Missed Shots - why inexperienced and experienced players miss shots

[BC21]

I get your point, I just disagree with it. I feel it's the wrong way to analyze the difference between tables.

Lol. So there's actually a right and wrong way to analyze?

Do what I said. Go to youtube and pull up any pro 9ball or 10ball or 8ball match on a 9ft table. All you have to do is watch a couple of games. There might be 1 or 2 shots out the rack that are actually shots you'd never face on a 7ft table. The rest are exactly the same, meaning if you could freeze the balls where they are on a certain shot, and then swap the 9ft table for a 7ft table (keeping the targeted pocket in place), the shot wouldn't be any different at all.

Thr reason why many players struggle on big tables is because they play lousy position, leaving too much distance. I think my analysis has plenty of merit, regardless of whether or not it fits into your definition of a "right" or "wrong" analysis.

 

[Oikawa]

Lol. So there's actually a right and wrong way to analyze?

Do what I said. Go to youtube and pull up any pro 9ball or 10ball or 8ball match on a 9ft table. All you have to do is watch a couple of games. There might be 1 or 2 shots out the rack that are actually shots you'd never face on a 7ft table. The rest are exactly the same, meaning if you could freeze the balls where they are on a certain shot, and then swap the 9ft table for a 7ft table (keeping the targeted pocket in place), the shot wouldn't be any different at all.

Thr reason why many players struggle on big tables is because they play lousy position, leaving too much distance. I think my analysis has plenty of merit, regardless of whether or not it fits into your definition of a "right" or "wrong" analysis.

Even if you don't play lousy position, the average shot distance will be larger. I agree with Bob, 9ft simply is harder on average, and I'm not sure I get what point you are trying to make.

Quantifying the difference between them is an interesting topic, but IMO your points don't show anything that implies 9ft isn't as hard as people think it is. Even if you can translate most 9ft shots to 7ft tables, it doesn't change anything about the underlying facts about how 9fts are harder on average. That's pretty much like saying that 9ft is only ~30% larger. Yes, it is, but 30% makes a huge difference already, all things considered.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

FYI, here's a visual comparison of playing areas for several pool table sizes (the pic is a 9-footer).

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

... So there's actually a right and wrong way to analyze? ...

I think so. Here is another way to look at the problem....

Let's consider your shot after a miss by your opponent, so pretty random locations of the balls. For any given position of the object ball, figure the difficulty of the shot for each position of the cue ball. If you do this on the two table sizes, you get roughly the percentage difference in difficulty mentioned above. I think this is a much better way to analyze the problem than throwing away the part of the table you want to ignore.

 

[BC21]

Even if you don't play lousy position, the average shot distance will be larger. I agree with Bob, 9ft simply is harder on average, and I'm not sure I get what point you are trying to make.

Quantifying the difference between them is an interesting topic, but IMO your points don't show anything that implies 9ft isn't as hard as people think it is. Even if you can translate most 9ft shots to 7ft tables, it doesn't change anything about the underlying facts about how 9fts are harder on average. That's pretty much like saying that 9ft is only ~30% larger. Yes, it is, but 30% makes a huge difference already, all things considered.

I understand. My point was simply to show that despite what many players believe, there are just a few shots on a 9ft table that the player will never face on a 7ft table. And I realize I'm going against the grain here by saying that, but it doesn't make it untrue. If anything, it should help players feel less intimated when they get on a bigger table, because the majority of shots require no more skill than what is needed on a barbox of equal pocket size and depth, unless of course the player has a tendency to leave too much distance between cb and ob. That definitely makes it tougher.

I should add that I am referring to a Diamond barbox, which is slightly bigger than a valley, and it has the same size pockets as a 9ft Diamond table.

Anyway, I watch aspiring players practicing on the big table, only to go over to the smaller table and miss the same shots they were missing on the big table. On a larger table, if a player wants to work on stroke and pocketing accuracy, they should stick to practing long shots, the shots that are never seen on a barbox but come up occasionally on a 9ft. All other shots can be practiced on the small table, even though some of these players overlook that fact.

In the long run, however, I agree that playing on a 9ft will eventually make you more accurate on certain shots. But that doesn't mean a barbox can't improve your game. I know a player who refuses to play barbox tournaments. He calls barboxes "toy tables", and says real players play on big tables, not on toy tables, because "anyone" can runout on a barbox. Funny thing though, he doesn't magically start running more racks when he plays on the "toy" tables! The reason why is exactly because of what I'm trying to explain here - the majority of shots aren't any easier simply because the table is smaller.

 

[BC21]

I think so. Here is another way to look at the problem....

Let's consider your shot after a miss by your opponent, so pretty random locations of the balls. For any given position of the object ball, figure the difficulty of the shot for each position of the cue ball. If you do this on the two table sizes, you get roughly the percentage difference in difficulty mentioned above. I think this is a much better way to analyze the problem and throwing away the part of the table you want to ignore.

? Seriously, it's more of an observation than an analysis.

By simply observing the shots faced most often, it's obvious that table size doesn’t make much of a difference most of the time, meaning no more accuracy than normal is needed. But if a player continues to leave long shots due to poor position play, then of course the table size is a big factor and more accuracy is required.

 

[BC21]

FYI, here's a visual comparison of playing areas for several pool table sizes (the pic is a 9-footer).

pj
chgo

View attachment 765841

This would be better if you anchored each table outline to one of the corner pockets on the 9ft table. That would show the overlapping surface area between a 7ft and a 9ft table.

The point I've been trying to drive home, in the face of adamant dismissal (lol), is this:

Any shot in that overlapping area of the 7ft and 9ft tables would require the same accuracy. In other words, the cb-ob relationship within that common surface area would be the same on either table. It wouldn't matter that the 9ft table is bigger, because that larger portion of the table wouldn't pertain to the specific shot. This applies to most of the shots we face on big tables. The vast majority are no different than the shots we face on a barbox. Big bucket Valley tables are an exception, but I'm not talking about barboxes that allow that much slop/forgiveness.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This would be better if you anchored each table outline to one of the corner pockets on the 9ft table.

Sorry, I made that drawing years ago, so you'll have to imagine that.

That would show the overlapping surface area between a 7ft and a 9ft table.

This drawing shows that comparison too, in a different way. I suspect this comparison works too for comparing shot difficulties, although I haven't given it enough thought to know which version is most revealing.

pj
chgo

 

[Oikawa]

The point I've been trying to drive home, in the face of adamant dismissal (lol), is this:

Any shot in that overlapping area of the 7ft and 9ft tables would require the same accuracy. In other words, the cb-ob relationship within that common surface area would be the same on either table. It wouldn't matter that the 9ft table is bigger, because that larger portion of the table wouldn't pertain to the specific shot.

To put it into a mathemathical perspective, let's say that every shot has, among many other factors, a distance difficulty factor D, which is calculated by summing the two vectors (lines) of the shot (CB->ghost ball and the OB->pocket), defined as a value between 0 and 1 such that:

- 0 is the easiest possible shot on a 9ft table (0cm CB-OB-pocket distance).
- 1 is the longest possible shot with the largest possible cut angle on a 9ft table.
- Every other shot gets a value by interpolating between these two.

Within this definition, the point you are making is that any shot played on the 9ft table with a difficulty factor D below the threshold of the longest possible shot on a 7ft table (let's say for example that this limit is 0.7), can be translated into an identical shot on the 7ft table.

What me (and Bob, if I understood his point correctly) are saying, is that, while it is indeed true that you can translate all shots below 0.7 to a 7ft table, when it comes to discussing the average difficulty of shots in the long run, just looking at shots as either being within this threshold of 0.7 or not, and saying that 70% of shots are identical to 7ft table shots, doesn't give the full picture, because it ignores the fact that this average difficulty is larger (about 30%, if we simplify everything) on 9ft tables. An uniformly distributed random value between 0 and 0.7 has an average of 0.35, whereas an uniformly distributed random value between 0 and 1 has an average of 0.5 = 30% difference in difficulty on average.

 

[BC21]

Sorry, I made that drawing years ago, so you'll have to imagine that.


This drawing shows that comparison too, in a different way. I suspect this comparison works too for comparing shot difficulties, although I haven't given it enough thought to know which version is most revealing.

pj
chgo

When it comes to analyzing/comparing a specific shot (cb-ob-pocket relationship) on different size tables, it makes sense to compare table sizes from a referenced/targeted pocket.

Example: Let's say we have a halfball shot into a corner pocket. The ob is 1 foot from the side rail and 40" from the pocket, and the cb is 20" from the ob. This setup could be on a 7ft table or a 9ft table and the difficulty or margin of error will be the same on both tables. Sure, on a barbox the ob would be about 4 diamonds away from the pocket, while on a 9-footer it would be a little over 3 diamonds from the pocket. But the actual measured distance from ob to pocket is 40", regardless of table size. Table size is not part of the equation.

 

[BC21]

To put it into a mathemathical perspective, let's say that every shot has, among many other factors, a distance difficulty factor D, which is calculated by summing the two vectors (lines) of the shot (CB->ghost ball and the OB->pocket), defined as a value between 0 and 1 such that:

- 0 is the easiest possible shot on a 9ft table (0cm CB-OB-pocket distance).
- 1 is the longest possible shot with the largest possible cut angle on a 9ft table.
- Every other shot gets a value by interpolating between these two.

Within this definition, the point you are making is that any shot played on the 9ft table with a difficulty factor D below the threshold of the longest possible shot on a 7ft table (let's say for example that this limit is 0.7), can be translated into an identical shot on the 7ft table.

What me (and Bob, if I understood his point correctly) are saying, is that, while it is indeed true that you can translate all shots below 0.7 to a 7ft table, when it comes to discussing the average difficulty of shots in the long run, just looking at shots as either being within this threshold of 0.7 or not, and saying that 70% of shots are identical to 7ft table shots, doesn't give the full picture, because it ignores the fact that this average difficulty is larger (about 30%, if we simplify everything) on 9ft tables. An uniformly distributed random value between 0 and 0.7 has an average of 0.35, whereas an uniformly distributed random value between 0 and 1 has an average of 0.5 = 30% difference in difficulty on average.

Excellent explanation.

One note, not that it makes much difference... A 9ft Diamond table is 25% larger than a 7ft Diamond table.

Anyhow, my only reason for beating my point into the ground is because so many players believe a big table allows them to shoot longer, tougher shots, and they think that provides a type of practice that can't be achieved on a barbox. But that's not necessarily true, unless the player purposely sets up longer/tougher shots to practice on that 9ft table, shots that can't be practiced on a smaller table because the surface area just isn't there.

Under normal game conditions, the vast majority of shots faced on a big table will be the same shots faced on a small table - same difficulty factor, same cb-ob-pocket relationship. Every now and then one of those longer/tougher shots will come up, but not at a frequency that provides meaningful practice. The player would have to play countless hours on the big table to eventually hit enough of the tougher shots to gain any benefit. And I'm all for that! I had a 9ft for 20+ years, so I'm aware of the long-term benefits.

I'm definitely not trying to discourage anyone from practicing or playing on 9ft tables. I'm just defending against the falsehood that a 9ft table can do something for your stroke and accuracy that an equally tight 7ft table can't do.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

When it comes to analyzing/comparing a specific shot (cb-ob-pocket relationship) on different size tables, it makes sense to compare table sizes from a referenced/targeted pocket.

My first thought is that, since distances from the center spot to the rails/pockets are 14% longer on a 9-footer than a 7-Footer, average shot lengths will be 14% longer. Does that track with your analysis?

My way of visualizing the comparison is to imagine a layout of balls on the 9-footer, then shrink that same layout to fit (centered) on the 7-footer.

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

My first thought is that, since distances from the center spot to the rails/pockets are 14% longer on a 9-footer than a 7-Footer, average shot lengths will be 14% longer. Does that track with your analysis?

My way of visualizing the comparison is to imagine a layout of balls on the 9-footer, then shrink that same layout to fit (centered) on the 7-footer.

pj
chgo

Your way doesn't exactly match what should be looked at. Every shot should be looked at in reference to a targeted pocket, keeping the same distance between cb and ob and between ob and pocket. By shrinking the layout to fit the table size, you're doing the same conparison that Bob is doing, which automatically, and erroneously, makes about every shot on the small table play easier than on the larger table. And that's not a real comparison of the shots. The shot distances (cb to ob to pocket) don't shrink from one table size to another.

I took about 20 screenshots from youtube clips following 9ball breaks. Half of the matches were played on 7ft diamond tables and half were on 9ft tables.

When looking at the layouts following the breaks, analyzing which balls would be shot into which pockets, there was no obvious or major difference in shot difficulty from one table size to another. When the 1 ball is 2ft from the pocket, and the cb is 3ft from the 1 ball with whatever cut angle, that's the shot, regardless of how big or small the table is. The shot is exactly the same on any size table with equal pockets, though on larger tables some shots might be harder to reach.

If I can figure out how to present the pics to show what I'm talking about, I'll do it. Well, maybe not. I've beat this drum enough already, and if the way I see the comparison isn't the "right" way to look at it, I'm fine with dropping it, though I won't be jumping into the proverbial box anytime soon. I'd rather keep looking and analyzing things in my own "wrong" way.

 

[BC21]

Note for anyone who wants to meet up and play a little:

I have a traveling job and will be visiting many cities throughout the northeast region of the US. I will be in the Springfield MA/Hartford CT area the week of July 15th. If any of you live close around there, please pm me with a good place to play.

Here are more places I'll be over the next few weeks, in case anyone would like to meet me in person and play a match or two, on any size table! Lol

Rocky Mount NC
Washington DC
Frederick MD
Baltimore MD
Kingston NY
Buffalo NY

Let me know some good places to play!

 

[boogieman]

I understand. My point was simply to show that despite what many players believe, there are just a few shots on a 9ft table that the player will never face on a 7ft table. And I realize I'm going against the grain here by saying that, but it doesn't make it untrue. If anything, it should help players feel less intimated when they get on a bigger table, because the majority of shots require no more skill than what is needed on a barbox of equal pocket size and depth, unless of course the player has a tendency to leave too much distance between cb and ob. That definitely makes it tougher.

I should add that I am referring to a Diamond barbox, which is slightly bigger than a valley, and it has the same size pockets as a 9ft Diamond table.

Anyway, I watch aspiring players practicing on the big table, only to go over to the smaller table and miss the same shots they were missing on the big table. On a larger table, if a player wants to work on stroke and pocketing accuracy, they should stick to practing long shots, the shots that are never seen on a barbox but come up occasionally on a 9ft. All other shots can be practiced on the small table, even though some of these players overlook that fact.

In the long run, however, I agree that playing on a 9ft will eventually make you more accurate on certain shots. But that doesn't mean a barbox can't improve your game. I know a player who refuses to play barbox tournaments. He calls barboxes "toy tables", and says real players play on big tables, not on toy tables, because "anyone" can runout on a barbox. Funny thing though, he doesn't magically start running more racks when he plays on the "toy" tables! The reason why is exactly because of what I'm trying to explain here - the majority of shots aren't any easier simply because the table is smaller.

If you actually look at the shot, and aim the ball, it isn't an issue. If you get used to how a shot looks it feels different. Like if a ball is at 2nd diamond on a 9', it's not exactly the same shot as at the second diamond on a 7'. Many shots repeat themselves but some people use table landmarks to shoot and it's not the same. I mean, if you're aiming the shot and not just doing it from rote memory it's no different but it can be strange for folks who aren't used to playing on different sizes if that makes sense.

Like if I were to shoot a ball on the second diamond on a 9' exactly as I did on a 7' it may miss. If the shot was at 1 3/4 diamond and I shot it the same way I would at 2 diamonds it would go. IDK, hard to explain. This is why I'd rather aim than just shoot by feel, but it can be a habit if you let it. No big deal if you're used to a certain table brand and size, but a better player will take all this into consideration. Like I'm not going to cheat the pocket as much or hit it near as hard on a diamond vs a standard cut valley. If I'm playing on an olhausen I'm not hitting anything into the corner pockets over a medium speed and I'm wanting to not even touch a pocket facing.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The shot distances (cb to ob to pocket) don't shrink from one table size to another.

I don’t get your rationale for this, but I can live with that.

pj
chgo

 

[boogieman]

Excellent explanation.

One note, not that it makes much difference... A 9ft Diamond table is 25% larger than a 7ft Diamond table.

Anyhow, my only reason for beating my point into the ground is because so many players believe a big table allows them to shoot longer, tougher shots, and they think that provides a type of practice that can't be achieved on a barbox. But that's not necessarily true, unless the player purposely sets up longer/tougher shots to practice on that 9ft table, shots that can't be practiced on a smaller table because the surface area just isn't there.

Under normal game conditions, the vast majority of shots faced on a big table will be the same shots faced on a small table - same difficulty factor, same cb-ob-pocket relationship. Every now and then one of those longer/tougher shots will come up, but not at a frequency that provides meaningful practice. The player would have to play countless hours on the big table to eventually hit enough of the tougher shots to gain any benefit. And I'm all for that! I had a 9ft for 20+ years, so I'm aware of the long-term benefits.

I'm definitely not trying to discourage anyone from practicing or playing on 9ft tables. I'm just defending against the falsehood that a 9ft table can do something for your stroke and accuracy that an equally tight 7ft table can't do.

I think if you play 1P on a 9', nothing will look long on any table after that... for some reasons those bastards keep putting me frozen to the head rail... I try to do the same favor in return!

 

[BC21]

I don’t get your rationale for this, but I can live with that.

pj
chgo

Look at this shot. The table is a 9ft table. But referencing the targeted pocket, and keeping the cb and ob where they are, the shot is exactly the same as if you were facing it on a 7ft table. In fact, for any shot on this 9ft table into this corner pocket, if the cb and ob are anywhere in the blue area, the shot is no more challenging than if it were being played on a 7ft table.

For players who struggle to run out on 9ft tables, but believe 7ft tables are so much easier, try this: Refer to the pic above. Try not to leave the cb anywhere in the gray area when shooting a ball into the respective corner pocket. If the ob is in the gray area also, and your only shot is to cut it into that far corner, then so be it, but that's not a common shot that comes up too often. If you can keep the cb in the blue, then you'll be shooting barbox shots on a 9ft table.

 

[BC21]

I think if you play 1P on a 9', nothing will look long on any table after that... for some reasons those bastards keep putting me frozen to the head rail... I try to do the same favor in return!

You're so right!

 

[Poolmanis]

Table size. I play all games from 12ft tables to sometimes to 7ft pool.
BC21 is kinda right but there is aspects that his thinking is not taking to account.
Table size on big table (12ft) our brain have less guidance. Because there is more dead space between rails. Our brain uses rails compared to balls judge shots. Not always but often when there is more cut than almost straight in..
On 7ft tables it is way easier to judge things right than bigger tables.
Also it is easier to get right position on 7ft tables because you need move cueball less distance. All around playing in 7ft tables is way easier than 9ft.
Everything adds up. Little more shorter distance on pocketing, little more easy to get cueball right. 7ft pool table also pockets have more % from total rail length of table and it is a lot more. It adds up to close to rail shots more and more.