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

[iusedtoberich]

Is there any evidence at all? Either way?

Thank you kindly.

Not that I know of. Only the eye test. When watching a pro event with pro commentators like Incardone, the only time they say to use different English is when the cloth is brand new, and thus the friction is different. They never say it for tight vs loose pockets.

We can look at any of the old TAR matches too. The first ones were on normal Diamond Pro-cut pockets at 4.5". The later ones they had the rails changed to 4.25 or maybe even 4.125" (I forgot which now). The style of play was exactly the same. No one changed to hitting shots with center ball!


But the difference is Dr Dave has a greater responsibility than you or I. Because he has thousands of ppl going to his site for factual information. His info should be better vetted.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Also regarding the "less English on tighter table myth"....

Take one pocket. That game, even when played by lower level players, is usually played on the tightest table in the house. Every player, even the lower level ones, is spinning the crap out of the ball a large percentage of the time to get the CB to very specific places.

A one pocket player isn't going to change the amount of spin he uses when playing on a tight vs loose table!!!

What he might do is not go for a long flyer on the tight one, and choose a safe instead. But when he decides to "go" for a shot, he will hit it the same way and the same spin on both tables.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Earlier in this thread I gave what I thought might be good starts for table size weights based on the longest shot possible. Dave preferred his empirically determined weights. Perhaps you can influence him by making some empirical tests.

Dave has changed the weighting many times in the intervening years. Though I don't see that ANYONE has done as he requested and posted BU exam scores for multiple tables. So we are relying on people's opinions, and yours does not seem to match others.

A difference of 0.5 seems HUGE to me (depending on what that actually means).

Thank you kindly.

Well one thing is the BU exam should NOT be the weighting factor. That is self-serving to Dr Dave in advancing it as some sort of a standard.

Here is a perfect example of why it should NOT be a weighing factor. Dr Dave scored higher on it that SVB! SVB can give anyone in this thread the 5 out and rob us all blind.

The test imo should simulate real game play as much as possible. Not the BU exam, or any other "drill". Not the mathematical formula of the margin of error for different length shots. Those are all fine as a standalone "test", but they don't encompass all aspects of "actual game play".

What does encompass the most of "actual game play"? That's easy. It's the GHOST. The only aspect missing from the ghost is safety play (which doesn't matter when determining how hard a table is). The rest is all there. The break, pocketing, position, pattern play, varied layouts each rack, etc.

The TDF should be based on ghost scores for the various table, in my very strong opinion.

I have done that for both 9 ball and straight pool, and posted about it many times over the years, with data. It's not close. The 7' table is MILES easier. Not .05 easier.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Come on dr dave, you've got nothing to lose. Video yourself shooting 200 racks on each table. 3,000 USD goes to BEF if you're right. Change your formula if I'm right. I don't even need to see any video, I'll take it at your word how many balls pocketed on each table.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Here is my data again. These are my 9 ball ghost scores for the 2024 year. I didn't go down to the ball, I went by game win/losses. But I do think down to the ball would be even better. The 9' GC was my home table, the 7' Diamond was a Pro-Cut pool room blue table Diamond. .05 difference according to the TDF chart. According to the fargorate difference, it's 95 points, which is almost 100. 100 points is twice as good in the fargorate scale.

 

[iusedtoberich]

And here is my data for straight pool. Note, the 9' was the same table, but the 7' Diamond was a league-cut red label.

Thread here:

Thread '14.1 - 7' Table vs 9' Table, Statistically Speaking'

Dec 14, 2013

Summary: A 7' table is significantly easier to play 14.1 on than a 9' table for a C+/B- speed player.

Introduction
There has been much discussion on what table is easier to play on: 7' vs 9'. John Schmidt has stated a 7' table is easier on several past threads. Others have stated a 9' table is easier (for amateur players) due to increased room to avoid congestion. Of course, a 7' table will always have much shorter shots.

Method
I have decided to determine for myself which table is easier. During the Thanksgiving holiday, I had a chance to play...

• iusedtoberich
• Replies: 13
• Forum: 14.1 Pool

• 

 

[dr_dave]

You're delusional if you think a 7' Diamond Pro-Am with Pro-Cut pockets is only .05 harder to play on than a 9' GC4 with factory pockets (not doctored like the Shaw table).

I know your contributions to pool are great, but this was a bad starting point, and you never fixed it.

Go play 200 racks of 9 ball ghost on each table. Count total balls pocketed across all games. 1 ball = 1 point. No bs like an extra bonus for running the rack. I'll donate 3,000 USD to the BEF if you get a better score on the 9' GC than the 7' Diamond. If you don't, you change your formula.

Won't find a better deal than that.

Edit: apply the TDF correction factor to the number of balls pocketed, not the 9' being outright more balls than the 7'.

Sounds like a fun challenge. I doubt I can find the time for it, but I will try. If not, hopefully others will give it a try and report their results here.

 

[Fore Rail]

Let's say you have two tables stock from the Diamond Factory - 4 1/2 inch pockets.

1 is a 7ft the other a 9ft Both are built to play exactly alike.

They are both perfectly level, the cloth is brand new every time with no chalk dust, debris whatsoever.

Now the player is a robot with a perfectly straight stroke that sends both cueball and object ball on exact starting lines.

What table is tougher?

 

[iusedtoberich]

Let's say you have two tables stock from the Diamond Factory - 4 1/2 inch pockets.

1 is a 7ft the other a 9ft Both are built to play exactly alike.

They are both perfectly level, the cloth is brand new every time with no chalk dust, debris whatsoever.

Now the player is a robot with a perfectly straight stroke that sends both cueball and object ball on exact starting lines.

What table is tougher?

The 9' is WAY WAY harder. You can figure it out for yourself in 5 minutes of shooting. Just throw balls on the table and count your misses.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Ok, It's on. I'm taking this to the pool hall the next few weeks and will ask people to try on various tables.

Note, I tried something similar years ago, I think even before this thread was started. Maybe 20 years ago. I had a hard time finding takers, even with me paying their table time. They would play a couple racks and then quit because they weren't doing well against the ghost. I'll see if I have better luck this time.