straight 8 folks dont want to count or keep score of anything other than who buys the beers lol
3 3/4” corners?
- Thread starter jtompilot
- Start date
Zerksies
Well-known member
Yeah, true
my mechanic told me the same thing... as it gets tighter, angles need to change.Did you measure the pocket angle on the table in question? My table has 4.125" corners at 139°. Doing the same test you did, the ball drops every time. My mechanic was very aware/knowledgeable of overall pocket geometry and how it relates to a table that plays properly. He was telling me you have to decrease the angle when you tighten pockets. It you do not, balls will not pocket as they should. With pockets at 3.75" (3/8" tighter than mine), I would estimate the facing angle should be 138° and maybe even 137°.
Pic of my table for reference.
I don't think at that size the opening to the pocket down the rail is enough to pocket the balls at any sort of speed down the rail.
Even for a tight table, 4" should be the absolute limit unless it's only for home practice.
I’m with you. Mine are barely over 4” and I can’t imagine any smaller. At least not with my abilities. It would just get frustrating at that point.
Seems like you have made something besides a pool table when you have to go to angles outside of standard tolerances. Tighten the pocket width to make balls harder to pocket, change the angles to make them easier to pocket, both on the same table?
I used to play snooker on an antique table set up for golf. Tight wasn't the word for it. The Riley championship pockets look like buckets. A ball could be ran down the rail, with helping english. The helping english at slow speed was reversed from medium speed shots. Seemed some shots the spin off of the first inside rail was what mattered, some the second, and there was an in between speed that I avoided as well as shooting harder than medium speed down the rail, that wasn't going to work regardless and I only did that when I wanted to not pocket the ball. I had a lot of fun on that table, damned near ran a perfect once, but it was so gaffy I never saw anyone other than myself and a few friends I roped in even attempt to play snooker on it.
Seems like these ever tighter pockets on pool tables are getting a lot like that old golf table, they aren't pool tables anymore. I am happy with 4.5 to 4.75 corner pockets. Three lanes into the pocket and reasonable to cheat pockets to play shape. The snooker table taught me the value of speed and angles, also taught me that too much time on gaffy tables would make subtle changes in pattern and shot selection and screw up your game on more standard tables.
I have played on 4.25 pockets a good bit, what the table I played on was cut to, but I never became a fan. If I had a home table it would have 4.5 inch pockets. If I had a pool hall I might have one or two tables with smaller pockets depending on how many tables I had but most would be cut to 4.75, maybe even 4.875 to get the recreational players in. The tight tables would be 4.25. The "purests" are going to come in for discounted rates and bitch about the cost of bottled water or bottomless cups of coffee. They might be my pals to shoot the shit with until I put on a tournament but I'll starve to death in a hurry if I try to set up the whole place to please them.
Hu
I used to play snooker on an antique table set up for golf. Tight wasn't the word for it. The Riley championship pockets look like buckets. A ball could be ran down the rail, with helping english. The helping english at slow speed was reversed from medium speed shots. Seemed some shots the spin off of the first inside rail was what mattered, some the second, and there was an in between speed that I avoided as well as shooting harder than medium speed down the rail, that wasn't going to work regardless and I only did that when I wanted to not pocket the ball. I had a lot of fun on that table, damned near ran a perfect once, but it was so gaffy I never saw anyone other than myself and a few friends I roped in even attempt to play snooker on it.
Seems like these ever tighter pockets on pool tables are getting a lot like that old golf table, they aren't pool tables anymore. I am happy with 4.5 to 4.75 corner pockets. Three lanes into the pocket and reasonable to cheat pockets to play shape. The snooker table taught me the value of speed and angles, also taught me that too much time on gaffy tables would make subtle changes in pattern and shot selection and screw up your game on more standard tables.
I have played on 4.25 pockets a good bit, what the table I played on was cut to, but I never became a fan. If I had a home table it would have 4.5 inch pockets. If I had a pool hall I might have one or two tables with smaller pockets depending on how many tables I had but most would be cut to 4.75, maybe even 4.875 to get the recreational players in. The tight tables would be 4.25. The "purests" are going to come in for discounted rates and bitch about the cost of bottled water or bottomless cups of coffee. They might be my pals to shoot the shit with until I put on a tournament but I'll starve to death in a hurry if I try to set up the whole place to please them.
Hu
IMHO pool halls with varying tables and pocket size are the devil.
I hate playing in places in a tournament and all of a sudden you go from 4.5 or larger pockets to some house streaming table that is 4.25 or less setup for reputation and gung-ho chest thumping or one pocket gambling, and now shots you played in for 3 hours before are rattling.
If there are tighter pockets in a place, it needs to be out of tournament rotation and just used for scheduled games or for the regulars or normal rentals.
You and I feel exactly the same! I used to play at a hall where every table in it was different. Different tables, different pockets, no two played the same. I didn't play tournaments there but have played tournaments other places with different pocket sized and different brands of tables in the rotation. Hated that and didn't feel it was fair.
I was playing a tournament in Buffalo's old place where he had one gold crown for people to play on. It was in rotation in a big tournament and I had played my last match there. Called immediately to my next match, Buffalo volunteered I could move to a Diamond now open if I wanted to knowing I usually played the Diamonds. Good owner, his room had a couple tight tables up front and the rest around four and a half or three-quarter.
I would have to have at least nine or ten tables to set up a tight one, at least eight all the same for even small tournaments. I kinda liked tough conditions at stock car races or shooting matches, they threw a lot of people off their stride and we all faced the same conditions. Pool is different, every table can mean different conditions. Might be fun to move just the finals onto a pet five by ten!(grin)
Hu
phreaticus
Well-known member
Back to the OP’s question. A while
back I was trying to better understand relationship of pocket size & facing angles and burnt up some time reading various old threads on the subject, where RKC and others had provided lots of info. The following is what I gleaned.
WPA & BCA specs for horizontal pocket facing angles are 142 deg +/- 1 deg. Diamond procut tables come at 4.5” mouths & 141 deg which most folks feel play perfect. But 141-142 deg is for pockets down to about 4.5” mouth size. RKC has said that pockets change by 1/8" per each angle degree change; eg a 4-5/8” pocket with 143 deg plays about same as a 4-1/2”, relative to the standard 141-142. The take away is that tables w/pockets in the range of 4.25-4.50” are best with 141 deg. 4.0-4.125” pockets are best with 140 deg angles.
Following that same logic, if one wants 3-3/4” corners that will still accept balls decently, you should subtract 2 more degrees, so you should be looking at 138 degrees. Which jives perfectly with the advice you got from @rexus31 earlier in the thread.
Personally, I find pockets smaller than 4-1/8” change the game too much and aren’t actually that helpful for practice. Not so much because of the pocketing issue (obviously requires cleaner aim/stroke which is fine) but more because there is virtually no cheating of the pocket and one has to play quite different angles with the CB to get around the table.
If you are going this deep into very tight custom pockets, there are two things which I think get overlooked in these size/angle discussions.
First issue is that while modern pro tables seem to be somewhere in the 4.0-4.25” range, they always have brand new cloth; new cloth allows balls to slide in easier off the rails, so even though these pro tables are tight they don’t actually play as tight during the event as it may seem. Most of us with home tables and even most poolhalls are going to keep cloth around for at least a few years and the tables will play tougher as the cloth wears.
Second issue is that most pocket angle discussions focus on horizontal angles. But down angles play a big part also. WPA specs are a range of 12-15 deg, Larger angle funnels balls in more, but is closely related to shelf depth. Diamonds have deeper shelves & use 15 deg. BWs have shallower shelves and use 12 deg - in theory achieving roughly the same net result. So 12 deg down angle on a table with a deeper shelf might deflect more balls out than you’d expect. These subtle differences can have impact on how a tight pocket will accept balls hit with any speed, rattle factor, etc…
I’m no expert- the above is just what I’ve managed to learn from my research for my own table and playing around on various tables with tight holes. Hope it helps
back I was trying to better understand relationship of pocket size & facing angles and burnt up some time reading various old threads on the subject, where RKC and others had provided lots of info. The following is what I gleaned.
WPA & BCA specs for horizontal pocket facing angles are 142 deg +/- 1 deg. Diamond procut tables come at 4.5” mouths & 141 deg which most folks feel play perfect. But 141-142 deg is for pockets down to about 4.5” mouth size. RKC has said that pockets change by 1/8" per each angle degree change; eg a 4-5/8” pocket with 143 deg plays about same as a 4-1/2”, relative to the standard 141-142. The take away is that tables w/pockets in the range of 4.25-4.50” are best with 141 deg. 4.0-4.125” pockets are best with 140 deg angles.
Following that same logic, if one wants 3-3/4” corners that will still accept balls decently, you should subtract 2 more degrees, so you should be looking at 138 degrees. Which jives perfectly with the advice you got from @rexus31 earlier in the thread.
Personally, I find pockets smaller than 4-1/8” change the game too much and aren’t actually that helpful for practice. Not so much because of the pocketing issue (obviously requires cleaner aim/stroke which is fine) but more because there is virtually no cheating of the pocket and one has to play quite different angles with the CB to get around the table.
If you are going this deep into very tight custom pockets, there are two things which I think get overlooked in these size/angle discussions.
First issue is that while modern pro tables seem to be somewhere in the 4.0-4.25” range, they always have brand new cloth; new cloth allows balls to slide in easier off the rails, so even though these pro tables are tight they don’t actually play as tight during the event as it may seem. Most of us with home tables and even most poolhalls are going to keep cloth around for at least a few years and the tables will play tougher as the cloth wears.
Second issue is that most pocket angle discussions focus on horizontal angles. But down angles play a big part also. WPA specs are a range of 12-15 deg, Larger angle funnels balls in more, but is closely related to shelf depth. Diamonds have deeper shelves & use 15 deg. BWs have shallower shelves and use 12 deg - in theory achieving roughly the same net result. So 12 deg down angle on a table with a deeper shelf might deflect more balls out than you’d expect. These subtle differences can have impact on how a tight pocket will accept balls hit with any speed, rattle factor, etc…
I’m no expert- the above is just what I’ve managed to learn from my research for my own table and playing around on various tables with tight holes. Hope it helps
Last edited:
Nope. It was Spank’s table before he opened the pockets up to 4 1/4”. Table 1 at T’s was rough, but I think Spanky’s was tougher. I could still run out on table 1. If I ran out on Spank’s table I felt like I got lucky, lol.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Simply back cut the facing so a ball coming down the rail lands "in" the pocket and wont have to pinball into it.
Back to the OP’s question. A while
back I was trying to better understand relationship of pocket size & facing angles and burnt up some time reading various old threads on the subject, where RKC and others had provided lots of info. The following is what I gleaned.
WPA & BCA specs for horizontal pocket facing angles are 142 deg +/- 1 deg. Diamond procut tables come at 4.5” mouths & 141 deg which most folks feel play perfect. But 141-142 deg is for pockets down to about 4.5” mouth size. RKC has said that pockets change by 1/8" per each angle degree change; eg a 4-5/8” pocket with 143 deg plays about same as a 4-1/2”, relative to the standard 141-142. The take away is that tables w/pockets in the range of 4.25-4.50” are best with 141 deg. 4.0-4.125” pockets are best with 140 deg angles.
Following that same logic, if one wants 3-3/4” corners that will still accept balls decently, you should subtract 2 more degrees, so you should be looking at 138 degrees. Which jives perfectly with the advice you got from @rexus31 earlier in the thread.
Personally, I find pockets smaller than 4-1/8” change the game too much and aren’t actually that helpful for practice. Not so much because of the pocketing issue (obviously requires cleaner aim/stroke which is fine) but more because there is virtually no cheating of the pocket and one has to play quite different angles with the CB to get around the table.
If you are going this deep into very tight custom pockets, there are two things which I think get overlooked in these size/angle discussions.
First issue is that while modern pro tables seem to be somewhere in the 4.0-4.25” range, they always have brand new cloth; new cloth allows balls to slide in easier off the rails, so even though these pro tables are tight they don’t actually play as tight during the event as it may seem. Most of us with home tables and even most poolhalls are going to keep cloth around for at least a few years and the tables will play tougher as the cloth wears.
Second issue is that most pocket angle discussions focus on horizontal angles. But down angles play a big part also. WPA specs are a range of 12-15 deg, Larger angle funnels balls in more, but is closely related to shelf depth. Diamonds have deeper shelves & use 15 deg. BWs have shallower shelves and use 12 deg - in theory achieving roughly the same net result. So 12 deg down angle on a table with a deeper shelf might deflect more balls out than you’d expect. These subtle differences can have impact on how a tight pocket will accept balls hit with any speed, rattle factor, etc…
I’m no expert- the above is just what I’ve managed to learn from my research for my own table and playing around on various tables with tight holes. Hope it helps
For somebody that ain't expert you hit some often overlooked points. Cushion down angle is rarely mentioned but indeed plays a big part. I knew a wily old room owner that would have the cushions cut so far back that balls fired hard down the rail were pretty much squirted in the pocket coming off the inside rail! Even back then we did the two ball check of pocket width and his were about 4.625.
Angles and relief angles had those tables being some of the most generous "tight pocketed" tables around! There was a distinct curve to those relief angles too. Let the young studs puff their chests out and pulled in the all important evening crowd that drank beer and spent money. I was spending much of my time gambling and didn't sweat the table. My friends were high school or college age and were acutely aware of where they played better. I would have hit the old five by tens a lot more but my friends wanted no part of them.
That old hall had five by tens, shag carpet deep directional cloth, and clay balls. Didn't have air conditioning and a huge five or six foot fan fitted into a hole in the wall pulled in the wet air straight off of the Mississippi River, over a mile wide there. I think a hard wheeled roller would have rolled the water out of that cloth! That cloth needed baseball bat sized cues to get the balls moving and a stroke to go with them. Those pockets were quite generous, five inches or bigger, but nobody cried we were playing on buckets!
Hu
phreaticus
Well-known member
Here.
.25" graph paper.
No geometrig.
Ball going down the rail meets a 2.25" aperture. There is no further interference from the cushion.
There's a thing in music referred to as intonation. Those who have played know its importance. It refers to playing pitches to within a few hundreths of a tone. This amounts to a cycle or two in hertz. It's also a professional requirement that all serious western musicians have fulfilled.
I get the apparent futility of tight pockets but in a genre where all errors can be traced to some degree of inaccuracy, futility is not even a thing. Tight lines IS the shooters intonation. Accept it.
.25" graph paper.
No geometrig.
Ball going down the rail meets a 2.25" aperture. There is no further interference from the cushion.
There's a thing in music referred to as intonation. Those who have played know its importance. It refers to playing pitches to within a few hundreths of a tone. This amounts to a cycle or two in hertz. It's also a professional requirement that all serious western musicians have fulfilled.
I get the apparent futility of tight pockets but in a genre where all errors can be traced to some degree of inaccuracy, futility is not even a thing. Tight lines IS the shooters intonation. Accept it.
phreaticus
Well-known member
lol. Rails like that would be simple enough to manufacture. Snooker tape would do for cushions. I'd leave the jaws out but angling in some non-interfering facings could be done for aesthetics. My formative pool practice was on 10' snooker tables so tight pockets are a nothing burger. I just wish I could get to some.Interesting post. Your picture is missing a few things
waaaaay too tough for me. tight is one thing but this looks like torture.
We only use it for 1 pocket. Running 5 to 8 balls in a row makes you feel like a pro. Then you'll rattle a few. It's very humbling.
You, my friend, have written an excellent synopsis of pocket structure. I am recovering my antique BBC this week and this is a great guideline. You are an asset to the pool community.Back to the OP’s question. A while
back I was trying to better understand relationship of pocket size & facing angles and burnt up some time reading various old threads on the subject, where RKC and others had provided lots of info. The following is what I gleaned.
WPA & BCA specs for horizontal pocket facing angles are 142 deg +/- 1 deg. Diamond procut tables come at 4.5” mouths & 141 deg which most folks feel play perfect. But 141-142 deg is for pockets down to about 4.5” mouth size. RKC has said that pockets change by 1/8" per each angle degree change; eg a 4-5/8” pocket with 143 deg plays about same as a 4-1/2”, relative to the standard 141-142. The take away is that tables w/pockets in the range of 4.25-4.50” are best with 141 deg. 4.0-4.125” pockets are best with 140 deg angles.
Following that same logic, if one wants 3-3/4” corners that will still accept balls decently, you should subtract 2 more degrees, so you should be looking at 138 degrees. Which jives perfectly with the advice you got from @rexus31 earlier in the thread.
Personally, I find pockets smaller than 4-1/8” change the game too much and aren’t actually that helpful for practice. Not so much because of the pocketing issue (obviously requires cleaner aim/stroke which is fine) but more because there is virtually no cheating of the pocket and one has to play quite different angles with the CB to get around the table.
If you are going this deep into very tight custom pockets, there are two things which I think get overlooked in these size/angle discussions.
First issue is that while modern pro tables seem to be somewhere in the 4.0-4.25” range, they always have brand new cloth; new cloth allows balls to slide in easier off the rails, so even though these pro tables are tight they don’t actually play as tight during the event as it may seem. Most of us with home tables and even most poolhalls are going to keep cloth around for at least a few years and the tables will play tougher as the cloth wears.
Second issue is that most pocket angle discussions focus on horizontal angles. But down angles play a big part also. WPA specs are a range of 12-15 deg, Larger angle funnels balls in more, but is closely related to shelf depth. Diamonds have deeper shelves & use 15 deg. BWs have shallower shelves and use 12 deg - in theory achieving roughly the same net result. So 12 deg down angle on a table with a deeper shelf might deflect more balls out than you’d expect. These subtle differences can have impact on how a tight pocket will accept balls hit with any speed, rattle factor, etc…
I’m no expert- the above is just what I’ve managed to learn from my research for my own table and playing around on various tables with tight holes. Hope it helps
Tennessee Joe