How Would You Play This? Kick To Win

[Jimmy M.]

TY for the videos,

one huge difference on shot #2 is where you contacted the 1 ball...
if you hit it on the fat side instead of the thin side you will get natural shapes....
you said you made it in one try, and I would have expected that...
But if you watch the videos, notice the contact point, and how different it is in shot #2 compared to the other shots....

ty again for the videos

Well, yeah, that was kind of my point. From the angle that I'm coming into the ball on shot 2, I hit it dead on the button. If I hit it any more square than that, I might just follow it in (slight sarcasm there). On shot 1, I wasn't trying to hit the one ball so thin. But, like I said, the margin for error is big [by comparison], so I still ended up with good position.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You're probably lucky many of us don't gamble at your room. Or, more than likely, you'd just duck us anyway so whether or not we gambled at your room would be a moot point.

I put something together just for you because - well, I have entirely too much time on my hands, apparently.

Here are 3 videos. Shot 1, the shot that a few of us here happen to like more than your shot, shows what I think would be fairly typical results. Shot 2, the shot you like, shows what I think would also be fairly typical results. I should note that I made both of these shots on the first attempt. Now, shot 3, the shot that I wouldn't even consider, took me 3 attempts and, on the 3rd attempt, you can see that I got lucky and double-kissed the 1-ball in. You still think the 2 can be made from anywhere? You like shooting it from where it landed in shot 2? You must, because that's where you're going to be shooting it from if you take the 2 railer and hit it well (you can tell me that I hit it the wrong speed, but if you hit it softer, you have to put more guess-work into the shot because of the amount the angle will widen out from the softer hit). Your margin of error of where you can hit the 1 going the 2-rail route, and still get position, is very small. Your margin of error for pocketing the ball and still getting position by going the way that I, and a few other people like, is very big by comparison. As you can see, I didn't hit the 1 "exactly" how I wanted in the first shot, yet I have great position. In the second shot, your shot, I hit the ball dead, stinkin' perfect and I don't have position at all! I know you won't learn a thing from this because you already know everything, but I think I clearly showed that we aren't that "nuts" after all.

Shot 1
Shot 2
Shot 3

I'd consider myself lucky to have the chance to lose to lots of the good players on this board, but if they make shot choices like that on unfamiliar equipment I'll do better than I should against them. I made both shots the first time on my home table too, but I wouldn't expect that ratio to hold up in "real life".

I agree with two things you're saying: (1) the target is twice as big your way and (2) there's virtually no shape risk your way. But I think shape is a red herring with this shot - if you don't overhit it like the "typical examples" you showed us, shape isn't usually going to be a factor. The decision hinges on whether the larger target of the holdup spin shot more than compensates for the added guesswork in a game situation on unfamiliar equipment.

I've learned something from your and Jude's choice, but I still like mine better when I'm not shooting videos at home.

pj
chgo

 

[Williebetmore]

I like steev's choice. It is a kick that Grady Mathews shows on one of his excellent videos. The system is explained in detail on the video and can work from most places on the table. Requires heavy English. Chances of success are definitely above 50%.

 

[Neil]

..............

 

[mosconiac]

Thank you Jimmy M for posting the vids. Rep coming for you! I'm glad to see someone else posting up vids of their attempts at these hypothetical situations.

Patrick & Neil have a strong point about the unfamiliar equipment...especially if you are contacting rails near the lower corner pockets where the rails are beat up from breaking. I lost a 1P game last night due to a dead section of rail near the lower left pocket.

Whichever way you kick, the 1 ball is roughly 2 balls wide so neither has an advantage from that point of view.

Great thread Jude!

 

[JoeyA]

I'd consider myself lucky to have the chance to lose to lots of the good players on this board, but if they make shot choices like that on unfamiliar equipment I'll do better than I should against them. I made both shots the first time on my home table too, but I wouldn't expect that ratio to hold up in "real life".

I agree with two things you're saying: (1) the target is twice as big your way and (2) there's virtually no shape risk your way. But I think shape is a red herring with this shot - if you don't overhit it like the "typical examples" you showed us, shape isn't usually going to be a factor. The decision hinges on whether the larger target of the holdup spin shot more than compensates for the added guesswork in a game situation on unfamiliar equipment.

I've learned something from your and Jude's choice, but I still like mine better when I'm not shooting videos at home.

pj
chgo

It also looks like Jimmy has moved the five and the seven further away from the rail than what Jude had originally set them up which makes the shot even easier. In Jimmy's video the five ball looks like it is approximately 10" away from the side rail and the seven ball is 8" away from the side rail. IN Jude's diagram it looks like the five ball is about 8-9" away from the side rail and the seven ball is similarly positioned.

It could be the camera perspective that is off that makes it look like the two setups are different. However, that being said, I can see that the shot could be made with ease even if Jimmy moved the five and seven over another inch or two. There wasn't a whole lot of low right hand English that Jimmy had to apply to make the kick off of the back rail.

I have to agree with Patrick, the Banger. On unfamiliar equipment with no prior practice on this shot, it may be a bit more difficult than proposed. Add in a factor of NEW CLOTH and this shot becomes even more difficult. Still not impossible, just more difficult. I'm gambling that the Bangers here in New Orleans can't get out if I send the four ball on top of the three. They would be hard pressed to get good enough shape on the two ball to bust out the 3 & 4.

I guess it all depends on the equipment, your opponent and your ability.

Anyway, nice discussion. Good to see other's perspective.
JoeyA

 

[Aaron_S]

I can't speak for anyone else, but my odds of pocketing the 1 are about the same on each shot, regardless of equipment. The fact that the two-railer comes with a risk of scratching in the side (which I have an uncanny ability to do on this shot), and the fact that just pocketing the 1-ball two rails does not guarantee good shape on the 2 is enough to make me choose the one-railer (which could actually be played 2 rails as well).

One other thing I have not seen mentioned yet is that the one rail kick with low-inside employs the exact same angle most of us would choose if we had BIH on the shot, because it makes position automatic. On the other hand, if I had to shoot the 1-ball from the angle of approach employed by the two-rail kick, I would be thinking about what I could do with the cueball to achieve a better angle on the 2. I certainly wouldn't play a stop shot or simply roll in the 1 at pocket speed, but that's exactly how I would want to hit the 2-rail kick shot (at pocket speed) to mitigate the risk of scratching or sliding downtable and leaving a very thin cut on the 2. I know that this is a minor detail, and that most kick shots will not allow us the luxury of picking an approach that includes automatic shape, but in a case like this, where my percentages are about the same on each shot, little things like this might decide it.

I know that a lot of people prefer the two-railer, and I'd never try to tell them that they're wrong. In the end we all have to pick what we're comfortable with, and I'm not going to call you nuts or stupid no matter how you shoot it. Unless I'm mistaken, nobody has ever perfected this game, not even any of us on AZB.

Aaron

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick, unfamiliar equipment is exactly why I would play like in video 1. Using extreme low inside, you greatly reduce any variables in the rails. Almost all tables will play this shot the same way. Whereas two rails can differ greatly on the table.

How can extreme holdup sidespin, which is rarely used, be more predictable than moderate running sidespin, which is frequently used, under any circumstances? Adding unfamiliar ball/railcloth conditions can only compound the problem.

Again, I understand the "bigger target and better shape" argument, but those don't matter if you miss the shot.

pj
chgo

 

[Matt_24]

http://CueTable.com/P/?@2AbUP3BXAd4CYeI4DMJh2EShe2GUbo4HAYN3IIBd4PDSI4kDSI2kTpm2kavh2kbEf1uAAW@

Ok - I'm writing my response before reading others, so if I copy - then I'm not copying. The first person who might have written the same thing is just as smart as I....LOL.

I would go for the out. I would kick to the top rail (rail below the five ball) - splitting the left corner pocket and the closest diamond - putting center right english (maybe a tip and a half worth) to hold the cue ball and make it come back towards that one ball, pocketing the one ball. Then I'm out. Man - I never miss when answering these questions.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

http://CueTable.com/P/?@2AbUP3BXAd4CYeI4DMJh2EShe2GUbo4HAYN3IIBd4PDSI4kDSI2kTpm2kavh2kbEf1uAAW@

Ok - I'm writing my response before reading others, so if I copy - then I'm not copying. The first person who might have written the same thing is just as smart as I....LOL.

I would go for the out. I would kick to the top rail (rail below the five ball) - splitting the left corner pocket and the closest diamond - putting center right english (maybe a tip and a half worth) to hold the cue ball and make it come back towards that one ball, pocketing the one ball. Then I'm out. Man - I never miss when answering these questions.

Hey Matt,

When you post diagrams, you can use the "wei" button you see above the text box. Just press the wei button and then paste the link between the wei tags it creates.

It would look like {wei}ENTER YOUR WEI TABLE HERE{/wei}.

That way, the table appears in your post and we don't have to go to the link.

 

[Matt_24]

Is that on the toolbar when you're playing with the cuetable? I'm truly clueless with this stuff...

 

[Matt_24]

CueTable Help

Sweet - go it. Thanks Jude.

 

[Neil]

.............

 

[Jimmy M.]

It also looks like Jimmy has moved the five and the seven further away from the rail than what Jude had originally set them up which makes the shot even easier. In Jimmy's video the five ball looks like it is approximately 10" away from the side rail and the seven ball is 8" away from the side rail. IN Jude's diagram it looks like the five ball is about 8-9" away from the side rail and the seven ball is similarly positioned.

Huh?? The 5 ball is a half diamond from the rail, and the 7 is less than a ball-width closer to the rail than that - both in the diagram and on my table! The reason it looks further is because of the tilted angle that my wife took the video from. If it's more than a half diamond, I promise it's not much more. I don't feel like setting it all up again and doing it again but, even with the balls an inch or two closer to the rail, the shot just isn't as tough as you guys are making it out to be. I'm kind of done explaining that now.

EDIT: Okay, so at the risk of demonstrating my obsessive behavior, I did set it up again. If anything, the balls are probably a little closer to the rail here than in the diagram. Shot 1 (again)

 

[JoeyA]

Huh?? The 5 ball is a half diamond from the rail, and the 7 is less than a ball-width closer to the rail than that - both in the diagram and on my table! The reason it looks further is because of the tilted angle that my wife took the video from. If it's more than a half diamond, I promise it's not much more. I don't feel like setting it all up again and doing it again but, even with the balls an inch or two closer to the rail, the shot just isn't as tough as you guys are making it out to be. I'm kind of done explaining that now.

No biggee Jimmy. That was awful nice of you to set up the shot and video it for us. I even mentioned that it is possible it was just the camera angle that made it appear like it was further away from the side rail than Jude's diagram. If that isn't enough I also have one of the extra wide computer monitors and that throws the viewing off some too.

I'm sure the shot isn't that hard kciking one rail but still against my Bangers, on the tables we play on, I play the safety locking up the four. On some easier tables, I could easily choose to shoot inside English kicking one rail.
JoeyA
JoeyA

 

[Steve Lipsky]

To my mind, the one rail kick with low inside is the no-brainer choice. Someone mentioned just inside, and that doesn't work nearly as well. The bending effect of the draw is most important; in fact, many of these shots can be played with just low.

I didn't even bother responding because I felt it would be such a conclusive thread.

However, here's the rub, and I think where some of the resistance is stemming: this shot requires practice to get a feel for it. I don't mean practice the day of the tournament, or on the specific table you'll play - I mean, the shot has to be practiced at some point in your playing career until you really get it down. You have to "feel" how far down the rail you can aim, and at what speed, for the english to grab. Until you know that, I would never advise blindly shooting this in a tournament.

(Btw, I have found these variables to be fairly consistent across normal-playing tables. You'd have to make minor adjustments based on the longness or shortness of the rails, which you should already know by that point in the match.)

So, if I were to give a coach on this shot to someone in a league situation, my first question would be "do you know the low inside shot?" If he responded "no", I would almost certainly suggest the two-railer. And then, after the match, I'd make time to show him the draw shot.

- Steve

 

[Matt_24]

You're probably lucky many of us don't gamble at your room. Or, more than likely, you'd just duck us anyway so whether or not we gambled at your room would be a moot point.

I put something together just for you because - well, I have entirely too much time on my hands, apparently.

Here are 3 videos. Shot 1, the shot that a few of us here happen to like more than your shot, shows what I think would be fairly typical results. Shot 2, the shot you like, shows what I think would also be fairly typical results. I should note that I made both of these shots on the first attempt. Now, shot 3, the shot that I wouldn't even consider, took me 3 attempts and, on the 3rd attempt, you can see that I got lucky and double-kissed the 1-ball in. You still think the 2 can be made from anywhere? You like shooting it from where it landed in shot 2? You must, because that's where you're going to be shooting it from if you take the 2 railer and hit it well (you can tell me that I hit it the wrong speed, but if you hit it softer, you have to put more guess-work into the shot because of the amount the angle will widen out from the softer hit). Your margin of error of where you can hit the 1 going the 2-rail route, and still get position, is very small. Your margin of error for pocketing the ball and still getting position by going the way that I, and a few other people like, is very big by comparison. As you can see, I didn't hit the 1 "exactly" how I wanted in the first shot, yet I have great position. In the second shot, your shot, I hit the ball dead, stinkin' perfect and I don't have position at all! I know you won't learn a thing from this because you already know everything, but I think I clearly showed that we aren't that "nuts" after all.

Shot 1
Shot 2
Shot 3

Boom - shot number 1 is my choice. Great vid.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Jude:
The reason it's more successful is because you're running along that side-rail at a near parallel angle. It's not "more accurate", it creates a greater margin of error since you can now hit directly into the 1-ball OR glance off the side rail and get an identical result.

I agreed with this at first, but on further thought (see my new thread on the subject) I don't believe it's true for rail-frozen balls. In fact, if it's inside the pocket point at all (as it appears to be) it's a smaller target.

pj
chgo

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I agreed with this at first, but on further thought (see my new thread on the subject) I don't believe it's true for rail-frozen balls. In fact, if it's inside the pocket point at all (as it appears to be) it's a smaller target.

pj
chgo

You have failed to factor in the angle of approach - it DOES make the ball bigger because now, there are two angles that will result in the cueball hitting the correct contact point. Your goal here is not just to make contact but to pocket the ball and get shape.

When kicking, your angle of approach is the greatest determinant for difficulty. Bottom-right will straighten out the cue-ball and create an angle that is parallel to the side-rail. You're not going to get that action going any other way.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Patrick,

To put it another way, by taking the angle of approach I suggest, you are utilizing a mirror image that is wider than any other. The two-rail approach virtually has no mirror image since if you contact the rail first, it is unlikely you will then cut the 1-ball in (although it IS possible). Going one rail and using left spin has a similar problem (once again, still possible). Your margin of error is all but limited to a direct hit on the 1-ball.

When you manipulate the angle of approach to run near parallel with the rail, you then have a mirror image that works to your advantage. You can pocket the 1-ball on a direct hit OR you can glance off the side rail and still hit the same contact point. Hence, by taking any other angle of approach, your target is half a ball wide where as, by utilizing the side-rail, you now have a target that is a full ball's width.