Do tighter pockets favor the shotmaker?

[Chili Palmer]

I didn't read the whole but, I don't think tighter pockets make you a better player - either you have what it takes to put the OB dead center of any pocket, or fade it left or right, as needed, for it to go in - or you don't?

So, tighter pockets IMHO do favor the better player because they will hit their target more often than the lower skilled player. The lower skilled player now has an opportunity to pocket more balls and has a better chance at winning.

 

[ChrisinNC]

To answer the original question, tighter pockets favor the better player.

I just don’t think it’s that simple to analyze, depending on the table, the opponents, and the spot involved. If they are extremely tight pockets, it’s more likely the better player will be shooting at the money ball first, the better player can rattle and hang up the money ball, and if there’s a ball spot involved, he can hang up his opponent’s money ball.

 

[mikepage]

I didn't read the whole but, I don't think tighter pockets make you a better player - either you have what it takes to put the OB dead center of any pocket, or fade it left or right, as needed, for it to go in - or you don't?

So, tighter pockets IMHO do favor the better player because they will hit their target more often than the lower skilled player. The lower skilled player now has an opportunity to pocket more balls and has a better chance at winning.

The intent was to be NOT about whether tight pockets make you a better player
and NOT about whether tight pockets favor the better player.

Those are two interesting things worthy of discussion. They're just different subjects.

 

[Cameron Smith]

I don't see anything prohibiting beginners from refining or even starting their abilities with tight pockets. It's not just about hitting the pockets. Players should learn the dimensions and vectors of their shots and that no matter how small or distant the goal, the ball will remain the same size and generally enough, continue to roll in the direction it is shot.

A beginner on tight pockets will be less likely to learn proper cue ball movement because they will be so concerned with making the ball. We see this with snooker players where they get fairly consistent with straightish pots, but they don’t dare try to add side or hit the ball any harder than they are comfortable with.

 

[Chili Palmer]

The intent was to be NOT about whether tight pockets make you a better player
and NOT about whether tight pockets favor the better player.

Those are two interesting things worthy of discussion. They're just different subjects.

My first paragraph was my overall take on the tight pockets in general, IMHO, they don't make anyone a better player. The second paragraph addressed the title of the thread...

"Do tighter pockets favor the shotmaker?"

I, along with most I'm assuming, understood the thread title as the better player; however, that's still semantics.

The shotmaker IS the better player of the two when discussing ONLY pocket size, how could it not be? Two guys playing - one can't make a shot to save his life the other is SVB/Filler/Gorst/etc. - when you have two guys with varying ability vying for ONE thing (make a ball) how could the shotmaker NOT be the better player? In order to determine the "better player" one would have evaluate (as in your skill equilibrium statement) do they make good choices, do they have good speed control, do they fully understand the tangent line, do they know how/when/where to play safe, can they bank, etc...

I will stand by my statement.

 

[lfigueroa]

It may favor the superior position player. The player with better cue ball control is effected less by a tight table.

Yes, but position on a tight table is not the same as position play on a loose table.

If you're not use to playing position on a tough table you're either going to miss shots and/or lose precision in your position play. If you're on an easy table the quality of your position play goes way up because you have more pocket to play with and even more rail to work with. If you go to a tighter table a lot of that real estate goes away.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Poolmanis]

Yes, but position on a tight table is not the same as position play on a loose table.

If you're not use to playing position of a tough table you're either going to miss shots and/or lose precision in your position play. If you're on an easy table the quality of your position play goes way up because you have more pocket to play with and even more rail to work with. If you go to a tighter table a lot of that real estate goes away.

Lou Figueroa

You said it better than me. I meant same thing

 

[ChrisinNC]

My first paragraph was my overall take on the tight pockets in general, IMHO, they don't make anyone a better player. The second paragraph addressed the title of the thread...

"Do tighter pockets favor the shotmaker?"

I, along with most I'm assuming, understood the thread title as the better player; however, that's still semantics.

The shotmaker IS the better player of the two when discussing ONLY pocket size, how could it not be? Two guys playing - one can't make a shot to save his life the other is SVB/Filler/Gorst/etc. - when you have two guys with varying ability vying for ONE thing (make a ball) how could the shotmaker NOT be the better player? In order to determine the "better player" one would have evaluate (as in your skill equilibrium statement) do they make good choices, do they have good speed control, do they fully understand the tangent line, do they know how/when/where to play safe, can they bank, etc...

I will stand by my statement.

On tighter pockets, the better player is more likely to hang up a case ball in the pocket whereas the lesser skilled player is more likely to miss the pocket completely and possibly get away with a tough leave for his opponent. This is just one example of how tighter pockets could possibly work in favor of the lesser player.

 

[Bavafongoul]

One way to try to model and analyze this problem is to say that playing only involves two skills: shot making and position play.

Shot making can be characterized by the player's "spread" or the distribution of errors in where they send the object ball. Better shot makers have a smaller/tighter spread. Usually this is assumed to be a bell-shaped curve (gaussian) where most shots are pretty close to the target and large errors are rare.

Position play can be characterized by the length/difficulty of the shots a player leaves for himself. You can assign a difficulty number to each shot by noting the two distances of the shot -- CB to OB and OB to pocket in diamonds -- and multiplying them together. If you make either length twice as long, the shot allows only half the spread. Cut angle adds to the difficulty in a fairly simple way.

In this analysis I'm going to ignore strategy and just look at those two factors. I don't know how to put a number on strategy and various other factors.

Suppose you have two players who are equal with 5-inch pockets but one -- call him SaM -- is a shot maker and one -- PoP -- is a position player. Let's say that they are each 95% to make their shots and Pop has, on average, shots that are only half as hard as Sam's. Sam must have half the spread (twice the accuracy) on where he sends the object ball measured as an angle.

In the end, the spread for each of them measured at the pocket has to be the same. Each of them misses 5% of their shots which are out on the "tails" of the bell curve.

Now, make the pockets tighter. How do the misses change for the two players? The change will be exactly the same because the spread measured at the pocket is the same. If Sam is missing 10% of the time, Pop will also be missing 10% of the time.

Ignoring strategy might bother some, but I don't see how to include it. Note that Sam, the shot maker, may have figured out a good set of strategies for his abilities, like leaving tough shots when he pushes out. Pop may have a set of strategies that is only equal in usefulness -- we don't know. And maybe Sam jumps well.

As far as the shot difficulty measurement, I did the stats on some top players in the 1970s (14.1) in tournaments. Among the ones I clocked, Irving Crane consistently had the easiest shots at somewhere around 3. The other players were like 4 or more on average. Crane was a pretty good shotmaker as well.

IMO, strategy is an individualistic thing because of how players see the table differently, have different skills levels
for attaining shape and choose the object balls based on what they perceive is their ability to pocket that specific
ball and still get shape. Pocketing the ball is only half the task but the most important because if it doesn’t drop,
your lose the table. But let’s remember that position play decides how long you remain in control of the table.

A great player once remarked to me. A truly strong player doesn’t rely on pocketing difficult shots because they leave
the cue ball in the easiest shape for a runout. When a difficult shot comes up, they play safe or else pocket it so they
can return to getting easy shape all over again. Strategy reflects a player’s knowledge and accurate assessment of
the player’s ability to run the table or know where you stop and play safe. It’s common for strategy to change due to
an accidental bump of the cue ball. You choose shots based on your skills and confidence to make it & also get shape.
IMO, strategy is a self-adjusting approach based upon how the table changes & your ability to successfully manage it.

 

[sjm]

Let's start with this. The better player doesn't mean the better shot-maker. The better player, on average, is likely to be the better shot-maker, but there's more to pool than shot-making.

Back in the mid-1990s, George "Ginky" SanSouci often backed me in action matches after the Tuesday night weekly 9-ball event at Chelsea Billiards. This always struck me as odd, for I was no great player and wasn't able to beat the most elite very often. He felt, however, that my game was underrated by other players because, despite not being a really straight shooter, I was a skillful position player with superior speed control and was very capable at both defense and kicking. I was always given a spot when I played stronger players, one that George himself negotiated.

I was surprised that he would only back me on tight equipment and asked him why. He told me that, in his view, good position play and good defense/kicking were skills that paid greater dividends on tight equipment and that I pocketed well enough to usually cash in the chances I earned.

His view was that tighter pockets tended to favor the player with better position play skills and better tactical skills more than it favored the guy who might make one or two more difficult shots in the course of a match.

If I'd had as much confidence in me as George did, I'd have bet my own, but he made plenty of money backing me and always tipped me well. I miss him.

 

[straightline]

A beginner on tight pockets will be less likely to learn proper cue ball movement because they will be so concerned with making the ball. We see this with snooker players where they get fairly consistent with straightish pots, but they don’t dare try to add side or hit the ball any harder than they are comfortable with.

Depends how you go about it. Sure there's attention span and fortitude involved but learning how an object ball moves and ultimately the whole shot transpires IS what learning to shoot is. Small pockets help keep you in that zone.

The only issue I can grant concerning tight pockets is diminishing commercial potential. No one is tasked to hit everything perfect or else.

If you have winning aspirations though, the sooner you can get on it the better. I think calling out tight pockets is a bunch of extrapolated nonsense.

 

[RRfireblade]

I think...there's confusion over the question. I may be confused myself but I believe there are 3 scenarios being addressed at the same time.

1) 2 equal players on the same equipment: The better player will always be the better player regardless of the table difficulty factor.

2) 2 differently skilled shooters on the same equipment: The better shooter will always be the better shooter but may not win more games with an increased table difficulty factor.

3) 2 equal players on the same table difficulty factor: One player then starts to practice on tougher equipment for a time and then they play on the same equipment. The practice on the tougher equipment would have to make that player better all around and now they are no longer equal players regardless of the table difficulty factor. The better player will always be the better player.

 

[mikepage]

I think...there's confusion over the question. I may be confused myself but I believe there are 3 scenarios being addressed at the same time.

1) 2 equal players on the same equipment: The better player will always be the better player regardless of the table difficulty factor.

2) 2 differently skilled shooters on the same equipment: The better shooter will always be the better shooter but may not win more games with an increased table difficulty factor.

3) 2 equal players on the same table difficulty factor: One player then starts to practice on tougher equipment for a time and then they play on the same equipment. The practice on the tougher equipment would have to make that player better all around and now they are no longer equal players regardless of the table difficulty factor. The better player will always be the better player.

It would be my fault if the question is unclear.

We start with two players of overall equal skill (say after 2,000 games between them it is 1000 to 1000), but who have a somewhat different MIX of skill. One relies a little more on SHOTMAKING and the other relies a little more on MOVING.

Then we change to a table with smaller pockets. Does making shots harder favor the better shotmaker or the better mover?

 

[Chili Palmer]

It would be my fault if the question is unclear.

We start with two players of overall equal skill (say after 2,000 games between them it is 1000 to 1000), but who have a somewhat different MIX of skill. One relies a little more on SHOTMAKING and the other relies a little more on MOVING.

Then we change to a table with smaller pockets. Does making shots harder favor the better shotmaker or the better mover?

Thinking out loud, I believe there are too many variables in peoples consistency to pinpoint an answer for a group of people.

Does the the mover get out of line more or less than the shot maker misses? More importantly - does the shot maker get out of line more or less than the mover misses? And I think that can only be answered on an individual basis.

 

[bbb]

i come from a onepocket point of view
the pocket has to be tight enough to limit some of the shot makers firepower yet loose enough for the mover to still make balls
jmho
in the scenario above post#53
my answer is the guy who leaves himself the easiest shots more often the table favors
arguing for the other idea
is the shotmaker will be able to save some runs the mover cant because of his shot making on the tighter table
but again it comes down to how many times does the shot maker have to save himself vs the mover
jmho
icbw

 

[DynoDan]

BTW: I just finally noticed that my pockets now won’t accept two balls simultaneously (new cushions).
Since the table was re-done, my game has changed for the better (IMO). Tighter pockets force you to be more cautious. No more over-hitting & circling the table for position (you find a better route). Also, those steep-angle side pocket shots that used to tempt me on a GC are now a thing of the past.
I always had considered myself a ‘shotmaker’, and neglected the ‘position‘ aspect of the game. Tight pockets force you to revise your priorities.

 

[middleofnowhere]

BTW: I just finally noticed that my pockets now won’t accept two balls simultaneously (new cushions).
Since the table was re-done, my game has changed for the better (IMO). Tighter pockets force you to be more cautious. No more over-hitting & circling the table for position (you find a better route). Also, those steep-angle side pocket shots that used to tempt me on a GC are now a thing of the past.
I always had considered myself a ‘shotmaker’, and neglected the ‘position‘ aspect of the game. Tight pockets force you to revise your priorities.

A new perspective. Tight pockets don't only possibly improve your shot making but your position play as well. I think you have provided the best argument for playing on tighter equipment for everybody.

 

[ChrisinNC]

A new perspective. Tight pockets don't only possibly improve your shot making but your position play as well. I think you have provided the best argument for playing on tighter equipment for everybody.

Yes, there is absolutely no question that playing on a tighter pocket table or on a larger table (like a 10 footer), your position play has to be better / closer to your next object ball. Continuously leaving yourself long / hard shots will catch up to you very quickly.

 

[Chili Palmer]

A new perspective. Tight pockets don't only possibly improve your shot making but your position play as well. I think you have provided the best argument for playing on tighter equipment for everybody.

I just can't get on board that a tighter pocket improves a players ability. A tighter pocket only forces you to be more precise but it cannot CAUSE you to be more precise - if you have it you have it - if you don't you don't.

Cause vs correlation.

 

[middleofnowhere]

st can't get on board that a tighter pocket improves a players ability. A tighter pocket only forces you to be more precise but it cannot CAUSE you to be more precise - if you have it you have it - if you don't you don't.

Cause vs correlation.

If a player is so inclined and actually wants to improve, tougher equipment could possibly break them of laziness and lackadaisical play that they are used to getting away with.

You can't actually make anybody do anything but a training device can certainly point out certain things to a player that he may not even have realized. Sloppy play on loose equipment just becomes a habit. Of course you can play precision on loose equipment, but you probably won't.

It also should be said that some tables just play unfairly. I've played on tables that just spit out perfectly hit balls. I should be allowed to expect a certain result when I hit a ball.