Table size math... Just for fun

Jallan

Jallan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A while ago there was a thread that talked about the importance of shot making vs. position play. I started to think a lot about the differences between the two. I came to the conclusion that making an argument either way isn't possible unless the size of table and the game played is factored in.

So, some numbers.

A full rack of balls, including the cue ball, takes up 81 square inches of playing surface on the table.

A 9 ft table has a playing surface of 5832 square in.
A 7 ft table has a playing surface of 3528 square in.

That said, the rack with cue ball takes up 1.39% of the playing surface of a 9 foot and 2.30% of the playing surface of a 7 foot.

Not amazing, I know, but maybe a little interesting for some.

Think about a game of straight pool or one pocket where the majority of the game is played on only one half of the table, 9ft of course. One half of the table is 2916 square in. The rack with cue ball takes up 2.78% of the playing surface that is most often used.

Nine ball is more of the same but to the other extreme. 9 ball rack with cue ball one a 9ft table takes up .82% of the playing surface while on a 7ft it takes up .986%

I guess that my opinion is that making the argument of control vs. pocketing is nearly irrelevant until the specifics of the game and the table size are stated. Assuming that all things are constant, position play is generally going to be tougher for a game of 8 ball on a BB than it is on a big track game of 9 ball.

But, we all knew that already.
 
thats a good post, however 8' boxes are the easiest of the 3. but the math wouldnt reflect that:confused:, good numbers:)
 
A 9 ft table measures 50" x 100" between the rails. That amount to 5,000 sq in. not 5832.
 
Fatboy said:
thats a good post, however 8' boxes are the easiest of the 3. but the math wouldnt reflect that:confused:
Click to expand...

There is a couterplay of table size features where some features make the table harder to lay, others make the table easier to play. For example, the OB must, on averag, be hit more precisely on bigger tables to pot the OB in pockets of the same size. On the other hand, the number of clusters and obstructions is lower on larger tables and the pockets are proportionatly larger than on the larger table.
 
Another interesting stat I remember seeing is that pockets make up 10% of the cushions/rails on the table (well, technically the pocket is not part of the cushions but you know what I mean).

The ball diameter thing is tricky... because they're round, they can overlap a little when clustered or racked. There's a branch of math that deals with every shape's packing density.

If you rack them as they appear in a box or ball caddy, you get a square of 4 balls x 4 balls. 9 inches to a side, that's 81 square inches. If you rack them as tightly as possible as they are in an 8b break (no cue ball) then they take up only about 26 inches in a triangular shape. If we're talking about having a cue ball navigate through traffic then the arrangement of balls makes a big difference. If you were to take the square arrangement and then expand it so that there's a tiny hair under 1 ball's width between every ball, you'd end up with this massive 18" x 18" block that the cue ball would never get through.
 
The distance a ball can travel along the center line of a "nine foot" table is much closer to 8 feet than 9.
 
John Novak said:
2.25 x 16 balls = 36 inches
36 x 2.25 = 81
Click to expand...

The balls are round and not square. The area of a circle or the "foot print" of the ball is 3.14 (pi) x radius squared eg 2.25/2 x 2.25/2 x 3.14 x 16 = 63.617 sq inches.

It doesn't matter how they are racked, or placed on the table each ball will still take up the same amount of area, 3.976 sq inches.


R. Givens illustrates this whole concept that you are on pg 32 of his book " The Eight Ball Bible".


.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top