Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) for measuring table "toughness"

Sloppy Pockets said:

Exceedingly difficult IMO.

The medical community uses similar risk factors (always less than 1) to assess a patient's likelihood of survival during major surgeries. They use the entire AMA, NIH, and CDC databases to establish these factors based upon surgical records for many decades. Needless to say, the "n" is very large in these studies. Still, they miss a hell of a lot.

For example, a patient may be assigned a risk factor of 0.70 for being diabetic, a 0.65 for being over 70 years old, a 0.83 for being overweight, a 0.75 for having high blood pressure, and so on. Having all of these health issues, then multiplying all of the applicable risk factors, a given patient would be assigned a mere 28% (0.28) chance of survival.

What is not assessed in the degree of morbidity that each factor is causing in the particular patient's health profile. How bad is the diabetes? For how long has the patients suffered with it? How much organ damage has accrued since the onset of the disease? Same with overweight, HBP, age, etc. It's just like all of the table variables, where with things like cloth speed, cushion rebound, cloth age, etc., it is almost impossible to determine the degree that these are present on any given table.

I went through all this when my mother needed heart valve replacement, quadruple bypass surgery, and carotid artery surgery all at the same time. I remember her combined risk factors put her at about a 20% chance of survival. Of course, they operated anyway (have to bring that much-needed money into the cardiac care unit, ya know?) And, of course, they killed her in there, but not before torturing her for three months (but that's a whole other story).

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear about your mother's story, but thank you for sharing the info. Very interesting.

Sloppy Pockets said:

Dave isn't claiming that this formula is the be all and end all of table difficulty assessment. And besides, it's not complete yet, it is still very much a work in progress. When it is finished, there will still be a lot of tables that just don't fall where a given player personally thinks they should, but the tables and formulas are still valid for rough estimates of table difficulty. I actually was pretty skeptical of how this would play out, but at this point, I'm very impressed with the way things have evolved.

Click to expand...

Nice summary. Thank you.

Sloppy Pockets said:

Seems that most tables posted here actually fit pretty close to the opinions of the folks who posted their measurements. I know mine does.

Click to expand...

I hope you and others still feel this way after the recent changes. I think things have finally evolved to a place I am happy with (pending how people respond to the latest data). Hopefully, things won't need to change much (if at all) from here on.

Thanks again to everybody for the input and feedback. The current version of the TDF rating system is much better than the original version I posted.

Regards,
Dave

ENGLISH! said:

... just for a quick discussion clarification, does that mean that you disagree with the center angle radius line direction of the slate cut being a factor

Click to expand...

Not at all. There are many, many factors not in the TDF equation that affect how a table actually plays (cloth condition, facing type and condition, facing vertical draft angle, humidity, cloth type and speed, cushion bounciness, cushion nose height, table levelness, etc!!!).

ENGLISH! said:

or is that just a factor that can not be calculated do to the inconsistency & difficulty in it's determination & therefore must be thrown out of the equation?

Click to expand...

Bingo. There are many factors that are too difficult (and probably inappropriate) to include.

Regards,
Dave

JC said:

That's why we need head to head matchup data. Lower score on a tougher table may just be the superior player. Bring it on Oregon!!

JC

Click to expand...

I am still hoping some people with access and interest in multiple tables will be willing to run through the BU Exams on different tables so we can see how the BU scores vary with TDF. That would be some useful and interesting data.

Catch you later,
Dave

Fatboy said:

dr_dave said:

I am still hoping some people with access and interest in multiple tables will be willing to run through the BU Exams on different tables so we can see how the BU scores vary with TDF. That would be some useful and interesting data.

Click to expand...

thats going to be good, then you can compair their scores to the tables(on the list) and see how accurate the values you have calculated for the tables are.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Are you volunteering to be the first to post well-practiced BU scores on two different tables for comparison? :thumbup:

Thanks,
Dave

Again, here's the latest updated list. Any comments or additions?

Measurements and data reported by AZB users for table difficulty factor (TDF), based on the table size factor (TSF), pocket size factor (PSF), pocket angle factor (PAF), and pocket shelf factor (PLF):

name -- table_size:TSF -- pocket_mouth_sizeSF -- mouth-throat_differenceAF -- shelf_depthLF -- TDF (table description)
dr_dave -- 10':1.10 -- 4":1.20 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.39 (fictitious tough 10' table example)
dr_dave -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.25 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 2 1/8":1.07 -- 1.34 (fictitious example "B")
Bonus Ball -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.25 -- 1/8":0.97 -- 3/4":0.98 -- 1.19 (Bonus Ball table)
Bob Dixon -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/2":0.99 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.18 (Pool Sharks, Las Vegas, money table, Diamond Pro-Am, red logo, Ernesto Dominguez-modified)
MahnaMahna -- 10':1.10 -- 5 1/2":0.85 -- 2":1.09 -- 2 1/2": 1.15 -- 1.17 (snooker table poorly converted into a pool table)
Qaddiction -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/8":1.15 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.16 (Diamond)
rexus31 -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 3/8":0.98 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.15 (mid to late 50's AMF Commercial Model similar to a Brunswick Anniversary/Sport King)
FatBoy -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.14 (Ernesto-Dominguez-modified Brunswick Gold Crown)
TATE -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 7/8":0.98 -- 1.14 (Ernesto-Dominguez-modified Brunswick Gibson)
Neil -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/8":1.15 -- 1 1/4":1.14 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.10 (modified Valley "bar box")
cigardave -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 1":1.07 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 1.07 (typical Pro-Cut Diamond)
Pool Hustler -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/4":1.10 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 15/16":0.98 -- 1.05 (modified Brunswick Gold Crown, measured by rexus31)
JC -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 143 deg:1.07 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.05 ("Cobrasized" Brunswick Gold Crown III)
SloMoHolic -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 7/8":1.04 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.02 (2005 Diamond Pro with ProCut pockets and Red-label rails)
oldschool1478 -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 141 deg:1.02 -- 1 3/4:1.00 -- 1.02 (updated Red Badge Diamond Pro)
"standard" table -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.00 (WPA spec "standard")
Kelly_Guy -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.98 (Antique Brunswick Jefferson, circa 1900)
dr_dave -- 9':1.00 -- 5": 0.91 -- 1 1/8":1.10 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.98 (old Brunswick Gold Crown II at MatchUps, Fort Collins)
BryanB -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.97 (1931 Brunswick with double shimmed pockets)
dzcues -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 11/16":1.02 -- 1 15/16":1.03 -- 0.96 (typical League-Cut Diamond)
dzcues -- 9':1.00 -- 5":0.91 -- 15/16":1.07 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.95 (Gandy Big G)
Sloppy Pockets -- 8'+:0.95 -- 5":0.91 -- 1 1/8":1.10 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.95 (A.E. Schmidt)
44Runner -- 8'+/-:0.925 -- 4 3/8":1.05 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1":0.95 -- 0.94 (8' Diamond Pro-Am - blue label)
mamics -- 9':1.00 -- 4 11/16":0.95 -- 7/8":1.04 -- 1 3/16":0.95 -- 0.94 (no-name "Chinese Cheapie" with Uylin cushions)
12squared -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.91 (Brunswick Gold Crown home table)
iusedtoberich -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 1":1.05 -- 1 1/2":0.97 -- 0.90 ("loose" Brunswick Gold Crown)
MSchaffer -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 3/4":1.01 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.89 (Brunswick Gold Crown II)
mfinkelstein3 -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 7/8":1.03 -- 1 1/2": 0.97 -- 0.88 ("loose" Brunswick Gold Crown III)
Vahmurka -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 7/8":1.03 -- 1 1/2": 0.97 -- 0.88 (Brunswick Centurion)
Dopc -- 8':0.90 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.87 (8' Connelly Kayenta)
SloMoHolic -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.95 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.87 (old 8' Brunswick Medalist league table)
SloMoHolic -- 8'+:0.95 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 7/8":1.04 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.85 (Brunswick Medalist at Stardust Club in Manchaca, TX)
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.95 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.84 (8' Connelly home table)
BRussell -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.91 -- 13/16":1.04 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.83 (8' Olhausen)
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.91 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.79 (fictitious 8' example "A")
Mooneye -- 7':0.85 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.79 (7' Brunswick "Ranchero")
SloMoHolic -- 6':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.95 -- 5/8":0.95 -- 0.77 (old 6' Valley "bar box")
dzcues -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.95 -- 1/2":0.95 -- 0.77 (7' Valley "bar box")
dr_dave -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.95 -- 3/4":0.95 -- 0.77 (7' Valley/Dynamo "bar box" at West End, Fort Collins)

Neil said:

dr_dave said:

I am still hoping some people with access and interest in multiple tables will be willing to run through the BU Exams on different tables so we can see how the BU scores vary with TDF. That would be some useful and interesting data.

Click to expand...

Still planning on doing that at some point.

Click to expand...

That would be awesome, especially from a good player like yourself who is well-practiced with the BU Exams. When you do, please post your scores on the BU thread also.

Thanks,
Dave

Fatboy said:

dr_dave said:

Bingo. Are you volunteering to be the first to post well-practiced BU scores on two different tables for comparison? :thumbup:

Click to expand...

perhaps, i might do that, i'll pm you.

Click to expand...

That would be great. Thanks. Although, please post the scores and table info here instead of by PM so everybody can see them.

Fatboy said:

I looked at the tight table at Best Billiards the other day in Vegas. actually i got the balls and started playing on it, pockets had to be 4" or a hair smaller, i rolled the tray of balls out on it and ran all 15- i noticed it was easy for being such a tight table. Something wasnt adding up-its a Diamond, beautiful table. I looked at the pocket and shelf and I got my answer-the slate had a 1/4" bevel on it, so it effectively made the shelf MUCH shallower than a normal slate would be. i showed it to a couple guys there and they were surprised. I looked at ALL the other Diamond tables there and none had the shelf like this table did with the bevel. I'm back in LA for a few days when I get out to Vegas I will try and get a picture of it.

FWIW I played about 20 hours on a blue label Diamond table(factory specs)and it felt like a barbox compared to my table.

Click to expand...

Please post the measurements for both Diamonds so we can see what the TDF says in comparison to your table.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave said:

hossy said:

Hi Dave,

Do you have a TDF document in mm notation.

In order to be used to more and more people, you should prepare it.

Thanks,

Click to expand...

Great idea! I will add metric-unit equivalents for all values. I personally find it embarrassing that the US is one of the few countries in the entire world that refuses to modernize out of the "dark ages" of "English Units." Jimmy Carter tried to change this in the 1970's, but it didn't stick. Maybe our next president can try again. I thought Obama might give it a go, but its getting a bit late for that now.

Unfortunately, most pool tables have been built to English-Unit specs, so all of the metric equivalents will be weird values, but I'll do it anyway.

Click to expand...

After I added metric units to the TDF document, I expected you and other international users to post their table info, but not one has yet.

Please post info for the tables you play on so my effort won't seem wasted.

Thanks,
Dave

TATE said:

As I stated previously, pocket size needs to be given a lot more weight than shelf depth and cut angle. Also, pocket size difficulty can easily be measured by margin of error. Margin of error = pocket size - ball size. A 5" pocket with 2 1/4" balls has a total margin of error of 2.75". A 4.5" pocket has a margin of error of 2.25. A 4.5" pocket has an 18% smaller margin of error than a 5" pocket.

In my opinion, this table is about 15% more difficult than a Diamond. looking at the pocket size and cut angle, I think most would agree that this is a tight, tough table. My table has 4" pockets with less cut angle and a shallow shelf, and plays just a little more difficult then this one.

Click to expand...

How do things look to you now after my recent changes? Do the tables you were referring to now seem to be rated more appropriately?

Thanks,
Dave

TATE said:

I meant to respond earlier, sorry you had to ask. Yes, this is a lot closer to reality, although I believe Pool Hustler's table to be 10% - 15% more difficult than a standard Diamond, and mine maybe 5% more difficult than his.

In terms of the other tables, the length of the table I believe is a little more of a factor than you're giving it. For example, if I had a choice of playing the ghost even up 9 ball on a standard Diamond, or on SloMoHolic's 8 footer with 4 7/8 pockets, spotting the ghost 1.65 games in a race to 11 (15% TDF), I would gladly take the 8 footer. The 8 footer, in my opinion, would be worth at least 4 ghost games. That would put the TDF on an 8 footer with large pockets somewhere around .65.

If I had a choice of playing the ghost even on a standard diamond, or getting a 4 game spot on a 10 footer with Diamond pockets, I would take the 9 footer. So in that case, a 10 footer should be about 1.35.

I believe that once you get below 8' - it doesn't really matter if the table is 7 or 8 feet - "long shots" are not challenging like they are on a 9 or 10 footer.

Click to expand...

Thank you again for you input and feedback. This is certainly a work in progress, and I think the results keep getting better. I look forward to input from others on your suggestions.

I personally don't think a 10' table is 35% more difficult than a 9' table if both had "standard" size pockets (4 3/8" to 4 1/2"). That is what your 1.35 number would suggest.

Remember, the table size and pocket size factors are handled separately. For example, a 10' table with 4" pockets would have a TSF*PSF of 1.10*1.20=1.32 (32% tougher than a "standard" 9' table), and an 8' table with 5 1/4" pockets would have a TSF*PSF of 0.90*0.88=0.79 (21% easier than a "standard" 9' table). That's a pretty big difference.

Catch you later,
Dave

Bob Dixon said:

"Bob Dixon -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/2":0.99 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.18 (Pool Sharks, Las Vegas, money table, Diamond Pro-Am, red logo, Ernesto Dominguez-modified)"

When I use an angle measure these numbers are incorrect. The table seems to be actually quite a bit tougher (too high, I think). But I'm not going to submit the figures until I remeasure the shelf soon.

Click to expand...

Please report back when you are confident with your measurements so I can update your entry if necessary.

Thanks,
Dave

TATE said:

Do you have access to a 10 footer? I can't find one around here to test out. I was going by how bad the pro's played in the challenge match a few months ago.

The way to do it would be to play the ghost 9 ball and calculate total number of shots versus misses (not counting balls on the break). Play a fair number of games and do the same on a 9 footer - that should give us a rough estimate.

Click to expand...

I don't have access to a 10' table, but that sounds like a good approach to me.

Regards,
Dave

Vahmurka said:

ordinary Brunswick Metro:
TSF (9 ft) = 1.0 PSF (12.5 mm) = 0.95 PAF (20 mm) = 1.04 PLF (45 mm) = 1.03
TDF = 1.0176

And now, the king of them all :grin: with a TDF of ... 1.722 :shocked2:
Yeah, it's a 12ft Russian pyramid table. We used to play snooker with pool balls on it until a real snooker table was set up nearby. Forget about playing down the rail, and one needs to be as precise as a surgeon to make a ball that is closer to the cushion than the middle of the table.
TSF (12 ft) = 1.25 PSF (72 mm) = 1.45 PAF (125 degr) = 0.97 (I disagree 125 makes this table easier than had it been 144, LOL) PLF (25 mm) = 0.98

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting these, especially the "sick" Russian Pyramid table. That one is so far off the pool-table charts, I wouldn't put too much weight on the TDF numbers.

This is what I got for your two tables, using the latest TDF document (... it looks like you might be using an old version):

Vahmurka -- 12':1.25 -- 7.2cm:1.55 -- 125deg:0.97 -- 25mm:0.98 -- 1.84 (12ft Russian pyramid table)
Vahmurka -- 9':1.0 -- 12.5cm:0.91 -- 20mm:1.04 -- 45mm:1.03 -- 0.97 (Brunswick Metro)

Here's the latest updated list:

Measurements and data reported by AZB users for table difficulty factor (TDF), based on the table size factor (TSF), pocket size factor (PSF), pocket angle factor (PAF), and pocket shelf factor (PLF):

name -- table_size:TSF -- pocket_mouth_sizeSF -- mouth-throat_differenceAF -- shelf_depthLF -- TDF (table description)
Vahmurka -- 12':1.25 -- 7.2cm:1.55 -- 125deg:0.97 -- 25mm:0.98 1.84 (12ft Russian pyramid table)
dr_dave -- 10':1.10 -- 4":1.20 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.39 (fictitious tough 10' table example)
dr_dave -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.25 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 2 1/8":1.07 -- 1.34 (fictitious example "B")
Bonus Ball -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.25 -- 1/8":0.97 -- 3/4":0.98 -- 1.19 (Bonus Ball table)
Bob Dixon -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/2":0.99 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.18 (Pool Sharks, Las Vegas, money table, Diamond Pro-Am, red logo, Ernesto Dominguez-modified)
MahnaMahna -- 10':1.10 -- 5 1/2":0.85 -- 2":1.09 -- 2 1/2": 1.15 -- 1.17 (snooker table poorly converted into a pool table)
Qaddiction -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/8":1.15 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.16 (Diamond)
rexus31 -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 3/8":0.98 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.15 (mid to late 50's AMF Commercial Model similar to a Brunswick Anniversary/Sport King)
FatBoy -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.14 (Ernesto-Dominguez-modified Brunswick Gold Crown)
TATE -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 7/8":0.98 -- 1.14 (Ernesto-Dominguez-modified Brunswick Gibson)
Neil -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/8":1.15 -- 1 1/4":1.14 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.10 (modified Valley "bar box")
cigardave -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 1":1.07 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 1.07 (typical Pro-Cut Diamond)
Pool Hustler -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/4":1.10 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 15/16":0.98 -- 1.05 (modified Brunswick Gold Crown, measured by rexus31)
JC -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 143 deg:1.07 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.05 ("Cobrasized" Brunswick Gold Crown III)
SloMoHolic -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 7/8":1.04 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.02 (2005 Diamond Pro with ProCut pockets and Red-label rails)
oldschool1478 -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 141 deg:1.02 -- 1 3/4:1.00 -- 1.02 (updated Red Badge Diamond Pro)
"standard" table -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.00 (WPA spec "standard")
Kelly_Guy -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.98 (Antique Brunswick Jefferson, circa 1900)
dr_dave -- 9':1.00 -- 5": 0.91 -- 1 1/8":1.10 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.98 (old Brunswick Gold Crown II at MatchUps, Fort Collins)
BryanB -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.97 (1931 Brunswick with double shimmed pockets)
Vahmurka -- 9':1.0 -- 12.5cm:0.91 -- 20mm:1.04 -- 45mm:1.03 -- 0.97 (Brunswick Metro)
dzcues -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 11/16":1.02 -- 1 15/16":1.03 -- 0.96 (typical League-Cut Diamond)
dzcues -- 9':1.00 -- 5":0.91 -- 15/16":1.07 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.95 (Gandy Big G)
Sloppy Pockets -- 8'+:0.95 -- 5":0.91 -- 1 1/8":1.10 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.95 (A.E. Schmidt)
44Runner -- 8'+/-:0.925 -- 4 3/8":1.05 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1":0.95 -- 0.94 (8' Diamond Pro-Am - blue label)
mamics -- 9':1.00 -- 4 11/16":0.95 -- 7/8":1.04 -- 1 3/16":0.95 -- 0.94 (no-name "Chinese Cheapie" with Uylin cushions)
12squared -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.91 (Brunswick Gold Crown home table)
iusedtoberich -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 1":1.05 -- 1 1/2":0.97 -- 0.90 ("loose" Brunswick Gold Crown)
MSchaffer -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 3/4":1.01 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.89 (Brunswick Gold Crown II)
mfinkelstein3 -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 7/8":1.03 -- 1 1/2": 0.97 -- 0.88 ("loose" Brunswick Gold Crown III)
Vahmurka -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 7/8":1.03 -- 1 1/2": 0.97 -- 0.88 (Brunswick Centurion)
Dopc -- 8':0.90 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.87 (8' Connelly Kayenta)
SloMoHolic -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.95 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.87 (old 8' Brunswick Medalist league table)
SloMoHolic -- 8'+:0.95 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 7/8":1.04 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.85 (Brunswick Medalist at Stardust Club in Manchaca, TX)
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.95 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.84 (8' Connelly home table)
BRussell -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.91 -- 13/16":1.04 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.83 (8' Olhausen)
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.91 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.79 (fictitious 8' example "A")
Mooneye -- 7':0.85 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.79 (7' Brunswick "Ranchero")
SloMoHolic -- 6':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.95 -- 5/8":0.95 -- 0.77 (old 6' Valley "bar box")
dzcues -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.95 -- 1/2":0.95 -- 0.77 (7' Valley "bar box")
dr_dave -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.95 -- 3/4":0.95 -- 0.77 (7' Valley/Dynamo "bar box" at West End, Fort Collins)