Interesting Steve. I wouldn't have considered that a good straight pool player would prefer an under-the-rack break over a side-of-the-rack break. I realize that you're referring to one that is set to hit the rack where you want it to and also that is easy to fall on.
I also never considered where it would be ideal to hit the bottom of the rack. Seems like something basic to know, but it has eluded me.
I set the following up just to display where I think the ball would hit the rack, and it appears that it would certainly not hit the 2nd ball in from the end. So if it hits the 1st ball full on or this thickly, you still wouldn't like it?
Bluepepper - look at the below diagram both pages - it will explain why Steve's layout is easier to work with for a behind the stack break ball on the 5 - look at both pages...
Dave, I thought the triangle you were referring to included the break ball. Also, with the triangle you provide, how do you get to your position for the 7 without exceptional cueball control? I think this is the problem. You probably have that control, so it doesn't matter what ball you have before the 7. For some of us, it isn't so easy, and there are easier ways to get to a break ball so we shouldn't use that triangle.
Interesting Steve. I wouldn't have considered that a good straight pool player would prefer an under-the-rack break over a side-of-the-rack break. I realize that you're referring to one that is set to hit the rack where you want it to and also that is easy to fall on.
I also never considered where it would be ideal to hit the bottom of the rack. Seems like something basic to know, but it has eluded me.
I set the following up just to display where I think the ball would hit the rack, and it appears that it would certainly not hit the 2nd ball in from the end. So if it hits the 1st ball full on or this thickly, you still wouldn't like it?
Jeff, maybe my eyes are tricking me, but it looks like there is less space between the lower balls and the triangle line than there is between the upper balls and the triangle line. (You can see it clearly on the 15 ball, which is definitely over the center line.) As such, if the rack were centered properly, you'd hit the corner ball more thinly than you show.
Additionally, the position of the 10 is such that you almost have to land on it with a decent angle. If you get too shallow on it, its inherent weakness begins to show. You would have to create the angle into the stack with just a hard stun, at an almost perpendicular angle. This is usually not desired.
Another way to look at is that behind-the-rack breakshots are very successful when you can use follow. As soon as you have to draw or use a hard stun, they get less reliable.
Here are some diagrams explaining why one ball is more preferable than another:
Behind-the-rack breakshots which are too low and too far outside are not desirable. Even the ones you can hit the rack with, like this 10-ball, are fraught with risk, to use a Gradyism.
Here is another diagram indicating the "sweet spot" for behind-the-rack breakshots. (Obviously there is a symmetrical one on the other side of the rack.) It is really not a very big area. However, as mentioned in another post, if I can find a ball in this spot with a great end-pattern to it, life is good.
Note how the sweet spot does NOT include balls down the middle line - this is really a danger area and usually requires the 3 rails with inside english shot. This is nice in a jam but shouldn't be played for if you have other options.
Dave, I thought the triangle you were referring to included the break ball. Also, with the triangle you provide, how do you get to your position for the 7 without exceptional cueball control? I think this is the problem. You probably have that control, so it doesn't matter what ball you have before the 7. For some of us, it isn't so easy, and there are easier ways to get to a break ball so we shouldn't use that triangle.
Jeff, the triangle holds. Here is one way you can preserve the 7-3-10 triangle (and there are others). 6 pages. It's not drawn perfectly but you get the gist.
There are also numerous ways to start with the 7 and begin the triangle with either the 6 or the 2. Too tired to diagram them, but 7-6-11-2-3-10 is one of them.
Thanks Steve. A lot of great information in those two replies. The triangle had me a bit confused originally because when Dave brought it up in another thread, it included the break ball, key ball, and setup for the key ball. This one doesn't include the break ball, but the key ball, setup for the key ball, and setup for that setup ball. It's more like a triangle with a handle. Either the 10 to the 5 is the handle for the triangle shown or the 7 to the 3 is the handle for the 5,10,3 triangle. So are you looking for a triangle that includes the break ball or no?
Also, I hadn't considered getting on the 7 from that side. Much easier than going for it in the bottom side pocket.
Again, very good info. Thanks for clearing things up.
Just a thought. You could keep going backwards like this, connecting one ball in each triangle to plan out more of your run. A bit much perhaps, but it organizes the balls in groups and links the groups.
When I looked at this layout, the first thing that popped up at me was the 11 ball. That is why I shot the 3 ball first - it was an easy shot to get to that ball.
Here's the lesson -
Say in Bluepepper's layout, your opponent has just missed and it's your shot. When I come to the table and evaluate what is there and what is not there, I look for the balls that serve a purpose - and balls that DO NOT serve a purpose.
To me, that 11 ball is sort of out in the woods - it is not part f my end pattern - and its close to that rail... so shooting the 3 first and getting to it as soon as possible - that goes back to something I learned from John Schmidt - it's a problem - it's actually a straggler - work to get on that ball get rid of that as soon as possible. That is how I see that ball, so I started with the 3 to get rid of the 11 ball and then I enter the contained area around the rack to get on my break ball.
Would I ever go from the 3 to the 5? Not me. I go from the 3 to the 11 - then I try to get inside where those other balls are laying beautifully.
Blackjack,
In your pattern, you opted to take the 3 first, followed by the 11 in the upper right corner. However, to minimize cue ball movement, wouldn't make more sense to play the 11 in the side first?
Blackjack,
In your pattern, you opted to take the 3 first, followed by the 11 in the upper right corner. However, to minimize cue ball movement, wouldn't make more sense to play the 11 in the side first?
I guess I could have gone that way also. I like setting for it straight on because I don't like shooting shots with too much angle this late in the rack. At this point of the rack, I want to be following a definite plan and have a lot of easier shots.
Some these layouts look as if the shooter is having to get back in line due to poor decisions made earlier in the rack - which adds in another element to the solutions. I guess it comes down to how well you solve problems that exist within a problem - you try to do what you're most comfortable with, so I went for the 3 to set up the 11, that way I avoid having the 11 hit one of the side pocket tips (one of the weak areas in my game is blowing easy easy shots like this from time to time) so I worked around it and opted for the longer shot, which was a higher percentage shot for me.
