There is, I think, an important thing commonly missed when people analyze easy vs hard equipment. I'll illustrate with a particular scenario. You're playing 9-Ball, and there are 5 balls on the table that are not tied up but you are starting with a long shot. Let's compare this situation on easy and hard tables and imagine your opponent is similarly skilled as you.
Three things can happen when you try to get out from here
A: you succeed
B: You fail and your opponent also fails and returns control of the game to you
C: You fail and your opponent either gets out or retains control of the game
The chance of direct success, i.e., A, can be very different on easy vs hard equipment. It might be 65% on the easy table and 35% on the hard table. It is important not to look at this in isolation, though, and conclude incorrectly that the GAME is easier on easy equipment. Though failure is less likely on the easy equipment, that failure being punished is more likely. And these things kind of balance out.
Easy equipment:
A: 65% chance you succeed
B: 35% that you failed X 35% that your opponent subsequently fails returning control to you (12%)
C: 35% that you failed X 65% that your opponent wins the game or retains control (23%)
Tough equipment:
A: 35% chance you succeed
B: 65% that you failed X 65% that your opponent subsequently fails returning control to you (42%)
C: 65% that you failed X 35% that your opponent wins the game or retains control (23%)
In both cases, you are looking at about a 77% chance of overall success (A or B) and a 23% chance of failure (C). So you should be sweating about the same amount staring at that long shot on either table despite that shot looking easier on the easy table.
So given that your opponent effectively gets better as the equipment gets easier, there is a sense in which the GAME in the bigger picture is pretty independent of the equipment and really depends primarily on your opponent. That's not a bad thing.
