actually if the ball is the target it went long (in billiardese.....
) not shortit hit past the target ie long
probably from miscalculation of the slide from the new cloth (speculation on my part)
Filler’s 3-Rail Kick in the Reyes Cup … Was it the Right Choice?
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
) not shortit hit past the target ie long
probably from miscalculation of the slide from the new cloth (speculation on my part)
In three-cushion billiards, when the cue ball "goes short," it means that the cue ball does not travel far enough after hitting the cushions, failing to reach the intended object balls or the required cushion contacts. This can result in a missed shot or failure to score a point, as the cue ball must make contact with both object balls after hitting at least three cushions
............................................
the cue ball in this case went too far (long)
if it would have hit before the object balll it would have not travelled far enough (short)
Last edited:
Thanks, Stu. This one took a lot of work and time.
Agreed. As I mentioned in the video, the fact that Filler took so long to decide was proof of this.
Good point. This was the case for many of the 3-rail kicks also. But leaving an opponent a two-way bank or safety attempt is better than BIH (from either a miss or scratch with the 3-rail kick, as demonstrated in the video), or a bad leave (which was very possible over a wide range of hits at the shot speed Filler used). Regardless, it was a tough decisions, and there was no clear "best shot."
As always, very well stated.
Thanks again for your always-inciteful (and helpful) posts.
Agreed. Just because you miss a shot doesn't mean you mad the wrong choice.
Based on the amount of time Filler took to decide, there obviously wasn't a lot of "comfort" on this one.
Based on his shot going so long, he definitely did not account enough for the slick-cloth effect, as demonstrated in the video.
A jump safety would have definitely been a good choice if the 9 was much closer to the CB.
I tried some jumps during filming; but it wasn't a viable option (with the 9 where it was), so I didn't include it.
Filler's shot definitely went "long." IMO, with multiple-rail kicks, it is best to think about how the CB comes off the last rail. If the angle off the last rail is too steep, the CB falls "short" of the target (in this case, above the 9); and if the angle off the last rail is too shallow, the CB goes "long" of (or past) the target (in this case, below the 9).
not sure i like steep and shallow as descriptors (thats just me)
narrow or closed off the 3rd rail
or
wide or open off the 3rd rail gives me a better visual of the description
but honestly
i think the definition should be directed at the target
if the cue ball hits before the target =short
if the cue ball hits past it =long
jmho
narrow or closed off the 3rd rail
or
wide or open off the 3rd rail gives me a better visual of the description
but honestly
i think the definition should be directed at the target
if the cue ball hits before the target =short
if the cue ball hits past it =long
jmho
Last edited:
Good video Dave. I personally think in slick conditions it is way easier to miss one rail kicks than 3 rail ones(for me at least). I think Josh just felt he read table better on 3 railer than 1.. and that 3 rail shot with speed had served me well many many times. because too full hit gives safety 80% of times and that happens a lot with slick tables.
Against a world class opponent, you're still a big underdog on any good hit w/out making it. I imagine after thinking a while he ended up going for the shot that gave him the best chance of making the ball.
Something like - one rail kick, hit 95%, make 10%. Three rails, hit 75%, make 20%.
On a prop bet, I'd say Filler is better than 1 in 5 to make that ball w/three rails.
Something like - one rail kick, hit 95%, make 10%. Three rails, hit 75%, make 20%.
On a prop bet, I'd say Filler is better than 1 in 5 to make that ball w/three rails.
Dave, that clip is a good one to sit with, because my first instinct watching Filler was the same as a lot of guys here, take the shorter kick and just make sure you hit it. Then Poolmanis made me rethink it. On slick new cloth like that, I have missed more one-rail kicks than I care to admit, the cue ball just slides and slides and I am past the ball before I know it.
What sold me a bit on the three-railer was his point about a too-full hit still leaving a safety most of the time. At my level in Hamilton, that matters more than the make percentage, because I am not making that kick very often either way, and leaving my opponent a shot after a thin miss is what actually loses me the game.
freds, your numbers put it plainly too, 95 percent to hit it one rail and maybe 10 percent to make it, against 75 and 20 the long way around. Dave, in the tests you ran, did the medium-speed one-railer leave Filler a worse leave when it missed than the three-railer did, or was the miss pretty much a sell-out either way?
What sold me a bit on the three-railer was his point about a too-full hit still leaving a safety most of the time. At my level in Hamilton, that matters more than the make percentage, because I am not making that kick very often either way, and leaving my opponent a shot after a thin miss is what actually loses me the game.
freds, your numbers put it plainly too, 95 percent to hit it one rail and maybe 10 percent to make it, against 75 and 20 the long way around. Dave, in the tests you ran, did the medium-speed one-railer leave Filler a worse leave when it missed than the three-railer did, or was the miss pretty much a sell-out either way?
There is not a lot of comfort on any shot where you can't see the ball, but one must assume it is the shot he thought was best for HIM or he would have shot it differently.
If he had hit it or made it, would it have been the wrong choice?
Last edited:
You can watch all the shots in the video to judge for yourself. The 3-railer gave a bad result much more than I thought it would (especially at the slow-ish speed Filler used).
Thanks for running that down, Dave, that's a real answer. I didn't expect the three-railer to come out that badly at the slow speed either, which makes me look at Filler's choice a bit differently. Did the medium one-railer leave him any better off when it missed, or was it a sell-out either way once he missed?
Ditto. I do not agree that, at the speed Filler, chose, he survives anything less than a make of the seven ball more than occasionally. He'll almost never get separation at that speed, and the nearly-always-fatal double kiss is an undeniable danger. I feel strongly that he bet the rack on kicking it in, and his choice was certainly reasonable.
Poolmanis wisely notes that the slick conditions were a problem associated with both the one railer and the three railer,
When i play tournaments and want test table in warm up I shoot couple times 3 rail "opposite system shot" 3 rails. It is fast way to get read of rails and cloth.
It is close what Filler had, and i am sure he know that too so that shot. Use slightly less english than natural 3 rail kick and faster speed.
Here you can see me test it on last tournament before match.
It is close what Filler had, and i am sure he know that too so that shot. Use slightly less english than natural 3 rail kick and faster speed.
Here you can see me test it on last tournament before match.
He thought he was Efren.