Pocket Dimensions and Angles?

[bes]

Played for a couple hours on a double shimmed GC last night and had all sorts of problems. The corner pockets were probably around 4.25" - likely a shade under - but I don't think that was the biggest problem. The pocket cuts looked "funny" and they just didn't seem to accept balls well at all. Anything not in the middle had to be pocket speed. I can't count how many balls were left in the jaws.

I know all, or nearly all pool table corners are not cut parrallel 135 degrees. I've seen recommendations for 141 and 142 degrees. I think the pockets last night were cut with even bigger angles - sure looked like it.

Stupid question: Why AREN'T the corner pockets cut at 135 degrees?

Second Stupid Question: Will a stack of shims change the pocket angle?

Third: Will shims make an otherwise "acceptable" pocket start rejecting more shots? Talking about shots that look like they "should" drop.

Thanks for any enlightenment!

bes

 

[bes]

Nobody?
bes

 

[JC]

Nobody?
bes

I'm in the process of redoing my GC and had all the same questions. A 135 degree angle (or 45 if you will) makes balls shot down the rail go in when maybe they shouldn't. The straighter the angle the easier the pocket approaching from the rail, assuming there's some down angle on the pocket so you're not hitting the facing in the horizontal center. Valley tables are made like this I assume to get the game moving along for coin op. Time is money after all. The original GC pockets are about 143 with very little quality control. One facing can be one or two degrees different on the same pocket. Shimming these pockets makes them play as you describe where it's virtually impossilbe to make a ball down the rail with speed. There seems to be consensis now days that the Diamond cut pocket is optimum for accepting balls that belong down and rejecting one's that shouldn't go. This optimum angle can however be adjusted slightly for personal preference, slightly decreasing the bevel angle or increasing the down angle can make it play noticable easier without changing the pocket size. IMO a pocket size smaller than about 4 and a quarter makes for an unnaturally hard pocket shot down the center. But I'm just a B player as are most of my friends and we want to run out some times. A pro probably wont agree.

 

[realkingcobra]

Nobody?
bes

Think about this for a second. The pocket castings on GC1-2-3's are 4 5/16" from point to point, and if the pocket angles start there and go out from there in a wider direction, that's great. But say you want a 4 1/2" pocket opening, and you want the pocket angles to be parallel to each other, take a tape measure and measure the back throat of the pocket at 4 1/2" wide...and see how much of the pocket casting would be sticking out in the throat of the pocket for the balls to hit on the way in

Glen

 

[iusedtoberich]

Think about this for a second. The pocket castings on GC1-2-3's are 4 5/16" from point to point, and if the pocket angles start there and go out from there in a wider direction, that's great. But say you want a 4 1/2" pocket opening, and you want the pocket angles to be parallel to each other, take a tape measure and measure the back throat of the pocket at 4 1/2" wide...and see how much of the pocket casting would be sticking out in the throat of the pocket for the balls to hit on the way in

Glen

Glen, your response makes sense from a retrofit standpoint of an existing table. However, I believe the OP was asking why aren't pocket facings designed by the table manufacturers to be parallel? I'm sure several companies tried parallel facings in the hundreds of years tables existed. Do you know why they are not standard today?