standard table chart?

M

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
Is there a standard way to determine the position of ball on the table without needing a diagram? If not, I propose something simple like this:

T4o3N2D.png


Positions of balls are simply on an X,Y coordinate starting with 0,0 at the bottom left (as a person would stand at a table breaking) and 40,80 at the opposite corner. This should suffice for any position on the table and is very easy to understand.

For instance if someone says "place CB at 20,40 (center table) and OB at 25,31, you would know precisely how to set this up within a margin of centimeters.

I've seen other ideas like A-F and 0-9, and also a separate number at each diamond intersection, but none of these lend them selves to simple, understandable coordinates down to 1/10th of a diamond.

Thoughts?
 
I like A-E on the short side and 0-80 on the long side.

A.1 x 11 would still be the same as 11xA.1
 
ctyhntr said:
I like A-E on the short side and 0-80 on the long side.

A.1 x 11 would still be the same as 11xA.1
Click to expand...

This does cause a discrepancy because:

A.1
B.1

vs

10.1 (or 11?)
20.1 (or 21?)

The former uses the decimal for 10ths of diamonds, whereas the latter is what?
 
Another way to fix that idea:

A.1, B.1, C.1

and

1.1, 2.1, 3.1 (instead of going by 10s)

then they match, so A-E and 0-8. I like it.
 
Maybe it is complex, but what about counting number of diamonds from the center?

CB: ( 3, 2 ), OB: ( -1.5, 3 )

CB: ( 1, 1.5 ), #3: ( 2, 2.7 ) - positions for the CB and ball #3

Then one can create notation like this:

CB: ( 0, -R + 1in ) - at the center horizontally, 1 inch from the nearest rail

CB: ( 0, R - 1in ) - at the center horizontally, 1 inch from the farthest rail

CB: ( -R + 1, 2 ) - 1 diamond from the left rail, 2 diamonds from the center toward the farthest rail

One can use inches (in), ball sizes, e.g. 1/2B, or diamonds (default).

It also would be interesting to test which (0,0) is more intuitive though, center, nearest left corner or the farthest left corner.
 
rubell said:
Maybe it is complex, but what about counting number of diamonds from the center?

CB: ( 3, 2 ), OB: ( -1.5, 3 )

CB: ( 1, 1.5 ), #3: ( 2, 2.7 ) - positions for the CB and ball #3

Then one can create notation like this:

CB: ( 0, -R + 1in ) - at the center horizontally, 1 inch from the nearest rail

CB: ( 0, R - 1in ) - at the center horizontally, 1 inch from the farthest rail

CB: ( -R + 1, 2 ) - 1 diamond from the left rail, 2 diamonds from the center toward the farthest rail

One can use inches (in), ball sizes, e.g. 1/2B, or diamonds (default).

It also would be interesting to test which (0,0) is more intuitive though, center, nearest left corner or the farthest left corner.
Click to expand...

I thought about making center 0,0 but I think it unnecessarily complicates things with negative numbers thrown into the mix.

The absolute simplest thing to understand looking at coordinates on paper is an X,Y coordinate where 0,0 is the bottom left. It could help to designate Short and Long rails too, so S2.1 and L3.3 would be go along the short rail 2.1 diamonds, and up the Long rail 3.3 diamonds.
 
Last edited:
For me the center is more natural, stresses on the symmetry of the table and allows one easy to transpose a position to a symmetrical one, or rotate the position, say 90 or 180 degrees, without having to draw or write, but I agree that negative numbers might be difficult to understand. So I am not sure if it suites to be a universal system.

Also, additionally to absolute coordinates I think we need a notation that specifies a distance from rails in diamonds, inches, cm or balls. Because sometimes what is important is a distance from the rail, rather than an absolute position.
 
mohrt, I like your diagram and suggestion. It seems like it should be easy to understand and it just make sense. Nice idea!
 
Interesting. Is there any intuitive system how to name pockets?

Example: Starting from 0,0, clockwise, numbers 1-6. Any suggestions?
 
mohrt, I, too, like your approach in post #1. That's probably easier for many people to handle than dealing with negatives from an origin in the center of the table.

As for labeling the pockets, I like rubell's idea of going clockwise from the origin, but I'd prefer letters to numbers -- A through F.

[A tiny point regarding your diagram: It looks like you are centering the numbers on the diamonds. So the 0 (zero) for the long rail should be moved up slightly to center it on the edge of the short-rail cushion. (It looks to be a little low now, whereas the 80 at the top and the 0 and 40 on the bottom rail look to be well centered on the cushion edges.)]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top