90+ degree cut shot

[Poolplaya9]

Firstly, I've been gambling at the cue games and other games of chance since 1965!

You would think you would know how fairly simple shots like these work on a pool table by now then.

Regarding post #57, so when I Win, I put the $ in My pocket, not someone else's Charity!

If you could do the shot you would have been trying real hard to negotiate something to get a bet down with Bob at the time but you didn't. Also, at that time, and even still now, you were, for free, trying to post one video after another as "proof" of you doing it, so any claims of "I will only prove it for money" is a load of BS because you've already been trying your hardest to prove it for free. The truth is you can't cut an object ball over 90° with inside english and a level cue. You can't do it for pride, you can't do it for money, and you can't do it for any other reason.

I have one question before I proceed, "Do You think I contacted the OB First in the videos I provided"?

I already answered that very clearly in post #140. That's part of your problem here though. People are explaining to you what is actually happening in these shots you are posting, and you aren't willing to actually listen and think it out so you can learn something and know where you went wrong in your erroneous beliefs.

I will answer it again though. On the >90° cut shots you posted where the object ball is on the rail, no, you are probably not usually hitting the object ball first. It is possible the shots can be done by barely grazing the object ball first though (and also hitting the cushion and object ball at the same time), but in every single one of those cases the cue ball spins from the rail and into the object ball before they separate for that last time and the object ball then heads to the pocket. The cue ball spinning from the rail and into (or back into) the object ball is what allows for an over 90° cut with a level cue and inside english every single time, regardless of what was hit first.

Put even more simply, in most cases you are hitting the rail first or hitting both at the same time and then the cue ball is spinning from the rail into the object ball to cut it the more than 90°. On any of those shots where you managed to barely graze the object ball first, if there were any, the cue ball still hit the rail and then spun back into the object ball to cut it over 90°, otherwise it couldn't have gone over 90°.

Why is it that you can only "do" the over 90° cut with inside english when the object ball is on the rail? Why is it that you can only "do" the over 90° cut with inside english when the shot angle can't actually be confirmed to be over 90°? Why is it that you can only "do" the over 90° cut with inside english when the object ball is so close to the pocket that it would accept the shot even when you cut it less than 90°? The reason is because you are spinning from the rail into the object ball, shooting shots that aren't even 90° to begin with, or having the object ball so close to the pocket that it still goes even when you cut it less than 90°. At this point, if you continue to rely on these potential cheats in any "proofs" you try to claim, it can no longer be considered an unintentional fraud. Set it up like in Bob's diagram where none of these cheats can happen and you can't do the shot.

 

[mr3cushion]

You would think you would know how fairly simple shots like these work on a pool table by now then.

If you could do the shot you would have been trying real hard to negotiate something to get a bet down with Bob at the time but you didn't. Also, at that time, and even still now, you were, for free, trying to post one video after another as "proof" of you doing it, so any claims of "I will only prove it for money" is a load of BS because you've already been trying your hardest to prove it for free. The truth is you can't cut an object ball over 90° with inside english and a level cue. You can't do it for pride, you can't do it for money, and you can't do it for any other reason.

I already answered that very clearly in post #140. That's part of your problem here though. People are explaining to you what is actually happening in these shots you are posting, and you aren't willing to actually listen and think it out so you can learn something and know where you went wrong in your erroneous beliefs.

I will answer it again though. On the >90° cut shots you posted where the object ball is on the rail, no, you are probably not usually hitting the object ball first. It is possible the shots can be done by barely grazing the object ball first though (and also hitting the cushion and object ball at the same time), but in every single one of those cases the cue ball spins from the rail and into the object ball before they separate for that last time and the object ball then heads to the pocket. The cue ball spinning from the rail and into (or back into) the object ball is what allows for an over 90° cut with a level cue and inside english every single time, regardless of what was hit first.

Put even more simply, in most cases you are hitting the rail first or hitting both at the same time and then the cue ball is spinning from the rail into the object ball to cut it the more than 90°. On any of those shots where you managed to barely graze the object ball first, if there were any, the cue ball still hit the rail and then spun back into the object ball to cut it over 90°, otherwise it couldn't have gone over 90°.

Why is it that you can only "do" the over 90° cut with inside english when the object ball is on the rail? Why is it that you can only "do" the over 90° cut with inside english when the shot angle can't actually be confirmed to be over 90°? Why is it that you can only "do" the over 90° cut with inside english when the object ball is so close to the pocket that it would accept the shot even when you cut it less than 90°? The reason is because you are spinning from the rail into the object ball, shooting shots that aren't even 90° to begin with, or having the object ball so close to the pocket that it still goes even when you cut it less than 90°. At this point, if you continue to rely on these potential cheats in any "proofs" you try to claim, it can no longer be considered an unintentional fraud. Set it up like in Bob's diagram where none of these cheats can happen and you can't do the shot.

I'll answer your last sentence first for now!

Bob's diagram is a 'Scam/Con', the angle from the CB with RHE is almost 100 degrees!

The True 90 degree angle is, the extreme right edge of the CB to the extreme left edge of the OB! Since you require 'Inside English'!

One other thing, the dramatic production of Bob's video is at best 90 degrees! That's even in his title! Also, in his vid his cue is elevated 10-20 degrees from a level cue from cueing over the pocket!

I already post a vid of the 90 degree cut off the rail, like Bob's, only closer to the pocket!

I'll get back with , slow mo prove of No rail first on any of my vids!

BTW, just because You can't replicate what I did don't bash!

 

[Poolplaya9]

ah, Point of Order please: should it not be the edges of the CB and OB at 90 degrees v the balls themselves?

Lou Figueroa
carry on

I'm good with that. But, if you wanted to set it up as in Bob's diagram but offset the one ball and cue ball to have that edge to edge line going straight up the middle of the table, you would then need to move the one ball a bit further up table where the center of it was just barely past the far points of the side pockets, because if you left it where it is now centered between the pockets you would then be able to cheat the pocket and make it with a cut that was less than 90 degrees. With an edge to setup and the one ball just past the far points of the pocket, it would take a just barely over 90 degree cue to make the ball and anything even the least bit under 90 degrees wouldn't go so that would be the way to set it up in that case to prove that the over 90 degree cut actually occurred.

On a side note, Bill previously mentioned that he would want to shoot the shot like in Bob's diagram except with the cue ball about four inches closer. For a couple of reasons I won't mention for now, doing that would do the opposite of what Bill thinks it will (he thinks it will make the shot easier). While I can't speak for Bob, I would suspect that because of that he wouldn't have a problem with that adjustment if he were still open to entertaining a bet.