run this (66)
- Thread starter terhje
- Start date
I might cut the 2 in right now and try to nudge the 1 or 8 into a good break position. It's pretty much free, provided the cut on the 2 isn't too severe. It's always tough to tell in these diagrams.
If you did get one of them into position, you have perfect key balls on either side (the 11 and the 7).
If you did get one of them into position, you have perfect key balls on either side (the 11 and the 7).
Jimmy M. said:
Exactly. It's almost hard not to bump one of them.
If you wanted a break ball without bumping , you could save the 10 and try to save the 1 or 8 for your last ball and stay in the rack.
The 2 can be used as a breaker but not a great one and not real easy to get on.
With no obvious great break ball, I would want to try to create something immediately with the 1 or 8 so that if it doesn't work out I still have time to formulate a plan "B".
Therefore I would go:
1) 1 ball in the bottom left, nudging the 8 into break position.
2) 9 ball in the top left, coming off the foot rail to leave me some angle on the 2 ball.
3) 2 ball in the bottom left, coming off the foot rail for the 12 in the same corner.
4) 12 in the corner & bring the CB to a line for the 11 straight in the top side pocket.
5) Depending on my angle the three balls in the middle of the table can be plucked off with any of them leaving a fairly good break shot. But my plan would be to go 11 in the top side, stop. 7 in the low side with stun, and 10 in the top right corner with stop or perhaps a little draw.
Therefore I would go:
1) 1 ball in the bottom left, nudging the 8 into break position.
2) 9 ball in the top left, coming off the foot rail to leave me some angle on the 2 ball.
3) 2 ball in the bottom left, coming off the foot rail for the 12 in the same corner.
4) 12 in the corner & bring the CB to a line for the 11 straight in the top side pocket.
5) Depending on my angle the three balls in the middle of the table can be plucked off with any of them leaving a fairly good break shot. But my plan would be to go 11 in the top side, stop. 7 in the low side with stun, and 10 in the top right corner with stop or perhaps a little draw.
i was thinking of nuding the 1-8 from another angle. using the 12.
if the nudge would go terrible.. i still got the 11-1 to get on the 2 for the break ball.
if the nudge would go terrible.. i still got the 11-1 to get on the 2 for the break ball.
One suggestion on the pattern shown. You use two cushions to get from the 2 to the 8. If you are off a little on that long path, getting on the key ball becomes tricky. Two alternatives that moves the cue ball only a little on the 2-ball shot is to play the 8 in the side or the head pocket.terhje said:
terhje said:
I wouldn't go that route for 2 reasons. First, you're shooting off viable key balls (assuming you create something with the 1 or 8) and/or break balls (the 7 isn't great, but nothing is great here unless you create it, and it does set up for an easy 2-railer into the bottom of the stack - even the 10 works if you play for a pattern where you stop the cue ball in the rack) that you may need since there are no obvious great options. Second, once you shoot the 12 and go into the balls, assuming you're going into them at a speed to try to manufacture a break ball, you do run the risk of hitting the 8 dead square and freezing to the 1.
Okay, maybe 3 reasons; The last reason is that, if I planned on trying to bump some balls around, I'd rather do it now instead of shooting off 3 more balls first. If you bump into the balls when there's only 4 balls left, and things don't turn out well, you won't have many options from there.
jmo
Last edited:
Jimmy M. said:
I second everything Jimmy wrote here. Was going to make a post myself but now don't have to!
You lose a ton of equity when you shoot off a few "good" balls in the hopes of taking one last chance to manufacture something. You'd better be right about the theory, and you better get it right in execution. Nudging something off the 12 here, while not lunacy, is in no way guaranteed (either in the theory or in the execution). You simply have to come up with something else.
- Steve
Last edited:
Jimmy M. said:
ty for the feedback. I see what you guys mean.
I dont really like breaking with a ball like the 7. but yes, it could be good to save it.
for a keyball it dont do much good, since its hard to make a good breakball on that side of the table.
I agree that bumping of the 12 is alittle risky. and therfore not the best to remove the 7.
So I chanced my plan alittle. im still looking at the 7 and 10 as "overweight".
this way you have good control on bumping the 1 out. and shouldnt be to hard to get the right angle on the 8. what you think?
Last edited:
terjhe,
It is from situations such as this that we will learn the most.
This is how I look at this situation, sort of an inside look into my logic (or lack thereof):
If I need to bump out a break ball, I am going to try to find the easiest, most effective and most efficient way to accomplish that.
My mission then becomes getting the cue ball in a position to pocket the 1 in the corner and gently tapping the 8 out. To do so, I need to find a pattern that will get my cue ball in the proper position. In the original diagram, the cue ball is already in position to do that, with either the 9 or 12 as my insurance ball.
All I have to do is pocket the 1 and bump the 8 out of the triangle (as Stevekur1 said in his post).
Like others have already posted, if you use the 12 to bump it out as it was diagrammed, you have too many factors to consider, and chances are that you will either miss the balls, or hit them on the wrong side. I would avoid that altogether - and if I wasn't confident about bumping out the 8, I would settle for the 2 ball as my break ball before I would consider using the 12 to bump out anything.
Its all about minimizing movement. Keep it simple. Ensure that every move that you make is efficient and effective and easily executed.
In John Schmidt's 245, I think he shoots 1 or 2 shots that are out of his comfort zone. The other 243 shots are rather simple.
In Danny Harriman's 280 ball run, you see the same thing. Danny shoots one cross side bank shot (that I would have never considered or made in a million years) but the other 279 shots that he makes are really not that difficult at all.
These guys have the ability, foresight, and knowledge to run the proper patterns and keep things within the realm of simplicity. Neither of them are going to go out of their comfort zone, and everything that they do and everything they shoot is designed to keep them in that comfort zone.
A long time ago I was taught that when bumping a ball out, always count how many factors you have to consider when executing the shot, and always go with the option that has the least amount of factors.
Option 1 - use the 12 ball
Factor 1 - pocket the 11
Factor 2 - get perfect position on the 10 in the corner
Factor 3 - pocket the 10 in the corner
Factor 4 - draw back for the perfect angle on the 12
Factor 5 - pocket the 12 ball
Factor 6 - come off the rail perfectly
Factor 7 - hit the 8
Factor 8 - have the cue ball kiss off the 8
Factor 9 - after kissing the 8, have the cue ball tap the 1 perfectly
Factor 10 - after all of that, have another shot
There is just too much to consider and just too much that can go wrong. As Steve Lipsky said, you have invested in pocketing a few well positioned balls that are riding on the perfect execution of a low percentage shot. It is doubtful that you will be overjoyed about the return on that investment.
Let's look at the shot Stevekur1 suggested:
Option 2 - Pocket the 1 and tap out the 8
Factor 1 - Pocket the 1
Factor 2 - tap the 8
Factor 3 - get a shot on the 12 or the 9 afterwards
Looking at option 1, you can see there are too many things to control. A lot of those factors you can't control - or you will forget to control during the execution. Worrying about all of those factors will burn up too much mental energy. Why burn up all of that energy for a strategy that isn't wise, nor is it likely to work out the way you wanted it to?
In option 2, you're keeping things simple.
This conserves energy and it is more efficient. Even if the 8 doesn't pop out the way you want it to, it's likely to go in a general area to where you will at least have something - and you have a few key balls options also (7,10 or 12).
Aftermath
The most important thing, is that afterwards, you have still have many options available to you. You can use the 8 (which will be low, but it is something to work with) or you can try to set up a pattern to use the 2 ball, which really isn't a bad option if you get on it correctly.
What I like about this option is the 11-7 end pattern that is already there for me. I really don't have to do anything special to fall on that, and the 7 works as a perfect stop shot to develop a good angle for the low break ball.
That's an example of how my mind works within my comfort zone - this is a great thread, and there is a lot to learn from this situation.
It is from situations such as this that we will learn the most.
This is how I look at this situation, sort of an inside look into my logic (or lack thereof):
If I need to bump out a break ball, I am going to try to find the easiest, most effective and most efficient way to accomplish that.
My mission then becomes getting the cue ball in a position to pocket the 1 in the corner and gently tapping the 8 out. To do so, I need to find a pattern that will get my cue ball in the proper position. In the original diagram, the cue ball is already in position to do that, with either the 9 or 12 as my insurance ball.
All I have to do is pocket the 1 and bump the 8 out of the triangle (as Stevekur1 said in his post).
Like others have already posted, if you use the 12 to bump it out as it was diagrammed, you have too many factors to consider, and chances are that you will either miss the balls, or hit them on the wrong side. I would avoid that altogether - and if I wasn't confident about bumping out the 8, I would settle for the 2 ball as my break ball before I would consider using the 12 to bump out anything.
Its all about minimizing movement. Keep it simple. Ensure that every move that you make is efficient and effective and easily executed.
In John Schmidt's 245, I think he shoots 1 or 2 shots that are out of his comfort zone. The other 243 shots are rather simple.
In Danny Harriman's 280 ball run, you see the same thing. Danny shoots one cross side bank shot (that I would have never considered or made in a million years) but the other 279 shots that he makes are really not that difficult at all.
These guys have the ability, foresight, and knowledge to run the proper patterns and keep things within the realm of simplicity. Neither of them are going to go out of their comfort zone, and everything that they do and everything they shoot is designed to keep them in that comfort zone.
A long time ago I was taught that when bumping a ball out, always count how many factors you have to consider when executing the shot, and always go with the option that has the least amount of factors.
Option 1 - use the 12 ball
Factor 1 - pocket the 11
Factor 2 - get perfect position on the 10 in the corner
Factor 3 - pocket the 10 in the corner
Factor 4 - draw back for the perfect angle on the 12
Factor 5 - pocket the 12 ball
Factor 6 - come off the rail perfectly
Factor 7 - hit the 8
Factor 8 - have the cue ball kiss off the 8
Factor 9 - after kissing the 8, have the cue ball tap the 1 perfectly
Factor 10 - after all of that, have another shot
There is just too much to consider and just too much that can go wrong. As Steve Lipsky said, you have invested in pocketing a few well positioned balls that are riding on the perfect execution of a low percentage shot. It is doubtful that you will be overjoyed about the return on that investment.
Let's look at the shot Stevekur1 suggested:
Option 2 - Pocket the 1 and tap out the 8
Factor 1 - Pocket the 1
Factor 2 - tap the 8
Factor 3 - get a shot on the 12 or the 9 afterwards
Looking at option 1, you can see there are too many things to control. A lot of those factors you can't control - or you will forget to control during the execution. Worrying about all of those factors will burn up too much mental energy. Why burn up all of that energy for a strategy that isn't wise, nor is it likely to work out the way you wanted it to?
In option 2, you're keeping things simple.
This conserves energy and it is more efficient. Even if the 8 doesn't pop out the way you want it to, it's likely to go in a general area to where you will at least have something - and you have a few key balls options also (7,10 or 12).
Aftermath
The most important thing, is that afterwards, you have still have many options available to you. You can use the 8 (which will be low, but it is something to work with) or you can try to set up a pattern to use the 2 ball, which really isn't a bad option if you get on it correctly.
What I like about this option is the 11-7 end pattern that is already there for me. I really don't have to do anything special to fall on that, and the 7 works as a perfect stop shot to develop a good angle for the low break ball.
That's an example of how my mind works within my comfort zone - this is a great thread, and there is a lot to learn from this situation.
Last edited:
thx Blackjack. i appreciate it!
I didnt think i would be able to hit the 8 full enuf to bump it out. its sometimes hard to see on this diagrams. but if it should go, i totaly agree with you.
but if not. i kinda like my last solution. bumping the 1 out off the 8.
maby anoter alternativ for the first shot is playing the 7 and going for position for the 10 in the low right corner. maby easyer to get right angle on the 10 to get straighter on the 12.
blackjack.
what do you think about the table if you cant hit the 8 full enuf to get it out. break of 7 or what?
I didnt think i would be able to hit the 8 full enuf to bump it out. its sometimes hard to see on this diagrams. but if it should go, i totaly agree with you.
but if not. i kinda like my last solution. bumping the 1 out off the 8.
maby anoter alternativ for the first shot is playing the 7 and going for position for the 10 in the low right corner. maby easyer to get right angle on the 10 to get straighter on the 12.
blackjack.
what do you think about the table if you cant hit the 8 full enuf to get it out. break of 7 or what?
Last edited: