JC
Coos Cues
I agree. Helped my son set up an AMF table and used 1/4 facings. 3/16ths seems to be indistinguishable from 1/8 in play. 1/4 is just over the limit and something feels just a little bit off on certain shots.
JC
Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) for measuring table "toughness"
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
I agree. Helped my son set up an AMF table and used 1/4 facings. 3/16ths seems to be indistinguishable from 1/8 in play. 1/4 is just over the limit and something feels just a little bit off on certain shots.
JC
Thanks for the info. I've added your table info (see below).
Thanks. It's been fun.
Regards,
Dave
__________________________________________
Data reported by AZB users in table difficulty factor (TDF) order, based on the table size factor (TSF), pocket size factor (PSF), pocket angle factor (PAF), and pocket shelf factor (PLF), per the info and illustrations below:
name -- TSF -- PSF -- PAF -- PLF -- TDF
dr_dave -- 10':1.10 -- 4":1.15 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.33 (fictitious tough 10' table example)
MahnaMahna -- 10':1.10 -- 5 1/2":0.85 -- 2":1.15 -- 2 1/2": 1.15 -- 1.24 (snooker table poorly converted into a pool table)
dr_dave -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.20 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.24 (fictitious example "B")
Bonus Ball -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.20 -- 1/8":0.97 -- 3/4":0.98 -- 1.14 (Bonus Ball table)
Bob Dixon -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.15 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.12 ("money table" Diamond at Pool Sharks in Vegas)
Qaddiction -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/8":1.10 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.11 (Diamond)
rexus31 -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.15 -- 3/8":0.98 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.10 (mid to late 50's AMF Commercial Model similar to a Brunswick Anniversary/Sport King)
FatBoy -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.15 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.09 (Ernesto-Dominguez-modified Brunswick Gold Crown)
TATE -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.15 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 7/8":0.98 -- 1.09 (Ernesto-Dominguez-modified Brunswick Gibson)
cigardave -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 1":1.08 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 1.08 (typical Pro-Cut Diamond)
dr_dave -- 9':1.00 -- 5": 0.95 -- 1 1/8":1.14 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.06 (old Brunswick Gold Crown II)
Sloppy Pockets -- 8'+:0.95 -- 5":0.95 -- 1 1/8":1.14 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 1.03 (league table)
SloMoHolic -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 7/8":1.04 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.02 (2005 Diamond Pro with ProCut pockets and Red-label rails)
dzcues -- 9':1.00 -- 5":0.95 -- 15/16":1.08 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 1.01 (Gandy Big G)
dzcues -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.95 -- 11/16":1.02 -- 1 15/16":1.03 -- 1.00 (typical League-Cut Diamond)
"standard" table -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.00 (WPA spec "standard")
oldschool1478 -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/4:1.00 -- 1.00 (updated Red Badge Diamond Pro)
Kelly_Guy -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.98 (Antique Brunswick Jefferson, circa 1900)
JC -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.98 ("Cobrasized" Brunswick Gold Crown III)
BryanB -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.97 (1931 Brunswick with double shimmed pockets)
mamics -- 9':1.00 -- 4 11/16":0.98 -- 7/8":1.04 -- 1 3/16":0.95 -- 0.97 (no-name "Chinese Cheapie" with Uylin cushions)
12squared -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.95 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.95 (typical Brunswick Gold Crown)
rexus31 -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/16":1.05 -- 1/4":0.95 -- 3/4":0.95 -- 0.95 (rexus31's friend's Brunswick Gold Crown)
Neil -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/8":1.10 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 0.93 (modified Valley "bar box")
iusedtoberich -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.90 -- 1":1.06 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.93 ("loose" Brunswick Gold Crown)
MSchaffer -- 9":1.00 -- 5 1/10":0.90 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.92 (Brunswick Gold Crown II)
mfinkelstein3 -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.90 -- 7/8":1.03 -- 1 1/2": 0.97 -- 0.90 ("loose" Brunswick Gold Crown III)
Vahmurka -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.90 -- 7/8":1.03 -- 1 1/2": 0.97 -- 0.90 (Brunswick Centurion)
SloMoHolic league table -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.98 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.90 (old Brunswick Medalist)
BRussell -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.95 -- 13/16":1.04 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.87 (Olhausen)
Dopc -- 8':0.90 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.87 (Connelly Kayenta)
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.98 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.86 (Connelly)
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.95 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.82 (fictitious example "A")
Mooneye -- 7':0.85 -- 4 3/4":0.98 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/2":0.97 -- 0.82 (Brunswick "bar box")
SloMoHolic -- 6':0.85 -- 4.5":1.00 -- 0":0.95 -- 5/8":0.95 -- 0.77 (old 6' Valley "bar box")
dzcues -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.94 -- 1/2":0.95 -- 0.76 (Valley "bar box")
dr_dave -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.94 -- 3/4":0.95 -- 0.76 (typical Valley/Dynamo "bar box")
Neil,
BTW, for a 2"-back mouth-throat difference of:
mt = 4 1/8" - 3 1/2" = 5/8"
I calculate a facing angle of about:
angle = 141 degrees
And for a facing angle of:
angle = 145 degrees
I calculate a mouth-throat difference of about:
mt = 1 1/4"
For a 4 1/8" mouth, that would correspond to a 2"-back throat of about:
throat = 4 1/8" - 1 1/4" = 2 7/8"
Regards,
Dave
I like the concept but I think the formula is incomplete. It should also take into consideration table quality, properties and condition, ball and equipment condition, environmental factors such as moisture, noise, light etc. It would be very problematic to express those features mathematically, though.
You need to measure the "throat" size much farther back, where the lines through the facings intersect the 2"-back-from-the-nose-cushion lines, as shown in the illustration:
Your pocket "throat size" is much smaller than 3 1/2".
Catch you later,
Dave
Neil,You need to measure the "throat" size much farther back, where the lines through the facings intersect the 2"-back-from-the-nose-cushion lines, as shown in the illustration:
Your pocket "throat size" is much smaller than 3 1/2".
Catch you later,
Dave
Please report back when you have accurate measurements so I can correct your entry in the list (and in the BU thread and website).
Thanks,
Dave
This has been discussed at great length in the thread already. There is a really long list of things that could also be included, and many of those things change with conditions. We've decided to include only the most important factors that are easy to measure and that don't vary with conditions (which can change on a daily basis).
Regards,
Dave
I will send you the measurements to my Olhausen if you want them but I can tell you already that not every pocket is exactly the same. (most tables aren't)
How do you find time to play?:thumbup:
Please do so. We want as many tables posted as possible for comparison purposes.
I agree 100%. It's always best to measure 2 or more pockets and report the average values (to within a 1/16").
I don't play as much as I would like, but it helps having a table at home. It also helps to not watch as much TV as most people do.
Catch you later,
Dave
Last edited:
If the cushions are not 2" thick, you will need to back up even more, giving an even smaller "throat."
Here's the pertinent quote from the edited original post and TDF document:
If the cushion is not 2” (5.1cm) thick, measure the throat size 2” (5.1 cm) back from the cushion noses. You can lay down Post-It Notes or masking tape to better define the lines and intersection points to help with the mouth and throat measurements.
Thanks,
Dave
Last edited:
OK, I think I finally got it right- 2 3/4".
Neil,
Based on the info you've provided recently, I've updated your table data to:
Neil -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/8":1.10 -- 1 1/4":1.17 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.08 (modified Valley "bar box")
Do you think the 1.08 TDF is appropriate? That seems a bit high to me for a 7' table, even a tough 7' table, but what do you think?
Maybe if other people take their measurements more carefully, the TDF for their table would increase also.
Thanks,
Dave
Here's the latest:
Data reported by AZB users in table difficulty factor (TDF) order, based on the table size factor (TSF), pocket size factor (PSF), pocket angle factor (PAF), and pocket shelf factor (PLF), per the info and illustrations below:
name -- TSF -- PSF -- PAF -- PLF -- TDF
dr_dave -- 10':1.10 -- 4":1.15 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.33 (fictitious tough 10' table example)
MahnaMahna -- 10':1.10 -- 5 1/2":0.85 -- 2":1.15 -- 2 1/2": 1.15 -- 1.24 (snooker table poorly converted into a pool table)
dr_dave -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.20 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 7/8":1.03 -- 1.24 (fictitious example "B")
Bonus Ball -- 9':1.00 -- 3 7/8":1.20 -- 1/8":0.97 -- 3/4":0.98 -- 1.14 (Bonus Ball table)
Bob Dixon -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.15 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.12 ("money table" Diamond at Pool Sharks in Vegas)
Qaddiction -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/8":1.10 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.11 (Diamond)
rexus31 -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.15 -- 3/8":0.98 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.10 (mid to late 50's AMF Commercial Model similar to a Brunswick Anniversary/Sport King)
FatBoy -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.15 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 1":0.98 -- 1.09 (Ernesto-Dominguez-modified Brunswick Gold Crown)
TATE -- 9':1.00 -- 4":1.15 -- 1/4":0.97 -- 7/8":0.98 -- 1.09 (Ernesto-Dominguez-modified Brunswick Gibson)
cigardave -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 1":1.08 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 1.08 (typical Pro-Cut Diamond)
Neil -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/8":1.10 -- 1 1/4":1.17 -- 1 3/8":0.99 -- 1.08 (modified Valley "bar box")
dr_dave -- 9':1.00 -- 5": 0.95 -- 1 1/8":1.14 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.06 (old Brunswick Gold Crown II)
Sloppy Pockets -- 8'+:0.95 -- 5":0.95 -- 1 1/8":1.14 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 1.03 (league table)
SloMoHolic -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 7/8":1.04 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 1.02 (2005 Diamond Pro with ProCut pockets and Red-label rails)
dzcues -- 9':1.00 -- 5":0.95 -- 15/16":1.08 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 1.01 (Gandy Big G)
dzcues -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.95 -- 11/16":1.02 -- 1 15/16":1.03 -- 1.00 (typical League-Cut Diamond)
"standard" table -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 1.00 (WPA spec "standard")
oldschool1478 -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/4:1.00 -- 1.00 (updated Red Badge Diamond Pro)
Kelly_Guy -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.98 (Antique Brunswick Jefferson, circa 1900)
JC -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/16":1.00 -- 9/16":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.98 ("Cobrasized" Brunswick Gold Crown III)
BryanB -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.97 (1931 Brunswick with double shimmed pockets)
mamics -- 9':1.00 -- 4 11/16":0.98 -- 7/8":1.04 -- 1 3/16":0.95 -- 0.97 (no-name "Chinese Cheapie" with Uylin cushions)
12squared -- 9':1.00 -- 4 7/8":0.95 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.95 (typical Brunswick Gold Crown)
rexus31 -- 9':1.00 -- 4 1/16":1.05 -- 1/4":0.95 -- 3/4":0.95 -- 0.95 (rexus31's friend's Brunswick Gold Crown)
iusedtoberich -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.90 -- 1":1.06 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.93 ("loose" Brunswick Gold Crown)
MSchaffer -- 9":1.00 -- 5 1/10":0.90 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 3/4":1.00 -- 0.92 (Brunswick Gold Crown II)
mfinkelstein3 -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.90 -- 7/8":1.03 -- 1 1/2": 0.97 -- 0.90 ("loose" Brunswick Gold Crown III)
Vahmurka -- 9':1.00 -- 5 1/8":0.90 -- 7/8":1.03 -- 1 1/2": 0.97 -- 0.90 (Brunswick Centurion)
SloMoHolic league table -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.98 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 5/8":1.00 -- 0.90 (old Brunswick Medalist)
BRussell -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.95 -- 13/16":1.04 -- 1 1/2":0.98 -- 0.87 (Olhausen)
Dopc -- 8':0.90 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/4":0.95 -- 0.87 (Connelly Kayenta)
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 4 3/4":0.98 -- 5/8":1.00 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.86 (Connelly)
dr_dave -- 8':0.90 -- 5":0.95 -- 1/2":0.98 -- 1 3/8":0.98 -- 0.82 (fictitious example "A")
Mooneye -- 7':0.85 -- 4 3/4":0.98 -- 3/4":1.02 -- 1 1/2":0.97 -- 0.82 (Brunswick "bar box")
SloMoHolic -- 6':0.85 -- 4.5":1.00 -- 0":0.95 -- 5/8":0.95 -- 0.77 (old 6' Valley "bar box")
dzcues -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.94 -- 1/2":0.95 -- 0.76 (Valley "bar box")
dr_dave -- 7':0.85 -- 4 1/2":1.00 -- 0":0.94 -- 3/4":0.95 -- 0.76 (typical Valley/Dynamo "bar box")
I checked the math, and if your 145 degree facing angle measurement is correct, 2 7/8" is a more appropriate value based on your 4 1/8" mouth size.
Let's just call the 2 7/8" value good for now.
Catch you later,
Dave
I know it sounds weird for a 7' table. But I have had a number of people tell me it's harder to play on my table than the 9' tables they are used to playing on. And, those same people play on barboxes a lot too.
edit: Most barboxes have pockets that will take missed balls. I've seen Valleys and Diamonds take balls that hit 3 diamonds off and still went in the corners! That makes most bar boxes rather easy to play on. It's not so much the extra two feet that makes a 9' more difficult, it's the accuracy needed. My pockets were set up to try and duplicate the accuracy needed on a 9' table, because I don't have room for a larger table. The only real adjustment I have going to a 9' table is in pattern play. I have to be careful to make sure I play position to where I can still reach the cb.
Last edited:
What about creating a separate "formula", which could basically be only short description of the features not included in the main formula, maybe making some rules for assessing the sum of those features with grades from 1 (extremely poor conditions) to 10 (perfect conditions) and write that number next to the players's result? Just an idea. If those other features are not so important, then no need to bother with them, but if someone really wants to include them, wouldn't this be like the simplest solution?
The best thing about the TDF approach is that additional factors can easily be added to account for other effects, provided the factors can be put into percentage form, where 1.00 means "standard" or average and 0.90 means 10% easier and 1.10 means 10% harder. The tough parts are figuring out how to measure the effects easily and figuring out what percentages to assign to different value ranges of the measured effects.
Some effects that could be included as additional factors include:
- pocket facing vertical (draft) angle (and its effect on ball rattle for shots over a wide range of angles)
- pocket facing and shim properties (bounciness and rebound angle/ball-rattle effects)
- table levelness
- cloth speed
- cloth drag (slickness)
- cloth grab (for how much sidespin "takes" on the cushions at different speeds and angles)
- cushion/rail conditions (rebound efficiency/bounciness)
- cloth conditions (age, cleanliness, and humidity)
- ball conditions (age, cleanliness, smoothness, and roundness)
- humidity (and its affect on cloth, cushion, and facing properties)
- etc.
I personally don't want to add any additional factors at this time. The factors listed above can be difficult to measure and/or quantify, and it is already difficult enough figuring out how to weigh and quantify the current factors, without trying to add more complexity.
I'm not saying other effects are not important to how a table plays. For example, a slow, non-level table with draggy cloth, dead rails, and pockets that spit out everything due to dirtiness, humidity and weird facings is no picnic. However, I just want to stick to the main factors (table size, pocket size, and facing angles) that affect a table under all conditions and don't change with conditions (which can sometimes change often).
Thanks for the input.
Regards,
Dave