Confused!!!: Break cue tips vs. Pocketing balls on the break

Maniac

Maniac

2manyQ's
Silver Member
There's a lot about the game of pool I haven't learned yet. Some things I'll never get. One thing that is a constant cause of confusion for me is the subject of break cues and/or the tips used on break cues in conjunction with making balls on the break. I am in no way condemning break cues (as I own several of them), but when I read a thread about some detailed study (and I am not condemning that thread either, I'm a firm believer in detailed studies) concerning which break tip is best for pocketing balls, I get darned confused. Okay, here we go. Let's say I break a rack of 15 balls with a nice break cue using a Brand A tip, and it does a great job of scattering balls all over the table, sending numerous balls off of the rails but without pocketing balls on a regular basis. Now I use the same break cue with a Brand B tip on it and it scatters balls all over the table, sending numerous balls off of the rails and pockets an average of 2 balls on every break (as the thread suggests). Then, I do 50 breaks with each tip/cue combo to confirm my results. My question is this, and I'm NOT trying to be a smartass or anything, but I have this legitimate question. If the balls scatter the same with both tips and send balls off of the rails approximately the same, how does the TIP do anything to AIM more balls into the pockets???

One of the reasons I ask this question is that I have a fairly decent break, at least as far as scattering the hell out of the rack. Problem is, I break dry a lot. I am constantly asking myself "How did a ball NOT go in on that break???". I use a Jerico Stinger most of the time. I have moved the cue ball all over the table and have tried every speed from 100% to 50%, still with no consistent results. I am tired of giving up a table with runout capabilities to good players.

I have a theory that maybe luck plays into the break moreso than what tip/break cue you are using. I am wondering if a lot of other people tried the same detailed study as the poster on the above aforementioned thread did, the results could vary somewhat.

What I want is for someone to give me a scientific reason as to why, with all else being equal as far as the scattering of balls go, one tip would cause balls to be pocketed more frequently on the break than another.

Again, I am not condemning anyone's study nor am I trying to be a smartass (I am more of a dumbass), I just want to know if I should actually try a variety of break tips to improve my break skills.

Maniac
 
Last edited:
OK, lets say you set up the purported experiment, ran the experiment and achieved the stated result. The only variable the tip has is how hard it is. How hard it is governs the efficiency of energy transfer durring the millisecond of tip contact with the cue ball.

Now, unless you are comparing tips with vastly different properties, the stated outcome of the hypothetical experiment is in serious doubt::

You see, potting balls on the break is a LOT more about precision than power. This is especially true for the wing balls on a 9-ball break, and the head ball on both 9-ball and 8-ball breaks. Hit the head ball correctly, and it drifts right out towards the side pocket. If nothing hits it on its journey, it drops.

Was watching one of the pros break in 9-ball on TV last week, his measured speed was abut 18-19 MPH he averaged 1.3 balls per break. His opponent was slaming home 23-24 MPH breaks and came in 1/2 dry averaging 0.65 balls per break.
 
Why do I think Maniac is talking about my test results post. :):):)

Damn..... I wrote and rewrote a pretty long explanation and guess what, my login timed out. The error stated to log back in and then use the back button to return to my original spot. When I did that I lost all of what I wrote. :angry::angry::sad::sad::sad:

I don't want to retype it again unless one has a gun against my head.

Maniac, would you like me to give you a call and we can chat on the phone about it tomorrow. Send me a PM if that interests you. I think I have some decent answers for you.

I only have one break cue and it has the 13mm Samsara tip on it. I do have a video showing a break with the original 13mm phenolic tip and its customary enjoyed results. I also have the Dufferin 1 Piece Home Cue with a 14mm Le Pro tip. If members are interested, I will combine the phenolic break result along with 8-10 consecutive breaks with the Samsara tip and 8-10 consecutive breaks with the Le Pro tip to give perhaps an illustrative picture of how my testing post was derived from. I do not think the results will be any difference. :):)

Stevesdl
 
:frown:

"Now, unless you are comparing tips with vastly different properties, the stated outcome of the hypothetical experiment is in serious doubt::"

Well this statement is a little disappointing but everyone has their own opinion and I can kindly appreciate that. :thumbup:

But....
First I stated these were "My personal tests results". I could do a very well engineered test and study if someone wants to pay for that result, though I truly believe the results will be quite similar. We can place into consideration all the variables that would influence statistical confidence levels, validate the time in relation to statistical means and medians as well as statistical inferences based on error possibilities and probabilities. We can include or eliminate statistical combinations or permutations as well if one would like. But someone will have to show me the money first. ..and no it will take longer than 5 days to perform.

Second the tests were not hypothetical. I performed every number of test (actually more) that I stated and inputted into an excel spreadsheet. I had the super sore shoulder cap to prove it as well after day 3)

Third the stated outcome is real and true.

Fourth if anyone wants to see copies of my package slip\invoice that at least proves I purchased not only the type and number of tips for testing from different vendors along with the date of purchase which in turn will also show I was preparing for the testing just as I stated inprevious posts to correlate with such said dates I can do so. I can also show the package slip\invoice for the tip glue and the tip tools I also purchased specifically for this test.

Fifth I can also show a pic of my current Samsara tip that would reflect a not so absoutely perfect tip replacement since I am new to ever trying such a thing but as I replaced tips I got quite good.

Sixth I can also show receipt of my first tip replacement that I had paid to get done after the phenolic tip was removed and it will literally be in perfect date correlation to my initial post.

Seventh my desired and acquired results were not for just the number of balls made on the break. Read more carefully and they will show the following: ( I place them in order of what I feel is relevant to "me'.
1. # of balls in the break
2. the depth of the scatter (preferably at least 5 balls in the break half quandrant)
3. CB in close proximity of the middle quandrant after the break
4. as few as only one nested set of balls (though I did not mention this in my testing, I was looking for this result as well - if you break, you want to run if at all possible - multiple nested groups diminish that probability level)

Lastly regarding the statement,
"Was watching one of the pros break in 9-ball on TV last week, his measured speed was abut 18-19 MPH he averaged 1.3 balls per break. His opponent was slaming home 23-24 MPH breaks and came in 1/2 dry averaging 0.65 balls per break."

Today I was told by one vendor to try slowing my break speed with the new Samsara tip for the results that I am desiring. Sure enough first break, 3 balls and sure enough the CB was close enough to the middle of the table to be satisified. but.... (ad I saw this on a numerous number of slow breaks.. I was only placing 3-5 balls in the break half quadrant and I had multiple multiple nested balls.

If speed is not a pretty important factor for "most" people including pros, then why are there vids showing how to put your body into the break stroke for more power (Speed) and why are their tutorials stating that it is better to have a lighter break cue for "faster stroke". Things that make you say "hmmmm" :)


I did not see this post statement until I posted my reply. As you will see in that post I have offered to show a break with the phenolic tip along with 8-10 consecutive breaks for two different tips. The Samsara and Le Pro.

After that, you can decide for yourself... or better yet, run your own test for your own self confidence.

As always, thanks everybody
Stevesdl
 
Last edited:
Hell, I've only had 8-9 posts on this forum, I might as well throw my hat into the ring.

I'm not going to voice an opinion, only ask a simple question and provide my own answer to it. The remainder of the conversation is up to y'all.

What does a tip do to the action of a cue ball on the break?

(Quoting myself) :smile:
The tip can provide more/less spin based on the relative hardness, contingent on a constant velocity of the cue at contact. A softer tip will, by mathematical constant, spend more time in contact with the CB than a harder tip thus offering more spin or action.

In my opinion, your change in tip, merely exemplifies the stroke that you already had. You shoot from the same spot, at the same speed and you do better with the new tip. Yes, that tip is better for YOU....does that make that different or better for everyone, not so sure.

Even if it's not that, YOU shoot better with it. Be it confidence or personal science it doesn't much matter. You do better. Keep it.

As always...good luck and good racks.

Mattie
 
stevesdl said:
:frown:
Second the tests were not hypothetical. I performed every number of test (actually more) that I stated and inputted into an excel spreadsheet. I had the super sore shoulder cap to prove it as well after day 3)

Third the stated outcome is real and true.

stevesdl
Click to expand...

Steve,
Yes, it was your test I was referring to. A damn fine job of experimentation and reporting might I add. I do not doubt the outcome. I read the whole post before something happened to it (until now I didn't know it went away!).
But what I really would like to know is why with one tip the balls scatter like all get-out with little or no balls pocketed and with another tip the balls scatter like all get-out and on the average more balls are pocketed. I DO NOT DOUBT your results, I just would like an explanation as to why Tip A would pocket more balls than Tip B if BOTH tip/cue combinations are scattering the hell out of the racks!!! Does it have something to do with Physics or is a luck factor? If someone else completely emulated your test would the results be the same (or very similar)? There aren't many posts on this thread yet. I had hoped that somebody schooled in the subject of Physics would offer an explanation. Usually there are a LOT more opinions on subjects such as these.

Maniac
 
Hi Maniac,

In my personal experience, it is almost night and day between the phenolic tip when breaking and a Le Pro tip when breaking. I literally feel the need to stroke faster right after the stroke. The same was similar with the Water Buffalo but maybe not quite as much. I attribute all to the upgrading to difference tip hardness or densities and not to spin. (Not sure how or if how much the ferrule plays into this either)

"the amount of time the tip stays on the ball" I am sure is part of the physics of the issue (impact\energy absorption) - shorter the time\the less energy lost? (and again back to the "speed")

The only thing I would think spin has to do with this topis is if bottom spin is used, some speed is lost from the ball using friction for the backward spin casued by low english. Can I say the opposite is true for high english. I have no clue but probably not going to give it much thought either.

But is it really physics that is playing the major part in your question or is it physics that is contributing to a staticstical probability result. Most people watching football hear that term Football stats but what you are really seeing is Football data and not statistics. Statistics is the science of probability. Example: 30% chance of rain for today is statistics. Showing number of completions is not statistics. (I know I know, before we both know it, we will want to know if the electrons are being affected by direct or angular impact. :):) )

So here is what I believe to be a very most possible reasoning why the harder tips provide better results in both scatter and ball drop. (not going to go into angle, approach, hand position or anything else. :) )

Let's just say you can actually control the CB speed to 1 mph increments. Here is one's chance to do "hypothetical mental test".

1. Break the balls at 1 mph - result: barely moves the balls from their racked position

2. Break the balls at 2 mph - result: a "little more" ball movement from the racked position

3. Break the balls at 5 mph - result: many balls leaving the their respective racked order and maybe a few hit a rail or pocket opening.

4. Break the balls at 10 mph - result: more balls leaving the their respective racked order and more balls hitting a rail or pocket opening. In addition some balls having a second contact interaction with different balls causing those contacted balls additional rail contact and\or pocket openings.

5. Break the balls at 15 mph - result: very many balls leaving the their respective racked order and many more balls hitting a rail. In addition many more balls have multiple contact interactions with other different balls sending those contacted balls to additional directions. Some balls not contacting other balls more than once or twice and pointed to directions away from other balls and the original rack location (going to the other end of the table) Also balls being pocketed or hitting rails multiple times.

6. Break the balls at 20 mph or higher - result: very many balls leaving the their respective racked order and many more balls hitting a rail. In addition many more balls have multiple contact interactions with other different balls sending those contacted balls to additional directions. Some balls not contacting other balls more than once or twice and pointed to directions away from other balls and the original rack location (going to the other end of the table) Also balls being pocketed or hitting rails multiple times. (Notice with longer ball movement- the "statistical chance" of balls have "more opportunities" to hit a pocket are ever increasing) - This last sentence is what it is all about. I am not a pro in anything but I do understand statistical probabilites. No Billiards pro in the world woud be able to argue with me that longer ball movement would not increase the probability of a ball being pocketed and the balls scattering more.

Really we "are" talking about statistical probability here. The more times a ball is "still moving" and is still bouncing between rails and other balls, the higher probability the ball can travel long enough and the correct path to
sink in one of the pockets as well as balls having the "chance" to move further way from the original rack.

Is there a point of speed\impact to when the travel length and time negate itself and the balls result closer to their original racked position (thus less scatter)? I am thinking there might be something to reflect a "possibility of such" but by this time, the "statistical probability" of having more than 1 ball pocketed is increased greatly to where it doesn't matter if the balls are scattered. Why say this? Because my proposal would be most balls woud be pocketed at this time so scatter would be irrelevant.

Maniac, your questions made me think this out even that much more and it is just that much clearer "why". Thanks

Remember that last break you performed and had great scatter but no balls pocketed. Remember seeing a few balls just inches away from being pocketed and headed in that pocket direction. Maybe, just maybe, that 1 mph more would have let them drop in that pocket.

Whew!
Thanks man! I appreciate your posts and your valid questions. I think what it comes down to is what Spiderwebcom stated in his last post to the testing post thread.

"You're right. The bottom line is regardless of your technique, all that matters is what feels best for you. Good post."


Thanks all
Stevesdl
 
Maniac said:
There's a lot about the game of pool I haven't learned yet. Some things I'll never get. One thing that is a constant cause of confusion for me is the subject of break cues and/or the tips used on break cues in conjunction with making balls on the break. I am in no way condemning break cues (as I own several of them), but when I read a thread about some detailed study (and I am not condemning that thread either, I'm a firm believer in detailed studies) concerning which break tip is best for pocketing balls, I get darned confused. Okay, here we go. Let's say I break a rack of 15 balls with a nice break cue using a Brand A tip, and it does a great job of scattering balls all over the table, sending numerous balls off of the rails but without pocketing balls on a regular basis. Now I use the same break cue with a Brand B tip on it and it scatters balls all over the table, sending numerous balls off of the rails and pockets an average of 2 balls on every break (as the thread suggests). Then, I do 50 breaks with each tip/cue combo to confirm my results. My question is this, and I'm NOT trying to be a smartass or anything, but I have this legitimate question. If the balls scatter the same with both tips and send balls off of the rails approximately the same, how does the TIP do anything to AIM more balls into the pockets???

One of the reasons I ask this question is that I have a fairly decent break, at least as far as scattering the hell out of the rack. Problem is, I break dry a lot. I am constantly asking myself "How did a ball NOT go in on that break???". I use a Jerico Stinger most of the time. I have moved the cue ball all over the table and have tried every speed from 100% to 50%, still with no consistent results. I am tired of giving up a table with runout capabilities to good players.

I have a theory that maybe luck plays into the break moreso than what tip/break cue you are using. I am wondering if a lot of other people tried the same detailed study as the poster on the above aforementioned thread did, the results could vary somewhat.

What I want is for someone to give me a scientific reason as to why, with all else being equal as far as the scattering of balls go, one tip would cause balls to be pocketed more frequently on the break than another.

Again, I am not condemning anyone's study nor am I trying to be a smartass (I am more of a dumbass), I just want to know if I should actually try a variety of break tips to improve my break skills.

Maniac
Click to expand...

I see your point completely. And I am sure you obviously know this but the hard tip has none to little compression which results in greater break speeds. But this does no good if you have an "inconsistent" rack(er). What I mean by this is sure if we were playing a major event where a ref was racking the balls and you were guaranteed that all the balls were frozen then sure a break tip" will be beneficial. It helps add more to the break no matter who you are. If you hit 22mph with a hard leather tip then the same break with a engineered tip may add a few more mph (just a guess of course). Also that slight variance of even a few millimeters of the racks position can change the out come of the break. Also I am able to control the CB quite well with my tip and that to some people is the reason they don't like the Phenolic like tips. For fun I have run a rack of 8 ball with my Varney break cue Draw/english and all! :thumbup:

So the end result I look at is it's like having a super charged engine under the hood of a car where the speed limit is 55mph....it's never bad to have that power there when needed. As long as you can control the CB fairly well with the break cue's tip (even though most top players suggest center ball hit).

IMO.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Breaking

First, you are assuming that all racks are equal, which is wrong. All racks are not equal, and there are ways to negate any break by how you rack, as Corey Deuel would be the first one to tell you that. Without revealing any racking secrets, let's just say I can negate almost any break to where it will come up dry, whether outside or inside english is applied. I also know which break to switch to, when someone has negated my usual break.

Maybe, that shouldn't be that way, but, in fact, exists in real life. I have played 48 years, sometimes for pretty big money in the past, and I can attest to that it does exist with many different players. Many players study racking and breaking over their pool playing careers trying to get an edge over their opponents. Racking and breaking is a shifting thing, so you need to be able to read a rack as well as knowing what type of break for that particular rack will yield a good break plus making balls. And let me say, I do not give illegal racks, like splitting balls, wetting balls, or racking above the spot, which are always things you should watch for.
I always laugh when some opponent tries to negate my break in 9 ball because I am breaking so good, and racks the balls above the spot, cause all I do is switch to another one of my breaks that almost guarantees 2 ball on the break when they are racked that way.

Most players make the mistake of having only 1 break for a game, one for 8 ball, one for 9 ball. That is a mistake. I, basically, have 8 breaks for each game (4 on the left, 4 on the right). I, am not as knowledgeable about 10 ball breaking and racking since I have not played it as much, but it generally follows my self rules that I have for 8 ball, since both are racked in a triangle. Among some of the best players, there are subtle
'moves' that they make, you need to be able to recognize and react to them.
 
Maniac,

potting balls on the break is as much of a science / skill , as running out is, sometimes.....

a few years ago, i was having the same issues with my break, I could break, squat the rock, yet leave the table wide open.... So i spent hours working on my break, I'd goto the pool hall and start with about 30mins to an hour of just working on my break...

I'd work on breaking from the box, the rail and everywhere else i could try. Just in case, i found the rail isnt working so i could move to plan b or c.

Not all tables break well, not all tables break well from where your usta playing......

As one guy said about the two pro's playing, alot of getting balls to drop is finding that happy medium, so you ca break decently pot a ball or two and get the balls to spread out. Just going full bore all the time doesnt always work.

I have a J&J jump break and have found more success using this cue than any other cue.... Not sure why but w/e, I also have a cheap playing cue i sometimes use too, if i wanna use a controlled / cut break , if i find hitting the cb head on isnt working. And this is all while playing on the same table..

Now i will say i have several friends who just use thier playing cue's or a cheap house cue at a breaking cue, and have no problem potting balls, but thier objective is to control the table since they are all A to AA player's.....

And for them not making a ball on the break is rare. And all of them have different break styles, one guy is a control / cut break guy, another is like johnny archer, and another is all power. But they can all make balls from anywhere on the table. But they use what works for them.

So you really just need to find out what works best for you, i've had alot of different cue's for breaking and also have seen guys with expensive break cue's who have less success with potting balls than i do, with a cheapo cue.
 
:(
"First, you are assuming that all racks are equal, which is wrong."

Well I thought in at least BCA tourneys this was eliminated by the breaker can rack his own rack... I could be so wrong on that too :banghead:

Anyway I forgot about that, the incandescent lighting, the dirty balls, the out of date chalk, and the stained cloth, seriously.

Okay I give and I will admit it. I just have this uncanny feeling that the wind from the bar door being opened when one breaks will be taken into consideration next.

My name is Stevesdl and I am a "Tipaholic"
Everybody now --> :welcome: "Hi Stevesdl"

Not another peep from me on the subject.. :deadhorse:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top