. So....you will have to take my word for it on whatever score I get.

I agree with Neil the down angle is a big factor(but is technical), I kinda skated around it. Because its tricky to measure, a couple degrees makes a big difference. So in the real world it would be difficult to get accurate data from people for BU. Thats why I didnt mention in much.


IMO the solution(kinda had this thought for 3 weeks now) is the size of the table, the opening of the pocket(points or tit's or what ever you want to call them) and shelf distance. Those 3 factors are easy and attainable without specialized tools to measure them. Any more info about how a pocket takes a ball going down the rail is perhaps a bit too technical for what your trying to achieve with BU.


The opening of the pocket determines 90% of the shots made or missed, and the shelf a couple more %, the rest is down angle, humidity, age of cloth etc.

So in the interest of keeping it simple and doable for people in masses, but not overly simple. the opening of the pocket, shelf and table size should be considered for BU. now how to weigh them against each other for comparable purposes i'm not sure.

thats what I have, so far. I'm just trying to help work out a solution to make BU better than it is. Collectively there is enough knowledge and passion here to get it done, perhaps not the first day, but we can do it!

 

[Banks]

Pardon me for not having read all of the posts so far, but I certainly agree with the pocket facings, cloth and also the rail speed.

For the past couple of weeks, I have played a few times with RiverCity at 4 different places.

The first week, we played on a hall's front table with something like 4.5" or 4.25" pockets, I can't remember exactly which. The table played pretty well and the times that I rattled it seemed that I was a bit lazy in my aiming.

The next time, we played on a standard table at another hall. Again, the table played pretty standard with a little more forgiving pockets, iirc. Nothing out of the ordinary and it played as I expected.

The third time, we played on a Diamond box. Again, exactly how I expect one to play.

Wednesday, RiverCity, dr9ball and I played at yet another hall. The pockets were larger, I think, but the pocket facing would rattle anything hit a little hard and not directly into the pocket - if you came into the far facing of the pocket with speed or a little unwanted spin, the ball would rattle. While the cloth played at a fair speed, the rails seemed a little slow. That combination makes it tough, when you need a little something extra to bounce off the rail, but that same extra speed increased the chances of rattling. I played again last night on those same tables and it was giving me fits. The softer rails also made banking a little more difficult for me. The faster rails were much more consistent in their rebound angle, while it seemed the softer rails responded with much more variance based on speed and spin.

Just my two(46 adjusted for current pricing) cents.

Like the difference between 9s and 7s, I think that a personal style of play also changes the difficulty level for different table set-ups.