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.

 

[Poolplaya9]

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

I haven't done the math or measured the angle, but it doesn't look to be 100 degrees to me. With the half a pocket of extra pocket that is there to cheat and lessen the angle that is needed to pocket the ball is taken into consideration, I think it is actually closer to being an 89 degree cut that could go than it is to it needing to be a 100 degree cut in order to be able to go.

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

No, you posted a less than 90 degree cut that anybody can make using any english. How about you just set up the shot in such a way that the angle can be easily determined to be an over 90 degree angle cut? I know why you refuse to do that. It is because you can't actually do an over 90 degree cut with inside english and a level cue. You need to be able to shoot a slightly less than 90 degree shot that is hard to tell exactly what angle it is at so you can claim it is over 90 degrees even though it isn't.

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

On your shots where the object ball is on the rail, the contention is that you cannot cut the object ball over 90 degrees with inside english unless the cue ball spins from the rail and into the object ball regardless of what was hit first. Even if you hit the object ball first, the only way you can get the object ball to end up cutting more than 90 degrees is if the cue ball spins from the rail and into the object ball after that.

So to prevent the cue ball spinning from the rail and back into the object ball, what you need to do is move the object ball away from the rail. So why do you refuse to do that? Why do you have to have the rail next to the object ball? I know why. Because you are spinning into, or back into, the object ball from the rail, that's why, and your refusal to want to move the object ball away from the rail indicates that you know that as well which would make it intentional rather than unintentional fraud on your part if that were the case.

Set the shot up away from the rail so there is zero chance for the cue ball to be able to spin off the rail into/back into the object ball. Set the shot up in such a way that the angle can be proven to be over 90 degrees. Set the shot up in such as way that the ball cannot be pocketed unless it was actually cut at over 90 degrees. Your refusal to do all three of these things, and you only being willing to do the shot when those cheats are available to be able to happen, makes it seem more and more likely that you don't actually believe your claims of being able to cut a ball more than 90 degrees with inside english and a level cue and are just trying to be fraudulent.

Bob's diagram or something real close to that would accomplish those three things and leave no doubt about whether you can actually cut a ball more than 90 degrees with inside enlish and a level cue and without having cheated whether intentional or not. So far all you have been willing to do is shoot the shot by spinning into, or back into, the object ball from the rail (even if you managed to barely hit the object ball first before that), shoot shots that are less than 90 degrees, and shoot shots that will still fall even when you hit them with a less than 90 cut. Anybody can do all that.

 

[mr3cushion]

I haven't done the math or measured the angle, but it doesn't look to be 100 degrees to me. With the half a pocket of extra pocket that is there to cheat and lessen the angle that is needed to pocket the ball is taken into consideration, I think it is actually closer to being an 89 degree cut that could go than it is to it needing to be a 100 degree cut in order to be able to go.

No, you posted a less than 90 degree cut that anybody can make using any english. How about you just set up the shot in such a way that the angle can be easily determined to be an over 90 degree angle cut? I know why you refuse to do that. It is because you can't actually do an over 90 degree cut with inside english and a level cue. You need to be able to shoot a slightly less than 90 degree shot that is hard to tell exactly what angle it is at so you can claim it is over 90 degrees even though it isn't.

On your shots where the object ball is on the rail, the contention is that you cannot cut the object ball over 90 degrees with inside english unless the cue ball spins from the rail and into the object ball regardless of what was hit first. Even if you hit the object ball first, the only way you can get the object ball to end up cutting more than 90 degrees is if the cue ball spins from the rail and into the object ball after that.

So to prevent the cue ball spinning from the rail and back into the object ball, what you need to do is move the object ball away from the rail. So why do you refuse to do that? Why do you have to have the rail next to the object ball? I know why. Because you are spinning into, or back into, the object ball from the rail, that's why, and your refusal to want to move the object ball away from the rail indicates that you know that as well which would make it intentional rather than unintentional fraud on your part if that were the case.

Set the shot up away from the rail so there is zero chance for the cue ball to be able to spin off the rail into/back into the object ball. Set the shot up in such a way that the angle can be proven to be over 90 degrees. Set the shot up in such as way that the ball cannot be pocketed unless it was actually cut at over 90 degrees. Your refusal to do all three of these things, and you only being willing to do the shot when those cheats are available to be able to happen, makes it seem more and more likely that you don't actually believe your claims of being able to cut a ball more than 90 degrees with inside english and a level cue and are just trying to be fraudulent.

Bob's diagram or something real close to that would accomplish those three things and leave no doubt about whether you can actually cut a ball more than 90 degrees with inside enlish and a level cue and without having cheated whether intentional or not. So far all you have been willing to do is shoot the shot by spinning into, or back into, the object ball from the rail (even if you managed to barely hit the object ball first before that), shoot shots that are less than 90 degrees, and shoot shots that will still fall even when you hit them with a less than 90 cut. Anybody can do all that.

The first sentence and last sentence I'll breakdown in this diagram right now!

More will come regarding My vids!

BTW, You say Your Not a Math Guy, but You understand the, 'Physics of Colliding Spheres'!