How do you cross-bank this shot

[stumpie71]

Circumstances permitting, I try to hit about 4/5 of maximum follow to get instant natural roll. I don't want my cue ball sliding unnecessarily.

pj
chgo

I did at one point as well, however I found what works best for me ( relatively speaking) is to adjust my tip rather than the pace of my stroke. However this is something that tends to be more of a personal preference. So for myself playing on bar boxes and also on my table (8' oversized) the tip placement works well for me as I don't tend to over run shots as much and provides me more consistency.

:thumbup:

 

[Bob Jewett]

Then he used side for shape?

Well, it seems to me that along the line he was shooting, the natural path is two cushions to the corner pocket, or close to it. Or maybe he was worried about some other scratch or the kiss which he came real close to.

 

[ribdoner]

fwiw i concur with those that shoot this bank with extreme inside english

 

[Bob Jewett]

fwiw i concur with those that shoot this bank with extreme inside english

On that shot, extreme inside will reverse on the end rail and the cue ball will go back to the same side rail. Is that what you mean?

 

[ribdoner]

On that shot, extreme inside will reverse on the end rail and the cue ball will go back to the same side rail. Is that what you mean?

extreme inside to pocket the cross side bank depicted early on

the steeper the angle the thinner the OB must be hit hence controlling the QB is iffy

 

[BC21]

If you're going to calculate percentages and relative pocket sizes and margin of error, you need to include the cut angle. Shoot a spot shot from the jaws of a head pocket. Now shoot the spot shot but to the other foot pocket. Even though the pockets are the same size and the distances are all the same, the two shots have a different margin of error. There is a simple way to reduce the cut angle to a longer distance for a straight shot that does not require calculation.

I understand. But the cut is out, a low percentage option from that approach angle, so I wasn't even considering the margin of error for that.

My +/- 0.5° moe figure was for the corner bank, based on the fact that the ob looked to be pretty close to a straight on approach for that corner pocket. The distance from the rebound point to that corner would be around 62". And the bank to the side pocket has a fairly straight on approach angle also, but it's a foot closer and has wider, more friendly facings to help it wobble in. Look where it hit the facing, and still dropped into the hole. The options were a two-ball wide pocket vs a one-and-a-half-ball wide pocket. And the bigger pocket is closer.

As a side note.....I set this shot up tonight and banked it twice in a row on a Diamond 8ft table. Granted, pockets are no where as tight and tough as a Chinese 8ball table, and both times the cb scratched in the corner. On a 9ft it wouldn't have scratched. It's really not as difficult as it looks, especially for a player of his caliber. So I can see why he chose that bank over possibly wobbling the ball on a cut down the cushion or a bank to the corner.

Update: After watching the shot again, it looks like he used a touch of inside, which allowed him to hit it a little thinner and get the cb to the cushion. I used outside and hit the shot a little thicker. I don't think I'd have scratched if I had used inside and a thinner hit. Of course, on a pool table you'd just cut that ball down the rail.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I understand. ...

By what factor is the difficulty of the thin side pocket bank increased because it requires a much thinner cut than the straighter cross-corner bank?

 

[BC21]

By what factor is the difficulty of the thin side pocket bank increased because it requires a much thinner cut than the straighter cross-corner bank?

For a player comfortable with thin hits, and the cb only 15in or so from the ob, I would say it doesn't matter. If you're guessing, or if the cb is far from the ob (as you described in your spot shot example), then absolutely thin shots are more difficult/iffy than thicker shots. Otherwise, with the shot pertaining to this thread, what's more important is the margin of error on the pocket end of the shot. It determines how accurately you must hit the ob, whether it's straight in or a 60° cut.

I mean, the straighter cross corner bank would have to be hit absolutely perfect in order to send the ob to a pocket that has than a 1° window of acceptance.

The thin back cut bank to the side pocket can be hit a little less accurately, as shown in the video, and it can still hit the pocket. As long as you don't whiff the ball completely, or barely graze it, it'll come on over to that side pocket every time. You can be off a little and it still goes. Whereas being off a little on the cross corner bank is a no go for sure.

 

[Bob Jewett]

For a player comfortable with thin hits, and the cb only 15in or so from the ob, I would say it doesn't matter. ...

On the thinner hit, the actual physical margin of error is smaller. You have to be much more accurate on thin cuts than full hits. Otherwise, all the shots below would be of the same difficulty. I don't think they are.

A way to easily visualize the difference in geometrical/physical difficulty of those shots is explained in the first article here: http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1994.pdf

 

[Patrick Johnson]

By what factor is the difficulty of the thin side pocket bank increased because it requires a much thinner cut than the straighter cross-corner bank?

When viewed at a 60-degree cut angle (about what the cross side bank is) the OB contact area is half the size it is when viewed straight on - ignoring the added need to estimate throw with the cut shot (and squirt if hitting with inside spin).

For a player comfortable with thin hits, and the cb only 15in or so from the ob, I would say it doesn't matter.

It means the pocket margin of error would have to be at least twice as large at the side pocket in order for the required CB accuracy to be equal.

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

On the thinner hit, the actual physical margin of error is smaller. You have to be much more accurate on thin cuts than full hits. Otherwise, all the shots below would be of the same difficulty. I don't think they are.
View attachment 549402
A way to easily visualize the difference in geometrical/physical difficulty of those shots is explained in the first article here: http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1994.pdf

This is not the same shot that the op refers to. It's comparing an apple to an orange. The side pocket from straight on is a lot more forgiving than a corner pocket from straight on, especially on a snooker table or Chinese 8ball table.

Put a 2.25" ob 40 inches out from a 3.5" corner pocket on a snooker table, where the slate drops off well beyond the 3.5" opening. Set the cb about a foot or so away from the ob and shoot it straight in. If the cb strikes the ob as little as 1mm left or right from dead straight on, the ball won't drop into the pocket, even if you float it. Now set an ob 30 inches straight out from a side pocket where the slate drops off, sloping, right at the 3.5" opening and the cushion angles are more favorable to allow the ob to drag it's feet quite a bit and still drop, making it play more like 4.5" pocket opening. Shooting a straight in shot for this pockwt you could be off by as much as 2mm left or right from a perfect center to center hit and still pocket the ball.

That's all I was getting at. When looking at this shot, seeing how it was was hit way off from a clean center pocket shot, it's obvious why he chose to bank the ball there and not to the cross corner.

 

[rocketceo]

Sure but he hit the CB with left hand English.
Seemed to me he had natural shape with Outside. That's what I don't understand.

But everything turned out. Was he lucky on the shape or does he just know this CB path.

The reason for the inside English is two-fold. I would never shoot this with max right as you will often scratch in the opposite side, or kiss out just before the pocket (the kiss usually occurs though with slightly less cut angle). Medium right is the ticket, helping spin transfer, and reducing your squirt adjustment.
I actually practice this shot from time to time, with my cue over the corner pocket. The cut down the rail is the right shot in my view, but the reason I might pick the cross-bank as he did is that I know EXACTLY where to aim: as thin as I can that still leaves the object ball enough speed to cross the table. If you practice this extreme version, all the lesser cut variations become MUCH simpler. I have actually made this shot with the butt of my cue almost a half-diamond left of the bottom corner.pocket.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... That's all I was getting at. ...

And what I was getting at was that the thinness of the cut makes a large difference to the difficulty of the shot when the cut gets up in the 60-degree range. Like doubles the difficulty and effectively halves the size of the target pocket. I think reducing the pocket by a factor of two is important to the OP shot.

I agree that on what is effectively a snooker table the side pocket is a much more inviting target for bank shots. You often see snooker players shoot banks to the sides and almost never to the corners except in very special situations.

 

[BC21]

And what I was getting at was that the thinness of the cut makes a large difference to the difficulty of the shot when the cut gets up in the 60-degree range. Like doubles the difficulty and effectively halves the size of the target pocket. I think reducing the pocket by a factor of two is important to the OP shot.

I agree that on what is effectively a snooker table the side pocket is a much more inviting target for bank shots. You often see snooker players shoot banks to the sides and almost never to the corners except in very special situations.

I'd love to try some Chinese 8ball, at least for a little while. It's been years since I've played on a snooker table, would like to do that too.