Does "spinning the ball in" increase your shooting margin of error?
- Thread starter jsp
- Start date
As I recall, it was in the early 1980's, which was before Accu-stats started taping, and it was at Terry Stonier's Jointed Cue in Sacramento which never hadalstl said:
Accu-stats taping so far as I know. So, I would guess no.
more automatic correction
If you're playing a shot with english and you intend to hit the CB at a particular offset, any error in placement of the tip on the CB (unintentionally hitting the CB with too much or too little offset) would not only impart different amounts of spin on the CB (which could cause greater throw), but it would also cause different magnitudes of squirt. For a wide variety of cut shot angles and tip offsets, the affects of squirt and spin oppose each other, and to a degree they cancel each other out. The more offset you hit the CB, the more the CB would squirt, but a greater offset would also impart more spin on the CB that would counteract/compensate the affects of squirt. The increased squirt would make the CB contact the OB more full, but the greater spin would throw the OB more in the intended direction.
So theoretically, for a given cut shot angle and nominal amount of english applied, there is an optimal CB-to-OB distance where the affects of the changes in squirt and spin would completely cancel each other out. Beyond this optimal distance, the affects of squirt (neglecting swerve, which also can be argued as another degree of auto-correction) would dominate. Below the optimum, the affects of throw due to spin would dominate. But for shots hovering around this optimal distance, there would still be a significant degree of automatic correction, and hence a greater margin of error compared to the case of just rolling the CB. So what would be this theoretically optimal CB-OB distance? I took some time to figure it out based on the data provided by some of Dr. Dave's technical proofs.
Let's say I have a 30-degree cut shot. From experience, say I subconciously know that if I hit the CB at 0.2R of offset (40% english) at a certain cueing angle from parallel (to compensate for squirt), this precise combination would pot the OB straight into the heart of the pocket.
Now, let's say I keep the same cueing angle but unintentionally hit the CB with more offset, say imparting 60% english instead of 40%. So instead of hitting the CB at 0.2R offset, I hit it at 0.3R (Dr. Dave defines a 0.5R offset as 100% english). Looking at the first graph of the squirt article and assuming I'm using a low deflection shaft (green line), the change in the amount of squirt from 0.2R to 0.3R is roughly 0.3 degrees. Now, looking at the second graph of page 3 on the throw article, going from 40% english to 60% english would give approximately 2.5 degrees change in throw (in the negative direction, which is in the same direction as the spin). So if the OB is to be sent at exactly on the same path toward the center of the pocket, the CB would have to contact the OB more full. With help from the equations of this article, the CB should contact the OB about 38/1000 ball-widths, or approximately 0.086 inches, more full.
So now the optimal CB-OB distance can be estimated by simple trigonmetry. If the CB squirts 0.3 degrees more, how far does the CB have to be from the OB for it to contact the OB 0.086 more full? tan(0.3) = (0.086"/x), x = 16.4 inches.
So at least for a 30-degree cut shot using between 20-60% outside english with a low deflection shaft, a shot where the CB is approximately 16 inches away from the OB would theoretically be immune to any small variances in CB-tip offset. Squirt and throw would essentially cancel each other out. I just thought this was an interesting conclusion, based on the graphs. Try it out for yourself and see if the real world matches the theory.
I was thinking about this the other day while cinching balls with outside on my home table. The sensitivity of throw to the amount of english can be used as an argument against using outside english to cinch cut shots...BUT...it can also be used as an argument for using outside english. Why? Because there is another degree of "automatic correction" when combined with the affects of squirt.Jal said:
If you're playing a shot with english and you intend to hit the CB at a particular offset, any error in placement of the tip on the CB (unintentionally hitting the CB with too much or too little offset) would not only impart different amounts of spin on the CB (which could cause greater throw), but it would also cause different magnitudes of squirt. For a wide variety of cut shot angles and tip offsets, the affects of squirt and spin oppose each other, and to a degree they cancel each other out. The more offset you hit the CB, the more the CB would squirt, but a greater offset would also impart more spin on the CB that would counteract/compensate the affects of squirt. The increased squirt would make the CB contact the OB more full, but the greater spin would throw the OB more in the intended direction.
So theoretically, for a given cut shot angle and nominal amount of english applied, there is an optimal CB-to-OB distance where the affects of the changes in squirt and spin would completely cancel each other out. Beyond this optimal distance, the affects of squirt (neglecting swerve, which also can be argued as another degree of auto-correction) would dominate. Below the optimum, the affects of throw due to spin would dominate. But for shots hovering around this optimal distance, there would still be a significant degree of automatic correction, and hence a greater margin of error compared to the case of just rolling the CB. So what would be this theoretically optimal CB-OB distance? I took some time to figure it out based on the data provided by some of Dr. Dave's technical proofs.
Let's say I have a 30-degree cut shot. From experience, say I subconciously know that if I hit the CB at 0.2R of offset (40% english) at a certain cueing angle from parallel (to compensate for squirt), this precise combination would pot the OB straight into the heart of the pocket.
Now, let's say I keep the same cueing angle but unintentionally hit the CB with more offset, say imparting 60% english instead of 40%. So instead of hitting the CB at 0.2R offset, I hit it at 0.3R (Dr. Dave defines a 0.5R offset as 100% english). Looking at the first graph of the squirt article and assuming I'm using a low deflection shaft (green line), the change in the amount of squirt from 0.2R to 0.3R is roughly 0.3 degrees. Now, looking at the second graph of page 3 on the throw article, going from 40% english to 60% english would give approximately 2.5 degrees change in throw (in the negative direction, which is in the same direction as the spin). So if the OB is to be sent at exactly on the same path toward the center of the pocket, the CB would have to contact the OB more full. With help from the equations of this article, the CB should contact the OB about 38/1000 ball-widths, or approximately 0.086 inches, more full.
So now the optimal CB-OB distance can be estimated by simple trigonmetry. If the CB squirts 0.3 degrees more, how far does the CB have to be from the OB for it to contact the OB 0.086 more full? tan(0.3) = (0.086"/x), x = 16.4 inches.
So at least for a 30-degree cut shot using between 20-60% outside english with a low deflection shaft, a shot where the CB is approximately 16 inches away from the OB would theoretically be immune to any small variances in CB-tip offset. Squirt and throw would essentially cancel each other out. I just thought this was an interesting conclusion, based on the graphs. Try it out for yourself and see if the real world matches the theory.
jsp said:
I think point 1 is all there is - 2 and 3 might be 1b and 1c.
Even if 2 and 3 are correct, it still comes down to
fuller hit => increased margin of error.
Is your position now that the more you spin the CB, the more
the margin of error increases? That would be two related, but
distinct points.
Dale
Jsp, you've been doing some work! Another poster made this same point (privately) and I've been mulling it over lazily ever since. Thanks for doing the calculations.jsp said:
It still seems to me though that outside requires a more skillful blending of offset, speed and cut angle estimation than just rolling the cueball. What if the offset deviation is due to a swoop, for instance, where cueball direction would be different, ie, you should see less squirt rather than more in your example? (maybe even negative squirt?...not sure about the physics) And what about other cut angles, ball separations, and different cues with different squirt characteristics?
Of course when we're talking about pros and players of their ilk, variations in throw because of varying surface conditions might be more of a consideration than any of the above. Stunning with "gearing" outside english does make you immune to that.
Just some lazy thoughts.
Jim
There is an easy reply to this question.... It can be either or... depending on the angle your shooting at the ball your spinning in.... if your aiming to hit a little more of the ball it can be beneficial.... if your aiming to cut very thin.. it can throw your ball to far...
You know, I gave my balls a very good cleaning and wipe down the other day (first time I've done so since I got my pool table several months ago).Jal said:
By the end of the session with slicker balls, I noticed that I wasn't spinning balls in nearly as much as I had been doing with stickier balls.
It seems to me that the increase in shooting margin of error is definitely more noticeable the stickier the balls. The theory seems to support that as well.
When I played with Mike Sigel a few weeks ago, he said he uses outside engish on every shot unless inside english is required to dictate his position route. Even if it's the smallest cut angle, he still uses a hair of outside.
Of course, I had to ask why (since I'm a center ball guy) and he said it's because it gives you a truer cut, avoids skids and increases the margin of error for the shot.
Wha? Margin of error? I was like, "How so???"
He then setup a medium-difficulty shot and placed his tip at the center of the CB. He said from here I'm making it (moved his tip a hair to the outside)....from here I'm making it (moved his tip more to the outside)....from here I'm making it (moved his tip to about just over a tip to the outside) and from here I'm making it.
He then moved his tip back to the center of the CB and then moved it a hair to the inside. From here I'm missing it by like a diamond. Moved his tip more to the inside....from here I'm nearly banking it cross corner....see what I mean, Dave?
The above is almost an exact quote on the identical topic from a few weeks ago. Because of skid/cling, I would say it does increase the margin of error -- makes sense to me.
Dave
Of course, I had to ask why (since I'm a center ball guy) and he said it's because it gives you a truer cut, avoids skids and increases the margin of error for the shot.
Wha? Margin of error? I was like, "How so???"
He then setup a medium-difficulty shot and placed his tip at the center of the CB. He said from here I'm making it (moved his tip a hair to the outside)....from here I'm making it (moved his tip more to the outside)....from here I'm making it (moved his tip to about just over a tip to the outside) and from here I'm making it.
He then moved his tip back to the center of the CB and then moved it a hair to the inside. From here I'm missing it by like a diamond. Moved his tip more to the inside....from here I'm nearly banking it cross corner....see what I mean, Dave?
The above is almost an exact quote on the identical topic from a few weeks ago. Because of skid/cling, I would say it does increase the margin of error -- makes sense to me.
Dave
My thoughts concerning using outside English to "spin balls in," backed up by lots of resources, can be found here:
Outside English (OE) can be used to reduce (and even eliminate) throw and cling, but it can be difficult to judge the amount of English required for a particular cut angle (although, people can get good at this). Also, with English comes squirt and swerve, compensation for which can be challenging (although, people can get good at this). You need to have feel and understanding for many effects when using English. Many (if not all) of them are summarized and demonstrated here:
A case can actually be made that inside English might be a better approach for dealing with throw than outside English. For more info, see:
Outside English can certainly be a good choice when trying to hold the cue ball (sometimes). For more info, see:
Also, if cling is a concern (e.g., with old, worn, dirty balls; or if you are pro, where cling on one shot can mean the difference in a match), then "spinning the ball in" might be a good approach.
Regards,
Dave
Outside English (OE) can be used to reduce (and even eliminate) throw and cling, but it can be difficult to judge the amount of English required for a particular cut angle (although, people can get good at this). Also, with English comes squirt and swerve, compensation for which can be challenging (although, people can get good at this). You need to have feel and understanding for many effects when using English. Many (if not all) of them are summarized and demonstrated here:
A case can actually be made that inside English might be a better approach for dealing with throw than outside English. For more info, see:
Outside English can certainly be a good choice when trying to hold the cue ball (sometimes). For more info, see:
Also, if cling is a concern (e.g., with old, worn, dirty balls; or if you are pro, where cling on one shot can mean the difference in a match), then "spinning the ball in" might be a good approach.
Regards,
Dave
The more unnecessary variables imposed upon the shot than what's required, the less chance you have of making the shot and getting shape. KISS works very effectively in pool. To put in another frame of mind, why play shape when you already have it?
Last edited:
Spin the ball baby, spin the ball.
Dave,
I agree on typical small angle cut shots. A small amount of outside, like a half tip, is easy to control and helps pocket these shots - especially down the rail shots.
The key is to consistently generate a small amount of predictable spin on these strokes.
Chris
Chris/Dave:
That is so true! I've often seen when a player asks, "how do I get the cue ball to come around two cushions after pocketing this ball?" And when I answer "use a little outside english," I see them cue up to the cue ball at almost the miscue range (i.e. almost two full tips!). It's almost like some folks don't know the meaning to the word, "moderation." It's all, or nothing.
The key is knowing where dead-center on the cue ball is, and only going a little outside. And, not to argue with the likes of the legendary Mike Sigel, I believe in not making this a habit, either! Relying on this "helper" english on "all cut shots" is sure to mess up your notion of where the proper contact point on the object ball is. You'll forget how to hit the shot with center ball, or even inside english if you're trying to hold cue ball position. Instead, you're trying to spin the ball in every time. And when you introduce cue ball spin, you're also introducing cue ball squirt as well.
JMHO,
-Sean
This is from a thread a while back but I've found most top players do this.
You're breaking the rules MISTER! No more secrets for you EVAH..... No worries tho, Cleary is in the same boat even if he only reposted an actual Mills Post :grin:
this is a great post. i myself am in the camp that outside does increase your margin of error. i mean think about it.... even if i'm wrong!!! well, i truly believe it, so isn't my confidence increased even if im wrong, probably resulting in better play? but i know im not wrong, so how powerful is that then??
i think the new question becomes.... approximately how much outside is required on various cut shots to get the maximum margin of error. i guess this is why we practice and play under pressure.... to figure this stuff out-- we just dont know it.