Decisions...

[Steve Lipsky]

Here's a reminder to keep things simple. As you get better and better, and your level of knowledge increases, you may have a tendency to play sequences because you think they're too elegant to not be right. Sometimes, it's good to re-think these situations. Here is a good example:

CueTable Help

In my mind, there are two - and only two - lines of play from this position. Let's look at the first one, which in my opinion is very wrong. There are 4 pages to the diagram.

CueTable Help

Here is an alternative, which leads to an inferior break ball. In addition, some of the position paths are slightly harder - but in my opinion this is the better way to go.

CueTable Help

The shot in the first method to kick out the 2 ball with the 1 is putting all your eggs in one basket, as it were. If you don't end up perfect on the 1, your run is pretty much over. With another break option on the table, in my opinion you should accept the inferior one and play accordingly.

I like to play an aggressive game of 14.1 but you must do so within the limitations of correct percentages. Putting the fate of your entire run on getting exactly perfect on one ball is just too risky for me (when I have another option).

What do you guys think?

- Steve

[Note: in the second option above, it looks like there might be a way to play the 5 to the 4 and try and get perfect on the 1 to bump the 2 again, with the 7 as the key ball. Please assume the shot on the 7 from where you'd stop on the 2 is not makeable.

Additionally, I consider the first option above to be the same whether you start with the 5 or end with the 5... i.e., both options require you to get perfect from the 7 to the 1, and that's what I'm looking to avoid.]

 

[InLine]

Either way works, Decisions!, is right.
The first way is touchy, the second way more the way to go for a sure break shot and a good one at that.
I like trying to pocket the 4 first and draw into the 1/2 to develop a break shot. Bury the 5 next, work out things from there. This way the 7 is still there just in case I fouled up the bump break attempt.

 

[Williebetmore]

Steve,
Damnit, I formulated a plan before looking at the tables....I chose your first sequence. Your "all the eggs in one basket" analogy is definitely accurate.

In my defense, I will say that I almost never try for those breakshots close to the foot rail - on the very tight tables, they are very easy to jaw if you hit firmly. Because I don't like to even try them, I have no experience at developing them; I did not even see it as a possibility until I looked at your second table. My education continues; thanks for the post.

 

[Vahmurka]

am I the only one to see empty CueTables with a line under each "Beta version expired, go for latest updates"?

 

[SoundWaves]

am I the only one to see empty CueTables with a line under each "Beta version expired, go for latest updates"?

Works fine here, I get a blank page on the 6th of Steve's last diagram, but the rest work fine.

 

[Steve Lipsky]

Yes, there wasn't supposed to be a 6th page there. Not sure what happened.

Also, in my haste to post this, I did not check to make sure the 1 couldn't be pocketed from the other side of the table (the side with the 4). It looks like it can in my diagram, and possibly to move the 2 to a break shot. This is a mistake I should have checked for. Please assume this shot is not possible - sorry.

- Steve

 

[CueAndMe]

Interesting. I probably wouldn't have considered just how risky missing position on that 1 ball would be. So I agree with you. And thanks for pointing it out. One thing I realize I would have done differently though is this:
I would have instinctively played for a two rail position on the 1-ball by following the 4-ball closer to the foot rail. This would have given me more margin for error on the 1 by not coming across the angle as much.

CueTable Help

I still think you're right though.

Jeff

 

[Steve Lipsky]

I would have instinctively played for a two rail position on the 1-ball by following the 4-ball closer to the foot rail. This would have given me more margin for error on the 1 by not coming across the angle as much.

Jeff

Hi Jeff. Thanks for the post. In my opinion, with the 7 that far from the side rail, you have to get fairly close to straight in on it (flat) to accomplish your two-railer effectively. This strikes me as making position off the first ball (the 4) too risky - and risk is what we're trying to eliminate in this situation.

Still, I plan to try it out. Thanks!

- Steve

 

[CueAndMe]

Hi Jeff. Thanks for the post. In my opinion, with the 7 that far from the side rail, you have to get fairly close to straight in on it (flat) to accomplish your two-railer effectively. This strikes me as making position off the first ball (the 4) too risky - and risk is what we're trying to eliminate in this situation.

Still, I plan to try it out. Thanks!

- Steve

I do agree it's risky. I guess it depends on how comfortable the shooter is with his position play. You're a much better player than I am, and if you're uncomfortable with the shot, then I should certainly reconsider this option next time I'm faced with it.

I think another instinctive thing I would have done with this setup is to purposely play short of ideal position on the 1-ball with the shot on the 7-ball. Most likely I would have ended up needing a kill draw stroke with such a sharp angle so as not to bump the 2 too far. The 5-ball being so far down table and close to the pocket is added security that if I don't get ideal cueball position after bumping the 2-ball I can still make the 5 and get decent position for the break shot on the 2.

But again, you're absolutely right about leaving the 7-ball for the break shot. Why mess around with maybes. Especially with so few balls left on the table to work with. You've helped me. Thanks.

Jeff

 

[alstl]

Would it make sense to shoot the five with high inside and bring the cue back uptable between the second and third diamond to go 1-2-4 or whatever sequence you prefer with the 7 as your breakout shot?

 

[CueAndMe]

Would it make sense to shoot the five with high inside and bring the cue back uptable between the second and third diamond to go 1-2-4 or whatever sequence you prefer with the 7 as your breakout shot?

Good idea. Here's another one.
The 1 goes by the 4 and the 2 also seems to have half a pocket. That may be a really good way to do it as well, because you can't get into trouble having 3 balls to fall on coming back down table. If you fall too high to get an angle on the 1 to bump the 2, you have the 2 which can bump the 1 under the rack. If way too high on the 1 or 2 you have the 4 to do as Steve suggested originally. If you accidentally come too far off of the 5, you may even get lucky and have the 7 in one of the corners. I think your suggestion is a safe shape off of the 5.

Jeff