Missed Shots - why inexperienced and experienced players miss shots

[BC21]

Table size. I play all games from 12ft tables to sometimes to 7ft pool.
BC21 is kinda right but there is aspects that his thinking is not taking to account.
Table size on big table (12ft) our brain have less guidance. Because there is more dead space between rails. Our brain uses rails compared to balls judge shots. Not always but often when there is more cut than almost straight in..
On 7ft tables it is way easier to judge things right than bigger tables.
Also it is easier to get right position on 7ft tables because you need move cueball less distance. All around playing in 7ft tables is way easier than 9ft.
Everything adds up. Little more shorter distance on pocketing, little more easy to get cueball right. 7ft pool table also pockets have more % from total rail length of table and it is a lot more. It adds up to close to rail shots more and more.

There is definitely a difference in shot perception between a small table and a big table. It's not too much between 7 and 9 foot tables, but definitely between 7ft and 12ft tables.

That's why in an earlier post I wrote that a shot might "LOOK" different on different size tables, but if the cb-ob distance and the ob to pocket distance is the same (and of course have equal pocket size and depth), then the shot is actually the same on any size table it fits.

Position play is what makes the 7ft table easier to play. Too many players think it's mainly because of easier/closer shots, but when you really start paying attention, you see that it's poor position play that ruins a runout on the big table.

For instance, if the ob is 2ft from the pocket, but you leave the cb 7ft away from the ob, you make the shot a lot harder than it should be. Leaving the cb with 2 to 4 feet away makes it an easy shot, exactly the type of shot that you would nail on a 7ft table. Playing more Mosconi style (getting the cb closer to the ob, within a couple of feet if you can), really brings shots into more manageable territory, like playing barbox shots on a big table.

 

[Poolmanis]

There is definitely a difference in shot perception between a small table and a big table. It's not too much between 7 and 9 foot tables, but definitely between 7ft and 12ft tables.

That's why in an earlier post I wrote that a shot might "LOOK" different on different size tables, but if the cb-ob distance and the ob to pocket distance is the same (and of course have equal pocket size and depth), then the shot is actually the same on any size table it fits.

Position play is what makes the 7ft table easier to play. Too many players think it's mainly because of easier/closer shots, but when you really start paying attention, you see that it's poor position play that ruins a runout on the big table.

For instance, if the ob is 2ft from the pocket, but you leave the cb 7ft away from the ob, you make the shot a lot harder than it should be. Leaving the cb with 2 to 4 feet away makes it an easy shot, exactly the type of shot that you would nail on a 7ft table. Playing more Mosconi style (getting the cb closer to the ob, within a couple of feet if you can), really brings shots into more manageable territory, like playing barbox shots on a big table.

Yes but If we COULD get cueball closer to ball while not losing position we would... There is a risk to run close to ob too.
It is same all tables about position play. Bigger tables are still harder to pocket overall. The gap is not that big but it is there and it is adding up in long run. Even in shooter´s pool game i miss a lot more in 9ft than 7ft. There stroke is always perfect..

 

[BC21]

.... Bigger tables are still harder to pocket overall. The gap is not that big but it is there and it is adding up in long run. Even in shooter´s pool game i miss a lot more in 9ft than 7ft. There stroke is always perfect..

I agree that playing on a 9ft table (compared to a 7ft table) is harder overall, but I believe it's because we make some shots more difficult than they have to be. We leave the cb where we can't quite reach it, or we leave it too far away from the ob by accident or error, typically not by choice. That is likely the primary reason for failing to run out more on the 9ft.

We do the same thing on smaller tables, but reaching the cb in more places is easier. As far as leaving too much distance between cb and ob, that happens on all size tables, which causes a lot of missed shots due to the added accuracy needed when more distance is added into the mix, whether it's on a barbox or a 9ft table. And I understand that the extra surface area on a 9ft (compared to a 7ft) increases the likelihood of having longer shots, but I don't believe it's as significant or frequent as everyone thinks it is.

If players really pay attention to the majority of shots they miss on a 9ft table, they'll likely find that those shots are the same types of shots they miss on a 7ft table.

The added surface area of the larger table does result in visual differences of equal shots, meaning that the exact same shot might look different to us on a small table, compared to a bigger table, and so we aim it a little differently and miss it. But that doesn't mean the shot was more difficult on the big table. It just means we weren't in tune with it, visually, as we might've been on a 7ft table.

All of these words boil down to a simple strategy: For players who struggle on a 9ft table, work on controlling the cb better. You'll find that the majority of shots you face will be no different than the majority of shots you'd face on a 7ft table. Don't take any shot for granted, which means you actually have to focus and aim each shot.

Refer to the pic I posted of the 9ft table with blue and gray areas. https://forums.azbilliards.com/attachments/inshot_20240704_235916727-jpg.765921/

Keep in mind that ANY cb-ob relationship in the blue area is a shot that fits on a 7ft size table into that corner pocket. So if you miss a shot in that area, table size was NOT the culprit, unless you couldn't reach the cb very well. Blaming the big table is a bit silly, since the same shot could've been missed on the small table just as easily.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...ANY cb-ob relationship in the blue area is a shot that fits on a 7ft size table into that corner pocket.

That doesn't change the fact that the same number of the same sized balls must fit into a smaller space on the 7-footer - so shots on average are shorter.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

That doesn't change the fact that the same number of the same sized balls must fit into a smaller space on the 7-footer - so shots on average are shorter.

pj
chgo

Another way to say that...

Consider any shot on the table, such as a ball on the spot. Consider that shot on 7' and 9' tables. Let's say that you have the cue ball the same distance and angle on each table. The shot is 2/9ths harder on the 9' because of the increased distance to the pocket -- it requires 22% more accuracy to pocket the ball on the larger table. That's true for any similar shot on the two sizes of tables.

I think that the cue ball will tend to be farther away on the 9' table on average, as @Poolmanis pointed out. That will increase the relative difficulty even more on the larger table.

 

[BC21]

That doesn't change the fact that the same number of the same sized balls must fit into a smaller space on the 7-footer - so shots on average are shorter.

pj
chgo

You're right. It's a logical theory. But I'd like to see some stats or research that could actually provide real percentages as to how often table size actually makes a difference, mainly between a 7ft diamond (40x80 playing surface) and a 9ft diamond (50x100).

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You're right. It's a logical theory. But I'd like to see some stats or research that could actually provide real percentages as to how often table size actually makes a difference, mainly between a 7ft diamond (40x80 playing surface) and a 9ft diamond (50x100).

Me too.

pj
chgo

 

[dquarasr]

To those quoting a 9' table being 25 or 30% larger than a 7' table:

A 9' table might be 29% (rounding to nearest integer) LONGER (7*1.29=9.03), but it's not 29% LARGER.

A nominal 9' table is 4.5' x 9' = 40.5 sq ft. A 7' is 24.5 sq ft.

40.5 / 24.5 = 1.65 or so. So a 9' table is 65% larger than a 7'.

(Let's use these numbers; using the actual playing surfaces widths and lengths aren't that far off from nominal sizes, for argument's sake here.)

 

[BC21]

Another way to say that...

Consider any shot on the table, such as a ball on the spot. Consider that shot on 7' and 9' tables. Let's say that you have the cue ball the same distance and angle on each table. The shot is 2/9ths harder on the 9' because of the increased distance to the pocket -- it requires 22% more accuracy to pocket the ball on the larger table. That's true for any similar shot on the two sizes of tables.

I think that the cue ball will tend to be farther away on the 9' table on average, as @Poolmanis pointed out. That will increase the relative difficulty even more on the larger table.

Again, no disagreement there. That is two completely different shots and has nothing to do with my point.

On a 9ft, the ball on the spot is 35.4 inches from the pocket. On a 7ft, that exact same ob position, relative to the pocket, would not be on the spot, rather it would be another 7.1in out to make it the same shot. Like this...

The shot you described on the 9ft is exactly the same shot shown in this blue 7ft table area, which may look different on two different table sizes, but it's the same shot, same cut angle, same margin for error, etc...

 

[BC21]

To those quoting a 9' table being 25 or 30% larger than a 7' table:

A 9' table might be 29% (rounding to nearest integer) LONGER (7*1.29=9.03), but it's not 29% LARGER.

A nominal 9' table is 4.5' x 9' = 40.5 sq ft. A 7' is 24.5 sq ft.

40.5 / 24.5 = 1.65 or so. So a 9' table is 65% larger than a 7'.

(Let's use these numbers; using the actual playing surfaces widths and lengths aren't that far off from nominal sizes, for argument's sake here.)

Total surface area isn't important when comparing shot distances like cb to ob and ob to pocket. All that matters is how much farther away the cb or ob can actually be. So having 25% more length or width is where the measured difference comes into play. Having 60% more table area doesn't mean much when we're looking at a straight line distance from cb to ob, or from ob to pocket. But 25 to 30% more distance means quite a bit.