hows the humidity level there? I play out of Hawaii and its super humid. Some banks from the banks that do not go but do won't work ever in hawaii.
Banking w/ the Beard - Didn't work... hmmm..
- Thread starter Clark_the_Shark
- Start date
The humidity is fine I guess... it's probably a little dry, but okay. It's in Northwest PA.
When you say "Diamonds Bank Short" do you mean "Diamond Tables" or "Tables that have diamonds on the rails instead of dots?" If it's the first, then I already said I was playing on GCIII's, if it's the second... What the heck is the difference???
When you say "Diamonds Bank Short" do you mean "Diamond Tables" or "Tables that have diamonds on the rails instead of dots?" If it's the first, then I already said I was playing on GCIII's, if it's the second... What the heck is the difference???
I agree with your reasoning - that an OB close to the rail might not pick up "rolling follow" on its way to the rail so the transferred follow may make a difference - but I think any effect must be so small as to be negligible and/or smothered in other effects, like rail friction deleting it.
Mika Immonen teaches the use of follow and draw to change the angle of rebound on shots that are any distance from the rail - I can't imagine that works and only mention it to point out that even top level bankers who teach banking may have some unsupported ideas.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
Are you serious? Any good banker knows that it changes the angles.
Patrick Johnson said:
Thanks, Pat. I'm not sure about any distance, but I do think I have experienced it actually making a difference on banks where object balls are close to the cushion. I haven't done any proper testing of this theory, so I will simply agree to disagree.
poolstar31 said:
Well, to be fair, he did say "any distance". If the distance is far enough eventually the transferred spin would have to rub off. I know that transferred side spin can stay on an object ball for a really far distance, but I don't know about transferred back spin. Oh wait, you said "good banker". May I be excused?
Clark_the_Shark said:
There is no such thing as a automatic bank. Any bank shot can be missed. The slightest mis hit in the CB makes a huge difference in the shot, bank shots expose weaknesses you never realize you have. Thats what makes banks such a great game!!!
Keep at it you'll be fine, Mr. Beard has a fine book but its a guidline as tables/conditions are all different.
Also think of it like this only hand full of people have ever banked in 25 in a row in HISTORY!!!! there are thousands of players who can shoot in 25 balls in a row.
Many pool players do not know about the specific things that are taking place with the cue ball and the object ball but still manage to make shots. I've been one of those and continue to learn.
I'm not so sure any more......... I've had GREAT bankers tell me that draw widens the angle and follow shortens the angle of the object ball. They may not know as much as they think they know but the balls keep going in the hole.
Pat gets my vote on this before the great bankers. Sorry.
In banking:
If you hit the object ball quicker you will shorten the angle. If you hit the object ball slower you will widen the angle. That's all I have to say about that. :withstupid: 
JoeyA (speed kills angles)
I'm not so sure any more......... I've had GREAT bankers tell me that draw widens the angle and follow shortens the angle of the object ball. They may not know as much as they think they know but the balls keep going in the hole.
Pat gets my vote on this before the great bankers. Sorry.
In banking:
If you hit the object ball quicker you will shorten the angle. If you hit the object ball slower you will widen the angle. That's all I have to say about that. :withstupid:
JoeyA (speed kills angles)
I think you're using the term "knows" a little loosely. How many of them have tested it (playing lots of banks doesn't count)? I just shot the same bank about 30 times and couldn't see a conclusive difference between draw, stun and follow (even though with follow I could see the OB sliding a few extra inches before starting to roll). That wasn't a real controlled test, so it's not conclusive, but I'll bet it's more of a test than 99% of good bankers have done.
Here's the shot I used. It banked remarkably true at medium speed, which I believe means the forward roll (pushing it long) just about perfectly counteracts the rail friction (holding it short).
pj
chgo
You're right - for balls that aren't very close to the rail. Have you seen Bob Jewett's (and Dr. Dave's) video where he shows that a harder hit ball banks slightly longer (if it starts close to the rail)? It sinks into the cushion more and travels a little farther down the rail before rebounding.
The difference is only a couple of inches maximum, but it's enough to show that we often don't know why stuff happens, which can make it hard to predict things. Here's a drawing I did to illustrate Bob's shot:
The same thing also happens with balls farther away from the rail that are banked harder, but in that case the elimination of forward roll on the OB (by hitting harder) shortens the bank more than sinking into the rail lengthens it.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
You mean this one: http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-41.htm
The video shows that the frozen OB when hit harder slides down the cushion a bit before rebounding from it.
When you say "in that case the elimination of forward roll on the OB (by hitting harder) shortens the bank more than sinking into the rail lengthens it", are you referring to the forward roll after it hits the rail or before? If you are referring to the elimination of the forward roll on the OB (on shots that are away from the rail) before it hits the rail, then I think I am missing something (because the frozen OB in the video doesn't have any forward roll on it).
The frozen OB in the video appears to have no forward roll on it until it leaves the rail.
I think Dr. Dave has another video that shows what happens to the OB when it hits the rail at different speeds and will check that out as well.
I wonder how many arguments I can get into at the pool hall with this information?
Thanks,
JoeyA (my head hurts)
FYI, I have a good summary of all bank and kick effects, with many video links, here:JoeyA said:You mean this one: http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-41.htm
The video shows that the frozen OB when hit harder slides down the cushion a bit before rebounding from it.
When you say "in that case the elimination of forward roll on the OB (by hitting harder) shortens the bank more than sinking into the rail lengthens it", are you referring to the forward roll after it hits the rail or before? If you are referring to the elimination of the forward roll on the OB (on shots that are away from the rail) before it hits the rail, then I think I am missing something (because the frozen OB in the video doesn't have any forward roll on it).
The frozen OB in the video appears to have no forward roll on it until it leaves the rail.
I think Dr. Dave has another video that shows what happens to the OB when it hits the rail at different speeds and will check that out as well.
I wonder how many arguments I can get into at the pool hall with this information?
Thanks,
JoeyA (my head hurts)
I know you "know" all of this stuff already, but others might be interested.
Regards,
Dave
Yeah, that's the one.
Yes, I think we're saying the same thing.
I was talking about a ball that starts farther from the rail so it has time to be rolling when it hits the rail (see the parts in blue above). This is different from the frozen balls in Bob's/Dave's video.
You probably already know this, but for those who don't yet:
Hitting harder shortens banks by making the OB slide rather than roll to the rail. If the OB rolls to the rail its forward spin translates into masse spin when it changes direction, curving it off the straight rebound path and making it go longer (like forward spin curving the CB off a tangent line). [See shot "A" below.]
But hitting harder only eliminates this forward roll if it's there in the first place - if the OB starts far enough from the rail to pick up forward roll on the way to the rail unless it's hit hard. The OB in Bob's/Dave's video starts out very close to the rail, so it slides to the rail no matter how soft or hard you hit it - this means that hitting harder doesn't make it go shorter (in fact it makes it go a little longer because it sinks into and travels down the cushion a little more). [See shot "B" below.]
In my experience, as many as you want. This little piece of info is surprisingly little known.
pj
chgo
EDIT: It appears that my Wei table diagram isn't showing up. Could this be because of the "forum upgrade" that happened today? I posted a Wei table diagram in the test area and it showed up fine...
Last edited:
i must confess i didn't read through this entire thread, but one (one of many mind you) of the HUGE problems with freddy's system is that it assumes, no matter how obtuse or acute the bank angle, that draw will lengthen an object ball out the same amount...... yet if you think about it, when you have a very sharp (acute) angle, draw (and thus follow on the object ball) can't do TOO much. whereas if you have a very wide angle (obtuse) on a bank, the draw is able to really take effect simply because of the angle the ob comes off the rail relative to the direction of the follow.
in short, you could say follow on an object ball does not affect the angle at all when the ob is hit perpendicular into the rail. when you go slightly off of perpendicualr it affects it slightly, and when you go to a much more obtuse (wide) angle the follow affects it tremendously, relatively speaking anyway. i bet there is some point at which the draw will perfectly counteract the shortness in the bank the op describes, yet it will be at a much wider angle than the "2 to 1" i think he called it.
in short, you could say follow on an object ball does not affect the angle at all when the ob is hit perpendicular into the rail. when you go slightly off of perpendicualr it affects it slightly, and when you go to a much more obtuse (wide) angle the follow affects it tremendously, relatively speaking anyway. i bet there is some point at which the draw will perfectly counteract the shortness in the bank the op describes, yet it will be at a much wider angle than the "2 to 1" i think he called it.
Last edited:
Of course, all of this is only relevant if it's possible in the first place to put significantly more follow on the OB, and have it remain on the OB until the OB hits the rail, than there would be anyway without drawing the CB.
pj
chgo
i saw freddies video and it was the first helpful cd i had ever seen,i have been looking forward to getting the book or the other video.what troubles me about this whole thread is that it has the effect of a knock.it seems like every tom,dick,and harry thinks they are able to explain things better than the author.
now whether they can even play or bank remains a question,the effect is to believe that these unknown experts know enough to even understand the instructional book,let alone correct it.meanwhile some unsuspecting player,who might have been helped by the book becomes so confused that he does not even buy the book.that is what they used to call knocking.
i suggest that if you bought the book and are having problems to write to freddie or even schedule a private lesson,chances are about 99% sure that the problem is human error
dean
now whether they can even play or bank remains a question,the effect is to believe that these unknown experts know enough to even understand the instructional book,let alone correct it.meanwhile some unsuspecting player,who might have been helped by the book becomes so confused that he does not even buy the book.that is what they used to call knocking.
i suggest that if you bought the book and are having problems to write to freddie or even schedule a private lesson,chances are about 99% sure that the problem is human error
dean
Clark_the_Shark said:
first i'd like to say that i bought banking with the beard and the gospool. i read and enjoyed both of the books.
i did have a little problem with the book and that would be that it seemed to assumed that you already know where exactly the ball is going to bank to (there was no baseline for comparison).