Does Size Matter: 6,7ft vs 9ft Tables. Dr. Dave Request

Mr. Bond

Mr. Bond

Orbis Non Sufficit
Gold Member
Silver Member
This question(s) is actually for anyone handy with graphics and/ or math.

1. Can the difficulty level of playing on a particular size table, as compared to a larger table, be expressed as a percentage?

Examp.: "Based on size alone, Bobs 9ft gold crown is XX% harder to play on than Fred's 7ft bar box."


2. I'd also like to see a graphic of a 9ft table showing the " red zone " along the sternum of the playing surface that illustrates the extra (rectangle of) play area gained in the center of a 9ft table, compared to a 6 or 7 ft table.

3. From within that relatively small area ( red zone) in the center of the table, some shots on a 9ft table will be physically longer in distance than the same shot on a 6 or 7 foot table. Can a percentage be established to represent how many balls from a given game would fall into (or be affected by ?) the red zone at some point ?

Thanks in advance for humoring my request
 
Mr. Bond said:
This question(s) is actually for anyone handy with graphics and/ or math.

1. Can the difficulty level of playing on a particular size table, as compared to a larger table, be expressed as a percentage?

Examp.: "Based on size alone, Bobs 9ft gold crown is XX% harder to play on than Fred's 7ft bar box."


2. I'd also like to see a graphic of a 9ft table showing the " red zone " along the sternum of the playing surface that illustrates the extra (rectangle of) play area gained in the center of a 9ft table, compared to a 6 or 7 ft table.

3. From within that relatively small area ( red zone) in the center of the table, some shots on a 9ft table will be physically longer in distance than the same shot on a 6 or 7 foot table. Can a percentage be established to represent how many balls from a given game would fall into (or be affected by ?) the red zone at some point ?

Thanks in advance for humoring my request
Click to expand...

You can't go by size alone to compare tables. The extra distance of a 9' compared to a 7' really only means that your accuracy has to be greater given the same size pockets.

If you reduce the size of the pockets on the smaller table, you can get a closer comparison to equality. However, there will always be some difference no matter the size pockets because of distance and how that relates to spin on the cb and ob.

Right now, the only real comparisons I have seen are with pocket size. I don't think there has been a study in the way you suggest. It would be interesting to see one done, and also that compared with pocket sizes.
 
I'd like to make the case that a 9' table is easier...I feel claustrophobic on a bar box, and it's more difficult to get good shape...
 
If You Think Size Is Irrelevant

Heck, if anyone thinks that the size of the table is irrelevant, then try your game played on a 10' pool table and see how you do?.....OMG, what a difference and so then go back to playing on a table surface of 50"x100" and your pool game just became a whole lot easier.

Matt B.
 
Just ask any typical bar player that bangs balls on a 7 foot table to gamble with you on a 9 foot table and you will get some answers to your questions.

Kevin
 
Mr. Bond said:
If, Based on size alone, same brand table, same cushions , proportionately identical pocket openings and cloth...the 6 and 7 foot table was given a difficulty level of .85 and the 9ft was given a level of 1.0, does that mean a 9ft table is .15, or 15% more difficult than a 7 or 6 ft table?
Click to expand...

That's how Dave uses it, but I don't believe he would claim that those numbers are precise representations of the actual difficulties, or at least I hope he wouldn't claim that. He assigned those numbers to provide a convenient and internally consistent "good guess" to compare difficulties.

Really the only way to empirically determine the change in difficulty would be to compare something like the accu-stats averages for the different table sizes. What is Shane's average on the bigfoot vs. the 9-foot vs. the 7-foot?

Two other points:

1. I also wonder if, even if shots are harder on larger tables (because the margin of error is smaller on longer shots), balls are less likely to cluster on larger tables, making the strategic play slightly easier.

2. Following up on what Neil said - in my experience, typical bar tables usually have much easier pockets, because they're made for the average casual pool player, whereas 9-footers are made for "players" and thus usually have tight-ish pockets. So how much of the easiness of bar tables is due to the larger pockets and how much is due to the shorter shots?
 
It depends what game your playing on a 7' table. Try 15 ball rotation, 14.1, or 1-hole on a 7' table with 4" pockets with a shallow shelf and pro cut rails. Even 8 ball is slightly harder on a 7'. Johnnyt
 
I don't think we can generalize whether a bigger or smaller table is easier without looking at other variables. The larger a table is, the more difficult it will be to pocket balls due to the smaller margin of error for the pockets. This is relatively easy to measure, and that is what Dr. Dave has done.

The smaller a table is, the more difficult it will be to position the cue ball and more clusters will occur. It would be interesting to devise a way to measure this, then maybe we could combine the two measurements to get a better understanding of how difficult a table plays.

In my opinion, 8-ball is more difficult on a small table and 9-ball is more difficult on a large table.
 
Mr. Bond,

Sounds like a good idea for a segment on your show.

You could do 5 questions with the Dr. or some such thing. It could be a short regular segment where you fire off a few science of the game type questions. Of course Dr. Dave would have to agree to do it but I think it would be interesting and give him a chance to mention his web site and all the valuable information that is on it.

As far as your question goes -- I have no idea. Good luck with that.

***Edit***

Name of th segment -- Fact From Fiction.

Dr. Dave -- Fact or Fiction, Table size really doesn't affect the overall difficulty of the game?
 
Last edited:
BRussell said:
That's how Dave uses it, but I don't believe he would claim that those numbers are precise representations of the actual difficulties, or at least I hope he wouldn't claim that. He assigned those numbers to provide a convenient and internally consistent "good guess" to compare difficulties.

Really the only way to empirically determine the change in difficulty would be to compare something like the accu-stats averages for the different table sizes. What is Shane's average on the bigfoot vs. the 9-foot vs. the 7-foot?

Two other points:

1. I also wonder if, even if shots are harder on larger tables (because the margin of error is smaller on longer shots), balls are less likely to cluster on larger tables, making the strategic play slightly easier.

2. Following up on what Neil said - in my experience, typical bar tables usually have much easier pockets, because they're made for the average casual pool player, whereas 9-footers are made for "players" and thus usually have tight-ish pockets. So how much of the easiness of bar tables is due to the larger pockets and how much is due to the shorter shots?
Click to expand...

Something few seem to realize, is that most bar tables, including Valleys, have 4 1/2" pockets. Same size as a Diamond 9' table does. What makes the Valleys so much easier than other tables is the shelf depth. Valleys have a very short shelf depth, so pretty much anything that gets between the points will fall. Whereas with a longer shelf depth, the angle of the pocket can spit the ball back out. The angle of the pocket opening also plays a large part in the difficulty of a pocket.
 
another aspect of the bartable vs the 9fter is that on the bartable, you have to be able to deal with a higher level of pressure coming from your opponent running racks. Especially in barbox 9ball, mistakes are magnified and you might not see a good opportunity for more than a few racks if you make an error and turn over control of the table. That pressure of sitting there waiting while your opponent runs another rack is something that is not felt as much on tight 9fters.

14.1 is not played as much nowadays but I liken the building pressure of waiting on the bartable to what it use to be like waiting for my shot in straight pool.
 
It seems perhaps this discussion is somewhat dependent on what you mean by easier? On a bar box certainly the increased congestion complicates things to some extent. But wouldn't this same traffic also make safety play and ducking for cover easier?

One often used reason for mitigating the 526 by Mosconi is that he did it on an 8' table, not a 9 or 10 footer. And obviously a high run way of looking at it need not take safety play into consideration.

This is always an interesting debate.
 
I believe we are discussing how easy or difficult it is to run out a rack. In that context, defense is not taken into consideration, although that is another interesting aspect.

DogsPlayingPool said:
It seems perhaps this discussion is somewhat dependent on what you mean by easier? On a bar box certainly the increased congestion complicates things to some extent. But wouldn't this same traffic also make safety play and ducking for cover easier?

One often used reason for mitigating the 526 by Mosconi is that he did it on an 8' table, not a 9 or 10 footer. And obviously a high run way of looking at it need not take safety play into consideration.

This is always an interesting debate.
Click to expand...
 
Pocket configuration is no doubt a huge factor in a table's difficulty, as is the game you are playing, but i would like to isolate the size difference as it's own percentage, based on the slight increase of play area on a 9ft over a 6 or 7...

Perhaps think of it in relation to a carom table with no pockets, upon which the only difference between a short table and a longer one is the length of shots involved.

Examp: A 9ft table has XXXsquare inches more playing surface than 7ft table.
Which means that the 9ft table is XX% percent larger than the 7ft table.
XX% larger is equal to XX% more dificult, based on extra shot length alone..


Did I have too much coffee?
 
I've got a (sh!tty) 9ft home table - so I'm sure I'm biased - but my $0.02 worth is ...

Potting: 9ft table = tougher potting than smaller tables (all other pocket factors being equal).

Ball Clusters & less table space for position play etc. : yes this would be more likely / frequent on smaller tables, but IMO this shouldn't make them rate as 'tougher', but rather 'sh!ttier' perhaps ?

Playing 15 ball ghost on a 6ft table - how would a pro score compared to 15 ball ghost on a 9 footer ?
I suspect he may have more success on the 9 foot table due to 15 ball on a 6 footer just being crazy cluttered. (I could be way wrong here though ? Just guessing)

Does that mean the 6 foot table is 'harder' than the 9 footer ? (or is a 6 foot table just 'sh!tty' ?)

<or are those of us who own / like big tables just compensating for something else ?> :-p

** edit ** : Q. Whats worse than a 6ft home table. A. No home table at all !

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Kevin Lindstrom said:
Just ask any typical bar player that bangs balls on a 7 foot table to gamble with you on a 9 foot table and you will get some answers to your questions.

Kevin
Click to expand...

And ask some 9' table banger to play 8 or 10 ball with someone that knows how to play on a 7' with tight pockets and pro cut rails. He will lighten there wallet. Johnnyt
 
Mr. Bond said:
Pocket configuration is no doubt a huge factor in a table's difficulty, as is the game you are playing, but i would like to isolate the size difference as it's own percentage, based on the slight increase of play area on a 9ft over a 6 or 7...

Perhaps think of it in relation to a carom table with no pockets, upon which the only difference between a short table and a longer one is the length of shots involved.

Examp: A 9ft table has XXXsquare inches more playing surface than 7ft table.
Which means that the 9ft table is XX% percent larger than the 7ft table.
XX% larger is equal to XX% more dificult, based on extra shot length alone..


Did I have too much coffee?
Click to expand...

This might help some math guys to be able to figure it out, or it might not...???

I have a 7' table with 4 1/8" pockets. I placed a 2 1/4" cb at one corner pocket opening. I then placed a line on each side of the cb to the point of the pocket farthest away. I then measured up two feet from the cb, and measured the distance between the lines. That measurement had gone from 2 1/4" to 2 13/16" .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top