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

dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
derangedhermit said:
Well, you could have some code at the top of a BU web page on TDF that lets players put in the four measurements from their table and gives them the TDF number. They need not even consult any tables or read any text from the .pdf, or do any multiplication, if the TDF number is all they want.
Click to expand...
Good idea. I'll look into this. I could at least create an Excel spreadsheet that would take the measurements and report the individual factors along with the TDF. That would be easy.


derangedhermit said:
Diamond has changed their rail/cushion design at least 3 times, I think, in 20 years, so change is going on. Valley changed their rails not that long ago. And custom rails and cushions can be (and are being) built, both by table mechanics and by folks like Ridgeback Rails. And then there are English cushions...
Click to expand...
Sorry if I misunderstood, but I think that the kind of changes you are hoping for would involve pockets that would look and react nothing like existing pool pockets. That is what would be a tough "sell," IMO.


derangedhermit said:
I have to confess that I'd like to convince you (or someone, but you're the natural candidate) to compare English rounded pocket corners (used for both snooker and pool) with US angled ones, at US (say 4.5") and snooker (say 3.5") pocket sizes. I suspect the English pockets would remove some of the steep slopes and inflection points for both effective pocket size and aiming offset. I've been looking into small British pub tables and moving onto the largest pool and snooker audience market in the world, China, and how China has decided on a combination of snooker size and shape pockets on a 9-foot table using US size balls for Chinese 8-ball. I find that choice interesting, and personal interest aside, it is a large part of the future of 8-ball.

You can buy a British bar table and have it delivered to the US from the UK for not too much money (e.g. a Supreme Winner), and I'm sure you can soon have a Chinese-spec 8-ball table delivered to the US as well from China.

Here's a link to the WPBSA 2005-2006 corner and side pocket diagrams in the happy case intellectual curiosity gets the better of you.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your suggestion, but it honestly is not a priority for me since I don't have much interest in non-pool equipment and since my "list" of things that I already want to do is longer than I can possibly complete in this life time.

Sorry,
Dave


derangedhermit said:
PS I have a 8' Diamond Pro 2014 ("blue badge"). I'll soon send you the numbers for your collection.
Click to expand...
Sounds good. Thanks.
 
Sloppy Pockets

Sloppy Pockets

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
derangedhermit said:
What is the rationale for not taking into consideration (or not stating how they are taken into consideration) the two side pockets? I would say one substantial difference in playing on a Valley 7' and a Diamond 7' is the side pocket play.

PAF (facing angle factor) and PLF (shelf depth) are each dependent on the other. The PLF table attempts to capture the dependence on the PAF. There is one error or at least extraneous qualification in that table: "PSF≤0.90 or PAF≤0.90". There are no values below 0.94 in the PAF table.

The PAF table does not attempt to capture the PLF dependence. If the shelf is shallow, the facing angle becomes less important. That "less important" brings up that I think perhaps weighting factors are needed.

The approach you have taken is to normalize (probably the wrong term) each of the four parameters around 1.0 and then multiply them together to get your adjustment factor for table difficulty. I think this is fine for showing the approach and allowing discussion of each component. My preference for usage would be to have an equation to plug in the physically measured values and produce the TDF directly, without the intermediate rounding or grouping.

Last, I think aiming offset (as defined in http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/TP_3-5.pdf) may be a significant factor in TDF, if it varies significantly based on combinations of the pocket parameters PSF, PAF, and PLF. I see what I believe is +/- 0.5" in aiming offset in http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/TP_3-6.pdf. According to the TP 3.6 offset chart, I would say offfset is to some degree understood as players advance, but that graph for offset shows that the needed offset is anything but intuitive.

If a study manipulating PSF, PAF, and PLF shows little impact on that graph, then there is no need to incorporate aiming offset into TDF.

However, I would say that a fundamental goal of pocket design should be that aiming offset be a "smooth" function of shot angle. One could set further goals for specific cases, such as minimizing aiming offset, to make the table easier to play. But I think the baseline goal should be that an intuitive understanding of the needed offset can be developed over time. A simpler shot-angle / aiming offset relationship than the ones in TP 3.5-3.7 is needed (the offset graph in TP 3.8 appears to be missing).

I think the same applies to effective pocket size. I find the graph of effective pocket size in TP 3.6 (corner pocket, slow shot) to be contrary to my experience and feeble calculations. It seems to show that there is a range of angles close to the rail, of about 5 degrees (say 38-43 degrees), where the effective pocket size is about 0.25" larger than a straight-in shot (e.g. object ball on spot). I need to dig into the math, since I am sure the error is mine.

In any case, if TP 3.6 reflects actual playing conditions, then I submit varying pocket parameters so that slow corner pocket shots' effective pocket size graph more like fast pocket shots (TP 3.8), or, to a lesser extent, side pocket effective size (TP 3.5 and 3.7) - not necessarily in difficulty, but in predictability and intuitiveness, would be a substantial improvement. If there is a combination of pocket parameters that makes effective pocket size more predictable and consistent across the range of pocketable shot angles, that table will be better to play on - not necessarily easier, since the pockets could still be made arbitrarily difficult, but less bewildering.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I believe "p2 ⋅cos(θ) − R⋅sin(βlww(θ))" on the third page of that PDF should be "p2 ⋅cos(θ) + R⋅sin(βlww(θ))". If so, this changes everything. :p
 
fastone371

fastone371

Certifiable
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
Anybody have any tables to add to the list, maybe some tough gambling tables out there?
Click to expand...

I have a GCII with Artemis cushions and small 4 1/2" pockets, more like 4 3/8" or 4 1/4" maybe that I will measure up over the weekend. I think I actually want to open the pockets up to 4 1/2" next time its recovered.
 
Last edited:
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
BTW, the fact that the effective size of a corner pocket at slow speeds is larger at shallow angles into the rail (on most tables) has been verified experimentally (in addition to theoretically). Bob Jewett and I did a set of experiments that showed a big different in effective pocket size and center at different angles into the pocket, along with a peak at shallower angles. He wrote this up in BD a couple of years ago, but I don't think he has the articles online. Bob, are you out there listening. If so, could you post those articles? I'll send him a PM also.
Click to expand...
For those interested, Bob just sent me his articles to post. Here they are:

"Where's the Pocket? ... They change size and shape," (Bob Jewett, BD, May, 2013).
"Get-In English, At Last," (Bob Jewett, BD, June, 2013).

Other articles and info on this topic can be found on the pocket "size" and "center" resource page.

Enjoy,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
derangedhermit said:
Well, you could have some code at the top of a BU web page on TDF that lets players put in the four measurements from their table and gives them the TDF number. They need not even consult any tables or read any text from the .pdf, or do any multiplication, if the TDF number is all they want.
Click to expand...
Good idea. I'll look into this. I could at least create an Excel spreadsheet that would take the measurements and report the individual factors along with the TDF. That would be easy.
Click to expand...
FYI, I just created a spreadsheet document to automate the table look-up and calculations for the TDF. It is located on the table difficulty factor (TDF) resource page, and here's the direct link:

Excel TDF calculator spreadhseet

Regards,
Dave
 
Albatross Cues

Albatross Cues

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
That is really cool Dr.Dave. Thanks for putting this up.

Just figured out my GCIII and your calculator put it at 1.34. It also says it is too tough.

Just put in the factors if I were to go from 3/16" shim to 1/16" shims and it still comes out tough at 1.14.

Again, nice program, Mahalo
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Albatross Cues said:
That is really cool Dr.Dave. Thanks for putting this up.

Just figured out my GCIII and your calculator put it at 1.34. It also says it is too tough.

Just put in the factors if I were to go from 3/16" shim to 1/16" shims and it still comes out tough at 1.14.

Again, nice program, Mahalo
Click to expand...
Please post your measurements (and the individual factors) and I'll add your table to the published list.

Thanks,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here's what we have so far. If you have access to an "interesting" table, please post measurements.

Thanks,
Dave

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_size:pSF -- mouth-throat_difference:pAF -- shelf_depth:pLF -- 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)
Bob Dixon -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 145deg:1.14 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.37 (Pool Sharks, Las Vegas, money table, Diamond Pro-Am, red logo, Ernesto Dominguez-modified)
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)
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 -- 143deg: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 -- 141deg: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 (average-difficulty table)
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)
mamics -- 9':1.00 -- 4 11/16":0.95 -- 143deg:1.07 -- 1 3/16":0.95 -- 0.97 (no-name "Chinese Cheapie" with Uylin cushions)
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)
frigopie -- 9':1.00 -- 11.5cm:0.95 -- 138.7deg:0.98 -- 3.5cm:0.98 -- 0.91 (Eurotour Dynamic III)
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 (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 (Brunswick Gold Crown III)
StraightPoolIU -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.88 (Brunswick Gold Crown I)
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)
RobMan -- 9':1.0 -- 5": 0.88 -- 3/4":1.01 -- 1.5":0.97 -- 0.86 (Brunswick Gold Crown)
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)
jtaylor996 -- 7':0.85 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 146deg:1.09 -- 1.51":1.00 -- 0.82 (7' Legacy home table)
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)
 
Cardigan Kid

Cardigan Kid

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Table Difficulty Factor Calculator
Table Size 9' gold crown 2
Units Inch
Pocket mouth size 4.25 "
Pocket throat size 3.8 "
Shelf depth 1"
Calculate:
Table Size Factor: 1.00
Pocket Size Factor: 1.20
Pocket Angle Factor: 1.14
Pocket Shelf Factor: 0.98
Table Difficulty Factor: 1.34
This table is too tough

That calculator is pretty cool. I recently had my rails modified for a higher level of difficulty, and it looks like it's now certified as "too tough".
Great thread, Doc. Thanks for the information.
 
Poolmanis

Poolmanis

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
My practice table at local billiards bar. I tried that neat site what you posted for counting and it gave TDF 1,34

9ft modified SAM billiards table.
Pocket mouth 4,4 inch
Pocket throat 3,93 inch

Mouth slate 1,19 inch
 
oldschool1478

oldschool1478

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Nice tool!
Looks like my table rating should be revised:

Table Size = 9ft
Units = Inch
Pocket mouth size = 4.5
Pocket throat size = 3.875
Shelf depth = 1.5

Table Size Factor: 1.00
Pocket Size Factor: 1.20
Pocket Angle Factor: 1.14
Pocket Shelf Factor: 0.98
Table Difficulty Factor:1.34
This table is too tough
 
Pidge

Pidge

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Is there a way to take into consideration the balls you play with? I just tried this out on my English pool table and it was too tough. It doesn't take into account the balls are only 2".
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Cardigan Kid said:
Table Difficulty Factor Calculator
Table Size 9' gold crown 2
Units Inch
Pocket mouth size 4.25 "
Pocket throat size 3.8 "
Shelf depth 1"
Calculate:
Table Size Factor: 1.00
Pocket Size Factor: 1.20
Pocket Angle Factor: 1.14
Pocket Shelf Factor: 0.98
Table Difficulty Factor: 1.34
This table is too tough

That calculator is pretty cool. I recently had my rails modified for a higher level of difficulty, and it looks like it's now certified as "too tough".
Great thread, Doc. Thanks for the information.
Click to expand...
Here's what I get with my Excel spreadsheet calculator:

Cardigan Kid -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/4":1.10 -- 0.45":0.99 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.07 (GC II)

It looks like your table is just "tough" after all.

The online tool appears to have quite a few bugs/errors. Isaac, please fix the errors and let us know when it is working properly. Thanks.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Poolmanis said:
My practice table at local billiards bar. I tried that neat site what you posted for counting and it gave TDF 1,34

9ft modified SAM billiards table.
Pocket mouth 4,4 inch
Pocket throat 3,93 inch

Mouth slate 1,19 inch
Click to expand...
Here's what I get with my Excel spreadsheet calculator:

Poolmanis -- 9':1.00 -- 4.4":1.00 -- 0.47":0.98 -- 1.19":0.95 -- 0.93 (modified SAM)

Thank you for posting,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
oldschool1478 said:
Nice tool!
Looks like my table rating should be revised:

Table Size = 9ft
Units = Inch
Pocket mouth size = 4.5
Pocket throat size = 3.875
Shelf depth = 1.5

Table Size Factor: 1.00
Pocket Size Factor: 1.20
Pocket Angle Factor: 1.14
Pocket Shelf Factor: 0.98
Table Difficulty Factor:1.34
This table is too tough
Click to expand...
Here's what I get with my Excel spreadsheet calculator:

oldschool1478 -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0.625":1.00 -- 1.5":0.98 -- 0.98 (updated Red Badge Diamond Pro)

Thanks for the update,
Dave
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here's the latest list after the latest editions and corrections:

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_size:pSF -- mouth-throat_difference:pAF -- shelf_depth:pLF -- 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)
Bob Dixon -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 145deg:1.14 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.37 (Pool Sharks, Las Vegas, money table, Diamond Pro-Am, red logo, Ernesto Dominguez-modified)
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)
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 GC)
TATE -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.20 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 7/8":0.98 -- 1.14 (Ernesto-Dominguez-modified GC)
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)
Cardigan Kid -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/4":1.10 -- 0.45":0.99 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.07 (GC II)
Pool Hustler -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/4":1.10 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 15/16":0.98 -- 1.05 (modified GC, measured by rexus31)
JC -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 143deg:1.07 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.05 ("Cobrasized" GC 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)
"standard" table -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.00 (average-difficulty table)
MVPCues -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.98 (Antique Brunswick Jefferson, circa 1900)
oldschool1478 -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0.625":1.00 -- 1.5":0.98 -- 0.98 (updated Red Badge Diamond Pro)
dr_dave -- 9':1.00 -- 5": 0.91 -- 1 1/8":1.10 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.98 (old GC 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)
mamics -- 9':1.00 -- 4 11/16":0.95 -- 143deg:1.07 -- 1 3/16":0.95 -- 0.97 (no-name "Chinese Cheapie" with Uylin cushions)
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)
Poolmanis -- 9':1.00 -- 4.4":1.00 -- 0.47":0.98 -- 1.19":0.95 -- 0.93 (modified SAM)
frigopie -- 9':1.00 -- 11.5cm:0.95 -- 138.7deg:0.98 -- 3.5cm:0.98 -- 0.91 (Eurotour Dynamic III)
12squared -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.91 (GC home table)
iusedtoberich -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 1":1.05 -- 1 1/2":0.97 -- 0.90 (GC)
MSchaffer -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 3/4":1.01 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.89 (GC II)
mfinkelstein3 -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 7/8":1.03 -- 1 1/2": 0.97 -- 0.88 (GC III)
StraightPoolIU -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.91 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.88 (GC I)
Vahmurka -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 7/8":1.03 -- 1 1/2": 0.97 -- 0.88 (GC)
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)
RobMan -- 9':1.0 -- 5": 0.88 -- 3/4":1.01 -- 1.5":0.97 -- 0.86 (GC)
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)
jtaylor996 -- 7':0.85 -- 5 1/8":0.88 -- 146deg:1.09 -- 1.51":1.00 -- 0.82 (7' Legacy home table)
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)
 
Last edited:
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Poolmanis said:
dr_dave said:
Here's what I get with my Excel spreadsheet calculator:

Poolmanis -- 9':1.00 -- 4.4":1.00 -- 0.47":0.98 -- 1.19":0.95 -- 0.93 (modified SAM)

Thank you for posting,
Dave
Click to expand...

Dunno what is wrong but table is top 3 toughest tables I've ever played.. 0,93 can't be right number
Click to expand...
Maybe double check your throat (or horizontal facing angle) and shelf depth measurements. The numbers you reported for these are not very "tough."

Maybe conditions of the cloth (and maybe humidity?) are also a factor. Sticky and damp conditions can make a table play much tougher.

Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top