Flakeandrun
Well-known member
Also, I am curious how Chinese-8 table would measure up on here 

Measured these up last night, as the boss in the store I play at was quite interested to know.
Aileex table (think it's a Taiwanese brand) - 9', 4 1/8", 9/16", 1.5" (1.37)
Also, have access to a Diamond in the same store - 9', 4", 1/4", 1 1/8" (1.41)
I get confused with inches, but pretty sure these are correct (used a foreign tape measure - as Chinese measuring equipment can sometime use their old version of inches).
These are the two tables I play on regularly. I play on the Aileex free of charge (pay 10% rate to play on the diamond - which I will choose if it's not already occupied - they have about 20 Aileex tables (4 of which are like this, the others are 'easier') and 4 Diamonds (1 is this spec the others are 'easier'))
Also, I am curious how Chinese-8 table would measure up on here![]()
Thank you for posting. I've added the info to the list.
Those are really tough tables!
I like this, but I think it could involve some sort of side pocket measurement addition. Like weigh it 1/3 the value and have the corner pocket be 2/3. Most side pockets are a half inch larger than the corners but I’ve known tables to have tighter sides than the corners and it absolutely affected the play, and I don’t think it would be too hard to measure in additionCalculate your Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) to determine how tough it plays relative to other tables. Only three pocket measurements are required, and you can use the TDF calculator or TDF spreadsheet to get your results.
username - table size, pocket mouth size, mouth-throat difference, shelf depth - TDF (table description)
Side Pocket - 10', 4 1/4", 1 1/4", 2 1/4" - 1.48 (1920s Brunswick)
CaptiveBred - 10', 4 1/8", >143.5°, 1 1/2" - 1.43 (Brunswick Anniversary)
Flakeandrun - 9', 4", 1/4", 1 1/8" - 1.41 (Diamond)
Flakeandrun - 9', 4 1/8", 9/16", 1.5" - 1.37 (Aileex)
Bob Dixon - 9', 4", 145°, 1 5/8" - 1.37 (Diamond)
gregcantrall - 10', 4", 5/8", 1 1/2" - 1.31 (Diamond)
SKILLZELITE - 9', 4 1/8", 144°, 1.5" - 1.30 (GC3)
Ricky Sy - 9', 3 3/4", 1/4", 5/8" - 1.25 (money table)
TEAM SLO - 9', 3.85", 0.6", 1.5" - 1.24 (Diamond)
acedonkeyace - 9", 4", 1/2", 2" - 1.22 (gamble table)
ChrisinNC - 10', 4 1/4", 11/16", 1 5/16" - 1.22 (Gabriel Sentinel)
8cree - 9", 4.125", 0.813", 1.562" - 1.21 (Diamond)
Bonus Ball - 9', 3 7/8", 1/8", 3/4" - 1.19 (Bonus Ball table)
Marc Vidal - 9', 4 1/8", 13/16", 1" - 1.18 (Brunswick Tournament)
chevybob20 - 9', 4 1/8", 7/8", 1" - 1.18 (Centennial)
Baxter - 9', 4 1/4", 143°, 1 1/8" - 1.18 (AMF Grand Prix)
Qaddiction - 9', 4 1/8", 3/4", 1 3/8" - 1.16 (Diamond)
angluse - 8'+, 3 13/16", 9/16", 7/8" - 1.16 (1935 Brunswick Challenger)
Tom Cruise - 9', 4", 1/8", 1 3/8" - 1.15 (Golden West)
ChrisinNC - 10', 4 3/8", 11/16", 1 5/16" - 1.15 (Gabriel Sentinel)
rexus31 - 9', 4", 3/8", 1" - 1.15 (1950s AMF)
FatBoy - 9', 4", 1/4", 1" - 1.14 (GC)
TATE - 9', 4", 1/4", 7/8" - 1.14 (GC)
Phreaticus - 9’, 4.25”, 0.76”, 1.30" - 1.14 (GC6 Tournament Edition)
Mikjary - 9', 4", 9/16", 1 5/16" - 1.13 (Brunswick Centurion)
ChrisinNC - 9', 4 1/8", 5/8", 1 1/4" - 1.13 (Gabriel Signature)
rexus31 - 9', 4.125", 0.505", 1.125" - 1.12 (GC)
Cardigan Kid - 10', 4.5", 0.88", 1.5" - 1.12 (GC)
Ralph Kramden - 9', 4 5/16", 1", 1 3/4" - 1.12 (GC)
pocket - 9', 4 3/16", 7/16", 1 7/8" - 1.12 (unknown)
Justaneng - 8', 4", 7/8", 1 1/2" - 1.12 (Olhausen)
ShaneVanNothin - 9', 4 1/4", 1", 2" - 1.10 (Brunswick)
Neil - 7':0.85, 4 1/8", 1 1/4", 1 3/8" - 1.10 (Valley)
MahnaMahna - 10', 5 1/2", 2", 2 1/2" - 1.09 (converted from snooker table)
tjlmbklr - 8'+, 4", 141°, 1 1/4" - 1.09 (unknown)
grobbs - 9', 4 1/4", 0.625", 1.5" - 1.09 (GC2)
Cardigan Kid - 9', 4 1/4", 0.45", 1 5/16" - 1.08 (GC2)
bbb - 9', 4 1/4", 5/8", 1" - 1.08 (GC)
kanzzo - 9', 4 1/4", 5/8", 1" - 1.08 (GC5)
MSchaffer - 9', 4 7/16, 15/16", 1 5/8" - 1.07 (GC2)
cigardave - 9', 4 1/2", 1", 1 3/4" - 1.07 (Diamond)
peppersauce - 9', 4 1/4", 3/8", 1 1/4" - 1.06 (GC3)
Side Pocket - 10', 4 7/8", 1", 1 1/2" - 1.05 (1920s Brunswick)
Pool Hustler - 9', 4 1/4", 1/4", 15/16" - 1.05 (GC)
IbeAnEngineer - 9', 4.5", 1.0", 1.5" - 1.05 (GC)
JC - 9', 4 7/16", 143°, 1 3/8" - 1.05 (GC3
Banger - 9', 4 1/2", 7/8", 1 3/4" - 1.04 (GC3)
pw98 - 8.5', 4.25", 0.75", 1.0" - 1.04 (custom)
Jimmorrison - 7', 3 7/8", 7/16", 3/4" - 1.03 (Ruxton)
SloMoHolic - 9', 4 1/2", 7/8", 1 3/8" - 1.02 (Diamond)
jondrums - 9', 11.9cm, 2.5cm, 4.2cm - 1.02 (Diamond)
pw98 - 10', 5.0", 1.0", 1.0" - 1.02 (Brunswick Regent)
CoreyClark - 9', 5", 1", 2 1/8" - 1.02 (GC)
bignick31985 - 9', 4 3/8", 0.475", 1.5" - 1.01 (GC4)
"standard" table - 9', 4 7/16", 9/16", 1 5/8" - 1.00 (average-difficulty table)
DeadStick - 9', 4.5", 0.625", 1.75" - 1.00 (1958 Brunswick Centennial)
BRKNRUN - 9', 4.3", 0.4", 1.5" - 1.00 (GC1)
Tennesseejoe- 9', 4.25", 1/4", 1 3/8" - 1.00 (1912 Brunswick Saratoga)
coxcol15 - 7', 4.25", 1", 1.25" - 1.00 (Valley)
Goldball - 8', 12.2cm, 4cm, 5.4cm - 1.00 (Heiron & Smith)
pw98 - 8.5', 4.25", 0.5", 0.75" - 0.99 (Gandy Miss America)
dr_dave - 9', 5", 1 1/8", 1.5" - 0.99 (Olhausen)
dr_dave - 9', 5", 1 1/8", 1 3/8" - 0.99 (GC2)
Call_me_Tom - 7', 4", 1/2", 1" - 0.99 (Valley)
MVPCues - 9', 4 1/2", 1/2", 1 5/8" - 0.98 (1902 Brunswick Jefferson)
oldschool1478 - 9', 4 1/2", 0.625", 1.5" - 0.98 (Diamond)
freds - 8'+, 4.9", 1.1", 1.8" - 0.98 (Gandy Big G)
cjr3559 - 9', 4 1/2", 3/4", 1 1/4" - 0.97 (GC5 - Tournament)
Cardigan Kid - 9', 4 1/2", 3/4", 1 1/16" - 0.97 (GC3)
Korsakoff - 9', 4 3/4", 3/4", 1 3/4" - 0.97 (Diamond Paragon)
wigglybridge - 9', 4 1/2", 5/8", 1 1/2" - 0.98 (rebuilt GC)
westcoast - 7', 4", 0", 1.5" - 0.98 (Valley)
BryanB - 9', 4 1/2"0, 3/4", 1 1/4" - 0.97 (1931 Brunswick)
Poolmanis - 9', 10.9cm, 1cm, 3.1cm - 0.97 (SAM)
Vahmurka - 9', 12.5cm, 20mm, 45mm - 0.97 (Brunswick Metro)
mamics - 9', 4 11/16", 143°, 1 3/16" - 0.97 (no-name)
Will Maynard - 9', 4 3/4", 1", 3/4" - 0.97 (1904 Brunswick Narragansett)
dzcues - 9', 4 7/8", 11/16", 1 15/16" - 0.96 (Diamond)
follownoone - 4.75", 0.75", 1.5" - 0.95 (GC4)
jviss - 9’, 4.98”, 0.76”, 1.625” - 0.95 (GC)
Hercus - 9’, 5”, 1", 1.5” - 0.95 (Brunswick Avalon II)
logical - 9', 5", 7/8", 1 3/4" - 0.95 (GC2)
dzcues - 9', 5", 15/16", 1 1/2" - 0.95 (Gandy Big G)
Sloppy Pockets - 8'+, 5", 1 1/8", 1 3/4" - 0.95 (A.E. Schmidt)
44Runner - 8', 4 3/8", 3/4", 1" - 0.94 (Diamond)
jtaylor-996 - 8'+, 4.5", 0.5", 1.625" - 0.93 (Diamond)
Corwyn_8 - 9', 4 3/4", 1 3/4", 1 1/4" - 0.92 (Gandy Winchester)
Jedco - 9', 4 3/4", 3/4", 1 1/4" - 0.91 (GC)
beetle - 9', 13.1cm, 2.2cm, 4.3cm - 0.91 (Olhausen York)
frigopie - 9', 11.5cm, 138.7°, 3.5cm - 0.91 (Eurotour Dynamic III)
12squared - 9', 4 7/8", 3/4", 1 1/2" - 0.91 (GC)
iusedtoberich - 9', 5 1/8", 1":, 1 1/2" - 0.90 (GC)
MSchaffer - 9', 5 1/8", 3/4", 1 3/4" - 0.89 (GC2)
mfinkelstein3 - 9', 5 1/8", 7/8", 1 1/2" - 0.88 (GC3)
StraightPoolIU - 9', 4 7/8", 3/4", 1 1/4" - 0.88 (GC)
Vahmurka - 9', 5 1/8", 7/8", 1 1/2" - 0.88 (GC)
Dopc - 8', 4 1/2", 3/4", 1 1/4" - 0.87 (Connelly)
SloMoHolic - 8', 4 3/4", 3/4", 1 5/8" - 0.87 (Brunswick Medalist)
RobMan - 9', 5", 3/4", 1.5" - 0.86 (GC)
sniggihs - 7', 4 1/2", 5/8", 1 3/4" - 0.85 (Diamond)
SloMoHolic - 8'+, 4 7/8", 7/8", 1 1/4" - 0.85 (Brunswick Medalist)
buckshotshoey - 8', 4 3/4", 3/4", 1 1/2" - 0.85 (American Heritage)
nateobot - 7', 4 3/8", 1/2", 1 3/4" - 0.85 (custom)
angluse - 8'+, 4 5/8", 7/16", 1 3/16" - 0.84 (1935 Brunswick Challenger)
dr_dave - 8', 4 3/4", 5/8", 1 3/8" - 0.84 (Connelly)
BRussell - 8', 5", 13/16", 1 1/2" - 0.83 (Olhausen)
Lovepool - 9', 13cm, 1cm, 3.5cm - 0.82 (home)
jtaylor996 - 7', 5 1/8", 146°, 1.51" - 0.82 (Legacy)
kanzzo - 9', 5 1/8", 139°, 1 1/4" - 0.80 ("Legends of Pocket Billiards" GC3)
Mooneye - 7', 4 7/8", 3/4", 1 5/8" - 0.79 (Brunswick Ranchero)
dzcues - 7', 4 1/2", 0", 1/2" - 0.77 (Valley)
dr_dave - 7', 4 1/2", 0", 3/4" - 0.77 (Valley)
SloMoHolic - 6', 4 1/2", 0", 5/8" - 0.77 (Valley)
I like this, but I think it could involve some sort of side pocket measurement addition. Like weigh it 1/3 the value and have the corner pocket be 2/3. Most side pockets are a half inch larger than the corners but I’ve known tables to have tighter sides than the corners and it absolutely affected the play, and I don’t think it would be too hard to measure in addition
This test gives a reasonable way to approximate the relative difficulty of different tables for potting a ball, as if only the cue ball and object ball are on the table. It does assume the table is flat across its entire surface and level, although real-world tables are often not flat or not level or both.
What the test does not do is estimate how difficult a given game is to play on a given table. I think, especially for 8-ball, but also 9-ball and 10-ball, a larger table's increased average difficulty in making a shot (TDF) is somewhat countered by the greater likelihood you will get an unobstructed shot, because the table is less crowded, making it easier or more likely to get cue ball (and object ball, when necessary) position for the next shot to be makeable.
Assume you have a shot-making machine of 100% accuracy when there is a clear, no-bank/kick/carom/masse/swerve shot (where TDF applies). So TDF becomes irrelevant with this assumption. To win after a dry break at 8, 9 and 10 ball, for a main path win you have to pocket 8, 9, or 10 balls. Since any clear shot will be made with the shot-making machine, the question becomes: what is the relative difficulty (or, inversely, likelihood) of getting the cue ball in position for the next clear shot?
I think estimating the difficulty of getting shape (getting a clear shot) would involve the area of the playing surface, the average area of the object balls projected on the table (varies for 8-ball), and the area of the average number of non-object balls on the table. Here, larger tables make the game easier.
Specific example: what is the relative difficulty of running out in 8-ball on 6', 7', 8', 9', and 10' tables, including both TDF and difficulty in getting shape? I suspect it is easiest on the 8', and maybe 9', tables, and hardest on the 6'.
Bar box player?This test gives a reasonable way to approximate the relative difficulty of different tables for potting a ball, as if only the cue ball and object ball are on the table. It does assume the table is flat across its entire surface and level, although real-world tables are often not flat or not level or both.
What the test does not do is estimate how difficult a given game is to play on a given table. I think, especially for 8-ball, but also 9-ball and 10-ball, a larger table's increased average difficulty in making a shot (TDF) is somewhat countered by the greater likelihood you will get an unobstructed shot, because the table is less crowded, making it easier or more likely to get cue ball (and object ball, when necessary) position for the next shot to be makeable.
Assume you have a shot-making machine of 100% accuracy when there is a clear, no-bank/kick/carom/masse/swerve shot (where TDF applies). So TDF becomes irrelevant with this assumption. To win after a dry break at 8, 9 and 10 ball, for a main path win you have to pocket 8, 9, or 10 balls. Since any clear shot will be made with the shot-making machine, the question becomes: what is the relative difficulty (or, inversely, likelihood) of getting the cue ball in position for the next clear shot?
I think estimating the difficulty of getting shape (getting a clear shot) would involve the area of the playing surface, the average area of the object balls projected on the table (varies for 8-ball), and the area of the average number of non-object balls on the table. Here, larger tables make the game easier.
Specific example: what is the relative difficulty of running out in 8-ball on 6', 7', 8', 9', and 10' tables, including both TDF and difficulty in getting shape? I suspect it is easiest on the 8', and maybe 9', tables, and hardest on the 6'.
No, 8' Diamond Professional at home, mostly. Certainly a better table than I am at playing on it.Bar box player?
2004 Brunswick Manchester II, 8 foot, 5", 13/16", 1 1/4", 0.81 (which is why I rock at home)
Jaden S - 9’, 4 1/4”, 3/4”, 1 3/8” - 1.11 (Olhausen)
I now know there is one part that is affecting table toughness. It is pocket liner rubber hardness. Softer ones make pocket play easier and hard ones tougher. Just my 2 cents![]()