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

[Scaramouche]

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

Haven't the foggiest idea what useful information can come from answering such questions since both players play on the same table, but here goes.

The width of the pocket is the base of a triangle,
The sides of the triangle go to the furthest point on the table.
The angle at the apex gets smaller as the size of the table increases or the size of the pocket decreases.
Compare the angles for various tables and express as a percentage.

But that is only relevant for long shots.
Any shot on a larger table that is within the footprint of the smaller table has no change in difficulty.

It may make a difference in gaining position on the next shot.
Usually, gaining position is not a question of pinpoint accuracy - there are zones on the table where you absolutely do not want to come to rest, and favourable zones where you would like to be.
On a bigger table, these zones are larger.
If you have been religiously doing your Mother Drills, you should have the tools to adjust for the distance required.
And all your shots will be of short distance.

Alex Pagulayan moves effortlessly between snooker and pool tables - accurate shooting and speed control.

 

[Zphix]

I think table difficulty is relatively consistent when everything except table size are the exact same. On a 9 foot table you have more breathing room (the double edged sword of more space) because balls have more room to travel equating to less clusters + problems. On 7 footers, you have less space equating to more clusters and precision play but less distance and long shots.

Ironically enough though, I play on a 9 foot diamond that plays like a brand new bar box diamond. Same tight pockets, cloth speed, etc. and I'm better on the 9 footer.

Sent from my X501_USA_Cricket using Tapatalk 2

 

[maxeypad2007]

I don't know a good way to explain this in numerical terms but one of the aspects of a 9' table that makes play more difficult is the fact it is harder to get a ball to slide a long distance which affects how makeable some shots are. For example, a long bank where I have to pinch the ball straight back with inside english is much harder at 9' vs 7'

 

[Colin Colenso]

Good pot and position players may increase their B&R% on 9 footers. Especially for 8-ball.

2 reasons not distinctly mentioned:
1. Bridge hand is on the playing surface more often.
2. Balls are ON in more holes, due to less density of balls and greater distance from rails, making shape to the near side a better percentage option. This opens up many more pattern options.

Distance and tightness is less of an issue for good potters.

 

[dr_dave]

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?

For a given set of conditions and pockets, shot difficulty (at a given angle) is directly related to shot distance; and on a bigger table, average shot distance is directly related to table size, so if a table is a certain percentage larger than another with the same conditions, that table will in general play about that same percentage more difficult.

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

That's a much more difficult question to answer, because table difficulty depends on many more factors than size and brand. For lots of information and resources dealing with this topic, see:

table difficulty factor (TDF)

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

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.

My original goal in developing the table difficulty factor (TDF) was to be able to assign a percentage difficulty number to any table with just a few simple measurements, but then I realized that this is not such an easy thing to do since it depends a lot on the game being played, the ability of the person playing, and the style of play (in addition to all of the other factors already included in the TDF). On the 3rd page of the TDF document, I explain this and present a useful scale for interpreting TDF numbers.

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.

Agreed.

Regards,
Dave

 

[iusedtoberich]

As far as I know, I am the only one who has done a detailed analysis of many, many, many, trials comparing a 7' diamond vs a 9' GC, with similar pockets, cloth, and balls.

The conclusion to my experiment is a 7' table is SIGNIFICANTLY easier to play on than a 9' table. This is with a FULL RACK game.

I invite you all to to repeat my experiment, to get more data points.

Here is my thread showing my testing method and results:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=344551&highlight=table+significantly+easier+play

 

[HawaiianEye]

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.

I was going to write something very similar to what you did. I have ran WAY MORE racks of 9-ball on a bar table than I have a 9-footer. I played almost exclusively on a bar table for a few years and it wasn't uncommon for one player to be sitting down for a while.

The same goes for 8-ball on a bar table.

If I am playing a good player and he is breaking, I expect him to not run out if he gets a good break and I don't expect him to shoot if I break the same.

Aloha.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I have many issues with comparing a 7' table to a 9' table purely as a function of shot distance.

I don't believe its linear.

For example, any one of us can shoot 100 stop shots in a row with the CB 1 foot from the OB, and the OB 1 foot from the pocket.

Now, increase that distance to the OB mid table, and the CB near the corner pocket. If this was a linear relationship, the success rate would be predicted. I don't think this is the case at all.

Another issue I have is when comparing a 7' table to a 9' table, the actual playing surface goes from 80 x 40 = 3200 sq inches to 100 x 50 = 5000 sq inches. This area increase from a percentage standpoint is 56% higher.

Dr Daves TDF gives a 7' table .85 and a 9' table 1.0. For a percentage increase of 17.6%.

I think using the "area" of the table is much more relevant.

Along with simply pocketing the ball, the position play is much harder on a table with 5000 square inches vs a table with 3200 square inches.

All factors of a larger table make play more difficult.

I simply do not agree that the difference between a 7' table and 9' table is .85 to 1.0. In my opinion, and based on 138 innings of 14.1 played directly comparing both tables, a 9' table is about twice as hard as a 7' table.

I also think the surface area trumps pocket size for affecting the table difficulty. Dr Dave's formula gives equal weight to pocket size as to table size. A bucket pocket of 5" compared to a tight pocket of 4.5" goes from 1.0 factor to .85 factor. This is the same as the difference between a 9' and 7' table. Again, I believe the pocket size of course affects the table difficult, but an order of magnitude less than the table size.

Dr Dave, I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm attacking your formula. I brought up all of these points in your original thread a year or two ago. I simply do not agree with your numbers. They are a good starting point, but I feel need signifiant adjustments, based on actual play.

I did the actual play, and my results are significantly different than 1.0 to .85.

 

[dr_dave]

I have many issues with comparing a 7' table to a 9' table purely as a function of shot distance.

I don't believe its linear.

For example, any one of us can shoot 100 stop shots in a row with the CB 1 foot from the OB, and the OB 1 foot from the pocket.

Now, increase that distance to the OB mid table, and the CB near the corner pocket. If this was a linear relationship, the success rate would be predicted. I don't think this is the case at all.

Another issue I have is when comparing a 7' table to a 9' table, the actual playing surface goes from 80 x 40 = 3200 sq inches to 100 x 50 = 5000 sq inches. This area increase from a percentage standpoint is 56% higher.

Dr Daves TDF gives a 7' table .85 and a 9' table 1.0. For a percentage increase of 17.6%.

I think using the "area" of the table is much more relevant.

Along with simply pocketing the ball, the position play is much harder on a table with 5000 square inches vs a table with 3200 square inches.

All factors of a larger table make play more difficult.

I simply do not agree that the difference between a 7' table and 9' table is .85 to 1.0. In my opinion, and based on 138 innings of 14.1 played directly comparing both tables, a 9' table is about twice as hard as a 7' table.

I also think the surface area trumps pocket size for affecting the table difficulty. Dr Dave's formula gives equal weight to pocket size as to table size. A bucket pocket of 5" compared to a tight pocket of 4.5" goes from 1.0 factor to .85 factor. This is the same as the difference between a 9' and 7' table. Again, I believe the pocket size of course affects the table difficult, but an order of magnitude less than the table size.

Dr Dave, I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm attacking your formula. I brought up all of these points in your original thread a year or two ago. I simply do not agree with your numbers. They are a good starting point, but I feel need signifiant adjustments, based on actual play.

I did the actual play, and my results are significantly different than 1.0 to .85.

Your points are well taken.

The overall difficulty number will vary a lot from player to player, and will depend on the game being played and the strength of the player at that particular game. For some people (especially good shot makers), table size and shot distance will not make much of a difference (unless the pockets are really "tight"); and for other people (especially poor shot makers) the added distance of average shots on a larger table can be debilitating (especially with "tight" pockets).

Concerning the TDF, I did the best I could do a the time with all of the information, analyses, and data I had, but I agree with you that many improvements and tweaks are possible (but it still ain't easy with so many variables and factors).

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[Tramp Steamer]

I've been playing with a 7 for years now, but I heard about a couple of guys who had 9's, and were very popular.
8's are kind of middle of the road, although most guys seem quite content with them. Or so I've been told.
A 10 would be awesome.

I did play on a 12 foot Snooker table once.

 

[fastone371]

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.

I check most Valleys that I play on, 2 balls will fall into the pocket side by side on a Valley but not on a pro-cut Diamond.

 

[fastone371]

I gotta agree with iusedtoberich. I have a 9' with tight 4 1/2" pockets, (actually measure about 4 7/16") The guys that play on my table all have a tough time compared to the 7' tables, and these are mostly 7' pro-cut Diamonds so its not like going from a standard Valley to a tight 9' table. Keep in mind that these are people that play predominately on 7' tables, rarely ever playing on 9' tables.

 

[CSI - Ozzy]

CSI Podcast

Although I realize this thread is primarily about the difficulty difference of 9ft and 7ft tables, some have floated the notion that playing pro or open level tournaments on 7ft tables makes each match a "toss up." On tonight's CSI Podcast, we will present real data from two different sources that refute that notion.

Watch tonight at 5:30 pacific / 8:30 eastern.
Click here to watch.

 

[PoolBoy1]

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?

Yes definitely more difficult. Better positioning and pocketing of balls is needed. Take a table each size and roll 15 balls and cue ball on table, no clusters. Run em a couple times on each table and you will see the larger table more of a challenge.

 

[9Ballr]

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

My weakness in pool are long distance straight shots, especially if they include a power draw, so, yes, size matters a great deal if that is your weak shot.
I play on 9 and 8 foot tables and find the 8 much easier.

 

[Neil]

My weakness in pool are long distance straight shots, especially if they include a power draw, so, yes, size matters a great deal if that is your weak shot.
I play on 9 and 8 foot tables and find the 8 much easier.

Here's a little something for you to think about- One, keep your grip loose. Tightening it for power shots will throw the cue off line. Two- If you can do a long power shot on a 8' table, you have to be on line to make it. (say, oh, 6' of distance between the cb and ob on a 8' table)

Since you know that you have to be right on line to make it, does adding one foot to the distance change anything? You are still either on line, or not on line. Maybe....the problem is in your head? Meaning, if you think it so much harder on a 9', it will be so much harder on a 9'.

 

[Neil]

Your points are well taken.

The overall difficulty number will vary a lot from player to player, and will depend on the game being played and the strength of the player at that particular game. For some people (especially good shot makers), table size and shot distance will not make much of a difference (unless the pockets are really "tight"); and for other people (especially poor shot makers) the added distance of average shots on a larger table can be debilitating (especially with "tight" pockets).

Concerning the TDF, I did the best I could do a the time with all of the information, analyses, and data I had, but I agree with you that many improvements and tweaks are possible (but it still ain't easy with so many variables and factors).

Catch you later,
Dave

The player is a huge part of it. Take two players and give them a 3' draw shot. They perform it no problem. Now, give them both a 5' draw shot. One performs it no problem, the other has trouble with it.

The first player will have no problem playing on a 9' table, the second one will. The table difficulty factor, in my opinion, is largely based on how well one can control the cb.

 

[Neil]

I check most Valleys that I play on, 2 balls will fall into the pocket side by side on a Valley but not on a pro-cut Diamond.

I find that interesting. Maybe realkingcobra or some other mechanic could chime in here on that. Everyone I have measured (not very many) have been 4 1/2". Could be the different models of Valleys also.??

 

[Neil]

Although I realize this thread is primarily about the difficulty difference of 9ft and 7ft tables, some have floated the notion that playing pro or open level tournaments on 7ft tables makes each match a "toss up." On tonight's CSI Podcast, we will present real data from two different sources that refute that notion.

Watch tonight at 5:30 pacific / 8:30 eastern.
Click here to watch.

How can those of us that missed it see it?