Bank help please

[Patrick Johnson]

For someone that writes the book, you think you could get a clearer answer for the question you presented. Patrick states a similar answer to what I have read.

For one rail banks, use the point in front of the diamond as the reference point for your banks.

For multiple rail banks, use the diamonds.

Hope this helps.

Actually, I only talked about one-railers:

- use the spot in front of the diamonds for steep ones
- use the diamonds themselves for wider ones

Both of these are approximations - adjust for reality as necessary.

I haven't seen Freddie's stuff, but everybody respects his knowledge and experience. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

i'm reading "banking with the beard" and i'm having some success but i have a question. i cant figure out why sometimes we need to sight through the diamonds and sometimes opposite the diamonds. i am not seeing a pattern, is there any way other than just remembering which to do when? thanks, and any other banking tips of things to help remember would be appreciated.

Well, I suppose one way to look at it is that any true mirror system uses the point "opposite" the diamond -- that is, the place in the rail groove that a ball sits when frozen to the cushion and even with the diamond. That is where the ball is reflected from. But I'm afraid that it's mostly a matter of memorization when you consider all diamond systems. It helps if you understand the mechanisms, such as "follow lengthening" that change the bank angle, so that you know which direction the mirror system needs to be corrected. Ceulemans uses "opposite" almost exclusively, as I recall, in his book, but that's for kicking (from a pool perspective), not banking.

For the "corner-5" I think you can use opposite on both the first and third rail or use through on both rails or use a mixture. Which combination works best on your table for your stroke?

In his "Wonderful World of Pool and Billiards" book, Byrne describes the "opposite 3" system which is supposed to work when hitting opposite diamond 3 (on the first rail of the corner-5 system) for every shot played within the system. On one table I play on, the point is not opposite 3 nor is it through diamond 3 -- it is out in the middle of the table.

I think the most important thing that Freddy has provided is a starting place for the systems that have a chance to work on a wide variety of tables. You have to put in the effort to make them work on your particular equipment. If you have a table that's a little screwy, you may have to move from opposite to through, for example.

 

[larrynj1]

Maybe I shoulda contacted you before I wasted my time for 3 years writing two books on bank pool and putting up over 350 pages of diagrams and systems that represented my 50 years of experience. You knocked out the whole thing in just two sentences. That's amazing. Why didnt I think of that?

the Beard

good one, freddy. lmao!!

 

[klockdoc]

Actually, I only talked about one-railers:

- use the spot in front of the diamonds for steep ones
- use the diamonds themselves for wider ones

Both of these are approximations - adjust for reality as necessary.

I haven't seen Freddie's stuff, but everybody respects his knowledge and experience. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.

pj
chgo

I realize what you said, that is why I stated it is similar (comparable), not exactly as stated.

I never mentioned that Freddy does not know what he is talking about. Not knowing the specifications/instance in the book that the OP is referring to, neither do I. I was only offering a suggestion to the question asked. Not a definitive answer to the specific question. That's why it is a forum.

I just thought that Freddy could have answered the question of the original OP in ways other than referring him to some other books by other authors and that diamond systems normally do not work on a pool tables. He criticizes the very system that he says he employs in a simplistic form in his book. I mean, he diagrammed the shot. He at least could have known the reason behind why he used the two different reference points in the shots.

As I earlier stated, this could have been done in a PM rather than in the forum if he didn't wish to post the answer.

 

[freddy the beard]

I dont have a rule that universally applies

By trying to encompass a complete volume of bank opportunities, I have used several different systems. I tried to highlight the system that I thought fit best into that category of shot. I tried to make this clearer earlier. As Bob Jewett tried to explain, there is no universal answer to this question. I hesitate to provide a rule of thumb because it might prove to be misleading when applied to situations other than the ones I detail in my book. Suffice to say, I stand by my own diagrams and shot solutions, re "thru and opposite" diamonds.

the Beard

 

[nick55]

thanks to all the replies, i understand there is no one right answer. freddy i am enjoying the book, i have just about finished it but i know that this is a book i will continue to re-read/reference for a long time. i think now that i probably should have gotten dvds though

 

[av84fun]

The greatest bank players in the world go on instinct. My advice is bank and bank and bank until your eyes begin to bleed and then bank a little more. You should know that you can set the exact same shot up, hit it soft and it will go long and hit it hard and it will come off short.
MULLY

Right...but that's not "instinct." And mindlessly slamming balls into rails never taught anyone anything.

Some people are much more adept at visualizations than others so SEEING the angles in and out is far easier for some than others, which is why some are much better bankers than others.

You are SO right that endless reptitions are the key but ONLY if the shooter makes a conscious effort to attempt to SEE the angle...shoot the shot and then adjust until the see it CORRECTLY.

I actually "draw" a white line in my minds eye to help to visualize the correct angle.

And Freddy's books DVDs have helped A LOT!

BUT...with all due respect to everyone, it's a little tough to dismiss the "geometric" systems Koehler and many others describe.

At least they will get you in the general neighborhood of correct and might well speed up the process of trial and error by reducing the margin of error from the start.

Regards,
Jim