Another proposition shot or one-pocket take out shot

BillPorter

BillPorter

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Here's a shot that came up yesterday at the pool hall. A pretty strong player was demonstrating the shot and two other strong local players had not seen it before and were impressed. I had seen a video of the shot a while back, but couldn't find the video until Cuebacca was kind enough to find it for me.

Here is the situation. Your opponent has a ball buried deep in his pocket and the goal is to dig it out. When first shown the setup, most players will tell you that the ball cannot be taken out of the pocket as it is way too deep. The old rule of thumb (if the center of the ball is deeper than a line between the points of the pocket, it can't be removed) tells them that the ball cannot be pulled out of the pocket. But it can be, as the video clearly shows. With ten tries, you should be able to make the shot with ease.

CueTable Help


Video of the take out here:
http://www.barenada.com/poolmovies/clips/onepocket_escape.shtml
 
Sure is better than the traditional way of dropping the ball and following it in with the cue ball. This doesn't require spotting any balls.
 
Neil said:
Nice clip Bill. Hitting pause and go a lot, I can see how he does it. They have pockets that two balls will not go in together. He shoots it with a lot of draw, and the draw on the cueball pulls the object ball out. You just have to make sure that don't hit the ob first before the cb gets deep enough to pull it out.

It won't work on most tables, only the really tight ones, but it's still a good shot to know. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, we were making the shot yesterday on a Diamond table. The pockets are tight, but two balls can go in together on the pockets. I'll try to remember today to see how much space is left with two balls in the pocket. And maybe I'll try it on another table.
 
Neil said:
Hmmmm.... that's pretty interesting! The clip showed really tight pockets, and the shot did make sense then. That it works with larger pockets too, I find very interesting! Thanks for the new shot!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would imagine a shot like this would require rather specific parameters. The pockets obviously cannot be TOO tight but can't be too wide, either. I'd venture to say they would need to be at least two balls wide, no more than a fraction of an inch greater than that. What's more, whether a table is shimmed or not and the type of shim used could also play a role in how this shot plays. The cut of the pocket may also play a part. Diamond tables frequently have "squared" pockets meaning the width of the pocket is the same at the front of the jaws as it is in the back. A shimmed Gold Crown with flared pockets might produce a different result (could work better or not at all).

Regardless, this is table-specific stuff BUT incredibly valuable since it should only take a minute or so to assess whether or not the shot will work.
 
Neil said:
Hmmmm.... that's pretty interesting! The clip showed really tight pockets, and the shot did make sense then. That it works with larger pockets too, I find very interesting! Thanks for the new shot!
Click to expand...

I agree with Jude's post where he suggests that the shot may well be "table specific" and may not work if the pockets are too large. I plan to try it on a couple of different tables and maybe a poster will experiment a bit and report back. For me, even if I had practiced the shot on a particular table, I'm not sure I would try it for any serious money. Now if my opponent needed just one ball, and had other very makeable balls near his pocket, I might as well try it since following the ball in wouldn't help me. But if he needed one and had no other shootable balls, I think I have to follow the ball in.
 
BillPorter said:
I agree with Jude's post where he suggests that the shot may well be "table specific" and may not work if the pockets are too large. I plan to try it on a couple of different tables and maybe a poster will experiment a bit and report back. For me, even if I had practiced the shot on a particular table, I'm not sure I would try it for any serious money. Now if my opponent needed just one ball, and had other very makeable balls near his pocket, I might as well try it since following the ball in wouldn't help me. But if he needed one and had no other shootable balls, I think I have to follow the ball in.
Click to expand...


You know, there's a part of me that wonders if the person who discovered this shot was actually trying to scratch on the shot and was pleasantly surprised. I mean, there's nothing to lose for trying, right?
 
Actually, this shot works on just about any pocket (size and cut) other than real tight. The problem with real tight is that the cue ball cannot get in parallel (or behind) with the object ball unless you hit it 1000 miles an hour, and even then. On super tight pockets, you can sometimes get the ball out with a lot of spin and by trying to rattle it back and forth instead of squeezing it out like this shot demonstrates.

Cue ball placement also has a lot to do with it. The cue must be on the same side as the rail the OB is up against.

I give live demonstrations of these principles daily.. :)
 
Wybrook said:
Actually, this shot works on just about any pocket (size and cut) other than real tight. The problem with real tight is that the cue ball cannot get in parallel (or behind) with the object ball unless you hit it 1000 miles an hour, and even then. On super tight pockets, you can sometimes get the ball out with a lot of spin and by trying to rattle it back and forth instead of squeezing it out like this shot demonstrates.

Cue ball placement also has a lot to do with it. The cue must be on the same side as the rail the OB is up against.

I give live demonstrations of these principles daily.. :)
Click to expand...

I think I'm going to have to try this on the buckets I normally play on tonight. I have to say, I've never seen anything like this, at least, not executed deliberately. I'm very curious to see if I can get it to work.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
You know, there's a part of me that wonders if the person who discovered this shot was actually trying to scratch on the shot and was pleasantly surprised. I mean, there's nothing to lose for trying, right?
Click to expand...

I dont play a lot of one pocket and dont understand a lot of the strategy, but why would anyone try to scratch in the pocket? You lose a ball and you give up ball in hand in the kitchen. It seems like the last thing you would ever want to do, right?

I could be completely off base, but I would guess pocketing the ball and leaving it corner hooked would what the purposed inventor would be trying... right?

Again, Ive played maybe 12 games of 1p in my life. I enjoy the game, but I'm learning.
 
cleary said:
I dont play a lot of one pocket and dont understand a lot of the strategy, but why would anyone try to scratch in the pocket? You lose a ball and you give up ball in hand in the kitchen. It seems like the last thing you would ever want to do, right?

I could be completely off base, but I would guess pocketing the ball and leaving it corner hooked would what the purposed inventor would be trying... right?

Again, Ive played maybe 12 games of 1p in my life. I enjoy the game, but I'm learning.
Click to expand...

Because the pocketed ball AND one of your balls would get spotted along with the cueball would go to the kitchen. You're creating an automatic cluster in a scenario where you'll inevitably either lose a point or your opponent will gain one.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Because the pocketed ball AND one of your balls would get spotted along with the cueball would go to the kitchen. You're creating an automatic cluster in a scenario where you'll inevitably either lose a point or your opponent will gain one.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok. That makes sense. What a tricky game!
 
cleary said:
Ah, ok. That makes sense. What a tricky game!
Click to expand...

It's really only end-game strategy. It's only applicable when there isn't another ball your opponent can pocket. In the video, assuming this is an actual game, it's apparent the shooter did this deliberately.
 
Nice video. Thanks for posting. It looks like the position of the cue ball is critical for this to work.

I once took out an eight ball that was just as deep and more to the center of the pocket. Playing last pocket eight ball and it was his pocket. I jumped and hit the back of the pocket rim and and pulled both of them out, however it didn't do any good because he then banked it in. I know it was a one in a million because later after many tries I couldn't even get close to doing it again.

Once I had Corey Deuel try it and to my amazement he almost did it on the first try. He truly has a gift for this game.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Yeah, I would imagine a shot like this would require rather specific parameters. The pockets obviously cannot be TOO tight but can't be too wide, either. I'd venture to say they would need to be at least two balls wide, no more than a fraction of an inch greater than that. What's more, whether a table is shimmed or not and the type of shim used could also play a role in how this shot plays. The cut of the pocket may also play a part. Diamond tables frequently have "squared" pockets meaning the width of the pocket is the same at the front of the jaws as it is in the back. A shimmed Gold Crown with flared pockets might produce a different result (could work better or not at all).
Click to expand...

This all sounds right to me. I assume the principle is that the CB must jam in the pocket with the OB, which can only happen if the CB hits the OB at about a 90-degree cut and the opening is just about two balls wide (or maybe very slightly less), as shown in the video.

I also assume that even when the pocket is the perfect size and the OB is sitting at exactly the right spot in it, the shot is still very exacting and misses most of the time (in the video it looks like it was hit perfectly to just jam the balls in the pocket). And even when it does work it looks like there may be a danger that the cue ball can draw back farther than the OB, leaving a simple shot.

Regardless, this is table-specific stuff BUT incredibly valuable since it should only take a minute or so to assess whether or not the shot will work.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine it's high enough percentage to be anything but a hail mary when you can't take the scratch. I've watched players trying this on pockets where it sometimes worked, but it didn't very often. But I haven't spent any real time with it myself, so I might be pleasantly surprised at the results reported here.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
This all sounds right to me. I assume the principle is that the CB must jam in the pocket with the OB, which can only happen if the CB hits the OB at about a 90-degree cut and the opening is just about two balls wide (or maybe very slightly less), as shown in the video.

I also assume that even when the pocket is the perfect size and the OB is sitting at exactly the right spot in it, the shot is still very exacting and misses most of the time (in the video it looks like it was hit perfectly to just jam the balls in the pocket). And even when it does work it looks like there may be a danger that the cue ball can draw back farther than the OB, leaving a simple shot.



I can't imagine it's high enough percentage to be anything but a hail mary when you can't take the scratch. I've watched players trying this on pockets where it sometimes worked, but it didn't very often. But I haven't spent any real time with it myself, so I might be pleasantly surprised at the results reported here.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean, we're both giving theories and in practice, we're going to be limited to the equipment that's available to us. I think I'm not going to be able to produce this on any table in New York City, lol, but that's primarily because we have few tables with that size pocket and I can't think of any place that has Diamonds.

I'll be happy to tinker with it for a few minutes though. It's something I've never actually tried to do so maybe I'll learn something new tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top