Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) for measuring table "toughness"

[dr_dave]

6ft table, 3.55" corner pockets, .3" MTD, 1" shelf. I think that's 1.11-1.12?

That puts me around in line with 9' tables with 4.25" pockets but it feels to me it's quite a bit easier for me to break&run on this table as compared to a 9ft even with 4.5" corners.

Thanks for posting. I've added your table to the list. 1.12 sounds about right to me. Those are tight pockets!

What is the table brand?

 

[dr_dave]

Here's the latest:

​

Calculate 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)
takechiyo - 9', 10cm, 1.2cm, 3.5cm - 1.18 (GC5)
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)
Double-Dave - 6', 3.55", 0.3", 1" - 1.12 (Maxima)
Jaden S - 9’, 4 1/4”, 3/4”, 1 3/8” - 1.11 (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)
Pubo - 8’, 4”, 1/4”, 1 1/4” - 1.08 (Rasson)
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)
TheGrandWazoo - 8', 4.15", 0.65", 1.5" - 1.05 (rebuilt Beach)
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)
laedco58 - 9’: 4.5", 0.75": 1.75" - 1.02 (Diamond)
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)
loggerhead12 - 8', 5", 13/16", 1 1/4" - 0.81 (Brunswick Manchester II)
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)

 

[Double-Dave]

Thanks for posting. I've added you table to the list. 1.12 sounds about right to me. Those are tight pockets!

What is the table brand?

It's a Roothaert Maxima.

They are very well known and much used locally but never made it out further. Extremely well made table with a solid oak frame and 30mm slate.

 

[dr_dave]

It's a Roothaert Maxima.

They are very well known and much used locally but never made it out further. Extremely well made table with a solid oak frame and 30mm slate.

Thanks for the info.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Thanks for posting. I've added your table to the list. 1.12 sounds about right to me. Those are tight pockets!

What is the table brand?

System is still flawed 11 years later. You gave pockets 3x the factor as the table size. It should be the opposite.

 

[garczar]

System is still flawed 11 years later. You gave pockets 3x the factor as the table size. It should be the opposite.

so every table listed is wrong?

 

[iusedtoberich]

so every table listed is wrong?

Pretty much, yes.

 

[garczar]

Pretty much, yes.

why? don't need/want an opinion. why is your 'calculation' method more accurate/valid?

 

[iusedtoberich]

Do you really think a 6' table with tight pockets is tougher to play on than a 10' table with buckets? Come on.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Its because Dr Dave assigned 3x the factor for pockets than table size.

He has a multiplication factor for each of:

Pocket width
Pocket depth
Pocket angle
Table size

So if a pocket is a hair "tough" in width, depth, and angle, it would be .9 x .9 x .9 =0.729
The pocket thus accounts for 3 times as much as the table size in his calculator.

This does not match real life. Table size is far and away the largest factor in if you make the ball and get position to run out.

 

[garczar]

Its because Dr Dave assigned 3x the factor for pockets than table size.

He has a multiplication factor for each of:

Pocket width
Pocket depth
Pocket angle
Table size

So if a pocket is a hair "tough" in width, depth, and angle, it would be .9 x .9 x .9 =0.729
The pocket thus accounts for 3 times as much as the table size in his calculator.

This does not match real life. Table size is far and away the largest factor in if you make the ball and get position to run out.

See where you're going but i still think 3.5" wickets are beyond tiny and would be tougher for avg. player than a big table with buckets. Still sounds like more of an opinion than anything based on data which in this case would be tough to assemble and then prove/disprove. I've played on various Dr.Dave-rated tables and the difficulty factor seems pretty accurate. More minutia that doesn't mean squat. Just a pool table 'dick measuring' contest. BTW, i play on super gaffy triple shimmed(4.125ish) GC4's and they suck. Great tables but with a horrible set-up. Good for 1p but nothing else. Anything hit with ANY speed won't go.

 

[iusedtoberich]

See where you're going but i still think 3.5" wickets are beyond tiny and would be tougher for avg. player than a big table with buckets. Still sounds like more of an opinion than anything based on data which in this case would be tough to assemble and then prove/disprove. I've played on various Dr.Dave-rated tables and the difficulty factor seems pretty accurate. More minutia that doesn't mean squat. Just a pool table 'dick measuring' contest. BTW, i play on super gaffy triple shimmed(4.125ish) GC4's and they suck. Great tables but with a horrible set-up. Good for 1p but nothing else. Anything hit with ANY speed won't go.

That's just it. Dr Dave's original formula was based on opinion. My opinion is he gave WAY too much weight to the pocket compared to the table size, and I've been posting that here since the beginning of this thread.

When you are close to the ball (on a normal table), you can make a ball into a blocked pocket without issue. When you are far from the ball, it's hard to make the ball on 5" buckets with no blocking ball. Distance matters more than anything in pool.

 

[garczar]

That's just it. Dr Dave's original formula was based on opinion. My opinion is he gave WAY too much weight to the pocket compared to the table size, and I've been posting that here since the beginning of this thread.

When you are close to the ball (on a normal table), you can make a ball into a blocked pocket without issue. When you are far from the ball, it's hard to make the ball on 5" buckets with no blocking ball. Distance matters more than anything in pool.

I think that table size is way more of an issue with lower speed players. Any TDF system needs a sliding scale hooked to Fargo for example. Lower FR players will be much more affected by table size than higher FR's. At least that's my take. Who knows.

 

[vincett]

It's a Roothaert Maxima.

They are very well known and much used locally but never made it out further. Extremely well made table with a solid oak frame and 30mm slate.

So it is possible to customize classic tables to have high TDF ? I read a different mixed of oppinions about this

 

[vincett]

See where you're going but i still think 3.5" wickets are beyond tiny and would be tougher for avg. player than a big table with buckets. Still sounds like more of an opinion than anything based on data which in this case would be tough to assemble and then prove/disprove. I've played on various Dr.Dave-rated tables and the difficulty factor seems pretty accurate. More minutia that doesn't mean squat. Just a pool table 'dick measuring' contest. BTW, i play on super gaffy triple shimmed(4.125ish) GC4's and they suck. Great tables but with a horrible set-up. Good for 1p but nothing else. Anything hit with ANY speed won't go.

Did you just literally mean that an older table with tightly shimmed pockets will be horribly hard to play on ?

 

[garczar]

Did you

Did you just literally mean that an older table with tightly shimmed pockets will be horribly hard to play on ?

yes. 100% and not just older tables but any table. when you shim you bring both the mouth and throat of the pocket in the same amount which is wrong. secondly when you stack shims the facings become like wood, not rubber. you can shim a table a 'little' but when you stack them they play like shit.

 

[garczar]

So it is possible to customize classic tables to have high TDF ? I read a different mixed of oppinions about this

Yes, IF done properly which is by doing a sub-rail extension. You can shim a little or use thicker facings but to go from a 5" bucket to 4.5 or less doing a rail ext is best. A lot more cost is why people shim.

 

[vincett]

yes. 100% and not just older tables but any table. when you shim you bring both the mouth and throat of the pocket in the same amount which is wrong. secondly when you stack shims the facings become like wood, not rubber. you can shim a table a 'little' but when you stack them they play like shit.

Thanks! And the reason why i am still holding back was that i was told the shelves depth would be highly a decisive factor which the new standard diamond tables have...non others do

 

[garczar]

Thanks! And the reason why i am still holding back was that i was told the shelves depth would be highly a decosove factor whicj the new standard diamonf tables have...non others do

Making the pockets smaller in effect makes shelf shorter but that's no big deal. Info: https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/diamond-pockets-specs.551022/

 

[iusedtoberich]

Thanks! And the reason why i am still holding back was that i was told the shelves depth would be highly a decisive factor which the new standard diamond tables have...non others do

A Gold Crown (or other table) with the same pocket mouth and facing angle will play easier than a Diamond, because the shelf depth on the Diamond is deeper. That can't be changed unless you somehow make the slate deeper with some epoxy grafted on or similar (not practical) to match a Diamond.