Fast Carom Cloth?

Good morning, All,

I have a 10’ heated Verhoeven billiard table.

I currently have Simonis 300 Rapide cloth on my table bed & Simonis PreciseShot on the cushions. I like the Rapide, because it plays well & continues to look good over time. I will be replacing it at some point… maybe with a faster cloth.

I’ve been reluctant about getting a faster, synthetic cloth, because Rayon tends to look beat up over time, i.e., lots of white “ball burn” marks, from normal play… not from lots of Massé.

As for the PreciseShot cloth, it is great stuff for the rails: still holds consistent ball spin on “the 3rd rail”.

Can anyone tell me if there is a faster bed cloth than the Rapide… that continues to look good over time?

Can anyone comment on the “Million Carom Cloth” … regarding how it looks over time?

Thank you,
Lynn
I just installed a synthetic cloth i bought from the Kozoom Store called , Dutch premium cloth. I previously had 300 rapide Simonis cloth for about 6 years. I bought the synthetic cloth because I live in a hot and humid country in south east Asia and synthetic is supposed to play better in humid climates. I will share more info as I play more.

Dean Hickman

RIP Justin Ramos aka 'justnum'......................

Through another thread just found out that Prof. Justin Ramos passed away about a month or so ago. No real details other than a LinkedIn post by some colleagues where he taught. Hey brother you took all our shots at your sometimes(usually???) zany posts but it was meant as just fun needling. Sounds like your students really liked you and you'll be missed. Hope you're entertaining/baffling all those in heaven who now have to fade your 'enthusiasm' RIP brother.
he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and hung himself.

1000 Fargo

The kid is on a good track --- wishing him well. Hey, somebody will be the first Fargo 1,000 at some point!

Like you, I want to find a young American cueist to get excited about. As a result of what I saw from Lazaro Martinez at the International and Hayden Ernst at the Derby City Classic, I remain hopeful.

Of course, if Matchroom and Team USA captains continues to disfavor young American players and keep them out of the Mosconi Cup, as they did with Lucas Fracasso Verner in 2025, young American cueists will not develop as well as their counterparts on Team Europe at the Mosconi Cup or Team Asian at the Reyes Cup.
Do you believe Meglino should make the team?

All I know Stu is if he played Styer or Billy, my money is on Meglino. His game is still improving....Styer has gone backwards.

"In the middle"

here how it goes in real life.

it only matters what the players put up in their own money. that is what they are really playing for.

if they have backers money then they are free rolling with nothing or little at stake.



generally the backers give a percentage to the player. some after each win. and those are the biggest suckers as they don't win often enough to break even with the payouts. and that is the way most players try to get.

the smarter backers put up all the money. but the player has to make up loses before he gets any money. and the backer makes or lets the game be played if he likes the chances. and only after a certain time period say 3 months. then they split winnings or wipe out loses and the backer leaves or starts a new deal.

usually the player gets into the backer as he borrows for expenses he needs. that is why being a backer is almost always stupid unless you can get a large enough edge to overcome all the downfalls.

for the most part backers are the biggest suckers in pool. only a smart few come out ahead.

My impression has been that backers are not really concerned about making money. They are in it for the action, and to them, being out of action is far worse than losing.

Review of Chris Henry's "The Balls"

I just purchased The Balls (the glorified ping pong balls training aid) and had my first long practice session with them. Here's my initial review. Out of the two balls, I found the light object ball to be significantly more useful than the light cue ball. Here's why:

The light cue ball -- In theory it seemed like this would allow a person to diagnose whether they are missing a straight shot due to accidental side as opposed to aiming wrong. However it's not that simple. I set up a few full table length straight shots with just the cue ball. I noticed some swerve on the initial shots (the light cue ball swerves A LOT when you put side on!), but after a few shots, I managed to start potting it consistently. I let a few of my friends try it and they all managed to pot it as well, most on the first try. We are not good players btw, and rarely find the center of the white on genuine straight shots. So why did we all do this easily? One difference is that when you just have a cue ball and no object ball, 100% of your focus is on the cue ball. This is different to a regular straight shot where you are flicking your eyes between the cue ball and object ball, and possibly micro-adjusting your line whilst trying to recenter on the white. Because of this it's significantly harder to find the center of the white on a real straight shot as opposed to simply hitting the cue ball towards the pocket. I found that most people, even if they are not that good at snooker, can find the center of the white under these artificial conditions quite well. So, I think it could be useful for people who genuinely cannot find the center, or very new players, or simply as a brief "tune-up" before moving onto the more beneficial exercises. It might also be useful for testing power shots, or the break in pool where a tiny amount of side is much more significant. It was also sometimes a little hard to tell if the cue ball was going off-line due to the initial deflection, or whether it was swerving back across its line, and therefore a little tricky to tell the difference between unintentional left and unintentional right.

The light object ball - Conversely I found using this ball with a regular heavy cue ball quite useful. It takes most of the unintentional side out of the equation. If you miss a shot using the light object ball and still follow the cue ball in, you can almost guarantee that you missed due to aim, not unintentional side. This is great for relieving the doubt and confusion over why you missed, and lets you really focus in on aim. For me personally, I found that potting the light object ball in this way is easier than a regular straight shot with 2 heavy balls. Even though the aiming tolerance is meant to be slightly harder, the elimination of side makes the pot easier. I think this is a great warm up exercise before doing regular straight shots. Where you really zero in on pure aiming, and don't worry about the cue ball deflection so much. Once your aim is tuned up and you're potting consistently. Then you switch to regular straight shots, and use exactly the same aiming process. If you start missing now, then it's quite likely that the culprit is unintentional side. So whilst you can't directly check for side this way, you can infer it by comparing between light object ball vs heavy object ball. Although it's still not always completely apparent which side you are accidently putting on, for example left side and missing due to deflection or right side and missing due to swerve and throw.

Both balls together - Personally I didn't find this exercise very beneficial for diagnostic purposes. All it really tells you is that you are either great at straight shots, or not so good. But with both balls together, you can no longer separate whether the miss was due to side or aiming. So it's fun as a challenge, but largely defeats the main purpose of this product for me.

Overall I'd say it's an interesting product. I like how you can somewhat isolate aiming from unintentional side, and really zero in on the aiming side. But I was a little disappointed that there was no way to directly isolate unintentional side in a realistic scenario involving a real straight shot with 2 balls. Due to this limitation, I feel it's not really for everyone. Some people will benefit from it more than others. But it's still interesting as a diagnostic tool.

Edit: Actually next time I go practice, I'm going to try something a bit different. Instead of just aiming the light cue ball at the pocket, I'm going to put an object ball in the jaws of the pocket and aim for that instead and try to see if it's hitting it roughly square on. I think this creates a more realistic cueing scenario. Hopefully that will make the light cue ball seem more relevant.

1000 Fargo

It's expected that the top players will improve in absolute terms when there is so much pressure from below. I think the great increase in pro events contributes to that.

As for a 1000 (relative to the scale today), that would be quite remarkable. Five-packs in nearly every match?
Login to view embedded media
I dont have the skills to verify those numbers, but if we can compare to previous events, maybe it will give us an idea of what a 1000 fargo player could do

"In the middle"

All nonsense. The side bets are irrelevant. Who cares how much the onlookers are betting on the side?

Super Bowl LIX, played last February, had $1,400,000,000 in the middle if we count the bets on the game. Does anyone think that this represents what the players received? Actually, members of the winning team got an average of $171,000 each, while members of the losing team got an average of $96,000. Hence, about $75,000 was at stake per player with respect to the result. Still, $1,400,000,000 in the middle sounds more impressive.
It's difficult to get the teams going around that big pile of dough in the middle.

Filter

Back
Top