Need help with 3 rails w/high inside

I can see that, depending on how close to simultaneous the hit is. I think there's a (small) range of possibilities because of the way the CB sinks into the rail and then rebounds, traveling along the rail (a short distance) as it does that.

If the CB hits the rail close enough to the OB so the CB is still going into (compressing) the rail when it hits the OB, then the OB has time to get out of the way before the CB rebounds, giving the CB enough room to rebound at the spin-changed angle.

But if the CB is already rebounding from the rail (uncompressing) when it hits the OB, then the spin has already changed the angle - but the OB blocks that spin-changed path, caroming the CB cross table with only top spin to move it forward.

I've tried the shot several times since we've been talking about it, and have gotten both results. Most times I got good angle change with the spin, I assume because that happens with both a ball first hit and a nearly ball first hit, whereas the carom angle only happens with a not-so-nearly ball first hit.

Thanks for helping me think that through more carefully.

pj
chgo

Agreed. That's what I was trying to say (very poorly) about hitting the shot low with extreme inside. You can bend the rail a bit and widen the angle off the rail, enabling you to hit the rail just a hair farther back for more of a rail-first type of hit. You can't do that with topspin, so the side spin (coupled with topspin) will take more effect off the first rail.
 
Last edited:
This is mumbo-jumbo that is not only incorrect, but misleading as well. The cuestick is never completely level. There is always a slight elevation of at least a couple of degrees, due to the rails being in the way. Squirt is squirt. You can learn to estimate how much your cue squirts, and then then learn to adjust your aim accordingly. KISS rules!

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

PS You mentioned squirt/CB deflection. You should know that the squirt direction is directly through the center of the cue ball. For instance if hitting at 11:00 the squirt direction is toward 5:00 & down into the table. If hitting at 9:00 it is toward 3:00. So, the net in the flat horizontal direction will be different for each.
 
This is mumbo-jumbo that is not only incorrect, but misleading as well. The cuestick is never completely level. There is always a slight elevation of at least a couple of degrees, due to the rails being in the way. Squirt is squirt. You can learn to estimate how much your cue squirts, and then then learn to adjust your aim accordingly. KISS rules!

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Scott, I think you might have misunderstood Rick's post. What he said appears right to me, and doesn't seem to rely on a level stick...?

pj <- understand wanting to tell him to STFU
chgo
 
Last edited:
This is mumbo-jumbo that is not only incorrect, but misleading as well. The cuestick is never completely level. There is always a slight elevation of at least a couple of degrees, due to the rails being in the way. Squirt is squirt. You can learn to estimate how much your cue squirts, and then then learn to adjust your aim accordingly. KISS rules!

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

I'd suggest you study up on the physics regarding the outcome vectors of force applied to a sphere regarding a collision with a sphere from a force vector that is not in line with it's center of gravity or mass.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to add to my earlier reply that it would, to me, also depend on where one would the have the CB come to rest & how one is really trying to move the CB.



So in trying to move the ball around the table, are you trying to drive it with the help of some spin or are you trying to spin it around the table. Which of those would dictate, to me, at what speed & where on the ball I would hit the ball, as the result of spin is dependent on the spin to speed ratio.



Like I said, play around with it until you get a feel for it. Hit at 3:00 at different speeds & then hit at 11:00 or 11:30 with different speeds & note the results. Also there are at least 3 clocks on the CB. The inner clock, the outer clock, & the one the middle. Some individuals have 4 or even 5. Play around with that too.



Good Luck & Best Wishes.



PS You mentioned squirt/CB deflection. You should know that the squirt direction is directly through the center of the cue ball. For instance if hitting at 11:00 the squirt direction is toward 5:00 & down into the table. If hitting at 9:00 it is toward 3:00. So, the net in the flat horizontal direction will be different for each.



Hello English,



I've never heard this before. What do you mean about the defection direction? Anymore information on this?



Thanks
 
Hello English,



I've never heard this before. What do you mean about the defection direction? Anymore information on this?



Thanks

Hi, Johnboy,

I have a brother-in-law that we often call John Boy. He's the youngest fo 10.

The actual direction of the squirt is directly through the center of the mass which is (or should be) the actual center of the the middle core point of the ball.

So... if the tip hits at 3:00 on the equator as you look 'through' the cue ball & at 7:30 when viewed from the top, then the squirt vector will be at 1:30 on the clock viewed from overhead. If you move to 8:00 it will be at 2:00.

That is just the squirt vector & it is combined with the forward momentum force vector for a net effect somewhere in between.

Now say you go low or high with the tip from off of the equator but stay at the 7:30 spot on the clock viewed from above. Now the squirt vector will be on a line of 1:30 on the clock viewed from above but it will also be aimed up if the tip went low or down into the table if the tip went high.

Both of those would be inhibited by gravity in the up direction & by the table in the down direction.

That is why it seems that hitting a ball combo high & side seems to have less squirt because the squirt is in the down/side direction is resisted by the table. So the ball gets on a more 'straight' line to less 'net' squirt because the table resists the downward component but even that is not resisted directly because the contact with table is off to the side of that line.

That is why I say that in the very short time of contact there is a rather 'huge' amount of stuff going on.

I don't know where you can get more on this as I understand it from my physics education.

I would guess that there might be something on Dr. Dave's site but I would not think there is much detail other than to say what I have said that the squirt is through the actual center point of the ball.

I hope I've painted a picture that allows you to see it. I wish I had a chalk board to do some drawings.

I NEVER think of ANY of the physics that I know when I'm Playing the Game.

It's just enough to know that you will get less side ways squirt if you go above or below the equator & it is not just because of swerve.

Actually if you hit on the equator with a level cue & the ball is spinning on it's vertical axis you would get no swerve. Picture a ball spinning in place. It does not move even when it slows to stop.

But since we can rarely hit with a perfectly level cue it would take a very slight above the equator hit to torque the ball into that perfect vertical axis spin. Hence that results in the most net squirt & the more you go toward the edge of the ball & away from center the more it would be.

Best Wishes to You & Yours,
Rick

PS I trust my subconscious mind to 'know' all that is necessary much much more than I would ever trust my conscious mind to fully understand & then calculate & then plan for ALL that is going on during that very short contact time & especially for an off center hit when using english. That is why I am very glad that I stared playing & using english at 13 yrs. old which was 2+ yrs. before my first physics class. I learned to Play way before I consciously knew what wa going on & I would much much rather have it that way. Ignorance can be bliss even you if know what you know. Please note that word ignorance is a derivation of the word ignore. Sometimes it is better to ignore what you know... & just PLAY.
 
Last edited:
Been shooting some rail shot drills and recently developed a problem that is leaving me baffled. Object ball frozen to rail one to two diamonds from pocket shooting between 25-35 degrees on most shots. The videos I've seen of high level players doing this usually has the cue ball hitting around the middle diamond on the short rail, then somewhere around the second diamond on the long rail opposite of the object ball. When I shoot the shot using high inside my cue ball path is more towards the opposite corner pocket or around the third diamond, and the first diamond in the long rail. I'm usually making the ball. Am I using the wrong spin to (more/less top and/or inside) or am I hitting the ball too thin or thick? 10:30 & 2:30 is about where I'm cueing.

I'm not an instructor.
Your focus on these type of shots must be on the QB. Spin (like a top) the crap out of the QB (focus should be to strike the QB with the shoulder of the tip), this requires very little follow thru. And try not to shoot to hard and allow the spin to work. There will be way more spin on the QB than forward motion of the QB.

If your lined up correctly the OB will go in the pocket and the QB will dive to the short rail. In fact the softer you hit the shot the more action you will get from the QB.

Hope this helps

John
 
English

Been shooting some rail shot drills and recently developed a problem that is leaving me baffled. Object ball frozen to rail one to two diamonds from pocket shooting between 25-35 degrees on most shots. The videos I've seen of high level players doing this usually has the cue ball hitting around the middle diamond on the short rail, then somewhere around the second diamond on the long rail opposite of the object ball. When I shoot the shot using high inside my cue ball path is more towards the opposite corner pocket or around the third diamond, and the first diamond in the long rail. I'm usually making the ball. Am I using the wrong spin to (more/less top and/or inside) or am I hitting the ball too thin or thick? 10:30 & 2:30 is about where I'm cueing.

A lesson on how to use spin on the cue ball from a qualified instructor may be what would do you the most good.

Spin is one of the fundamentals that are best learned as soon as possible if one is serious about improving one's game. And working with an instructor in person is the best way to see spin demonstrated and have someone evaluate and critique your game while you play.
 
I just noticed this thread today. I saw something above that I disagree with. Strongly.

I think that for a frozen ball if you use inside english you have to hit the cushion first. The cue ball has to be in the cushion when it hits the object ball or the object ball will be thrown into the cushion and you will miss the pocket.

You can still get a long angle because the object ball leaves before the cue ball has left the cushion. The side spin takes after the object ball leaves.
 
I have no real way of knowing if the above is actually correct because the contact of which one is first is so close...

but I would almost swear that I have hit ball slightly first or at the same time & have made countless of these types of shots.

Perhaps if the ball is thrown into the rail by either the CIT or SIT that it has a tendency to skip a bit & then the spin takes & throws it back in toward the rail for the ball to pocket.

I'd also say that whenever I know that I hit the rail first the ball may pocket but I do not get the CB action that I do the other way.

I think the best option may be to go for the same time contact.
 
Last edited:
Right Rick! Now you actually believe that you know more about billiard physics than Bob Jewett! What a joke! :rolleyes: There is no such thing as a simultaneous hit. Either you hit rail first, or ball first. Ball first is far more difficult, and requires a much higher degree of accuracy. I'm in agreement with Bob on this one.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

I have no real way of knowing if the above is actually correct because the contact of which one is first is so close...

but I would almost swear that I have hit ball slightly first or at the same time & have made countless of these types of shots.

Perhaps if the ball is thrown into the rail by either the CIT or SIT that it has a tendency to skip a bit & then the spin takes & throws it back in toward the rail for the ball to pocket.

I'd also say that whenever I know that I hit the rail first the ball may pocket but I do not get the CB action that I do the other way.

I think the best option may be to go for the same time contact.
 
Right Rick! Now you actually believe that you know more about billiard physics than Bob Jewett! What a joke! :rolleyes: There is no such thing as a simultaneous hit. Either you hit rail first, or ball first. Ball first is far more difficult, and requires a much higher degree of accuracy. I'm in agreement with Bob on this one.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com


Well... You show how little you think that you know if you think that there can not be a simultaneous hit. AND... as usual you twist, distort, & mis-characterize the facts of matters. I NEVER said nor do I think that I "know more about billiard physics than Bob Jewett!"

But... I did say to "go for the simultaneous hit". The odds of actually getting a real true simultaneous one IS rather slim....

But... if one pays close attention one can tell when the ball is hit first or the rail is hit first IF there is enough separation between those contacts...

AND one can also tell when there is a very good chance that one actually got a simultaneous hit of both.

It may have been & it may not have been, because it is too close to tell which one was actually hit first.

Therefore, for all intents & purposes, almost ALL individuals would call it a simultaneous hit AND it may very well have been just that.

Each individual can do their own testing & hit rail first & see if they get the action they want on the cue ball or not & then go for a 'simultaneous' hit & see if they get a better result.

As ALWAYS... each individual should make their own determinations & not blindly follow what ANYONE says.

You were completely WRONG when you said that SmoothStroke learned what he knows from RandyG. If you were completely WRONG about that... you can be completely WRONG about anything.SmoothStroke posted that he had NEVER met RandyG & he has NEVER had any conversation with RandyG in any manner.
 
Last edited:
Yep, you got me good there! LOL I mistook SmoothStroke for another poster with a similar name, who also helps other players, and did learn what he knows from Randyg. Okay you got one right vs. the HUNDREDS of things you get wrong (pointed out by plenty of other posters besides me).

Scott Lee
http://pooknowledge.com

You were completely WRONG when you said that SmoothStroke learned what he knows from RandyG. SmoothStroke posted that he had NEVER met RandyG & he has NEVER had any conversation with RandyG in any manner.
 
Yep, you got me good there! LOL I mistook SmoothStroke for another poster with a similar name, who also helps other players, and did learn what he knows from Randyg. Okay you got one right vs. the HUNDREDS of things you get wrong (pointed out by plenty of other posters besides me).

Scott Lee
http://pooknowledge.com

There is only one way to reply to that crap & it's Bunkum & Balderdash.

You now say that you mistook him for someone else because he, an Instructor, posted completely contrary to what you said.

You twist, distort, & mis-characterize many things making them wrong to suit your own ulterior motives, purposes &/or agenda.

Just like now with you incorrectly saying that there is no such thing as a simultaneous contact & that I have gotten "HUNDREDS" of things wrong.

That is Bunkum & Balderdash.

I've gotten virtually nothing wrong. I have on an occasion or two made a typo or misspoken. We all make mistakes.

But THAT is not the impression that you were trying to give with your "HUNDREDS" slanderous comment.

I could go on about other matters & say much more, but I doubt that it would really serve any good purpose.

But if you want to continue, we can.
 
Last edited:
I have no real way of knowing if the above is actually correct because the contact of which one is first is so close...

but I would almost swear that I have hit ball slightly first or at the same time & have made countless of these types of shots.

Perhaps if the ball is thrown into the rail by either the CIT or SIT that it has a tendency to skip a bit & then the spin takes & throws it back in toward the rail for the ball to pocket.

I'd also say that whenever I know that I hit the rail first the ball may pocket but I do not get the CB action that I do the other way.

I think the best option may be to go for the same time contact.

I guess it's possible to pocket a frozen ball if you hit the ball first (nearly simultaneously) if it's close enough to the pocket to take advantage of the pocket size margin of error. But it will bounce off the rail at least once on it's way to the pocket ( which can also happen with a rail-first hit, so I can understand Bob's position. There might have to be an experiment with slo mo playback to actually see if it can be done). But let's say it can be done --- You might get away with it even more on a new cloth where I've seen object balls bounce off the rail as much as a half-diamond before the pocket and still go in.

What I'm not sure about is why a player would choose to do that intentionally --- Maybe for some sort of advanced position play? I probably wouldn't do it intentionally. I've done it as a mistake.

I see that Scott made his normal, yelling and screaming rational response to you.
 
Last edited:
I guess it's possible to pocket a frozen ball if you hit the ball first (nearly simultaneously) if it's close enough to the pocket to take advantage of the pocket size margin of error. But it will bounce off the rail at least once on it's way to the pocket ( which can also happen with a rail-first hit, so I can understand Bob's position. There might have to be an experiment with slo mo playback to actually see if it can be done). But let's say it can be done --- You might get away with it even more on a new cloth where I've seen object balls bounce off the rail as much as a half-diamond before the pocket and still go in.

What I'm not sure about is why a player would choose to do that intentionally --- Maybe for some sort of advanced position play? I probably wouldn't do it intentionally. I've done it as a mistake.

I see that Scott made his normal, yelling and screaming rational response to you.

Hi Fran,

Do you know that Green Ink indicates sarcasm & perhaps you should have used it for one word of your last sentence?

Yes, the OP was about going 3 rails with high inside.

As I said, I think 'simultaneous' gives the best option for both pocketing the ball & getting the action & direction of CB travel one wants.

Is the rail hit slightly first? Perhaps, but it is too close to call so most ALL individuals would say that the hit was simultaneous. I've found that when telling someone to hit rail first, many hit too far from the ball. But when telling then to hit the ball & the rail at the same time & not the ball first They generally avoid hitting the ball first & either get a 'simultaneous' hit or that very slightly rail first hit.

Whenever I was going for such, intending to hit 'simultaneously' & actually hit slightly rail 1st. instead, I've pocketed the ball but did NOT get the direction of CB travel or exactly the amount of spin for which I was going & hence did NOT get the best of position for which I was going.

I learned from my error.

Hence I think that the 'simultaneous' hit gets the CB on a different line with the spin & I have much better gotten my intended position.

Thanks for the opportunity to say it perhaps a bit differently & to add that part about tendencies given ones thoughts & intentions.

You Stay Well & Warm,
Rick

PS1 Are you over that bug & is it still cold there. I turned on the AC yesterday.
 
Last edited:
Hi Fran,

Do your know that Green Ink indicates sarcasm & perhaps you should have used it for one word of your last sentence?

Yes, the OP was about going 3 rails with high inside.

As I said, I think 'simultaneous' gives the best option for both pocketing the ball & getting the action & direction of CB travel one wants.

Is the rail hit slightly first? Perhaps, but it is too close to call so most ALL individuals would say that the hit was simultaneous. I've found that when telling someone to hit rail first, many hit too far from the ball. But when telling then to hit the ball & the rail at the same time & not the ball first They generally avoid hitting the ball first & either get a 'simultaneous' hit or that very slightly rail first hit.

Whenever I was going for such, intending to hit 'simultaneously' & actually hit slightly rail 1st. instead, I've pocketed the ball but did NOT get the direction of CB travel or exactly the amount of spin for which I was going & hence did NOT get the best of position for which I was going.

I learned from my error.

Hence I think that the 'simultaneous' hit get the CB on a different line with the spin & I have much better gotten my intended position.

Thanks for the opportunity to say it perhaps a bit differently & to add that part about tendencies given ones thoughts & intentions.

You Stay Well & Warm,
Rick

PS1 Are you over that bug & is it still cold there. I turned on the AC yesterday.

The weather is warming up and I'm much better. Thanks. I appreciate the info on the green lettering. I think I prefer to keep 'em guessing. LOL

When I'm competing, pocketing the ball is primary, since we all know, if you miss, you sit down. I think I would stay a little conservative on that type of shot and stick to a definite rail-first execution as long as I'm able to accept the resulting position. If not, then I'd play a safe shot.
 
Back
Top