Run This (31)
- Thread starter CueAndMe
- Start date
You all losing interest?
I don't like the last shot on this one, but it's what I ended up with. For some reason I can't even picture how to pull the shot off. What spin and speed to use if I were at the table. I don't know if it's possible the way I pictured it.
I don't like the last shot on this one, but it's what I ended up with. For some reason I can't even picture how to pull the shot off. What spin and speed to use if I were at the table. I don't know if it's possible the way I pictured it.
The challenge as I see it is to come up with patterns that introduce new problems and solutions.bluepepper said:
As for your last shot, you should have gotten a larger cut angle or left the cue ball slightly on the other side of the key ball. With a larger cut angle -- like 30 degrees -- it is easier and a lot more predictable to move the cue ball around the cushions. If you had played the set-up shot with less draw, you could have left yourself a no-cushion draw shot for position.
But the correct key ball for the six break has to be the 2. 3-9-8-4-5-1-7-2 and there is no problem with the key ball or the set-up. The only shot in which the cue ball needs to move more than a diamond after hitting the object ball is 3.
Jeff - I am going to assume that you can see the 6 past the 8. If you use some outside english I think you can make the 6 in the corner. The Cue Table "thick" lines seems to indicate that this shot is makeable. If so, here is my sequence:
i like going 5 drawing the cue ball above the 2 for shape on the 4 and trying to get shape for the 8 in the side if you come up short you have the 9 down table still. that should be the only problem in this rack. the 2 up table aren't a big deal because the 1 makes the 7 easy to fall on
If you can't shoot the 6 first, here's what I would do:
Jeff - in looking at some of your solutions I think you tend to shoot table length shots more than you need to. Do you play on an 8 foot table? In your sequence in this layout, you shoot the 8 uptable, and then shoot a pretty tough shot on the 3. I shoot the same shot on the 3, but the cue ball is just over a diamond length from the 3, and it should be pretty easy to get straight in on the 3.
The reason I'm giving you a hard time about this is because I believe these kinds of shots should be thought of as last options. Now in these very wide open table layouts, you might have to shoot more of them. However I'm pretty comfortable in being able to execute all the shots in my sequence, and I have reasonable "plan B's" if I get a little out of line.
When I moved back to NJ from Houston, my father kept telling me my patterns looked more like a 9 ball player than 14.1. (I was playing more 9 ball then). I wasn't fully sure what he meant, but 5 or 10 years later I understand the difference.
I've mentioned this before, maybe not in this forum, but it is an observation I made after a session with Jim Rempe some time ago. We ran through through some racks, and he told me before each shot what he would do and why, and then I'd shoot it. What I learned what that he was much more willing to go for a more difficult cue ball position and end up with a simple object ball, rather than taking a simple position route have having to shoot a more difficult object ball. Of course what looks like difficult position to one person is simple to another once you understand where the cue ball is going more accurately. (As a side note, of course, the goal is to have easy position plays AND easy object balls, but you can't always have both).
Anyway, not to beat a dead horse, but I thought you might find that perspective from a classic 14.1 player interesting. It would be great if some of the top guns in here would comment when they get back in town...oh wait, Bob Jewett is here. Maybe he'll have a different perspective...
Jeff - in looking at some of your solutions I think you tend to shoot table length shots more than you need to. Do you play on an 8 foot table? In your sequence in this layout, you shoot the 8 uptable, and then shoot a pretty tough shot on the 3. I shoot the same shot on the 3, but the cue ball is just over a diamond length from the 3, and it should be pretty easy to get straight in on the 3.
The reason I'm giving you a hard time about this is because I believe these kinds of shots should be thought of as last options. Now in these very wide open table layouts, you might have to shoot more of them. However I'm pretty comfortable in being able to execute all the shots in my sequence, and I have reasonable "plan B's" if I get a little out of line.
When I moved back to NJ from Houston, my father kept telling me my patterns looked more like a 9 ball player than 14.1. (I was playing more 9 ball then). I wasn't fully sure what he meant, but 5 or 10 years later I understand the difference.
I've mentioned this before, maybe not in this forum, but it is an observation I made after a session with Jim Rempe some time ago. We ran through through some racks, and he told me before each shot what he would do and why, and then I'd shoot it. What I learned what that he was much more willing to go for a more difficult cue ball position and end up with a simple object ball, rather than taking a simple position route have having to shoot a more difficult object ball. Of course what looks like difficult position to one person is simple to another once you understand where the cue ball is going more accurately. (As a side note, of course, the goal is to have easy position plays AND easy object balls, but you can't always have both).
Anyway, not to beat a dead horse, but I thought you might find that perspective from a classic 14.1 player interesting. It would be great if some of the top guns in here would comment when they get back in town...oh wait, Bob Jewett is here. Maybe he'll have a different perspective...
Bob Jewett said:
Thanks for the suggestion on the cut angle.
I would certainly agree that one of the challenges is to come up with new problems and solutions. I may be running dry creatively, so any suggestions are welcome.
When we first started this series, besides coming up with new challenges, I thought that replying with as many legitimate ways of running out as can be found might lead us down paths we never would have explored. My second run here is an example. It's certainly not elegant, and my first solution is probably the way I would have gone at the table, but it's workable. And what's great about it is it led to your suggestion about cut angles and Dan's suggestion to cut down my distances.
Good stuff.
Dan White said:
Thanks for the advice Dan. I guess the reason I end up long on a lot of shots is that my first priority is the proper angle on the shot, and I try to choose a position that allows for error. When I do these sequences I try to imagine myself at the table, and true if I had Rempe's control I wouldn't stay so long on some shots, but I do so in order to insure against a bad angle and the inevitable struggle for the next position that it would cause.
Also, on the cuetable sequences, I try to be as realistic as possible about where the ball could end up rather than where I want it to end up. So you'll often see me choosing patterns that don't require a lot of cueball control. That I think is the most important thing about doing these virtual runs. We should assume that we don't have perfect cueball control on these, because it forces us to come up with better patterns.
You may be right about me taking shots that are too long and difficult. I'll try a little harder to pick better patterns. If you watch the pros play, they do take a lot of these shots up table, and not even when absolutely necessary. Some of them are just comfortable shots. Although here I am hypocritically comparing my shotmaking to the pros, when I just said we shouldn't choose patterns that force perfect cueball control. So I suppose we should be choosing the easiest shots we can. We all choose shots and positions that we're comfortable with. I guess I'm comfortable with certain uptable shots. But again, I will try to avoid them whenever possible.
Thanks
I am sure this is not the best approach by far, but when I looked at this layout and saw everyone's approach, I thought I would try something a little different and use the 2 in the side as the BB. Unconventional I am sure, but a different approach none the less. Of course my way of thinking also has me stuck on 18 LOL.
Last edited:
Im with Blackjack on the 8 ball as the breakball. I'm not sure exactly how in real life I'd go.
I do know that if it were a TV match, after I cleared the table the commentator would say .... "Whew, well ... he got through that rack, but I'm not sure if I'da done it that way!"
I do know that if it were a TV match, after I cleared the table the commentator would say .... "Whew, well ... he got through that rack, but I'm not sure if I'da done it that way!"