Bob and I show that on VEPP-V. It is sometimes called Loop (Pool spelled backwards). That is excellent practice for carom shots.
Last edited:
Rolling-Cue-Ball CAROM ANGLE Systems
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Bob and I show that on VEPP-V. It is sometimes called Loop (Pool spelled backwards). That is excellent practice for carom shots.
I play sometimes Vs. ghost too. I think it is harder than 15 ball ghost..
Here are the definitions from my online pool glossary:
Cowboy Pool: a carom game played with the 1 on the head spot, the 3 on the foot spot, and the 5 on the center spot. Pocketing a ball scores its numerical value, caroming off two balls scores a point, and caroming off all three balls scores two points.
Loop: “pool” spelled backwards, referring to a carom drill/game where the goal is to hit OBs off the CB into pockets to score.
You're welcome. I aim to swerve.
Played a few hours of kiss pool with the big ball on severely loose 7 footers around the beginning of the century. We couldn't decide on how to break - cue ball on the spot. Which suit do you use? Or break with the 8 ball? No score of course. I think we finally went with a normal rack and break.
Last edited:
That old method works OK... unless, of course, you're not playing 3C and must pocket the OB (ball 2), so don't have a choice about where to hit it.
Although I like exploring these systems, in fact I almost always just "feel" where the CB will go - pretty accurately after all these years.
pj <- math? what math?
chgo
For a fairly full hit, this system predicts too small a cue ball deflection angle and for thinner hits it predicts too large a cue ball deflection angle. As an example, it says that for a half-ball hit, the cue ball will be deflected 90 degrees rather than the actual 35 degrees. The system, which is in Hoppe's book, is "good enough" over a useful range but almost always has some built in error.
Is there any "system" where this isn't true?
Off hand I can't think of one.
I'm not trying to argue the merits of Dr D's system. Just wondering if the math calculates the same hit.
I don't do well with imagining more than one line on the table, especially if I have to take a walk around the table. Divide and multiply.
lets support drdave and growing interest in billiard measurement systems. its a welcome change to aiming system threads.
hiding behind technical jargon is common to engineers. the contact between cue and cue ball operate on different principles.
dave is focused on actions after an ideal and perfect stroke. his presentation doesnt provide an assessment for risk of executing the shot poorly.
Last edited:
A major point is that the Hoppe system is not just a little off for some shots -- it is horribly broken for a wide range of shots. That's usually not mentioned when it is presented.
At least one system gives the follow angle fairly accurately for all fullnesses of hit.
No, the "measured" system described by Bob and Dr. Dave is incredibly accurate - many shots in the one you describe aren't even close.
EDIT: I see Bob said about the same thing.
pj
chgo
That is called "back of the ball" aiming. It works fairly well for full hits, but not as well as the 2.5-times or 3-times the angle system. More info (including a mathematical analysis and comparison) can be found here:
full and thin hit carom system resource page
What he said.
Actually, the RCA system (with the 0.281 point marked-cue system in the video) yields the exact carom angle for all cut angles! But this obviously assumes you apply the system correctly at the table.
The "back of the ball" math backs up what Bob Jewett said. The system has errors, even if you apply it perfectly at the table. FYI, the math and graphs showing how the "back of the ball" system compares to others can be found here:
TP B.13 - Rolling CB Carom Angle Approximations
Just one more comment and then I'm out of the discussion.
Again I'm not arguing the merits of Dr. D's system. I believe it works.
I'm not saying the method in Hoppe's book is better or worse.
I do think, with any system, (disregarding fundamentals errors) practice and experimentation is needed to perfect, if perfection is even possible.
I'm confident the math is accurate. Dr. D wouldn't publish it unless this is so.
That said, the method in Hoppe's book works within certain range of attack angles. Other angles requires practice. Some angles, ?? Well ya gotta go with another method, or game strategy. I know this and this topic has nothing to do with my original question.
I suppose there's no answer.