Capelle: Pattern 14: The BB/KB Double Play (TB) by Mike Sigel

[dmgwalsh]

As Phil said:


"It would be great for 14.1 forum members to discuss the patterns as this should strengthen your ability to close well – along with practice, of course! I can see questions and opinions developing on the pros and cons of the pros’ patterns – what they did right, what they could have improved upon, what pattern is better for you and why, and so much more. I also expect that you will learn much from discussing my analysis and lessons – what works for you, what you question, and ideas for further developing key concepts.

I am not worried about too much content being given away because I see the most meaningful participation coming from those who have bought the book. That doesn’t mean others can’t benefit from the discussion, but it would help them if they owned their own copies of the material – like a student owning a textbook for a class. For starters, I have posted eight complete patterns on my web site at

http://billiardspress.com/breakshotpatterns.html


I wish that everyone on the AZB 14.1 forum has a great time discussing the close, and that your games improve as a result."

Phil Capelle

Shall we take a look at his free patterns in order and discuss starting with Pattern 14?

When I look at the balls on the table, the first three balls appear fairly obvious. I guess you could go forward off the 9 to get to the 13, but the stun shot is easier. Then you are in good shape to go two rails to the 8 ball. The 8 ball is a nice lead in for the last two as it could go up in the top right pocket if you did not get on it in the side well enough. Plus with the last two balls being where they are, you do not have to stop exactly at the 8. You could drift forward or to either side a little and still have an easily workable last key ball and break ball setup.

The B3 shot on the 9 is shot with just a touch of low and a touch of right. I sometimes have a tendency to draw and use a bit too much right which would result in not coming out of the corner on the right line. Two rails is better than one since we are coming into the position line rather than crossing it.

Now with the eight ball, I usually figure I can stop anywhere and make it work. Do some of you want to stop in a precise spot and if so where and why?

With the last two balls, which do you guys prefer as a break shot and why?

For either of the last two break balls, where would you ideally place the cue ball and why?

I have been going for more back cuts but it seems that a lot of the pros do not mind getting straight on the break line. What do you guys prefer in this instance and why?

 

[Demondrew]

A friend set this pattern up for me and asked how I would run the pattern out.
I played a draw on the nine to get nearly straight in on the eight. I pocketed the eight in the side rolling slightly forward for the two in the bottom right corner. I rolled forward about 8 inches or so and cut the thirteen in the corner. I played the thirteen with bottom left and came out of the corner two rails for a shot on the seven.

He then told me which pattern in the book he had me play. WOW, is Sigel good! I had a hard time getting the right angle on the nine. I kept getting too flat on the ball. When I did get the right angle on the thirteen I kept over running my position on the eight. When I did get the right line on the eight it was a simple out from there.

I prefer my pattern. I felt I had to move the cue ball less and could stay on line better.
I hope my cue table diagram works.

http://pool.bz/P/?@4BKAC4GMcn3HBIT4...MDvO4NBal3OBJl4PMRE4bMcl4bcYq4kMRE4kLug4kDev@

 

[Steve Lipsky]

A couple of interesting things here. First, Drew, I like your pattern and probably would have played it myself. The real risk in it occurs on the first shot. If you get bad on the 8, the situation begins to deteriorate quickly. The only other thing which concerns me about this pattern is that I know my cueball, while shooting the key ball, is going to be very close to the break ball. This is an important point and it's almost enough to convince me to look for something else.

The reason I love that this pattern was included in the compilation is because I never would have done what Sigel did in the first three balls and I never would have thought of it. It's very different than how I normally think about an end pattern and it's probably different than how many top players in NYC would approach this situation. It's not without some risk but it solves quite a few problems in a nice way. To others, it might be obvious, but to me, it's definitely out of the box. I plan to use this idea more in the future.

One final point is that I am also trying to improve my game by picking out the "lone" ball - the ball which doesn't belong. In this case, it's definitely the ball below the rack. Look at the opening position and see how well it works without that ball. You can be anywhere on the right side of the table and figure something nice out.

- Steve

 

[Dan White]

I have to disagree with the position zone for the break shot shown by Capelle, illustrating that Sigel came up short of the "correct" position by about 6 inches. I notice here and in earlier patterns that he recommends shallow break shots, even less than parallel to the side rail. I don't know why so many pro's use this shallow break, but who am I to say they are wrong? However, Sigel himself very specifically told a small group of us that he likes to have a slight back cut, exactly as illustrated in this breakshot. I actually laughed when I saw his final position in this layout because he showed us that he likes to have the cue ball about 1 ball diameter thinner than a shot parallel to the side rail, if you know what I mean (a slight back cut). He added that if he were to be parallel with the side rail he's PISSED. I asked why so many pro's go for a shallow break shot, and he seems to have this figured out: They just don't know what they're doing!

So I tend to agree with Sigel as this shot really isn't harder to pocket than a shallow angle is, and you don't have to force anything on the break shot.

I also liked Steve's suggestion to see if removing one ball makes all the rest go in a better pattern... something to think about.

 

[dmgwalsh]

Only three people want to discuss this layout. Oh, well.

I initially posted this to get the ball rolling. Looks like it did not roll very far.

After seeing what Andrew did with it and looking at Mr. Lipsky's comments, I thought I better actually set it up on the table and see what it felt like.

Boy was Andrew right. The second shot is so hard to execute, because it is hard to get on the 8 in the side just right. That also makes the first hard with the stun hard because you do not know exactly where you need to be with the cue ball to make the second shot easy.

I came up short on position on the first shot, which meant that when I shot the second shot, I could not hold the cue ball and had to go above the balls, shoot off one of the two next to each other, and then use the 8 for the key.

Sometimes I came up long on position on the first shot. I then would just use draw and sometimes get on the 8 in the side or straight in to the top right pocket.

Getting right on the key ball to be able to execute the shot the way Sigel did is no real bargain either. I usually had to pick off the 7, leaving the 2.

When I tried Andrew's pattern shooting the 8 second, I got good on it first try. Then when I got down on the 13, I ended up with an angle that I had to use high right to go two rails forward.

@Dan- I too noticed that a lot of the pros and Phil like a flatter break angle. Sigel, from what he said to you, apparently does not. Why do you think that is? The flatter break gives you more control of the cue ball, easier makeable break shot, but less of a spread.

p.s.

I will give this pattern time to live before putting the next one up sometime next week. This time, I will try it on the table before putting it up there.

 

[Dan White]

@Dan- I too noticed that a lot of the pros and Phil like a flatter break angle. Sigel, from what he said to you, apparently does not. Why do you think that is? The flatter break gives you more control of the cue ball, easier makeable break shot, but less of a spread.

I don't think it is even debatable which is better. :embarrassed2:

I think you have LESS control with a shallow break. You have to slam into the ball to get any kind of decent break, which makes it more likely that you will lose control of the cb. With a slight back cut, you have more energy going into the pack than you have going into the break ball. Since you know (or should) where the cue ball is going into the pack, you can plan your hit on the cb accordingly (draw, follow, inside english, etc) and be pretty sure the cue ball will do what you want.

I've always figured the pros must be playing with table conditions where the balls just open up very easily, so they go with the shallow break shot. I'll go with Mosconi on this - leave an angle so you don't have to force the shot.

It makes me wonder why the pros really like that shallow angle. Somebody on the main forum said he asked SVB why he used such a long bridge. He replied that it looked really cool so he's doing it. Maybe it's a monkey-see monkey-do kind of thing?

 

[rikdee]

I don't think it is even debatable which is better. :embarrassed2:

I think you have LESS control with a shallow break. You have to slam into the ball to get any kind of decent break, which makes it more likely that you will lose control of the cb. With a slight back cut, you have more energy going into the pack than you have going into the break ball.

Agree. Whenever possible, position for break angles that keeps the speed on the CB. Tom Kollins was most emphatic on this point.

 

[LApoolbum]

It makes me wonder why the pros really like that shallow angle. Somebody on the main forum said he asked SVB why he used such a long bridge. He replied that it looked really cool so he's doing it. Maybe it's a monkey-see monkey-do kind of thing?

I've read that players of yesteryear preferred to have a back cut or thinner hit on the break ball. My experience is that a thinner hit not only directs more of the initial cue ball speed to the rack it also decouples the cue ball speed and spin more, that is for a thinner hit less spin is converted to speed during the cue ball-break ball contact which gives more control of the cue ball spin when it hits the rack. I try to use the spin to influence the cue ball trajectory off of the rack while the cue ball speed disperses the rack.

 

[stevekur1]

I Just watched the clip and read the excercize on the footage.

I think the pattern was played pefectly, notice that all angles are entered. especially the KB to the KB traveling 2 rails into the angle. also notice when he is about to shoot the KB/KB he looks at the angle to ensure that he stays at a good angle to escape with out harming the BB. This Layout shows that he is always in line, and the fact that while he showed no stress while shooting it shows that this was a very controlled route.

Although i havent had much time to be around a table lately to measure the difficulty of this pattern i can still see that it is brilliant !


I am gonna work on this excercise and incorperate it when i get similar situations.

looking forward to reading and watching more !
-Steve

 

[alstl]

It is a pleasure to watch Sigel play the game. He played an exhibition for accustats and said afterward he wasn't seeing patterns as good as he would like because he is playing more nine ball than 14.1.

I was thinking I would have drawn the ball back for the ball in the side and used the ball below the rack for my key ball but I'm not sure he had the angle to do that.

 

[acousticsguru]

I like what Sigel does here.

First of all, I agree with the slightly inside position (one ball's width) of the cue ball relative to the break, because one doesn't need to "muscle" the break shot that way, and getting stuck on or in the stack is virtually impossible - with a shallower break angle, one needs to shoot harder plus "control" the cue ball: I prefer break shots where all I need to do is to shoot the break ball in and everything else takes care of itself. In short, Sigel is right. Of course, the reasons for picking shallower break angles are a) fear of missing, and b) a greater ability (due to habit) of using shallow stun shot angles with the precisely correct amount of stun action, force and speed - pros do that all the time. But you'll notice someone like Efren Reyes rarely does - he'll opt for natural angles whenever he can (= where all one needs to do is shoot the ball in medium speed and all else takes care of itself), my kind of ideal position. But of course I'm an educated amateur and not a pro.

Secondly, I like Sigel's pattern. There are the two problems Steve points out: stunning the cue ball sideways isn't for everyone. Pros do it all the time, I personally like doing it, but beware of getting too low on that second ball - the road to disaster… Also, to have the key ball right next to the break ball looks neat, but is really great only when the tangent line of either ball doesn't cross the position of the other, and when I say tangent line, I'd prefer the margin to be wide enough where one could roll in either ball at an angle without hitting the other: in that case, it's as if the "other" wasn't there (= i.e. there's no way one could run into it by mistake). Whenever that is not the case, and one needs to precision-stun the cue ball sideways (same principle as above, most pros love doing that), the need for a near-perfect semi-shallow angle may put unnecessary pressure on some people (= in my experience, what usually happens is that they badly over- or under-force the cue ball to and off the side rail, because they're concerned with the visual distraction of that second object ball seemingly in the way of the cue ball, even if it's not - the result being too sharp or shallow a break angle). Given the choice, I'd prefer to get a natural angle on the ball that's closer to the side rail (= no stunning over, "no" speed control), but have no problem with what Sigel does there - except that he's a lefty, and really ends up with a perfect break shot for a right-hander (of course one has to take what the table gives).

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[dmgwalsh]

Well, I guess we exhausted this particular layout.

What did we learn?

One thing is that although it may look easy and logical in print, once you get to the table, you find that it is not as easy as it looks, and a few inches off, and you lose the pattern and have to recover.

Some thought it was brilliant. I side with Andy who thought there was an easier and more natural way to do it without as much risk. The pros execute at such a high level, that what is easy for them may not be for others.

The writer had the opinion that the break shot should have been a little shallower. I myself have been having some luck getting shallower on my break shots. But some of you felt strongly about getting a big angle and letting the cue ball do the work, opining that you are less likely to lose the cue ball that way. Food for thought.

I'm going to try to set up the third one on the table again today and fool around with it a little more.

Later,

 

[Dan White]

Dennis - Thank you for keeping Capelle's end pattern book an active topic. I haven't contributed much because I'm working on some other aspects of my game right now and haven't given the book enough study.

 

[Cue4fun]

Phil Capelle's new book on "Break Shot Patterns."

Next to Ray Martin's "99 Critical Shots in Pool", this new book by Phil Capelle on how to play the last few balls to fall on the break shot in the game of straight pool is now my favorite self-help book on pool. I say this for several reasons.

(1) Firstly, the spiral-bound format makes practicing with the book very convenient and avoids the cumbersome task of trying to practice with a book that won't stay "open."

(2) The diagrams are easy on the eyes with a very readable font size and the location of each ball in the book diagrams make it simple to duplicate a similar layout on my playing table.

(3) Each subsequent shot diagram clearly shows how the last few balls are played from "ball-to-ball." The written descriptions are described in just the right amount of detail, but the diagrams are so good that I find I can practice by merely examining each diagram layout without even reading the text which is also helpful.

(4) This book really unlocks the secret of how to "read the table" and string racks together by teaching the importance of saving at least one or more "key-balls to the break ball." For example, after awhile of practicing the first 30+ patterns for "side of the rack break balls", one begins to observe the "same-arrangement" of key-balls that keep coming up over and over and over again. Of course, the layout of the "key-balls" are never exactly the same, but they almost always emulate each other and look the same with those 2 balls next to the racking area. Merely understanding the idea of playing the balls of a frame down to these 2 or 3 remaining balls can get you into the next rack.

(5) An unanticipated benefit of this book is that it is revealing numerous shots that I thought were easy,...but aren't. For example, using inside english with just the right amount of speed to make 2 rail patterns to the break ball, long straight-in shots, learning speed control, the finesse of simple short "stop shots" that stop the cue-ball abruptly without movement even a hair to the left or right, etc, etc. Like they say ...."straight pool is a game of inches." Just a hair off can change the angle and kill a pattern.

(6) I like the "alternative patterns." Frequently, these alternative patterns turn out to be a higher playing percentage for me.

(7) The DVD is incredible. Those last 4 or 5 balls are the most important balls in straight pool. These patterns come from over 100+ videos. The DVD alone is an incredible tool.

(8) Finally, the cost of this book plus the DVD can't be beat. I would have easily paid over $100 for the bargain price that this set costs.

(9) And lastly, the results. I ran a high run for myself of 56 balls and had a break shot to get into 60 but dogged an easy break-shot because I knew I was in unchartered waters. But the real difference now is that I "understand" much better what I'm doing. I now have a road-map to those last 2 or 3 balls that I save for last. I'm playing each frame with a lot more control and less travel. I'm now getting to the next break shot. I don't always make the break shot or get another shot after I open the rack, ...but I'm running the racks with much less movement of the cue ball and now I can see "where I'm going" and which balls I'm trying to fall on to get into the next rack.

I'm having a lot of fun with this book!!