There is a lot of truth in your post. Bigger pockets means more flow to the play, more options, less stress. If the pockets are cut right, you can slam balls down the cushions, which sometimes comes up. I haven't had many big runs in the recent years, because I'm playing on tight equipment and the pockets don't take the balls right at speed.
I don't want to speak for Lou here, and I won't. But if you asked me, the answer would quite honestly be "no". Every straight pool video on youtube is swarmed by snooker snobs and tight pocket fanatics. C and D players at my local pool hall, when asking me about my highest run, always ask about the pocket size the second I tell them. I might say for instance "150 balls on a 4.75 inch table". Quite helpfully, one guy even has a math system (of his own "genius" design), where he rates that as equivalent to 50 balls on a 4.25 inch table, "which is what the pros play on, and therefore the only table that matters". He did once run 60 balls on such a table, so I guess that explains his expertise and maybe the origin of the conversion equation. When I kindly inform him that I once ran, lets say 90 on such a table, and ask wether it therefore could be upconverted to 270 on a 4.75 inch table, he tells me it doesn't work like that? BTW did you know that snooker players (exclusively) are by default better at snooker (and therefore all cuesports) even than people who beat them in the snooker nationals and have higher high breaks, if those people play other cue sports? It has something to do with timing, so I'm told? I'm starting to realize why so many murders happen in pool halls.
