A Standard Table Notation System

J

JoeW

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Standard pool notation

Based on Rackmsuckr's thread I designed a pool notation system that might be of use as an adjunct to Cuetable's diagrams. I think that it allows for a more precise specification of ball placement and shot characteristics. In some of the other threads, such as the current aiming thread, there seems have been some confusion with regard to what was intended. The present system is thought to be as precise as one would like to be. If the whole post is read I think that it is easy to learn and remember. There are probably similar systems somewhere but I am not aware of them.

The table locations can be named with an X (horizontal) Y (vertical) plot as shown in the diagram below.

TableNamed.jpg


The foot spot is located at X=3 Y = 7 or location 3,7.
There is a pocket at X=1,Y=1 or "Pocket 1,1"
The base of the Cue Ball is currently located at "CB=2,2".
The red Three ball "3B=3.3, 4.8"
The blue Two Ball is located at "2B=1.5, 8.6"

The cue ball to the right of the diagram can be used to locate tip position where:

C = Clock face

T = Tip off set (+1 = one tip above center, -1= one tip below center).

P = Power to move the cue ball in decimal notation, where:
1 = power required to move the cue ball one table length
2 = power to move the cue ball two table lengths
1.5 = one and one half lengths of the table.

To use this notational system highlight and copy the diagram to the clip board. Print and post near your computer or place in a notepad file.
It is a jpeg file locate at http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q...TableNamed.jpg

Example:
Shoot the CB (loc=2,2) with C=12,T=.5, P=.7 to pocket the 3B (3.3,4.8) in Pocket 5,5 and get position on the 2B (1.5,8.6). The CB should come to rest near 3,7 but I do not know why.

Without the diagram all that one has to remember is that the corner pocket to one's left as seen from the head of the table is location 1,1, then count and estimate. Positions are always given as X,Y or across the front (from left to right) and down the side (from head to foot). To remember which axis comes first in a notation note that "X" comes before "Y" in the alphabet. The XY designations are used as many people trained in math will recognize this as a standard plot. It can be used by those with and without math training.

For tables displayed with the head of the table on the right side of the page Pocket 1,1 is in the bottom right.

For precise designations the distance between diamonds can be reasonably estimated. On my Gold crown III the distance between diamonds is 12.5 inches. Therefore .75=9.375", .5=6.25", .25=3.125". These would the precise locations for placement of the base of the pool ball.

I designed and wrote this system in the last few hours. It is based on reading many books and other materials over the years. I made the jpeg rendering with Corel Draw a few days ago for another project. The notational system is not copyrighted and may be used by anyone for any purpose.

The CDR used to make table diagrams is available at no charge by email.

Using this system one can now present precise locations for a shot. With the use of a protractor one can estimate such things as the angles found for such things as throw etc.

With attention to detail, one can be as precise as need be for specifying the location of the cue tip on any shot. A footnote might be needed to specify the width of the cue tip used.
 
Last edited:
Nah! It will never work. You just have to FEEL the table locations!

KIDDING, of course. Looks great to me and you clearly spent a lot of time on it. THANKS1
Jim
 
I think your system could save a lot of verbiage (and confusion) when you don't feel like making a diagram, which happens often enough.

For what it's worth, I would prefer to see the coordinate numbers start from 0,0 rather than 1,1, since people are used to saying "the third diamond from the corner", for instance. I believe that there would be a period of considerable confusion if what was the "third diamond" now becomes the fourth.

Also, it will be a happy day when "tips of english" is dropped from the lexicon. Again, for what it's worth, I think a system that Dr. Dave Alciatore uses frequently, namely percent of maximum english (or draw or follow) is much better. Here, 100% represents tip contact at 1/2 the cueball's radius. Maybe some numbers other than percentages, such as 1 - 10, might be used. Even better, imo, would be to designate a tip contact at 2/5'ths the cueball's radius as a unit or multiple of a unit, say 1, 10, or 100. This represents a spin/speed ratio of 1 and thus has a special physical significance. It's called the center of percussion by tech types and is close to the maximum offset.

Jim

P. S. Nothing came up when I clicked on the link.
 
Jal said:
For what it's worth, I would prefer to see the coordinate numbers start from 0,0 rather than 1,1, since people are used to saying "the third diamond from the corner", for instance. I believe that there would be a period of considerable confusion if what was the "third diamond" now becomes the fourth.

Also, it will be a happy day when "tips of english" is dropped from the lexicon. Again, for what it's worth, I think a system that Dr. Dave Alciatore uses frequently, namely percent of maximum english (or draw or follow) is much better. Here, 100% represents tip contact at 1/2 the cueball's radius. Maybe some numbers other than percentages, such as 1 - 10, might be used. Even better, imo, would be to designate a tip contact at 2/5'ths the cueball's radius as a unit or multiple of a unit, say 1, 10, or 100. This represents a spin/speed ratio of 1 and thus has a special physical significance. It's called the center of percussion by tech types and is close to the maximum offset.

Jim

P. S. Nothing came up when I clicked on the link.
Click to expand...


I thought about the 0,0 reference point but have learned that many people do not like to work with things like pocket = 0,0. For some people there would be no pocket there as they have not studied much algebra. The offset is not that difficult to work with. But you are right, diamond "1" becomes diamond "2" in this presentation -- hmm.

I think that your tip placement issue is correct but the tradeoff is to get people to use it. Perhaps what is needed is a series of circles on the cueball per your suggestion. These could be numbered.

I will wait to hear more, if such there is, and then do it again. Thanks for the suggestions.

Here is the direct link to the photo. I dropped the code so you will have to copy and paste then add the leading the leading stuff including www.

i135.photobucket.com/albums/q146/JoeW04/TableNamed.jpg
 
Last edited:
JoeW said:
I thought about the 0,0 reference point but have learned that many people do not like to work with things like pocket = 0,0. For some people there would be no pocket there as they have not studied much algebra. The offset is not that difficult to work with. But you are right, diamond "1" becomes diamond "2" in this presentation -- hmm.

I think that your tip placement issue is correct but the tradeoff is to get people to use it. Perhaps what is needed is a series of circles on the cueball per your suggestion. These could be numbered.

I will wait to hear more, if such there is, and then do it again. Thanks for the suggestions.

Here is the direct link to the photo. I dropped the code so you will have to copy and paste then add the leading the leading stuff including www.

i135.photobucket.com/albums/q146/JoeW04/TableNamed.jpg
Click to expand...

I was looking for the thread about building a ball polisher (which I found) and came upon this thread.

I agree with the idea that the diamonds need to continue to be 1, 2, 3 etc even if it means the pocket is 0. Zero would imply no diamonds which works for me.

Little Joe's work on cue ball control uses the numbering system for circles of off-center impact on the cb. I like it.

Off topic for this thread but back to what I was looking for.... have you made another ball polisher and refined your work as, back in Sept, you thought you might be doing? I've been negligent and have not yet built mine but am again getting the urge.

Thanks, Jim
 
Yeah I agree also, the pocket should be 0,0...

Like you mentioned earlier, people are used to a 0,0 coordinate system from high school math. So, this would maintain that standard. Also, a lot of later calculations and discussions will work out much better and more efficiently (as has already been suggested).
 
standard notation

JimS said:
Little Joe's work on cue ball control uses the numbering system for circles of off-center impact on the cb. I like it. Jim
Click to expand...


Jim,

As it happens, the last time I was talking to Joe V a few weeks ago one of the things he talked about was a standard notation system for tables. I don't remember details so I don't know how far along he is with what he is planning.

JoeW,

I also think that the "home" pocket should be 0,0. There are very few that don't know that most scales normally starts at zero and I think starting at one simply adds confusion.

You aren't going to get much attention for any thread right now that isn't about the DCC. Everyone is either there or trying to keep up with what is going on there.

Hu
 
Jal said:
For what it's worth, I would prefer to see the coordinate numbers start from 0,0 rather than 1,1,
Click to expand...
Yes, do that.

Jal said:
Also, it will be a happy day when "tips of english" is dropped from the lexicon.
Click to expand...
Yes, it can be ambiguous, and it's incrementally too coarse.

Jal said:
I think a system that Dr. Dave Alciatore uses frequently, namely percent of maximum english (or draw or follow) is much better. Here, 100% represents tip contact at 1/2 the cueball's radius. Maybe some numbers other than percentages, such as 1 - 10, might be used. Even better, imo, would be to designate a tip contact at 2/5'ths the cueball's radius as a unit or multiple of a unit, say 1, 10, or 100. This represents a spin/speed ratio of 1 and thus has a special physical significance. It's called the center of percussion by tech types and is close to the maximum offset.
Click to expand...
Most players could more easily relate to a scale in 1/16", IMO.
9/16" is close to miscue.
7.2/16" is at spin/speed = 1. :)
 
I will redraw the diagram with pocket 0,0 and post here later. Seems like the best solution.

With regard to the ball polisher I bought two additional polishers from Harbor Freight (the new models) and made two additional ball polishers with better stability. However, both motors burned out.

My original is still working but it labors under the large platten that does not remain level. So now, after spending another $200.00 on this idea I am of the opinion that the grinder / polisher should be on top of the balls so that it floats. However, I have used my prior supplies and they won't work in this new scenario. So I have backed off for now. I think that the car polisher from Home Depot ($25) would probably do the trick if it floats on top of the balls per some of the prior posts. This time I think I would make compartments for each of the balls so they can not touch each other and then run the car polisher over the 16 ball set.
 
JoeW said:
I will redraw the diagram with pocket 0,0 and post here later. Seems like the best solution.

With regard to the ball polisher I bought two additional polishers from Harbor Freight (the new models) and made two additional ball polishers with better stability. However, both motors burned out.

My original is still working but it labors under the large platten that does not remain level. So now, after spending another $200.00 on this idea I am of the opinion that the grinder / polisher should be on top of the balls so that it floats. However, I have used my prior supplies and they won't work in this new scenario. So I have backed off for now. I think that the car polisher from Home Depot ($25) would probably do the trick if it floats on top of the balls per some of the prior posts. This time I think I would make compartments for each of the balls so they can not touch each other and then run the car polisher over the 16 ball set.
Click to expand...

I built mine, like yours, this last weekend. Mine,like your others, burnt out the motor... it took about 30 seconds to get that job done. The platten was out of round and heavy. I think the local ph will be polishing my balls in the future. I'm in no mood to do that again. :(
 
Don't know why but my original grinder / polisher converted to a ball cleaner is still working. I bought it about three years ago. It has a few more amps of power and that is the only reason I can see. If anything the new ones I made were centered better than the original for all the obvious reasons. Strange problem. Perhaps the new ones are substantially weaker than advertized. :cool:
 
I have a high quality Makita polilsher that I could use with a lighter and better balanced platten but........ it only costs about $3 to have them polished. I have two sets of Centennials so I can go for a few weeks before needing to take them in. I think I'll just drop this idea... or build a smaller one? Hmmmmm. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top