Draw and Follow Speed Positional Systems

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've been working on a couple of systems I developed to try to better judge my position for straight on or near straight on draw and follow shots.

I thought some of you might like to try them, offer some critiques to improve the system or to introduce other similar systems.

The Spin-Diminish Draw System
Begin by playing low draw shots using a striped ball from the headstring. Hit the ball pretty low, but not so low that you risk miscueing.

First play so that the backspin stops at 1 diamond. Then increase speed so that it stops at 2 diamonds and so on. Begin to get a feel for where the backspin wears off the CB.

How to Apply

If you have a 1 diamond long stop shot, you would hit the CB at the same speed that it took the backspin to diminish at 1 diamond.

If you want to draw back one diamond when one diamond away from the OB, you would hit the CB so that its backspin would diminish 1 diamond past the OB.

It pretty much works in this simple additional manner.

So if you were 3 diamonds away from the OB and wanted to draw back 2 diamonds, you would play for the baskpin to diminish at a distance of 5 diamonds, or 2 diamonds past the OB in this case.

With a bit of practice you can become quite accurate at making the backspin diminish pretty close to the point you want it to, and this system allows you a way to use this judgement to better predict draw shot positioning.

Unfortunately you can only really practice to about 6 diamonds length before you hit the rail, so for higher speed shots you'll still have to rely on a bit of guesswork.

There may also be some variation in the system, such as when you want to draw 5 diamonds from just half a diamond away. In this case you might find that 4 diamonds of slide are enough. But for most shots it can provide a useful guide.

The Roll-Ratio Follow System

This one is quite easy, but may come in useful for getting the CB to into exact positions so that you can work through gaps, or so that you know where the CB will finish after slow rolling in shots. Can be very useful for safeties too.

All you need to know is how far the CB rolls from the contact point, for a given length of travel of the OB being hit.

Here are some approximates from my table....should be similar on other tables.

....OB.... ....CB....
.Travel. .Travel.
Distance Distance
1.5 diam : Replaces OB (2.25")
3.0 diam : 0.3 diam
4.0 diam : 0.5 diam
6.0 diam : 1.0 diam
9.0 diam : 2.0 diam
11.0 diam : 3.0 diam

One diamond is about 14 inches or 35cm.

So if you needed to roll the CB through 1.5 diamonds from the contact point for perfect position on a pot, you would try to hit the OB at a speed that would make it roll about 7.5 diamonds. If the OB was situated about 4 diamonds from the pocket, you would hit it with speed such that it would roll about 3.5 diamonds past the pocket.

If you needed to roll through 4 inches (a bit less than 1/3 diamond) you'd have to make sure the OB was within 3 diamonds of the pocket.

This system is probably best for working backwards, such that if you are going to slow roll an OB to a pocket, you will be able to quite accurately predict where the CB will stop. Another advantage it offers is that it may be easier for some people to estimate the distance the OB will travel than to estimate how far the CB will go...even though, generally speaking, judging the CB distance on follow is much easier than doing so with draw.

With a little math, this system could be adapted to various cut angles like 3/4, 1/2 and 1/4 ball shots.

Colin
 
Last edited:
Reading this reminds me that I need to practice my stun shots. You can get the same results as all of what Colin mentioned, but you have to hit the cueball harder.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, lets say you have a straight in shot and need to follow the cueball about 6 inches from where the OB is. Instead of rolling the ball with follow, you can aim just a hair above center and hit the cueball with a medium-hard stroke, and it will roll forward a few inches. Same principle applies to stop shots and draw shots. For a stop shot, instead of using the drag-draw stroke, you can just aim dead center, the longer the distance the harder you hit, and the cueball will stop because it's sliding when it hits the OB. With draw, instead of aiming really low, just aim a hair below center and hit hard, it will draw back a few inches. This is just preference, and I noticed that alot of pros like these shots as opposed to rolling the cueball. I've gotten in the habit of rolling balls too much, and I forgot how important these stun shots are.
 
cuetechasaurus said:
Reading this reminds me that I need to practice my stun shots. You can get the same results as all of what Colin mentioned, but you have to hit the cueball harder.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, lets say you have a straight in shot and need to follow the cueball about 6 inches from where the OB is. Instead of rolling the ball with follow, you can aim just a hair above center and hit the cueball with a medium-hard stroke, and it will roll forward a few inches. Same principle applies to stop shots and draw shots. For a stop shot, instead of using the drag-draw stroke, you can just aim dead center, the longer the distance the harder you hit, and the cueball will stop because it's sliding when it hits the OB. With draw, instead of aiming really low, just aim a hair below center and hit hard, it will draw back a few inches. This is just preference, and I noticed that alot of pros like these shots as opposed to rolling the cueball. I've gotten in the habit of rolling balls too much, and I forgot how important these stun shots are.

The first shot you are talking about is sometimes refered to as the stun-through or stun-run-through. Maybe some other names for it. It's a very difficult shot to perfect, especially when playing it over a distance of several feet. Snooker pros tend to be excellent at this shot.

Your comment on stunning back for drawing just a short distance is something I am in two minds about. Whether to hit it firm just a touch below center or to play it low with soft touch.

I'm leaning toward the low soft touch approach for most shots. If I have a long shot that I need to come back a couple of inches on, I'll use the firmer stroke with not so much spin.

As I honed my game using the smaller cue ball in English 8-ball where most the time we used stun back for draw shape, playing with the larger balls of the same size has been a bit of a dilemma for me to control whitey as well as I used to control the smaller CB.

Would like to hear some feedback from good players regarding their preferences for controlling draw distance....stun back or hit low with touch?

Colin
 
Colin Colenso said:
(snip)
Would like to hear some feedback from good players regarding their preferences for controlling draw distance....stun back or hit low with touch?

Colin

You had to ask for "good players" didn't you? Oh well, here's my opinion:

In 8-ball, low with touch trumps stun back. Of course every shot deserves its own analysis, but as a rule of thumb in 8-ball: slow is about 57.657 % better. Hitting even slower is better than that.

Jeff Livingston
 
Stun draw and follow

Colin, I use stun follow and draw for most of my play requiring short position. I grew up playing straight pool (14.1), where short, tight position is imperative. I believe it is considerably more accurate and predictable than soft stroking. Also, it helps to eliminate things like table roll and the effects of anomalies, particles of chalk and whatnot on the table.

The use of stun strokes is a great advantage on Simonis 860, where draw, particularly, can really run away. On the IPT (nap cloth) both stun and soft stroking will work, but I still believe stun is more precise and does reduce the chance of a "roll."
 
I'm skeptical about your follow system (not whether it's accurate, but whether it's useful), but that technique for draw control is very useful. Almost all players at near my playing level (APA 6) have poor control of precisely how much they draw the ball when they draw.

The one lesson I ever had with a BCA instructor, the instructor told me to practice shooting a stripe into a pocket (directly, no cue ball) with draw, and practice making the draw "wear off" at a variety of distances. Basically the same thing Colin suggests. My draw position is a lot better when I've been practicing this drill.

-Andrew
 
chefjeff said:
You had to ask for "good players" didn't you? Oh well, here's my opinion:

In 8-ball, low with touch trumps stun back. Of course every shot deserves its own analysis, but as a rule of thumb in 8-ball: slow is about 57.657 % better. Hitting even slower is better than that.

Jeff Livingston
Well I should have said anyone who thinks they have pretty good control of these shots:D

Colin
 
tedkaufman said:
Colin, I use stun follow and draw for most of my play requiring short position. I grew up playing straight pool (14.1), where short, tight position is imperative. I believe it is considerably more accurate and predictable than soft stroking. Also, it helps to eliminate things like table roll and the effects of anomalies, particles of chalk and whatnot on the table.

The use of stun strokes is a great advantage on Simonis 860, where draw, particularly, can really run away. On the IPT (nap cloth) both stun and soft stroking will work, but I still believe stun is more precise and does reduce the chance of a "roll."

Interesting to hear you prefer stunning back for many of these shots Ted.

Can you tell me if there is a range of shot where you may change to hitting low?...such as when CB is 2 foot away and you want to come back 2 feet.

Colin
 
Andrew Manning said:
I'm skeptical about your follow system (not whether it's accurate, but whether it's useful), but that technique for draw control is very useful. Almost all players at near my playing level (APA 6) have poor control of precisely how much they draw the ball when they draw.

The one lesson I ever had with a BCA instructor, the instructor told me to practice shooting a stripe into a pocket (directly, no cue ball) with draw, and practice making the draw "wear off" at a variety of distances. Basically the same thing Colin suggests. My draw position is a lot better when I've been practicing this drill.

-Andrew
I know the follow system seems like overkill for a shot that is the easiest to judge after the stop shot. But I've found it quite useful, especially when playing slow rolling pots, hard enough to roll about 1 diamond past the pocket. I can pretty much mark a point on the cloth where the CB should stop and it will stop within an inch of this spot usually.

That's quite useful to know when an inch or two is crucial for getting the ideal angle on the next ball.

btw: Good to hear that you have been shown this type of draw system and found it useful.

Colin
 
Colin Colenso said:
Would like to hear some feedback from good players regarding their preferences for controlling draw distance....stun back or hit low with touch?

Colin

Definitely low and soft is the way to go, for most draw shots. Becoming confidant in your ability to hit the CB very low, allows a player to learn a wide range of stroke speed, to accomplish varying draw distances, as well as stop shots from any distance. It also allows someone to be confidant in shooting a power draw stroke, which is a low hit on the CB at high speed...without miscuing.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
Colin youre scaring me! I thought your aim was to "speed up" your game the the next one grrrr!

It is no coincidence that you play your best pool when you dont think.

Feel the force Colin, FEEL the force! :D
 
TheOne said:
Colin youre scaring me! I thought your aim was to "speed up" your game the the next one grrrr!

It is no coincidence that you play your best pool when you dont think.

Feel the force Colin, FEEL the force! :D

LOL....what he said...I understand where your going here Colin but.....at the level your playing(IPT) you better go with the 'force'...good luck in Reno my man...
 
TheOne said:
Colin youre scaring me! I thought your aim was to "speed up" your game the the next one grrrr!

It is no coincidence that you play your best pool when you dont think.

Feel the force Colin, FEEL the force! :D
Sorry man, I don't buy it:D

Good players have tons of knowledge about how balls will respond. These are systems, and their familiarity with them is what allows them to make decisions so quickly without making many errors.

There is always a significant aspect of feel to a game, but through practice, players systamatize a lot of aspects, even though they don't go to the effort of categorizing such systems, analyzing them or measuring them....but talk to any good player and soon you'll discover they have systematic type theories on almost every aspect of their play.

What I do, that most players do not, is attempt to systematize such concepts in a more analytical, accurate and repeatable manner. Doing so is harder work in the early stages than just not looking more deeply into it, but I'm convinced of the long term rewards.

Now if I could just see where my cue is pointing :eek: ....:D

Colin
 
cheesemouse said:
LOL....what he said...I understand where your going here Colin but.....at the level your playing(IPT) you better go with the 'force'...good luck in Reno my man...
Thanks Cheesemouse....my game is improving so hopefully in Reno I'll go that extra yard or three.

Can't knock ya for laughing with the cocky limey...that sharp tongue of his has a wit to match his potting prowess:p

Colin
 
Colin Colenso said:
Sorry man, I don't buy it:D

Good players have tons of knowledge about how balls will respond. These are systems, and their familiarity with them is what allows them to make decisions so quickly without making many errors.

There is always a significant aspect of feel to a game, but through practice, players systamatize a lot of aspects, even though they don't go to the effort of categorizing such systems, analyzing them or measuring them....but talk to any good player and soon you'll discover they have systematic type theories on almost every aspect of their play.

What I do, that most players do not, is attempt to systematize such concepts in a more analytical, accurate and repeatable manner. Doing so is harder work in the early stages than just not looking more deeply into it, but I'm convinced of the long term rewards.

Now if I could just see where my cue is pointing :eek: ....:D

Colin

I'm only teasing, you know that. Just don't get bogged down in it!
 
TheOne said:
I'm only teasing, you know that. Just don't get bogged down in it!
I know, and the warning to not get bogged down in paralysis by analysis is heeded. Have been doing it for years in various sports and have learned to pretty much focus on what is most important when it is most important.

It just gave me an excuse to preach some more;)

The old saying that Analysis leads to Paralysis, I disagree with. It should be Bad Analysis leads to Paralysis. And while certainly the analytical methods I have tried sometimes aren't as useful as first imagined they would be, through trial and error it can get better so long as the analysis is good.

I haven't met a cue sport player who didn't think and try slightly different variations almost continually to sort our what works from what doesn't.

No way can someone learn to play from a book. 90% of success in a game comes from having the feel required to make the shots and move the CB to a decent position. Anyone who's not focusing most their attention on that aspect is not gonna get far.

Just expanding so that those who read this, and who might dismiss it, will think a little more about the role of sytems in their game. They may not know that you and I are jesting with some friendly ribbing:D

Indeed, I may even convert you on a couple of issues one of these days:eek:
 
Bob Jewett said:
True. You may want to look at http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2000-12.pdf for some related observations and measurements.
Thanks Bob,
What I'd like to see is more measurements in the region of CB movement between 0 and 15 inches. It's certainly not linear as the line of best fit indicates in this sector on the graph in your article.

I guess I could piece together a pretty accurate graph with a few sample measurements.

I'd also like to make an equivalent graph for 3/4 ball and 1/2 ball. Around 1/2 ball and thinner I don't see it as much use for predictive value, but on thicker angles, it seems to me the judgement of travel distance for the OB is more intuitive than the judgement of travel for the CB and hence we can indirectly transfer this sense of judgement toward better judgement of CB positioning.

For example: If I have 3/4 ball pot at 30 inches to the pocket, I'll be able to quickly recognize that if I slow roll it into the pocket (say 36" of travel) that my CB will roll, lets say 8" from the contact point. A variation in the OB travel of 6" shorter or longer will translate to the CB travelling 1" less or more from that contact point.

This would be very handy to know for sure, rather than having to guess the CB finishing position.

It wouldn't be hard to to remember a few (maybe 5) reference ratios for each angle and then to quickly derive an estimate for any shot within the range.

Colin
 
Colin Colenso said:
... I'd also like to make an equivalent graph for 3/4 ball and 1/2 ball. Around 1/2 ball and thinner I don't see it as much use for predictive value, but on thicker angles, it seems to me the judgement of travel distance for the OB is more intuitive than the judgement of travel for the CB and hence we can indirectly transfer this sense of judgement toward better judgement of CB positioning.
...
I think all the info you need to construct this from theory is in
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2001-05.pdf
and
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2001-06.pdf

You could test the theory against measurements.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I think all the info you need to construct this from theory is in
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2001-05.pdf
and
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2001-06.pdf

You could test the theory against measurements.

Thanks again Bob...lots of good stuff in those articles.

btw: After a bit more testing, I think your 6:1 ratio is probably the best and simplest way to go. Though it's not perfectly linear, it's close enough to be effective...the variation in stroke speed is greater than any variation in predictive value of such a formula.

My table, with the slow nap cloth, and balls that are perhaps a bit dirtier than they should be come to around 7:1 actually. So for each diamond the OB travels, the CB rolls about 0.8 of a ball width.

So if I'm slow rolling an OB 6 diamonds to the pocket, the CB will roll just under 5 ball widths.

The distance doesn't vary much with slight angles, say full to 7/8th ball, but as soon as we get to around 3/4 ball the variation is quite rapid and the guestimation of the exact angle quite inaccurate, so I don't think it's useful as a systematic guide for angled shots. Better to just go on feel for the speed and travel distance of the CB on these shots I think.

Colin
 
Back
Top