Doc D got me thinking...

Nick B

Nick B

This is gonna hurt
Silver Member
After watching Doc D's DAM video he got me thinking...DAM this game is hard. How hard? I didn't have a CAD application on this computer so I rocket it old school in excel. Ignoring distance of cue ball to object is came up with this:

Some assumptions:
1. Balls are 2.25" Wide
2. Tolerance of pocket is Throat Size + (75% of Half Ball) x 2 - Subjective it will due for now
3. Started at 6" from Pocket and went out from there
4. Coming into full pocket (angle of attack matters)
5. Not adjusting for speed of entry or slickness of cloth, balls or how much tin foil is on your head

Applied Grade 10 Geometry (Canadian Math...your math might be different). God this game is tough. What surprised me (just a little) was distance to pocket is much more of a factor than pocket size.

1700192597722.png
 
I know you are on 1pkt.org and I have posted there about Kohler's math on measuring shot difficulty. How far the object ball is from the pocket multiplied by how far the cueball is from the object ball.
Learn this and you may chose different patterns.
 
Nick B said:
After watching Doc D's DAM video he got me thinking...DAM this game is hard. How hard? I didn't have a CAD application on this computer so I rocket it old school in excel. Ignoring distance of cue ball to object is came up with this:

Some assumptions:
1. Balls are 2.25" Wide
2. Tolerance of pocket is Throat Size + (75% of Half Ball) x 2 - Subjective it will due for now
3. Started at 6" from Pocket and went out from there
4. Coming into full pocket (angle of attack matters)
5. Not adjusting for speed of entry or slickness of cloth, balls or how much tin foil is on your head

Applied Grade 10 Geometry (Canadian Math...your math might be different). God this game is tough. What surprised me (just a little) was distance to pocket is much more of a factor than pocket size.

View attachment 728066
Click to expand...

I think I see a triangle! And a few squares!

Glad I took from that what you wanted me too... :)
 
I've done some thinking about this, too. Just to make the math simple, at the ball will go in the pocket of it's +/- 1" from the center. If the ball is one foot from the pocket, the contract point must be within about +/- .1". This means the cue ball must be in an area about 3/8" wide at contact. For a shot 3' to the object ball and 3' to the pocket, the cue ball must be delivered to an area 1/8" wide. That's a similar angle as a 1' wide target at 100 yards. If you are taking a thin cut at our 3'/3' shot, you are paying the center of the cue ball through the gap of a spark plug.
 
tomatoshooter said:
I've done some thinking about this, too. Just to make the math simple, at the ball will go in the pocket of it's +/- 1" from the center. If the ball is one foot from the pocket, the contract point must be within about +/- .1". This means the cue ball must be in an area about 3/8" wide at contact. For a shot 3' to the object ball and 3' to the pocket, the cue ball must be delivered to an area 1/8" wide. That's a similar angle as a 1' wide target at 100 yards. If you are taking a thin cut at our 3'/3' shot, you are paying the center of the cue ball through the gap of a spark plug.
Click to expand...
+/-1" from center is a little too severe (in my opinion). Assuming centers. You would have a 4.25" Window and zero slop (in off facing) and we know that's not the case. I worked it out center-to-center vs pocket by distance. Thus as the pocket gets smaller the window tightens down as expected.

It's really amazing how little error you are allowed at distance. That's always been my argument against Bar Box. Even a extra 12" on most shots will bring the probability of a run out way down and thus the demand on better ball strikers.
 
Nick B said:
After watching Doc D's DAM video he got me thinking...DAM this game is hard. How hard? I didn't have a CAD application on this computer so I rocket it old school in excel. Ignoring distance of cue ball to object is came up with this:

Some assumptions:
1. Balls are 2.25" Wide
2. Tolerance of pocket is Throat Size + (75% of Half Ball) x 2 - Subjective it will due for now
3. Started at 6" from Pocket and went out from there
4. Coming into full pocket (angle of attack matters)
5. Not adjusting for speed of entry or slickness of cloth, balls or how much tin foil is on your head

Applied Grade 10 Geometry (Canadian Math...your math might be different). God this game is tough. What surprised me (just a little) was distance to pocket is much more of a factor than pocket size.

View attachment 728066
Click to expand...
I was taught that as a 14 year old by an old timer a long time ago.
The closer the ball is to the pocket is more forgiving if your aim is off a bit.
The farther the ball is from the pocket even a slight off aim will go wider farther the distance is.
 
Is there a 'coefficient' of something involved? really hoping to see more coefficients of anything. ;) seriously, this is good data but i think we all come by this intuitively. you figure out real quick that distance is the big decider in shot make/miss #'s. its why top-level snooker is so mind warping to watch.
 
Speed of shot is a huge factor into the pocket accepting the ball into the pocket. It's why beginners are so bad at pocketing balls most of them just hit the damn ball to hard. And they re not clearly as accurate
 
Zerksies said:
Speed of shot is a huge factor into the pocket accepting the ball into the pocket. It's why beginners are so bad at pocketing balls most of them just hit the damn ball to hard. And they re not clearly as accurate
Click to expand...
If you hit the center speed is not a factor. Speed IS a factor if you're constantly 'wiping your feet' on shots. Beginners miss because of both issues combined: poor aim and way too much speed. Both are magnified the longer the shot as the OP's data clearly show.
 
tomatoshooter said:
I've done some thinking about this, too. Just to make the math simple, at the ball will go in the pocket of it's +/- 1" from the center. If the ball is one foot from the pocket, the contract point must be within about +/- .1". This means the cue ball must be in an area about 3/8" wide at contact. For a shot 3' to the object ball and 3' to the pocket, the cue ball must be delivered to an area 1/8" wide. That's a similar angle as a 1' wide target at 100 yards. If you are taking a thin cut at our 3'/3' shot, you are paying the center of the cue ball through the gap of a spark plug.
Click to expand...
That's the argument all the aimers use against contact points but really all you need is to determine the stick angle and shoot accordingly.
 
Nick B said:
After watching Doc D's DAM video he got me thinking...DAM this game is hard. How hard? I didn't have a CAD application on this computer so I rocket it old school in excel. Ignoring distance of cue ball to object is came up with this:
...
Click to expand...
Here is a simple way to calculate the difficulty of shots. You end up with numbers from 1 to 15, more or less. Both distances are included. The angle of cut can also be included fairly easily, as shown. It's the first article in the PDF.

 
garczar said:
Is there a 'coefficient' of something involved? really hoping to see more coefficients of anything. ;) seriously, this is good data but i think we all come by this intuitively. you figure out real quick that distance is the big decider in shot make/miss #'s. its why top-level snooker is so mind warping to watch.
Click to expand...
Pro snooker pockets are 3.25" at the throat. With the rounded pockets and smaller balls your equivalent target would be 4.0~4.25. Again facing perpendicular to the pocket. Shallow angles are a whole other story.
 
garczar said:
Is there a 'coefficient' of something involved? really hoping to see more coefficients of anything. ;) seriously, this is good data but i think we all come by this intuitively. you figure out real quick that distance is the big decider in shot make/miss #'s. its why top-level snooker is so mind warping to watch.
Click to expand...

Coefficients and hypotenuses and such are fine but what really gets me excited is all the sinning and cosinning!

On to sorta on topic stuff, I was playing around years ago using software to determine if one aiming system could work or if aiming systems in general could work. With perfect repeatability and none of the flaws of the real world I found that very few contact points were needed to make any shot on the table. I think it was only about a dozen contact points to pocket any shot a person was likely to try. That was probably based on 4.5" pockets back then and it was a nine foot table according to the software. Far less contact points than I had thought would be needed to cover every shot anyway.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
Coefficients and hypotenuses and such are fine but what really gets me excited is all the sinning and cosinning!

On to sorta on topic stuff, I was playing around years ago using software to determine if one aiming system could work or if aiming systems in general could work. With perfect repeatability and none of the flaws of the real world I found that very few contact points were needed to make any shot on the table. I think it was only about a dozen contact points to pocket any shot a person was likely to try. That was probably based on 4.5" pockets back then and it was a nine foot table according to the software. Far less contact points than I had thought would be needed to cover every shot anyway.

Hu
Click to expand...
If you only need to hit the pocket sure. The value for me is the immutable baseline. WYSIWYG is the nuts.
 
ShootingArts said:
Coefficients and hypotenuses and such are fine but what really gets me excited is all the sinning and cosinning!

On to sorta on topic stuff, I was playing around years ago using software to determine if one aiming system could work or if aiming systems in general could work. With perfect repeatability and none of the flaws of the real world I found that very few contact points were needed to make any shot on the table. I think it was only about a dozen contact points to pocket any shot a person was likely to try. That was probably based on 4.5" pockets back then and it was a nine foot table according to the software. Far less contact points than I had thought would be needed to cover every shot anyway.

Hu
Click to expand...
Depending on the distances and whether you have unobstructed view to pocket maybe. At distance or with spin to achieve shape or desired result I find systems fall apart (at least that's my observation).
 
Nick B said:
Depending on the distances and whether you have unobstructed view to pocket maybe. At distance or with spin to achieve shape or desired result I find systems fall apart (at least that's my observation).
Click to expand...

My testing did include all distances on a nine foot table. It didn't include obstructions as that has nothing to do with aiming.

Working on a real table I haven't seen an aiming system that was really effective either. On the internet people claim no modifications needed. When on a real table the modifications seem to outweigh the basic aiming systems. Right now the only things I use are the HAMBx2 aiming system and my primary system, Poke and Hope!(grin)

We will have to move to the aiming forum if we take this any further.

Hu
 
Bob Jewett said:
Here is a simple way to calculate the difficulty of shots. You end up with numbers from 1 to 15, more or less. Both distances are included. The angle of cut can also be included fairly easily, as shown. It's the first article in the PDF.

Click to expand...
For those who don't wade into PDFs, here is a diagram showing how to calculate the difficulty of a shot. For a straight shot just take the two distances shown in diamonds and multiply them together. If you have a significant cut angle, change the cut into the equivalent straight shot (same difficulty) by drawing the line shown that is at a right angle to the line of your stick and meets the extended path of the object ball line.

1700338234839.png


What does the difficulty number mean? If you take a fraction that is 1 over the difficulty, it tells you the total window in inches that your back hand has to be in to make the shot, assuming your front hand gives perfect centering on the cue ball. The shot shown with a difficulty of 8 has a 1/8-inch window for your backhand alignment, so 1/16th inch either side of perfect at the instant you hit the ball. Pool is hard.
 
ShootingArts said:
Working on a real table I haven't seen an aiming system that was really effective either. On the internet people claim no modifications needed. When on a real table the modifications seem to outweigh the basic aiming systems. Right now the only things I use are the HAMBx2 aiming system and my primary system, Poke and Hope!(grin)
Click to expand...
I don't expect any aiming system to be accurate without "adjustment" for more than a handful of cut angles. Even so, and even though I don't use a system, I can see the advantage of having a "map" of selected cut angles to adjust from.

ShootingArts said:
We will have to move to the aiming forum if we take this any further.
Click to expand...
Agreed. pj out.

pj
chgo
 
Bob Jewett said:
Here is a simple way to calculate the difficulty of shots. You end up with numbers from 1 to 15, more or less. Both distances are included. The angle of cut can also be included fairly easily, as shown. It's the first article in the PDF.

Click to expand...

For those interested, a thorough and accurate analysis showing how cut shot difficult depends on everything (CB-OB distance, OB-pocket distance, cut angle, angle to the pocket, and pocket geometry) can be found via the links here:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top