Best size pockets for one pocket

richiebalto said:
Iam a better mover then a shooter, so i like tite pockets.

4.5 or bigger pockets takes away to much from the game of 1 pocket.

Chances are my opponet will shoot at his pocket more then me, so he can shoot flyer all he wants at tite pockets. it will catch up to him!
Click to expand...

I think that a good mover does better on bigger pockets.
Almost anybody can get a safety on tight pockets.

When you trap a player on loose pockets, or he misses a white flag flag, he tends to pay
more dearly.
The take-outs are tougher on loose pockets also.
 
I think the fallacy is to say "Really tight pockets for One Pocket..."

This actually makes the game easier to play for people who don't play it well. If you ever get into a bad situation, just roll the cue ball down table and your opponent won't shoot anything.

I was at Steinway a couple years ago and a guy wanted to play some one pocket, but stipulated that we had to play on table #2... I had never played there and said "whatever...". When I get over to the table I laughed... it had something in the range of 3 1/2" pockets on it, cut like a reverse funnel. Basically nothing you'd ever see in a pool room. I told the guy this was not a pool table and he stated that its the best table for one pocket. I explained to him several times throughout the next couple of games how anything he did to "get me in trouble" was worthless as I just pushed the cue ball a couple feet down table.. :)

4 1/2" pockets make sure you have to hit the ball good, while ensuring you play good moves since your opponent can probably make (and will always shoot) that backwards cut from 8 feet away...
 
pt109 said:
I think that a good mover does better on bigger pockets.
Almost anybody can get a safety on tight pockets.

When you trap a player on loose pockets, or he misses a white flag flag, he tends to pay
more dearly.
The take-outs are tougher on loose pockets also.
Click to expand...

I said basically the same thing as you. This is not just my opinion but from experience. No matter what over any period of time it will not change the outcome, the better player will ultimately win. In certain situations though it can make a very big difference.
I was staking a champion player giving a guy 11 to 6 in one pocket. The first night they played on the front table a tough Diamond with small pockets. It was a war and at the end of the night we were stuck a few games.

The next night the front table was being used and they played on another table. It was a Diamond with standard factory pockets. Not buckets by any means but not overly shimmed either. This was not a secret plan to switch tables it just happened. "WOW", what a difference, my player began to rob the guy, it looked like he needed 15 to 3 after a while. The difference was, with such a big spot my man needed to be able to run balls. He could not afford trading balls with the guy with such a big spot.

The bigger pockets I am sure helped the weaker player a bit in pocketing balls as well but not to the degree it helped the champion. It turned him into a ball running machine. He reads this forum by the way, I am sure he will recognize this story and may chime in.

I should also mention, this pocket size thing applies to 9 ball as well. If I am playing 9 ball giving a lot of weight I want to be on a slightly easier table. The first thought is, "Wait, wouldn't a tougher table make the weaker player miss more balls"? The answer is yes, but he miss balls all over the place anyway no matter what the pocket size, thats why he's getting the 6&7 ball. The bigger pockets may help the weaker a bit but they turn me into a world beater. Add to that, once you start pounding the guy he plays even worse. His lose become exponential as he goes down the drain.
 
Last edited:
macguy said:
I said basically the same thing as you. This is not just my opinion but from experience. No matter what over any period of time it will not change the outcome, the better player will ultimately win. In certain situations though it can make a very big difference.
I was staking a champion player giving a guy 11 to 6 in one pocket. The first night they played on the front table a tough Diamond with small pockets. It was a war and at the end of the night we were stuck a few games.

The next night the front table was being used and they played on another table. It was a Diamond with standard factory pockets. Not buckets by any means but not overly shimmed either. This was not a secret plan to switch tables it just happened. "WOW", what a difference, my player began to rob the guy, it looked like he needed 15 to 3 after a while. The difference was, with such a big spot my man needed to be able to run balls. He could not afford trading balls with the guy with such a big spot.

The bigger pockets I am sure helped the weaker player a bit in pocketing balls as well but not to the degree it helped the champion. It turned him into a ball running machine. He reads this forum by the way, I am sure he will recognize this story and may chime in.

I should also mention, this pocket size thing applies to 9 ball as well. If I am playing 9 ball giving a lot of weight I want to be on a slightly easier table. The first thought is, "Wait, wouldn't a tougher table make the weaker player miss more balls"? The answer is yes, but he miss balls all over the place anyway no matter what the pocket size, thats why he's getting the 6&7 ball. The bigger pockets may help the weaker a bit but they turn me into a world beater. Add to that, once you start pounding the guy he plays even worse. His lose become exponential as he goes down the drain.
Click to expand...

Interesting story! Mac.....I got a similar one.
I played a man in the Florida panhandle...on a 4x8 Gold Crown with 5 inch pockets.
He couldn't win at one hole....13 in a row.....when he realized I was playing '2 and hit' for
the last few games, he quit.
Then we played 9-ball....he got a phone call after 4 hours and he had to go....we were dead even at that game....seemed like any time I broke dry, it cost me 3 or 4 racks.
The man could fire balls in but he couldn't move.

Next time I saw him, we played backgammon for 24 hours...I came out 6 points ahead.
He said I played backgammon like an idiot.....I told him you must feel pretty bad, 6 points
down to an idiot.....he laughed....he was a good guy to gamble with.
 
I think the tighter pockets the better. one pocket is a game of skill and it should be played on tight pockets so that the person with the better shooting and moving ability wins.
 
Eagleshot said:
I feel that it is harder (or impossible) to bank balls near the larger pockets.

Harder to remove balls close to the jaws.

Easier to scratch when playing removing opponents balls near the pocket.

Example:

Myself and a local room owner play regularly. We play close to the same level. Playing on the gold crown with 4 /14" pockets a game takes 30 to 45 minutes with a lot of moving.

We recently played on a gold crown with 4 5/8" pockets because it was close to the counter while he was working. The games were 5 minutes, 8 minutes, 16 minutes and 3 minutes.

We shot at everything, and we play fairly well.

I am not saying it favors a certain player. I am not saying it is bad.

Just different.
Click to expand...

do you wanna play some sir?
 
Pro cut pockets on a Diamond are fine. Me personally, I hate buckets no matter the game. If you hit the third diamond from the pocket, you missed, the ball should not go into the hole, and it often will when playing on buckets.
 
I was once told by a top one pocket players that one reason they prefer tight pockets is that part of their knowledge advantage over lesser players pertains to mastery of the many shots used to deal with a ball that is near, but not hanging over, opponent's pocket. That advantage, I've been told, is reduced when the pockets aren't tight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top