Pro side of pocket?

[ShootingArts]

Well, after all of this back and forth I guess I do aim at the pro side.

What I really aim at unless there are other considerations is the center of the area that will pocket the ball. That certainly includes the facing on most shots. I don't consider that trying to get a safety if I miss though, I consider that giving myself the best chance to make the ball.

Hu

 

[enzo]

yeah, i think this concept is more for banks than anything else.

 

[JXMIKE]

My old instructor eric salas taught me about this but i found that if i practice the shot enough then i have to worry about neither.:wink:

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

The pro side of the pocket concept increases the percentage of potting the shot rather than decreasing it. As it happens it also has the added benefit of being more likely to result in a tough leave in the event of a miss.

If you believe this concept reduces your chances because you are "planning" on missing since the shot plan has a defensive (negative) component to it, then I have to imagine you also do not believe in the 2-way shot because that too has a defensive component to it which then should also result in more misses.

One reason utilizing the pro-side of the hole increases your chances of making the shot is one of perspective. Take a shot near the rail to the corner. Say the opening is 2 3/4. Since the ball is 2 1/4", if you aim for the center you only have a margin of error of .25" on either side. Utilizing the pro side you approach the shot with a different mentality. You aim just inside the right facing with that as your cut limit - you will not cut the ball more than that. With that as your cut limit you now have 1/2" margin of error to the other side. You have effectively doubled your margin of error from 1/4" to 1/2". Perhaps more importantly you now have given yourself more chance to use the facing to sink the shot and have reduced the chance of hitting the near rail first and missing.

Professional golfers do this all the time. Rarely do they aim down the middle of the fairway and plan on hitting it straight. The will normally aim down one side or the other and plan on hitting a fade or draw that will curve the ball back to the middle. They effectively double the margin of error by doing so.

Back to pool. Now add the bonus of more likely leaving a tough shot for your opponent if you miss. Pros (nor I for that matter) "plan" on missing. But it is a fact of life that it does happen and using the pro-side improves your odds on the occasions when that happens. Call it a 2-way component if you will.

Having said all that, I would agree that if you don't believe in the concept then it won't do anything for your confidence and probably won't work for you. One does have to buy in to the idea to make it work for them. If you don't I would say that you are better off always aiming for the center. I thought this was basically an accepted concept but after reading some of the posts I can see it's not for everyone. Few things are. :grin-square:

 

[Black-Balled]

I didn't read your explainations, just saw the diagrams......

Don't make it harder than it is... the pro side is the side which offers you the pocket facing.

But it is a shot of billiard type, so there must be a 'pro-side' in 3cushion billiards?

No facing there, so how do you determine 'pro-side' there?

 

[Beware_of_Dawg]

But it is a shot of billiard type, so there must be a 'pro-side' in 3cushion billiards?

No facing there, so how do you determine 'pro-side' there?

Well, I've never played 3cushion. but something tell's me that it will be difficult to shoot on the "pro side" of the pockets when there are no pockets.

 

[CreeDo]

Dogs, you have something backwards or confused.
The side that increases your odds of making the ball does not automatically equal the side that will give you a better result if you miss. Very often they are opposite sides. A basic example would be a sharp cut up the long rail. If you aim for the thin side of the pocket and end up overcutting a bit, the OB bounces straight back down towards the side rail it just came from. That is the safest result if you miss. However the best side to aim for in order to make the ball is the fat side of the pocket... that way if you undercut a hair, it can still hit the long rail just in front of the pocket and slop in.

If you have to pick one or the other, the smart player picks the side that increases his odds of making the ball.

None of this has anything to do with 2-way shots where you can leave the opponent hooked behind a ball if you miss. On those shots you are still focusing on splitting the pocket and 100% making the ball, and it's your cue ball that results in a hook if you miss. Not your object ball.

On the subject of 3C, there's no safe side of the pocket but they very much play to hit the safe side of a ball... let's say after 3 rails, the cue ball is approaching the 2nd object ball at a 45 degree angle and the OB is sitting on a rail. Ideally they will aim not to hit the OB directly in the face, but favoring area between the ball and the rail. That way if it hits the ball first, great. If it misses and hits the rail, it can still bounce up off that rail and make a legal point after 4 rails.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Dogs, you have something backwards or confused.
The side that increases your odds of making the ball does not automatically equal the side that will give you a better result if you miss. Very often they are opposite sides. A basic example would be a sharp cut up the long rail. If you aim for the thin side of the pocket and end up overcutting a bit, the OB bounces straight back down towards the side rail it just came from. That is the safest result if you miss. However the best side to aim for in order to make the ball is the fat side of the pocket... that way if you undercut a hair, it can still hit the long rail just in front of the pocket and slop in.

This is where I guess we disagree. Undercutting the shot and hitting rail first is way more often the kiss of death. You will more frequently miss the facing and at best hit the far point. When the ball hits the point coming off the rail it is traveling away from the pocket and will usually rebound away from the hole or at maybe to the other point where you end up with a rattler. If you play more cut and hit the far point you still have a better chance of holing the shot because of the angle the CB is coming from. Personally for me, for shots along the rail I will always favor the facing rather than the rail.

So I understand what you are saying but I didn't get it backwards from the way I see it.

If you have to pick one or the other, the smart player picks the side that increases his odds of making the ball.

Agreed but we apparently disagree on which side this is. I maintain the side that favors the facing (more cut) is the better side.

None of this has anything to do with 2-way shots where you can leave the opponent hooked behind a ball if you miss. On those shots you are still focusing on splitting the pocket and 100% making the ball, and it's your cue ball that results in a hook if you miss. Not your object ball.

The only point I was making about the two way shot is that there is a defensive component to the shot plan, same as using the pro-side of the pocket, and it was mentioned that because your are thinking about what will happen if you miss you are "planning" to miss and will miss more often. Why are you 100% focused on potting the ball on a two way shot but not on a cut shot that you are aiming to the pro-side? There is a component of both shot plans that include some portion of defensive strategy, but I for one, am 100% focused on making both shots. That was the only point I was making. As far as the object ball hooking versus the cue ball, I don't know how to answer that because I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion (but I can admittedly be dense sometime) :embarrassed2:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Undercutting the shot and hitting rail first is way more often the kiss of death. You will more frequently miss the facing and at best hit the far point.

This isn't true. The rail makes the effective pocket size bigger, and favoring the rail side on the shot is aiming at the center of the target. Overcutting the shot is cheating to one side of the target and makes it more likely you'll hit the point, just like cheating the pocket in any other shot.

Personally for me, for shots along the rail I will always favor the facing rather than the rail.

Your choice, but I think it's the wrong one.

Why are you 100% focused on potting the ball on a two way shot but not on a cut shot that you are aiming to the pro-side? There is a component of both shot plans that include some portion of defensive strategy, but I for one, am 100% focused on making both shots.

A two-way shot is a choice about where to play position, the same as every other shot - it doesn't increase the risk of missing the shot. A "pro side" shot is a choice to cheat the pocket, which does increase the risk of missing the shot. The two aren't the same.

pj
chgo

 

[sjm]

One reason considering the pro side of the pocket, in this instance referring to the side of the pocket offering a better result on a miss, is so important, is that is that it can affect speed selection.

Even a player who always aims at the dead center of the pocket on every shot ought to take note of whether there is a pro side miss in play at all. Some shots can be played in a way that any miss will produc e a defensive result. Other shots are such that a miss will sell out on either side of the pocket.

Finally, there are the shots such that a miss on one side of the pocket will offer a defensive result provided the shot was played at the right speed. The very best players understand this principle and, especially anytime they play something they view as missable, they often select a speed that gives them an extra chance at a good result.

In short, there is far more to this debate than the matter of when, if ever, one should favor one side of the pocket in their aim.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

This isn't true. The rail makes the effective pocket size bigger, and favoring the rail side on the shot is aiming at the center of the target. Overcutting the shot is cheating to one side of the target and makes it more likely you'll hit the point, just like cheating the pocket in any other shot.

How is favoring the facing side of the pocket cheating to one side but favoring the rail side is aiming for the center of the pocket? Either you're aiming for the center of the pocket or your favoring one side or the other.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

How is favoring the facing side of the pocket cheating to one side but favoring the rail side is aiming for the center of the pocket? Either you're aiming for the center of the pocket or your favoring one side or the other.

That was CreeDo's point: when shooting parallel with the rail, the rail (actually the "gutter") acts as a "mirror", making the pocket opening effectively bigger and the center of the "effective" pocket different, like this:



The "effective" pocket opening is the actual pocket opening plus the mirror image of part of the actual opening, and the best target to shoot at isn't the center of the actual pocket opening but the center of this "effective" pocket opening, which is closer to the rail (where the "mirror" is: 1/2 ball's width off the rail).

When you aim at the pocket facing you're "cheating" the "effective" pocket opening, making it more likely that you'll hit the point on that side. For the best chance of pocketing the ball, you should aim to just graze the right side point with the edge of the ball. That way you have the same margin for error on both sides.

The difference between the center of the actual opening and the center of the "effective" opening isn't huge (especially with tight pockets), but it's real.

pj
chgo

P.S. The "effective" opening isn't twice the size of the actual opening because the mirror isn't located right at the rail's edge, but at the "gutter", 1/2 ball's width off the rail's edge. This means that only part of the actual opening is "reflected".

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Beautiful graphics. The end of the points on the forearm are a nice touch. You'd kick my ass at the science fair for sure:thumbup:.

And your illustration proves my point. Compare your best aim line to the actual opening of the pocket. There is more margin of error to the point on the facing side than there is to the point on the rail side. So, you can miss further to the over-cut side and still be inside the pocket opening than you can to the rail side if you undercut it.

Look, whatever works for you. I don't know how else to say it. On this type of shot I've missed so many more balls from under-cutting your best aim line and hitting the rail first than from over-cutting your best aim line and hitting the facing.

Your experience is obviously different so it's all good. You continue to favor the rail before the pocket and I'll keep favoring the facing. :grin-square::thumbup:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Beautiful graphics. The end of the points on the forearm are a nice touch. You'd kick my ass at the science fair for sure.

It's just a screen capture from Virtual Pool 3 with some lines and text added.

Compare your best aim line to the actual opening of the pocket. There is more margin of error to the point on the facing side than there is to the point on the rail side.

Both margins of error are to the point on the left side, and they're the same size. You can hit the rail on the right before the pocket and still miss the point on the left as the ball "banks" into the pocket facing. In fact, you could aim the ball anywhere within the far right red line (aiming into the rail) and still make the shot. That's what the "mirrored" pocket opening means.

pj
chgo

 

[CreeDo]

TAG TEAM DIAGRAMS!

I have a lil rendered pool table thing on my PC too and I almost wanted to bust it out, but was too lazy. Luckily patrick is not.

dpp, I think the main point I wanted to make is that sinking the ball and having a happy miss are 2 different goals, and therefore it makes sense that your aiming point for each of these 2 different goals will often be different. You can't expect them to always be the same, if they are it's just a nice coincidence.

It's not unlike the age old dilemma... "I got too straight. Cinch this ball and settle on a worse leave, or cheat the pocket with force and play for position?" One line of aim increases your odds of making the shot, a different line of aim increases the odds of a happy cue ball position after. The pool gods aren't kind enough to make it so that the same line of aim gives you both better shape and better chances of sinking the ball. Why would they be nice enough to make the best miss result and the best chance of sinking the ball always the same?

The fact that you can hit the long rail on the way in and still make the shot (and in some cases the best place to aim is to barely catch that rail on the way in) is well known and not really debatable but let's pretend it's a matter of opinion and not ironclad fact.

Here's an example that doesn't involve the rail:
Let's say on a tricky thin cut you have an equal chance of overcutting a maximum of an inch, or undercutting an inch. There are 3 possible outcomes... it goes where you aimed, it overcuts, or it undercuts. Now let's say you overthink things and convince yourself that the "pro side" of the pocket is the thin side, since it will bank off the side rail and leave nothing if it misses. Here's why that's bad thinking -

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Patrick,

I get it. I still favor a little more cut and be inside the actual opening of the pocket than favor the undercut and be inside the "effective opening" but outside the actual opening. I guess I think the actual opening is more effective. :smile:

 

[Caromsoft]

I have started to aim to hit the facing on most cut shots. I started doing this after watching countless matches on ESPN and noticing that the pros do this probably 9 out of 10 times on cut shots. Here is a quote from "50 Tips for Better All-Around Pool" in Billiards Digest from one of our members, George Fels

"10. You really should know this one already: Learn to aim your shots to carom off the exposed pocket jaw, not to "split the hole." You'll make more shots and enjoy increased cue-ball options. (The only time you should be aiming for the center of the pocket is when the object ball lies in the "funnel" formed by the extended lines of the two pocket jaws."

My game has gone up a couple of balls as a result of doing this.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

CreeDo,

Good post. :thumbup:

And just to be clear I don't dispute that you can hit rail first and it is still possible the ball will go in (depending of course on several things like speed, english, cut of the pocket, how far from the pocket the contact is, etc.).

And as far as sinking the shot goes (as opposed to considerations about the leave) certainly I would prefer to undercut the shot and take my chances with the rail than to over-cut the shot to the extent that I'm outside the facing. At least with the rail I've got some chance whereas if I over-cut the facing it's got no chance of going in. Agreed.

As far as the shot you diagrammed, I tend to agree with you on shots away from the rail. I too will tend to aim for the center. For me this whole topic of the pro-side comes into play as the shot is more towards the rail and the facing/rail debate becomes more significant.

And while I don't disagree with your analysis of the shot you pictured, you did leave out one outcome that is significant to your discussion: If you undercut it 2" you miss aiming at the center but make it aiming at the pro-side. I guess what I'm saying is the size of the margin of error doesn't really change. What changes is how much of that margin you are deciding to allow to one side or the other of the center.

Having said that I too tend to aim for the center of the pocket on most shots towards the center of the table. I'm not looking to cheat the pocket every stroke.

I also agree with you that sinking the ball and having a happy miss are two different things. And if I'm really concerned about a happy miss, I will probably play a safety. As I said before, for cut shots near the rail I tend to favor the pro-side not for the primary reason of the potentially tougher leave, but rather mainly because in my experience I make the shot more often to that side. To me the potential tough leave is a side benefit if you will.


:wink::grin-square:

 

[CreeDo]

dpp: I guess I can accept that

I didn't show the 2 inch miss because I'm working on the assumption that on the worst day of the shooter's life, he can't miss the ball by that much. If the worst day of his life is a 2 inch miss, then it's the exact same situation: He can overcut really badly by 2 inches or he can undercut really badly by 2 inches. Only one of those 2 options leads to sinking the ball. It'd be cheating to say "let's add the possibility that he can undercut by 2 inches, but we won't ever overcut it by more than 1 inch"

On the other hand, maybe not. Maybe some people have a tendency to over vs. undercut. Like for you, it's not 33% of the time you split the pocket, 33% you over, and 33% you undercut. Maybe you or some other people will split the hole 33%, overcut just 17%, and undercut 50% (ranging from a .5 inch undercut to the occasional really bad 2 inch undercut).

For a shooter like that, I guess aiming to overcut a bit is safe because some issue with mechanics or visualization makes then undercut a lot anyway.

Caromsoft: I hate to say it but I think you might have the spirit of George Fels' quote wrong >_< ...Or maybe I misunderstood what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that on those rail cuts, it's better to favor the outer facing of the pocket, basically you like to aim for the area in patrick's picture that is between the yellow line on the left and the center red line.

But I think the whole point of that quote is to explain to people that the physical opening that you can see out of the corner of your eyes is not the 'whole' pocket, the true 'whole pocket' includes getting some help from the pocket facing. Therefore don't limit your aiming point to strictly between the nipples, aim between whatever two points will allow you to take advantage of that facing to help the ball go in.

There are 2 ways to take advantage of that facing:
- Hit the facing directly
- Slop the ball in off the long rail and then into the same facing

Therefore I think what george would tell you is not to aim for that left-hand facing in patrick's diagram, or even halfway between those 2 yellow lines. He'd tell you to aim at the point labelled 'center of effective pocket'.

In other words, you don't aim to hit a little to the left (towards the facing), your ideal aiming point is actually a little to the right of the facing.

But, going back to my earlier point, maybe people subconsciously 'want' to undercut this ball, so aiming to hit it a little thin will always work for them.

I can believe george's book brought your game up 2 balls, maybe not for this exact reason though.

 

[Caromsoft]

CreeDo:

Yes, on that diagram I would probably be aiming at the "Center of Effective Pocket" line rather than the full on facing itself, and on shots that close to the rail I would guess that most of us would aim somewhere close to that because that is all we can really see of that pocket. Where this has helped me most I think is on those cut shots where I can see the whole pocket to aim at, but the OB is outside the "funnel" that Mr. Fels describes. Before I would aim dead center between the points, no matter what the cut angle, under the assumption that It was bad to go anywhere near the sides of the pocket. Now I aim slightly toward the facing that is more open to me, allowing it to "help" the OB go in.

And yes, you are probably right that I misunderstood Mr. Fels' quote. That's probably why I am not a pro...heck, I was happy to run 14 balls the other day!