shot quiz

mohrt said:
Put it on video :thumbup:

I'm 5'9 and I have to pretty much lay on the table to stroke in the shot. Maybe I'm doing it completely wrong, so lets see the vid :)

Wow I didn't think a shot would drum up such conversation and differing opinions lol!
Click to expand...

I might go practice tonight, so if it's not crowded I will.
 
Bank the 6 ball 3 rails to combo the 9 in the side, take a shot of whiskey, then go home while making sure to drive 5 miles under the speed limit to make whoopy with your wife telling her of this monstrous shot you just performed on the table with witnesses.
 
I think that if you asked 100 top pros what they would do here, I feel all 100 would shoot the shot recommended by Jude Rosenstock, an outside English draw across the table.

As others have established, it's not the only way to make the shape, but it's a far better choice than any of the others mentioned.
 
It's crazy nobody else is suggesting this. I'm seriously surprised.
Maybe I just missed it.

9TDVZ4n.jpg


Why is this the best? Only 2 variables to control - how much you cut the 6, how far you draw.
Scratch? No chance.
Hooked? No chance.
End up on the rail? Maybe. If you hit it really bad.
Really tricky thin angle? Almost no chance. Guess it depends on your draw control.

Why not some wild route going 4-5 rails?
Come on, there's like 100 things that could go wrong. Nobody practices those.
No practice = no feel for the speed and angle. No feel for the shot means
you're probably going to screw up on your first try. Your speed will be off,
you'll hit the 2nd or 3rd rail way off from the expected point, etc.

Why not low right off 1 rail?
That's not bad, it's a common shot. But still has more variables and feel than a simple draw shot.
There's how much sidespin you're using, how this particular set of rails reacts,
how your force affects the spin (a certain amount of sidespin works at speed A but doesn't at speed B),
and so on. If you're going to shoot a shot that relies on pure touch anyway, why not cut out
all those extra unpredictable variables that the rail and sidespin introduces?

Why not top, 1 rail?
This often ends in tears because the object ball is so close to the rail. The forceful top
you put on the cue ball causes it to hit the head rail with some leftover topspin.
Then it dives forward and hooks. It often dies in the kitchen. Or you hit it firmly
and it dives sideways along the tangent line, then bends forward from the top.
The path ends up much more 'sideways' than you expect. This is not that predictable
because it's force follow, not natural follow. Again, why add the variable of
"where will this hit the rail and what direction will it bounce off"? Cut rails out entirely.
 
CreeDo said:
It's crazy nobody else is suggesting this. I'm seriously surprised.
Maybe I just missed it.

9TDVZ4n.jpg


Why is this the best? Only 2 variables to control - how much you cut the 6, how far you draw.
Scratch? No chance.
Hooked? No chance.
End up on the rail? Maybe. If you hit it really bad.
Really tricky thin angle? Almost no chance. Guess it depends on your draw control.

Why not some wild route going 4-5 rails?
Come on, there's like 100 things that could go wrong. Nobody practices those.
No practice = no feel for the speed and angle. No feel for the shot means
you're probably going to screw up on your first try. Your speed will be off,
you'll hit the 2nd or 3rd rail way off from the expected point, etc.

Why not low right off 1 rail?
That's not bad, it's a common shot. But still has more variables and feel than a simple draw shot.
There's how much sidespin you're using, how this particular set of rails reacts,
how your force affects the spin (a certain amount of sidespin works at speed A but doesn't at speed B),
and so on. If you're going to shoot a shot that relies on pure touch anyway, why not cut out
all those extra unpredictable variables that the rail and sidespin introduces?

Why not top, 1 rail?
This often ends in tears because the object ball is so close to the rail. The forceful top
you put on the cue ball causes it to hit the head rail with some leftover topspin.
Then it dives forward and hooks. It often dies in the kitchen. Or you hit it firmly
and it dives sideways along the tangent line, then bends forward from the top.
The path ends up much more 'sideways' than you expect. This is not that predictable
because it's force follow, not natural follow. Again, why add the variable of
"where will this hit the rail and what direction will it bounce off"? Cut rails out entirely.
Click to expand...

Good luck reaching that right-handed.
 
CreeDo said:
It's crazy nobody else is suggesting this. I'm seriously surprised.
Maybe I just missed it.

9TDVZ4n.jpg


Why is this the best? Only 2 variables to control - how much you cut the 6, how far you draw.
Scratch? No chance.
Hooked? No chance.
End up on the rail? Maybe. If you hit it really bad.
Really tricky thin angle? Almost no chance. Guess it depends on your draw control.

Why not some wild route going 4-5 rails?
Come on, there's like 100 things that could go wrong. Nobody practices those.
No practice = no feel for the speed and angle. No feel for the shot means
you're probably going to screw up on your first try. Your speed will be off,
you'll hit the 2nd or 3rd rail way off from the expected point, etc.

Why not low right off 1 rail?
That's not bad, it's a common shot. But still has more variables and feel than a simple draw shot.
There's how much sidespin you're using, how this particular set of rails reacts,
how your force affects the spin (a certain amount of sidespin works at speed A but doesn't at speed B),
and so on. If you're going to shoot a shot that relies on pure touch anyway, why not cut out
all those extra unpredictable variables that the rail and sidespin introduces?

Why not top, 1 rail?
This often ends in tears because the object ball is so close to the rail. The forceful top
you put on the cue ball causes it to hit the head rail with some leftover topspin.
Then it dives forward and hooks. It often dies in the kitchen. Or you hit it firmly
and it dives sideways along the tangent line, then bends forward from the top.
The path ends up much more 'sideways' than you expect. This is not that predictable
because it's force follow, not natural follow. Again, why add the variable of
"where will this hit the rail and what direction will it bounce off"? Cut rails out entirely.
Click to expand...

I showed a buddy of mine this thread earlier today and he suggested this shot. Although he's lefty and can clearly reach the shot, I'm pretty sure you can do this right-handed too. I agree, this is also an excellent approach and perfectly correct.
 
I would like to see the shot on video spinning off the rail. Here is a photo for exact position of the 6 ball. 4 or 5 balls up from bottom rail, and one cube of chalk off the rail. I know this is a little higher up than the diagram, but try the 6 ball from different distances from the pocket. Once you get about 3 balls up, its all the same. I think this is a particular shot that will unlock a lot of similar problem shots on the table. This is a good one to get familiar with!

jhf8zDkl.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jude Rosenstock said:
I showed a buddy of mine this thread earlier today and he suggested this shot. Although he's lefty and can clearly reach the shot, I'm pretty sure you can do this right-handed too. I agree, this is also an excellent approach and perfectly correct.
Click to expand...

This is second best. Nine ball is about playing into the angle of the next shot. This approach plays across it, reaching the area of acceptable position zone later than the best shot available here. This shot will probably work, but it defies certain basic principles of position play and the error for poor speed control will be greater than with the outside English draw.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
I showed a buddy of mine this thread earlier today and he suggested this shot. Although he's lefty and can clearly reach the shot, I'm pretty sure you can do this right-handed too. I agree, this is also an excellent approach and perfectly correct.
Click to expand...

For me it's border line. If the 6 is off the rail just enough and CB froze on the rail, I can sit on the rail and reach it.
 
Last edited:
mohrt said:
You are playing 9-ball, ball-in-hand. What kind of shot do you take on the 6 to maximize your chances of winning?

Click to expand...

I would either play the 6 with low-right to come back or put the cueball close to the rail and give yourself a slight outside cut and use high-right to come off the short rail and cut down the angle a bit. Control your speed to come up a bit short for the 7 and 8 in the same pocket. If you come a little bit too long you can pinch the 7 and draw back for the 8 in the same pocket, but if you run too long you're hosed. So I'd probably shoot the 6 with low-right and draw back off the long rail.

Edit: Actually it looks like the 7 passes the 8 to the side-pocket, so even if you go too long you should be okay. Just don't end up in no-man's land on the 7 and it shouldn't be too bad.
 
mohrt said:
I would like to see the shot on video spinning off the rail. Here is a photo for exact position of the 6 ball. 4 or 5 balls up from bottom rail, and one cube of chalk off the rail. I know this is a little higher up than the diagram, but try the 6 ball from different distances from the pocket. Once you get about 3 balls up, its all the same. I think this is a particular shot that will unlock a lot of similar problem shots on the table. This is a good one to get familiar with!

jhf8zDkl.jpg
Click to expand...

I set up the shot exactly as in your photograph and went one rail with outside to a diamond past the side pocket on the first try. I'll make a video.
 
How tall are you Mohrt? I had no trouble reaching the shot with the CB very close as in my video. I'm 6'-2.5". My table is also 5.5" higher than normal which makes my tallness less of a reaching advantage.
 
Why not some wild route going 4-5 rails?
Come on, there's like 100 things that could go wrong. Nobody practices those.
No practice = no feel for the speed and angle. No feel for the shot means
you're probably going to screw up on your first try. Your speed will be off,
you'll hit the 2nd or 3rd rail way off from the expected point,

If you play 1pckt you had better know how to go 3/4 rails out of there. IF there is a
rack of balls there,you spin the cb around the rack,fall on the 9.After pocketing the 9,
you have the 7,or 8.
I did say "know how" which implies PRACTICE.

Maybe after practice you decide it is not the shot for you.Maybe you see it as a ACE
up your sleeve!

GOOD POST,GOOD IDEAS
 
Last edited:
mohrt said:
Good luck reaching that right-handed.
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of being willing and able to switch to the off-hand as needed.
I'll hit this shot off-hand 95% as good as I would on-hand, though maybe I better try it
the next time I'm at a table before I put it in writing :)

But I was honestly thinking you could reach it by putting the cue ball so close to the OB and rail.
Try it off-hand?


sjm said:
This is second best. Nine ball is about playing into the angle of the next shot. This approach plays across it, reaching the area of acceptable position zone later than the best shot available here. This shot will probably work, but it defies certain basic principles of position play and the error for poor speed control will be greater than with the outside English draw.
Click to expand...

Agree 9b is about playing into the angle, so as to minimize the need for good speed control.
However there are times when exceptions are necessary. One is if going into the line of the shot
also requires coming dangerously close to scratching. See Iusedtoberich's first shot in his video.
Very close to a side pocket scratch though if he beats it, he's golden.

Another exception is if the path going into the line is much longer than the path going against the line.
That's also why I discount the 4/5 rail even though it goes into the line of the shot nicely.
My line is about 5.5 feet long. Hit it 20% too far, you're on the 2nd diamond. 20% short, about even
with the first diamond after the side. Both are very makeable.

The 4/5 railer is about 1.75 table lengths of travel. 20% error = a few inches above the foot rail
(cutting in corner isn't even possible) or center table.

Low-outside off 1 rail is a decent compromise... more in line with the shot, more risk of scratch
or stuck on the rail.

I actually intended 0 rails on this shot but mohrt in his video went off the rail, effectively
making it almost the same as the low outside he executes at the start of his video.

alphadog said:
If you play 1pckt you had better know how to go 3/4 rails out of there. IF there is a
rack of balls there,you spin the cb around the rack,fall on the 9.After pocketing the 9,
you have the 7,or 8.
I did say "know how" which implies PRACTICE.

Maybe after practice you decide it is not the shot for you.Maybe you see it as a ACE
up your sleeve!

GOOD POST,GOOD IDEAS
Click to expand...

Agreed, I like mohrt's what would you do posts.
For the record though I never saw anyone remotely try any shot like that 4/5 railer
in 1 pocket. I can see what you're getting at, just never saw it in hours and hours of 1p viewing.
 
iusedtoberich said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMIdizFZ2Sw&feature=youtu.be

Here is my video. I tried it 4 times (plus the 1 before I turned the camera on).
Click to expand...

Looks like the best way to me...

My opinion of the shot did change once I saw the picture and video setups compared to the WEI table...
Thought it appeared easier in the photos and videos.

I suspect all shortstops and above look at this one and instantly shoot this shot and have no trouble at all with their better than average strokes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top