Looking for a REAL mathematical system

[mr3cushion]

Hey everyone; I'm curious to find, if anyone out there has a REAL mathematical system for 2 cushion first shots as per the diagram below?
Cueball is YELLOW, long,short,ball,short,score!



Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

 

[mr3cushion]

I'm really surprised that not 1 person has a system for this type of shot!

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

 

[bud green]

Walt Harris has a system in one of his later books with spin that is applicable there, and another system for kicking with no english that might not get the third rail again from that angle unless hit real, real good.

I believe the system using a lot of spin is some sort of Japanese system that uses corner five system numbers for the cueball, multiplied by the hit spot on the second rail. The number for the second rail varies depending on cueball origin.

From the diagram, middle of short rail is "6", move a diamond over and its "8", corner (same side of table as yellow) is 10. So 5 (cueball) x 6 (middle of short rail hit spot) = 30. Shoot at 30 with lots of running english and cross your fingers, lol.

The table I play on is all jacked up so I've only had limited time to try it, but it seems like a decent system.

 

[mbvl]

I'm really surprised that not 1 person has a system for this type of shot!

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

Billy,

First of all, it would help if, in your diagram, your balls were to scale.

Secondly, the margin of error for the hit on the first object ball (assuming the distances from the cushions are accurate) is at most about 10 milimeters. That means that any "system" using fractions of diamonds would have to have a granularity of 1/35th of a diamond. Move the red a few millimeters more off the cushion, and put the white a little further from the cushion, and you might get the margin of error up to 20 millimeters. You would still need a system which told you the line of aim to the end cushion after hitting the long cushion to within 1/17th of a diamond.

Finally, speed, spin, and elevation would have to be accounted for.

I would guess that there ain't no such system.

Mark (the truthful one)

 

[iralee]

Hey everyone; I'm curious to find, if anyone out there has a REAL mathematical system for 2 cushion first shots as per the diagram below?
Cueball is YELLOW, long,short,ball,short,score!

View attachment 168159

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

These 2-rail (umbrella-type) shots demand that the player possesses a very true model that in some way incorporates table-dependent subtleties.

What exactly is meant here by a "real" mathematical system? Perhaps you refer to methods of calculating shots that are geometrically formulated, scientifically based upon physics, and take into account the unique properties of each table. Such a system would indeed be an ideal framework to base the learning of shots. Otherwise, needn't we assume the notion that all billiard equipment plays similarly?

-Ira

 

[mr3cushion]

Billy,

First of all, it would help if, in your diagram, your balls were to scale.

Secondly, the margin of error for the hit on the first object ball (assuming the distances from the cushions are accurate) is at most about 10 milimeters. That means that any "system" using fractions of diamonds would have to have a granularity of 1/35th of a diamond. Move the red a few millimeters more off the cushion, and put the white a little further from the cushion, and you might get the margin of error up to 20 millimeters. You would still need a system which told you the line of aim to the end cushion after hitting the long cushion to within 1/17th of a diamond.

Finally, speed, spin, and elevation would have to be accounted for.

I would guess that there ain't no such system.

Mark (the truthful one)

First of all, my name is BILL Smith, try to remember that! Only my mother and father called me Billy! Secondly, when a person starts a post with a negative remark, that person dosen't deserve more of a responce than this!

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

P.S. I don't know what your agenda is here, but save it for someone else!

 

[Gongmyo]

Gerhard Hüpper (Billiards Manual pp. 253-55) discusses a number of systems (including Walt Harris' and Ceulemans') for situations like this (he calls them "Head Rail Calculations") and dismisses them as either inaccurate, of limited application, or involving impracticable calculations. He does not discuss the system Eddie Robin lays out in Winning One-Pocket, pp.192-93. Robin says that his system is an improved version of a method developed by Gus Copulus . It uses the 5-corner as a base and involves adjustments in increments of 1/16 of a diamond for other cue-ball origins. I think it's worth a look

 

[mr3cushion]

Gerhard Hüpper (Billiards Manual pp. 253-55) discusses a number of systems (including Walt Harris' and Ceulemans') for situations like this (he calls them "Head Rail Calculations") and dismisses them as either inaccurate, of limited application, or involving impracticable calculations. He does not discuss the system Eddie Robin lays out in Winning One-Pocket, pp.192-93. Robin says that his system is an improved version of a method developed by Gus Copulus . It uses the 5-corner as a base and involves adjustments in increments of 1/16 of a diamond for other cue-ball origins. I think it's worth a look

Stan; Thanks alot, I appreciate the informative responce to my question.

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

 

[Robert Raiford]

Billy,

First of all, it would help if, in your diagram, your balls were to scale.

Secondly, the margin of error for the hit on the first object ball (assuming the distances from the cushions are accurate) is at most about 10 milimeters. That means that any "system" using fractions of diamonds would have to have a granularity of 1/35th of a diamond. Move the red a few millimeters more off the cushion, and put the white a little further from the cushion, and you might get the margin of error up to 20 millimeters. You would still need a system which told you the line of aim to the end cushion after hitting the long cushion to within 1/17th of a diamond.

Finally, speed, spin, and elevation would have to be accounted for.

I would guess that there ain't no such system.

Mark (the truthful one)

First of all, my name is BILL Smith, try to remember that! Only my mother and father called me Billy! Secondly, when a person starts a post with a negative remark, that person dosen't deserve more of a responce than this!

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

P.S. I don't know what your agenda is here, but save it for someone else!

Bill,

Why are you attacking Mark like this? He's a well-respected member of this forum and a smart guy who enjoys discussing the details of the game. I thought he made valid points in his reply and expressed them thoughtfully and politely.

You asked about a "real" mathematical system, and as he and Ira Lee pointed out, serious analysis from a math/physics perspective requires much more attention to detail than typical billiard systems provide. This forum (and the internet in general) is full of serious math/physics geeks who really know their stuff. If a hardcore technical discussion isn't what you were looking for, I'd avoid making challenges using language like "real" math/science/etc that tends to draw them out.

Robert

 

[tryhonesty07]

Funny that "Mr 3C" doesnt already know this, every post I read by him is ignorant. Hope I don't get like that in 80 yrs.

 

[mr3cushion]

Bill,

Why are you attacking Mark like this? He's a well-respected member of this forum and a smart guy who enjoys discussing the details of the game. I thought he made valid points in his reply and expressed them thoughtfully and politely.

You asked about a "real" mathematical system, and as he and Ira Lee pointed out, serious analysis from a math/physics perspective requires much more attention to detail than typical billiard systems provide. This forum (and the internet in general) is full of serious math/physics geeks who really know their stuff. If a hardcore technical discussion isn't what you were looking for, I'd avoid making challenges using language like "real" math/science/etc that tends to draw them out.

Robert

Robert; It should be common knowledge the conditions of the table are always a factor in any system. What I was refering to was a system with numbers that works for any position on the table for a 2 cushion first shot.
Not that the size of the balls on my diagram don't meet up to his standards.

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

 

[mr3cushion]

Funny that "Mr 3C" doesnt already know this, every post I read by him is ignorant. Hope I don't get like that in 80 yrs.

With that attitude, don't worry, you wont make it that far!

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

 

[3c4ever]

Yes, i know this one and i made this shot a few times and i got quite an applause from the audiences.

Yellow ball is 8, middle diamond on short rail close to white ball is 3.
8 times 3 equals 24. That is a firm hit at 24 on the long rail with medium speed, cue at center WITHOUT english, of course make adjustment if necessary.

Three years ago, when i barely started playing 3C, i met an elder gentlemen. He couldnt play anymore and he taught me all the systems. It was amazing how fast he calculate and used systems.

Thanks to the systems he taught me, they help me a lot.

 

[mr3cushion]

Yes, i know this one and i made this shot a few times and i got quite an applause from the audiences.

Yellow ball is 8, middle diamond on short rail close to white ball is 3.
8 times 3 equals 24. That is a firm hit at 24 on the long rail with medium speed, cue at center WITHOUT english, of course make adjustment if necessary.

Three years ago, when i barely started playing 3C, i met an elder gentlemen. He couldnt play anymore and he taught me all the systems. It was amazing how fast he calculate and used systems.

Thanks to the systems he taught me, they help me a lot.

3C4ever; What was this oldder fella's name? and where was this?

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

 

[Fox]

yellow ball is 8, middle diamond on short rail close to white ball is 3.
8 times 3 equals 24. That is a firm hit at 24 on the long rail with medium speed, cue at center WITHOUT english, of course make adjustment if necessary.

this System exist in (Darrel Paul Martineau) it's ok,

To me this system is hard to adjust on new cloth ( sliding) ,haven't said that all system need adjustment but to play this shot you need English , I would like to see a system with running english!

 

[maldito]

Bill - Systematic Billiards - by late Allen Gilbert - 1977 published - has several no -english banking systems - hi center ball hit on cue ball - on page 21 are two "umbrella shots" that can be calculated using his system - they are very similar to the example you have on your table - it is a three cushion banking system using three cushions but he shows you how to incorporate it to the example that you have up. Book is available on the internet .

 

[farouk]

Gerhard Hüpper (Billiards Manual pp. 253-55) discusses a number of systems (including Walt Harris' and Ceulemans') for situations like this (he calls them "Head Rail Calculations") and dismisses them as either inaccurate, of limited application, or involving impracticable calculations. He does not discuss the system Eddie Robin lays out in Winning One-Pocket, pp.192-93. Robin says that his system is an improved version of a method developed by Gus Copulus . It uses the 5-corner as a base and involves adjustments in increments of 1/16 of a diamond for other cue-ball origins. I think it's worth a look

The Walt Harris system is pretty workable. Not perfect by any means, needs some adjustments, but what doesn't. From the corner it's pretty good. Usual thing, you start going either way shorter or longer angle and it kind of changes from an in front of point system to an at point system and such. If I had the time I'd try to figure out an adjustment, for now I kind of feel it. For a running english head rail system base, though, not bad.

 

[farouk]

I forgot. What is the Eddie Robin system? Can you share that?

 

[Robert Raiford]

Robert; It should be common knowledge the conditions of the table are always a factor in any system.

I believe that it is common knowledge that table conditions are always a factor with any system. However, what isn't common knowledge is exactly how to account for those varying conditions in detail to maintain high precision from table to table. No system I've ever seen published or described does this in any serious way from a "real" math or physics perspective.

What I was refering to was a system with numbers that works for any position on the table for a 2 cushion first shot.

It would take a very intricate system indeed to predict the diagrammed shot accurately on everything from slow sticky Brunswicks to fast sliding Chevillottes. The system would have to account for all of the variables Mark mentioned, which includes cushion efficiency (for dampened rebounds), ball-cushion friction (for spin effects) and ball-table friction (for curving before and after the cushions). Either that, or players would need years of practice and experience to acquire the expert judgement needed to ignore what a simpler system tells them when it's wrong (which would be often).

Not that the size of the balls on my diagram don't meet up to his standards.

To be fair, you diagrammed a shot with a very small margin of error while asking about "real" mathematical systems (which suggests a desire for extreme precision beyond usual standards). The white is a ball width off the cushion, and the red is almost frozen. When I look at the ball scale comment in the context of the rest of Mark's post, I don't see a personal attack, but rather as an essential piece of his serious attempt to analyze the margin of error for the shot as diagrammed (the guy was talking about 35ths of diamonds and millimeter size targets for crying out loud )

When balls are drawn a little too big relative to the table, it makes shots seem more forgiving than they are in reality. It also makes exact placement uncertain. For many purposes (schematic teaching of position patterns, for example) precise scale diagrams aren't necessarily required. I think it was really the bold underlined word "real" that made it seem like you wanted a technical discussion, whereas now you've made it clear you're looking for the more typical kinds of simplified systems that people tend to use.

The problem I have with poor approximations - the Walt Harris or Eddie Robin systems, for example - is that the player gets overwhelmed with a bunch of numbers in a complex calculation. When the shot misses, the player thinks they did something wrong instead of the system being fundamentally flawed to begin with. I think many players are mislead to believe that if they played their systems perfectly they'd never miss LOL.

Robert

 

[mr3cushion]

Definitely a Slight Misunderstanding!

I believe that it is common knowledge that table conditions are always a factor with any system. However, what isn't common knowledge is exactly how to account for those varying conditions in detail to maintain high precision from table to table. No system I've ever seen published or described does this in any serious way from a "real" math or physics perspective.

It would take a very intricate system indeed to predict the diagrammed shot accurately on everything from slow sticky Brunswicks to fast sliding Chevillottes. The system would have to account for all of the variables Mark mentioned, which includes cushion efficiency (for dampened rebounds), ball-cushion friction (for spin effects) and ball-table friction (for curving before and after the cushions). Either that, or players would need years of practice and experience to acquire the expert judgement needed to ignore what a simpler system tells them when it's wrong (which would be of ten).

To be fair, you diagrammed a shot with a very small margin of error while asking about "real" mathematical systems (which suggests a desire for extreme precision beyond usual standards). The white is a ball width off the cushion, and the red is almost frozen. When I look at the ball scale comment in the context of the rest of Mark's post, I don't see a personal attack, but rather as an essential piece of his serious attempt to analyze the margin of error for the shot as diagrammed (the guy was talking about 35ths of diamonds and millimeter size targets for crying out loud )

When balls are drawn a little too big relative to the table, it makes shots seem more forgiving than they are in reality. It also makes exact placement uncertain. For many purposes (schematic teaching of position patterns, for example) precise scale diagrams aren't necessarily required. I think it was really the bold underlined word "real" that made it seem like you wanted a technical discussion, whereas now you've made it clear you're looking for the more typical kinds of simplified systems that people tend to use.

The problem I have with poor approximations - the Walt Harris or Eddie Robin systems, for example - is that the player gets overwhelmed with a bunch of numbers in a complex calculation. When the shot misses, the player thinks they did something wrong instead of the system being fundamentally flawed to begin with. I think many players are mislead to believe that if they played their systems perfectly they'd never miss LOL.

Robert

Robert; First of all, Why do you feel the need to answer for someone esle, I assume Mark is a grown man, let him reply to my post, since he was the person who responded. His very first sentence tends to put the OP on the defence right there. I don't like being attacked in public, people think they can say what ever they chose while they hide behind a keyboard, in person maybe the conversation would go a little diifferently.

Secondly, because I underlinded the word Real, doesn't mean I was addressing the "scientific billiard community" only, Are they that sensetive that the only reply is a answer that involves mirrors,shadows in a Super calculated manner. It wasn't a "For Your Eyes Only" request! I asked a SIMPLE question, that's all!

Lastly, Robert, if you have some input to my original question, I'd love to hear your thoughts on some kind of numerical system for 2 cushion first shots. I have respect for your knowledge and commentary efforts.
I've never been one not to be looking to learn something NEW.

Slightly misunderstood this time;
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"

P.S. BTW, this is not the first time Mark has me lined immediately one of my threads! That was the basis for the "agenda" comment.

PP.SS. I hope this will put this part of the thread to rest, so we all can get back to the further education of players in the US!,(which is sadly needed).