Parallel Shift Banking System

I don't think the system even works. It's a way of adjusting slightly from the nearest 2-1 diamond line, but there's no reason why it should put you at the exact 2-1 line that the object ball lies on. Why not just directly find the correct line without going through the extra steps?
 
To me, it looks like the only thing the "shift" is accomplishing is finding where the equal in/out angle is. The problem is that most tables don't play equal in/out on banks, without fudging with the shot. Then there are the myriad of factors that Dr. Dave linked to. Heaven forbid you want to shoot for leave, too. The closest thing I have to a "system" is what I do to change up my banks, such as hitting with certain spin to move it a half diamond, but even doing that takes into consideration the angle, speed and table. That's just for starters. I'd be surprised if any top bankers use an actual "system", whatever that means. ;)

Maybe somebody could get Brumback to enlighten us. :bow-down:
 
Apart from all factors coming into bank shots, I would say "if it measures right but feels wrong, go with your feeling and a firm stroke".
All systems are there to guide and are very useful, maybe they are not essential when someone is building up her/his game but in order to reach highest levels you need to have at least some knowledge, at least on the "no side spin on CB" ones that seem to be the most consistent in different conditions.
I've seen a lot of players playing banks and resafe with no success, relying "too much" on systematic approach, this may be due to wrong calculations, poor approach to the desired position or wrong estimation of condition factors, even though they know their systems.
It's good to use systems with parallell calculations since they give the player's brain less to think about, saving valuable energy for the rest of the match.
This one is quite good, it does work, it's simple, giving a "good starting point" to work with, required that appropiate knowledge and experience will be combined to bring out the best of it.
Petros
 
I can't address everyone individually but thanks for the feedback fellas - this is by no means a perfect system in that it will work 100% of the time on all tables. But, it is a great place to start if you want to see your bank game improve and as I said - it's how I started to get a "feel" for bank shots and now my banking is feel and CB speed/English adjustments.

For banks close to the rail - I usually see the double kiss when it exists (Dr. Dave covers this on his Youtube channel) but for on the rail banks, I like to hit harder and compensate with English because it gives the CB more time to get away from the OB as it pushes into the rail then rebounds out.

If I remember correctly there is an angle threshold where the double kiss occurs within but I don't have that in the stores of my head right now. In all honesty- I typically avoid frozen rail banks unless the CB is close to in-line with the OB or opposite in the opposite direction of the contact point. (So if I have to hit the left side of the OB to make the bank, then I want the CB to be either in line with that contact point or to the right of the contact point.

Let me re-iterate: This is a good system for starting out with bank shots because it will make most bank shots you see in an actual game. But this, like any system, will not work 100% of the time on every single bank you come across.
 
Last edited:
One more thing -

Even though I love bank shots and practice them rigorously I've started to shy away from shooting them in matches unless I have to.

If it is not the highest percentage shot I have then I'm starting to not take them. If it is not the best shot to get position on the next ball then I'm starting to not take them.

-Richard
 
Zphix said:
... Let me re-iterate: This is a good system for starting out with bank shots because it will make most bank shots you see in an actual game. ...
Click to expand...
I'll reiterate my point: I think it is not a good system.
 
No system is perfect, and all systems need adjustments, especially when OB is close to rail.
Grady Mathews suggested quite a few parallel shift systems which also don't aply without adjustment when balls are close to a rail, like most systems.
I've seen this system in a couple of books, if I remeber right one is from a series of diamond systems plus other things, I have even seen it mentioned in one article that George Fels wrote.
From my trials it does seem to work, it does have limits though, but I would call it a good one, at least for starting up on those kind of shots.
Petros
 
Petros Andrikop said:
No system is perfect, and all systems need adjustments, especially when OB is close to rail.
Click to expand...
... unless you use a fast-speed bank system like the one illustrated in this diagram (see the resource page for more info):

fast_speed_bank_system.jpg

This system also works very well for banks where the OB is close to the cushion, where almost any speed can be used.

Like any kick or bank system, adjustments are still required based on spin, cut angle, and conditions, but the reference aim will be very close for many shots.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
... unless you use a fast-speed bank system like the one illustrated in this diagram (see the resource page for more info):

fast_speed_bank_system.jpg

This system also works very well for banks where the OB is close to the cushion, where almost any speed can be used.

Like any kick or bank system, adjustments are still required based on spin, cut angle, and conditions, but the reference aim will be very close for many shots.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, I also mentioned that fast bank-no side spin systems seem to have the most of "tolerance".
I haven't tried this one, but from a first look I would be a bit sceptical about it, for the following reasons:
1. Needs a bit of "track memorization", not the best option for approaching all shots, requiring extra energy spent during a match.
2. Target points on rail contact are not the best to visualize
3. Doesn't seem to verify with the "62.5% rule", at least in long distances. For eg the shot coming from diamond 6.3 seems to bank through 2.7 instead of 2.4...
If I get this wrong I apologise, I'm sure there's is enough work behind it, If someone hasn't worked with a specific system it's not easy to judge, I just present a few initial thoughts.
Petros
 
Petros Andrikop said:
1. Needs a bit of "track memorization", not the best option for approaching all shots
Click to expand...
... if you don't know the tracks, it is easiest to apply when the OB is close to the cushion. Then the aim is from a 1/3 more than twice the banking-rail diamond distance. This doesn't take much effort to visualize (or calculate), and no memorization is required (other than remembering "1/3 more than twice").

Petros Andrikop said:
3. Doesn't seem to verify with the "62.5% rule", at least in long distances.
Click to expand...
Could you post a diagram or link for this system, or at least describe in detail how it works?

Thanks,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
... if you don't know the tracks, it is easiest to apply when the OB is close to the cushion. Then the aim is from a 1/3 more than twice the banking-rail diamond distance. This doesn't take much effort to visualize (or calculate), and no memorization is required (other than remembering "1/3 more than twice").

Could you post a diagram or link for this system, or at least describe in detail how it works?

Thanks,
Dave
Click to expand...

On my first point I wanted to refer to what happens when balls are "somewhere in between", anyway the explanation is sufficient, as also described in the article.
The "62.5% rule" was first described by Grady Mathews, on your article there's a reference to a Ralph Eckert video which describes it in another way, for each 2 diamonds he adjusts a 1/4 of a diamond.
On the second shot, coming from 4 diamonds away from pocket he adjusts 2x1/4=1/2 diamond. That point seems to work on most tables, not the 1/3 diamond adjustment.
Grady descibed this first as a "62.5% rule", targeting at between 50% and 75% distance from pocket which is 62.5%, a point which can be visualized very easily even without using diamonds, just moving the cue a couple of times is enough, as long as we are speaking of a typical "equal sided" triangle formed by the lines.
This system has been used by many champions with success, it seems to be the most accurate of that type.
Up to 4 diamonds the 2x+1/3 system seems to come very close since target points are on cushion contact points (so a bit further down through diamond), but as distance increases it seems to have a significant deviation, whereas the 62.5% system seems to be more tolerant, can be verified if you play a bank coming from 8 diamonds away at diamond 3/6 (62.5% of the distance).
Best,
Petros
 
The OP's system will not put you on a direct 2:1 line. It's just a quick way to get close to the true 2:1 line that the OB is on by basing it on the nearest "easiest" 2:1 line that can be seen - second diamond to first diamond etc.

It would be just as easy to calculate it directly - i.e., if numbering the diamonds in 10's and counting in tenths of a diamond, the ball could be on the 20 to 10 line (second diamond to first diamond), 22 to 11, 24 to 12, etc. Numbering this way can help the fractionally challenged - people don't like saying or thinking in terms of "2.2 to 1.1" for some reason...

When shooting with a medium speed, the ratio is closer to 2.5 to 1 - maybe something similar to what Dr. Dave was showing, although I hadn't seen that 1/3 adjustment before. And as previously mentioned, these are just theoretical guidelines - speed, spin, CB direction (above/below the ball), proximity to the rail, table conditions, etc. all need to be factored in. But at least they give a good starting point. I'm definitely someone who likes using systems, but a lot of this comes down to feel developed from a lot of hours of defined practice.

Scott
 
Petros Andrikop said:
The "62.5% rule" was first described by Grady Mathews, on your article there's a reference to a Ralph Eckert video which describes it in another way, for each 2 diamonds he adjusts a 1/4 of a diamond.
Click to expand...
I would describe the Grady rule as "x to 0.375x," which is the same as Eckert's "2x to 3/4x" rule. My rule, which measures across from the diamonds in the rail grooves, instead of through the diamonds on the rail, is the "(2x+1/3) to x" rule.


Petros Andrikop said:
On the second shot, coming from 4 diamonds away from pocket he adjusts 2x1/4=1/2 diamond. That point seems to work on most tables, not the 1/3 diamond adjustment.
Click to expand...
Per the diagrams in my July '13 BD article, the lines of aim from the "(2x+1/3) to x" rule actually agree with the through-diamond "2x to 3/4x" rule fairly well over the range of typical bank shots. When I get some time, I'll do some experiments at home and check the comparisons carefully.


Petros Andrikop said:
Up to 4 diamonds the 2x+1/3 system seems to come very close since target points are on cushion contact points (so a bit further down through diamond), but as distance increases it seems to have a significant deviation, whereas the 62.5% system seems to be more tolerant, can be verified if you play a bank coming from 8 diamonds away at diamond 3/6 (62.5% of the distance).
Click to expand...
The systems definitely differ for large-angle banks like this. I look forward to testing these out too.

Thanks,
Dave
 
Last edited:
renard said:
What's your preferred banking system? Just curious, as I value your opinion.
Click to expand...
It depends on the situation. At high speed or for a ball close the rail, the system that says the ball will come 30% short is good. For slow rollers and fairly perpendicular angles and moderately used cloth, the double the diamond system works OK. For specific shots, like a ball on the spot, there are specific targets.

Mostly you have to feel the shot if you are using softer speeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top