Pool "Secrets" Found on AZ

This shot takes impeccable execution

The thinnest cuts I've ever seen were made with a Touch of Inside.....when you use "outside english" the cue ball deflects slightly towards the object ball producing more angle (as it spins back to make contact).

With TOI (a touch of inside) the cue ball defects slightly AWAY from the object ball producing no more angle (than what's apparent).

When using severe english it's possible to throw the object ball more, however, this shot takes impeccable execution and not recommended for game situations (especially under pressure). Using TOI or "draw" is probably the best shot to depend on imho.



fastone371 said:
I thought if you hit the object ball in the exact same place each time on a cut that outside english will cut the ball more than inside english? Am I wrong about that?
Click to expand...
 
so this is a joke post then huh, i was going to say the very first one that posted i totally disagreed with all three of his ideas....lol
 
I find myself quoting Buddy Hall a lot to the 8-ball leaguers....
..."Don't play position when you already got it."
 
CJ Wiley said:
The thinnest cuts I've ever seen were made with a Touch of Inside.....when you use "outside english" the cue ball deflects slightly towards the object ball producing more angle (as it spins back to make contact).

With TOI (a touch of inside) the cue ball defects slightly AWAY from the object ball producing no more angle (than what's apparent).

When using severe english it's possible to throw the object ball more, however, this shot takes impeccable execution and not recommended for game situations (especially under pressure). Using TOI or "draw" is probably the best shot to depend on imho.
Click to expand...

For thin cuts english does not throw balls, skid and collision are the only contributors. When severe inside applied, CB swerve inward and it is perceived as throw!
 
Bob Jewett said:
That sounds like a good theory but it's wrong. For a test that shows that it's wrong see my May article in http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2006.pdf
Click to expand...

Thank you Bob. I just read that article that was published in BD. What I found interesting is that you "theorized" that there would be no difference in how much a ball would cut using follow, center or draw. Your theory based on your physical analysis is that there would be no difference whatsoever. But yet when you tested that theory (P.31) the object ball cut substantially more using draw. You chose to explain the large difference as insignificant over a shorter distance. All I can say after reading that is HMMMM.

Sometimes real life experience and endless trial trumps theoretical ideas of how things should work.
 
naji said:
For thin cuts english does not throw balls
Click to expand...
That's not true. Speed and inside english reduce the amount of throw, but there is still some throw (for more info, see the inside english resource page). And outside english (greater than the "gearing" amount) can actually throw the ball in the opposite direction making possible thin cuts with effective cut angles greater than 90 degrees (due to throw alone, and no swerve effects). Demonstrated examples can be found here:

impossible cut shots resource page

Enjoy,
Dave
 
A lot of different opinions on this shot from top players and instructors and I'm not one of them. IMO this shot can be made just as easy many ways. To me this shot (very thin cut 70-85 degrees) can be made low, hi, center, a touch of Left or Right, hard, soft, or medium, if just cinching the shot. How you have to come off the OB or rail to get shape, miss a scratch or another OB in its path tells you how to hit it. If balls are dirty we can cut the OB more than 90 degrees.

I use top on these shots if I don't have to come off the OB or rail different, but that's probably why Jay beat me in Miami or somewhere near Miami (drank and did a few drugs back then) many years ago ;). ;). CJ beat me in the Parrot in Tampa many years ago also, probably why. Johnnyt
 
backplaying said:
The secret I've learned is people who seem to know more about why balls do things play worse!
Click to expand...

What a flippant nonsensical statement! You know that hitting below the horizontal center of the cb causes backspin to be put on a ball. You also know that hitting to the right or left of vertical center causes side spin and squirt and swerve. You use those tools everytime you play the game.

Yet, you scoff at adding more knowledge to your limited base of knowledge that would enhance your game even more when used properly. I guess I will never understand the thinking of some people on here when it comes to attaining useful knowledge. Yet, so many take some false sense of pride in not having all the tools available to them. Amazing.:confused:
 
jay helfert said:
Bob Jewett said:
That sounds like a good theory but it's wrong. For a test that shows that it's wrong see my May article in http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2006.pdf
Click to expand...
Thank you Bob. I just read that article that was published in BD. What I found interesting is that you "theorized" that there would be no difference in how much a ball would cut using follow, center or draw. Your theory based on your physical analysis is that there would be no difference whatsoever.
Click to expand...
That was just an "intuitive theory" at the time that wasn't based on any physics-based fact. Intuition is often wrong. The actual physics-based theory is very well understood and it does predict what the Bob's experiment shows. For more info, see the throw follow/draw effects resource page.

jay helfert said:
Sometimes real life experience and endless trial trumps theoretical ideas of how things should work.
Click to expand...
True. Sometimes theories are incomplete (and sometimes completely wrong), but in this case the physics-based theory is very solid and backed up by lots of evidence and experience at the table.

I think the important lesson from Bob here is that you can't always trust "experience"-based anecdotes and intuitive "theories."

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
That was just an "intuitive theory" at the time that wasn't based on any physics-based fact. Intuition is often wrong. The actual physics-based theory is very well understood and it does predict what the Bob's experiment shows. For more info, see the throw follow/draw effects resource page.

True. Sometimes theories are incomplete (and sometimes completely wrong), but in this case the physics-based theory is very solid and backed up by lots of evidence and experience at the table.

I think the important lesson from Bob here is that you can't always trust "experience"-based anecdotes and intuitive "theories."

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Okay Dave, my intuition tells me that if I cue low on a thin cut close to the rail, there is far less chance of the cue ball jumping off the table. Does the physics back that up or am I just blowing smoke in the wind? :D
 
jay helfert said:
Okay Dave, my intuition tells me that if I cue low on a thin cut close to the rail, there is far less chance of the cue ball jumping off the table. Does the physics back that up or am I just blowing smoke in the wind? :D
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me. If you use topspin with a fast-speed shot close to a rail, the CB will be hopping into the rail; and this, in combination with the topspin, can cause the CB to launch into the air and possibly off the table. Also, if the CB is hopping, you might not cut the OB the amount you think you will (see the jump-shot over-cut effect).

Best regards,
Dave
 
CJ Wiley said:
The thinnest cuts I've ever seen were made with a Touch of Inside..... ...
Click to expand...
Evidently you haven't seen the 93-degree cut shot. That's made with more outside than most pool players ever use. Outside can help make thin cut shots that appear to be impossible.
 
Bob Jewett said:
CJ Wiley said:
The thinnest cuts I've ever seen were made with a Touch of Inside....
Click to expand...
Evidently you haven't seen the 93-degree cut shot. That's made with more outside than most pool players ever use. Outside can help make thin cut shots that appear to be impossible.
Click to expand...
Much thinner cuts are possible with inside english and cue elevation, creating significant swerve, but you knew that already. Obviously, the outside-english approach is much more reliable for typical really thin cuts (except for rail cut shots, where amazing effective cut angles are possible with inside and swerve, hitting rail first) ... but you knew that already too.

For those wanting to see both types of shots, they are demonstrated and described here:

NV B.92 - "Impossible" cut shots, from VEPS V

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
Much thinner cuts are possible with inside english and cue elevation, creating significant swerve, but you knew that already. Obviously, the outside-english approach is much more reliable for typical really thin cuts (except for rail cut shots, where amazing effective cut angles are possible with inside and swerve, hitting rail first) ... but you knew that already too.

For those wanting to see both types of shots, they are demonstrated and described here:

NV B.92 - "Impossible" cut shots, from VEPS V

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, these are great tapes you have there! The best of their kind that I've seen. I would recommend them highly to anyone interested in improving their game.

I developed a style of playing years ago, where I would naturally apply outside English on many cut shots, particularly those close to a rail. I found that the use of outside English would not only throw the object ball toward the hole, but it would also open up the pocket, helping it to take the ball more easily. When an object ball is turning over in the direction of the hole, it will slide in a lot easier, especially if it contacts the rail first. Thanks again, Jay

P.S. That ain't physics, that's experience talking. :wink:
I'm certain this is an effect you could demonstrate on your tapes, and maybe already have.
 
Last edited:
jay helfert said:
Dave, these are great tapes you have there! The best of their kind that I've seen. I would recommend them highly to anyone interested in improving their game.
Click to expand...
Thanks Jay. I appreciate that. It means a lot to me coming from you and your wealth of experience.

jay helfert said:
I developed a style of playing years ago, where I would naturally apply outside English on many cut shots, particularly those close to a rail. I found that the use of outside English would not only throw the object ball toward the hole, but it would also open up the pocket, helping it to take the ball more readily.
Click to expand...
One advantage of outside english is that it results in less throw toward the rail (actually, absolutely no throw if "gearing" outside english is used), or it results in throw away from the rail (if more than a "gearing" amount is used). In either case, the OB will be less likely to hit the cushion first, resulting in a "bigger" pocket (except on tables like Valley/Dynamo bar boxes where the pocket is actually "bigger" hitting cushion first at slow to medium speeds).

Also, if running spin is transferred to the OB (by greater-than-"gearing" outside), that would tend to lengthen the rebound off the cushion (but this is a very small effect at shallow angles to the rail).

Some people suggest that inside english is the true "helping" english because it imparts spin to the OB in the direction that helps it enter the pocket (off the far pocket wall).

Bob did some experiments related to "helping english" that he reported in BD not too long ago. The article isn't online yet so I can't link to it, but maybe Bob can elaborate. My recollection was that there was a measurable amount of "help," but it isn't really an important effect practically speaking (... but I could be wrong). Bob?

jay helfert said:
When an object ball is turning over in the direction of the hole, it will slide in a lot easier, especially if it contacts the rail first.
Click to expand...
That is definitely a strong effect (whether there is sidespin on the OB or not), hence the value of "pocket speed." The pocket is much "bigger" if the OB enters rolling (with topspin).

jay helfert said:
P.S. That ain't physics, that's experience talking. :wink:
Click to expand...
The best understanding comes from experience. It's also nice when physics and experience agree (which is usually the case ... assuming the physics and experience are being interpreted correctly).

Best regards,
Dave
 
This is a great thread! Thanks guys! The things I learn the most from AZ came from Dr. Dave webpage and youtube account. But many others have posted and help a lot too! :thumbup:
 
Lucky_Lew66 said:
so this is a joke post then huh, i was going to say the very first one that posted i totally disagreed with all three of his ideas....lol
Click to expand...

Not really a joke, but sort of...created in response to the thread about vegans where I thought AZ can really use a thread about information that can actually help a player improve...

Funny you disagree with those three "ideas" (which were not mine as you have incorrectly stated). They happen to come from one "tons of experience" guy and one former WORLD beater.

Have fun getting better...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top