Banking Zero X System...quick question.....

[Cardigan Kid]

The diamond number system in the zero x billiards banking video is what I've been working with.

in this system, Tor explains if not compensating with running English on the object ball, then subtract one from your aiming point.

However...Dr. DAVE explains in his banking videos that the aim is not the diamond but the space on the track line right in front of the diamond and the more extreme the angle, the more that track line spot and diamond separate. So firing at a 40/20 line shot, you are really aiming at 18, but tor doesnt explain this.

Am I on the right track? Anyone else working on banks that has seen zero x with any input would be a huge help.

 

[One Pocket John]

The diamond number system in the zero x billiards banking video is what I've been working with.

in this system, Tor explains if not compensating with running English on the object ball, then subtract one from your aiming point.

However...Dr. DAVE explains in his banking videos that the aim is not the diamond but the space on the track line right in front of the diamond and the more extreme the angle, the more that track line spot and diamond separate. So firing at a 40/20 line shot, you are really aiming at 18, but tor doesnt explain this.

Am I on the right track? Anyone else working on banks that has seen zero x with any input would be a huge help.

I have studied Tor's tapes many times and have taken his teachings to the table.

It is true that Tor does not explain the type of stroke he is using, it's a punch stroke.

Line up a shot from 40/20 and apply low left/right (depending on the side of the table your shooting from) and use a punch type stroke, don't follow thru, just hit the QB.

If you don't want to use any spin, then yes you will have to aim further down the rail.

You will see an immediate difference as to how the OB reacts.

Hope this helps.

John

 

[Danimal]

They're both basically saying the same thing.

Just know that if you're shooting a natural bank (what you would call 40/20), shooting the CB with a little bit of low and outside imparts what would be "running english" on the OB, and would keep the bank true to that angle.

You can also shoot the same bank with no english on the CB, but that puts a little bit of reverse english on the OB (due to CIT), which causes it to bank short. Hence, you aim a smidge over from the natural angle (what you called 18) to make it go.

Two different ways to make the same bank, depending upon what you need to do with the cueball for position.

 

[Cardigan Kid]

Hey guys, huge thanks for your responses.

John, the punch stroke makes sense now. I absolutely see that after you mentioned it and I will look at that from now on.

Danimal, thanks for the correction, I was putting high left to get the object ball to roll with running right, but coming up short. Your low left comment makes sense and I need to work on that. Thanks for pointing that out.

Huge thanks and appreciation. Green rep headed your way, fellas.
Awesome.

 

[One Pocket John]

Hey guys, huge thanks for your responses.

John, the punch stroke makes sense now. I absolutely see that after you mentioned it and I will look at that from now on.

Danimal, thanks for the correction, I was putting high left to get the object ball to roll with running right, but coming up short. Your low left comment makes sense and I need to work on that. Thanks for pointing that out.

Huge thanks and appreciation. Green rep headed your way, fellas.
Awesome.

You can use high spin to bank balls. Instead of driving the OB to 20, try 19, then 18, the 17. Tables are all different on how they bank.
When you get on a strange table testing the banking points is real important. The very first thing you should do is test the table.

Have fun.
John

 

[phil dade]

Does anyone know for sure the size table he is using ? Dr Dave indicated he was on a 4 x 8 if I recall correctly. To me Tor seems to be on that or smaller. Trying his instruction I always came up short. Anyone know?

 

[Cardigan Kid]

Does anyone know for sure the size table he is using ? Dr Dave indicated he was on a 4 x 8 if I recall correctly. To me Tor seems to be on that or smaller. Trying his instruction I always came up short. Anyone know?

I have a gold crown 2-9 foot, and yes I was coming up short too. Thats where you have to subtract numbers from your target diamond relative to the distance the object ball is away from the target cushion.

tor appears to be playing on an 8 foot table as was dr. Dave.

If you see the posts above, some advice is given which Tor doesn't tackle in terms of shooting non running english banks. The point of aim is not the diamond but the space along the "rail groove" point across from the diamond, so at a more steep angle on a nine foot table, your aim point will be a number or two less than what tor says to use to get to zero.

 

[Cardigan Kid]

You can use high spin to bank balls. Instead of driving the OB to 20, try 19, then 18, the 17. Tables are all different on how they bank.
When you get on a strange table testing the banking points is real important. The very first thing you should do is test the table.

Have fun.
John

Just got back from a practice session, and I feel a lot better now. The advice worked.
oddly enough, I was all over the place in regards to anywhere within the first diamond to the corner pocket like a 10/5 or 12/6 bank. I was finding it hard to dial them in. But I was nailing 60/30s, 44/22s, 30/15s, etc.

I will be interested after working the rails on my home table, to get to a foreign table and test the rails like you said.

 

[336Robin]

The diamond number system in the zero x billiards banking video is what I've been working with.

in this system, Tor explains if not compensating with running English on the object ball, then subtract one from your aiming point.

However...Dr. DAVE explains in his banking videos that the aim is not the diamond but the space on the track line right in front of the diamond and the more extreme the angle, the more that track line spot and diamond separate. So firing at a 40/20 line shot, you are really aiming at 18, but tor doesnt explain this.

Am I on the right track? Anyone else working on banks that has seen zero x with any input would be a huge help.

Its not the numbering convention in the Tor Lowry System is wrong or Dr. Daves is Right.

You are aiming at points between the diamonds yet you are shooting a 2 1/4 in ball at that point that compresses the rail and width much larger in size than a pin sized contact point you are shooting into ...in both directions. Making a small allowance for that width to me is preferable than to try and do the numbering convention at the nose of the cushion when then once more you are sending a 2 1/4 size ball into it.

If doing the numbering thing Dr. Daves way works for you more power to you but for ease of numbering manipulations I would personally learn to manipulate the one who numbering convention was easier which for me is the system you say Tor Lowry explains and it likely the most popularly used.

Both have similarities and applications although measuring at the cushion might be just a tad more precise but to me the difficulty factor is greater, that could be because I got used to using the diamonds but so far it works pretty well for me.

Neither of those systems will have any ability to scrub off rail induced spin that affect all kick shots to a degree and more so at a very wide angle and this is something you are going to have to learn to play by feel anyway.

 

[Cardigan Kid]

Its not the numbering convention in the Tor Lowry System is wrong or Dr. Daves is Right.

You are aiming at points between the diamonds yet you are shooting a 2 1/4 in ball at that point that compresses the rail and width much larger in size than a pin sized contact point you are shooting into ...in both directions. Making a small allowance for that width to me is preferable than to try and do the numbering convention at the nose of the cushion when then once more you are sending a 2 1/4 size ball into it.

If doing the numbering thing Dr. Daves way works for you more power to you but for ease of numbering manipulations I would personally learn to manipulate the one who numbering convention was easier which for me is the system you say Tor Lowry explains and it likely the most popularly used.

Both have similarities and applications although measuring at the cushion might be just a tad more precise but to me the difficulty factor is greater, that could be because I got used to using the diamonds but so far it works pretty well for me.

Neither of those systems will have any ability to scrub off rail induced spin that affect all kick shots to a degree and more so at a very wide angle and this is something you are going to have to learn to play by feel anyway.

Yes, sir. I agree using the diamonds is far easier and it's pretty much ingrained in my mind now. The help with the dr. Dave video was understanding why I was coming up short (because like you said it's the width of the ball and that point on the cushion that we are really adjusting for). I've also settled into manipulating the tor numbering system (which is easier for me)and after your post, I'll keep in mind the ball width, which is vital.

The fact of the matter is the more I work on banks the more I absolutely respect the professionals like John brumback, who make it look so darn easy.