New Room in San Francisco's Mission district called 'The Hall'

Sounds like a lot of fun - what was the format? Lag, rack your own, winner break? Waiting list? Heck, I'd gladly pay $300 for a "lesson" from SVB, lol.
Race to 4, challenger gets to pick 8, 9 or 10 ball, lag for break, rack your own with a template.

I got a bunch of lessons from the rail for a lot less and I shot nearly as many shots as many of his opponents. ;) The opponents did get a couple of pictures, though.

Double the Distance Aiming ???

I know this is a resurrected thread, but I wound up looking at the Don Smith, Double-the-Distance PDF, and I think there is something missing--the 'frame of reference' for his diagrams is inconsistent with the layout of the balls. In Patrick Johnson's graphics, the cue ball location is offset laterally from the object ball--for the particular example(s), the cue ball path is set up parallel to the long rail. However, in Figure#5 of the PDF, the cue ball is directly inline with the object ball. I would need to get out some paper and a compass to check, but I think this would change the length of line E (the amount of error between A and A'). [Note: The offset setup is easily understood from PJ's "Parallel Lines" graphic, which is also found on Dr Dave's site.]

Of course, this would not invalidate the concept of an error at close distances, but it seems like an oversight when considering DTD as a system for aiming. However, as diagrammed, it would appear that the shooter is expected to step to the side of the cue ball to determine the measurement lines, which is not realistic.

What's your favorite pool memory from 2025?

First and foremost I meant you no disrespect. Your post here adds more context than your initial one, and I have in my time also seen these things you express in your latest post.

Just as you added more context, perhaps I should have added more to my initial post regarding the situation I spoke of. My group, the “older gamblers”, while we play all games, the main focus of our gambling sessions is one pocket. The younger players I spoke of, aren’t kids, more 20-30 something’s, just younger than us. They play well, just rotation games though.

The interaction actually started with them talking 💩 when they would walk by, just loudly enough for us to hear, about “old farts that play 1 pocket because we can’t see, or play we’ll enough to play 9 or 10 ball anymore”. The chide I referred to in the match that unfolded was one of us replying “well if you want to actually bet something, we can play some even 9 or 10 ball right now”. That’s how the match came about, they put up the best of their little group, pooled their money to post the stake, and got schooled.

So as I’ve now provided more context you can see that it wasn’t quite what you thought it was. We gamble because it’s always been our way from those of our speed and our era. We can’t just quite understand them, they play well, more than well enough to get into action, but they rarely do, or as I initially stated, only for peanuts and amongst each other. It’s lost on us, it just appears that as time has passed, the younger generation is just different than ours.
Thank you for the clarification, it gives a clearer and funnier view of the situation. BTW, I'm 82 and one of the old farts but I see good changes with younger players. They are starting families, purchasing homes, etc., and have a better use of their incomes. And they have a lot to learn about life.

Filter

Back
Top