Those tables are different. I would have thought the same thing.
How do you cross-bank this shot
- Thread starter gxman
- Start date
Those tables are different. I would have thought the same thing.
A blend of Snooker and Chinese Pool skills.
I Just tried this on my snooker table with with American size balls into 3.5 pockets. Took 3 tries and then did it 4 of 25 attempts. Missed by a half inch a couple of times so would do better in an American table. However, also didn’t scratch but would have, also a couple times, if it had American basketball hoop pockets.
This isn’t going into the corner rail pocket on that table.
My only practical shot would be a safety. More safety options than on an American table.
Re ‘along the rail shots’ in Snooker and Chinese 8 ball. It’s understandable to Think these are possible if you haven’t played on a table. Although not ‘impossible’ extremely unlikely. A ball already on the rail can be made to run down the rail and sink if slight spin. However, a ball off the rail, unlike on an American table, is very unlikely to sink if it touches the rail before potting...it has to be ‘perfect’ with no rail contact. Potting a ball less that a foot off the rail on the same side is a feat. Most pros choose a different shot.
One of the reasons an American pool player is a disaster first trying on these tables Isn’t because he lacks skills but often shot selection. An obvious ‘gimme’ just doesn’t go in.
I Just tried this on my snooker table with with American size balls into 3.5 pockets. Took 3 tries and then did it 4 of 25 attempts. Missed by a half inch a couple of times so would do better in an American table. However, also didn’t scratch but would have, also a couple times, if it had American basketball hoop pockets.
This isn’t going into the corner rail pocket on that table.
My only practical shot would be a safety. More safety options than on an American table.
Re ‘along the rail shots’ in Snooker and Chinese 8 ball. It’s understandable to Think these are possible if you haven’t played on a table. Although not ‘impossible’ extremely unlikely. A ball already on the rail can be made to run down the rail and sink if slight spin. However, a ball off the rail, unlike on an American table, is very unlikely to sink if it touches the rail before potting...it has to be ‘perfect’ with no rail contact. Potting a ball less that a foot off the rail on the same side is a feat. Most pros choose a different shot.
One of the reasons an American pool player is a disaster first trying on these tables Isn’t because he lacks skills but often shot selection. An obvious ‘gimme’ just doesn’t go in.
Last edited:
I agree with this completely, keyboard pool interwebz scientists are the best players hahaha, I see them here on azb everyday and I made a comment about this in another thread about aiming system for the keyboard scientists.
Anyhow about the shot, obviously the video clearly concludes that this table is way different from our normal pool table, on our table we’d either cut on the corner or bank as someone mentioned, but the keyboard scientist failed to note that this shot might be better on Chinese table evident by the pro who just played it in the video.
Now I know something new about Chinese table, side pockets are much easier and gives you better chance when banking, oh the scientist did not see this I bet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The English makes the bank possible. Very difficult to get the right hit with outside. He played this with inside to make the bank, knowing where the cueball would go.
This bank is nearly impossible with Outside.
Call CJ Wiley, he'll educate you. It takes a lot more than a touch of inside, CJ has hit extreme reverse banks on tape before applying the same principle
I wasn't saying he made a bad choice.
No, you just need to pray for the right swerve to catch before the cueball connects with the object ball
The principle that inside helps the object ball open up off the rail. If you're splitting hairs on the word "principle", my apologies. Whatever you want to call it, the practical application of inside spin on thin back banks
Well, the side pockets are generally easier than the corner pockets, but spin transfer is also more difficult because the cushion has a square nose. I'd say, if I had to bank it I'd probably go for the corner because of the increased cue ball control and more predictable result. The spin transfer is really tough to get consistently good at on these cushions.
Last edited:
I assume by "open up" you mean rebound at a greater angle. Inside (left) on the CB transfers right to the OB, which would cause it to rebound at a smaller (steeper) angle.
Or do I misunderstand you...?
pj
chgo
Whatever you're saying, it's obviously wrong since you didn't play in those tournaments. That is your credibility test, right?
pj
chgo
How are the shaft wood deals going for you in Oregon?
You still got some shaft wood for sale?
I'll call this guy and tell him you want to be his coach. Do you speak Mandarin?
I'll find the CJ video or record it myself when I'm able to get to a table again. On thin hits like in this video, it helps the object ball open up to a wider angle. I shoot this in One Pocket all the time, goes even wider too
At that steep a cut, inside vs outside spin can have effects opposite of what's normally expected - inside can reduce transferred right spin to the OB ("opening up" the bank angle) and outside can increase it. So I guess that could be happening in this case.
Given a choice of CB shape needed, I shoot these with no spin - easier to aim.
pj
chgo
It can be made more ways than one.
Some ways are easier than others.
Outside widens the angle.
Last edited:
With cross banks like this I think there's a "maximum amount" you can cut them back and still put enough energy into the ball to make it to the other side of the table. I think this guy just has a feel for it and knows he wouldn't be able to "overcut" it.
Looks to me like he played that with inside and allowed his cue's deflection to help him cut it even thinner. Great shot though. I could be wrong.