Tight pockets?

[TATE]

I am very surprised when I read something like this. Please understand that I have been away from playing for more than 35 years. I quit in my early 20’s. There are things that never change. When you tighten the pockets, you change the percentages. The game changes and strategies change.

A 95% shot might become a 90% shot. Example: suppose at the beginning of a rack, the balls laid in such a way that every shot was going to be a 95% shot. The player would be an overwhelming favorite to get out. If the pockets were tightened slightly and every shot became a 90% shot (just 5% less), the player would become an overwhelming favorite to NOT get out. An accomplished player is acutely aware of this and changes his strategy to match the condition and improve his percentages. He does this by changing his shot selection, the way he hits the cue ball, the way he plays position, and safety play. A good safe, earning a ball in hand, could turn his next two shots into 100% shots or a combo on the pay-ball. Another strategy to improve percentages would be to go for the combo or carom on the money ball in the early part of the game.

I am not trying to get under your skin. If you don’t like this post, just ignore it. It doesn't matter.

Paul,

Same thing happened to me. In the 20 years I quit, pockets went from 5" to an average of 4 1/4" on the West Coast.

At first I was upset because I thought the tables were "unfair". I could run 60 or 80 or even 90 on my factory Olhausen with buckets and I thought I was good, but I wasn't because I couldn't run 20 on a tight table. I thought tight tables were "unfair". I had a table mechanic double shim the table and it sucked. They were still buckets but with crappy pockets. Finally I realized that I was going to be playing on tight equipment at all the pool rooms, Hard Times, The Billiard Connection, the Plush Pocket, Hollywood Billiards, so I hired Ernesto to replace the rubber and cut new rails my Olhausen to 4" corners with Artemis rubber. It took several years to break all the bad habits I developed on the Olhausen buckets. At first I was happy with a 20 ball run. Then I started playing rotation games and it was even worse. Eventually I started playing run out pool on the tight table. Then I bought an even tighter Brunswick Gibson with sub 4" pockets. That's my regular playing table and now it just seems normal to me. I play all rotation games on it and play it like any other table. Every facet of my game improved and I no longer cheat the pockets.

The only shots I play different are the long bank shots. They are very low percentage on a really tight table. If you want me to post some videos of how I play on a 4" table, I'll be happy to. You can see for yourself I don't baby shots just for the sake of pocketing the ball.

A properly cut pocket is critical on a tight table. If it's not cut right, then it's not a good thing at all. The pocket needs to be able to accept a fired rail shot.

By the way, when I compete, naturally I want a tight table. My game doesn't change a bit but most of my opponents decline 20%.

Chris

 

[victorl]

Well written, Tate. You posted exactly what I was thinking.

 

[TrumanHW]

Paul,

Same thing happened to me. In the 20 years I quit, pockets went from 5" to an average of 4 1/4" on the West Coast.

At first I was upset because I thought the tables were "unfair". I could run 60 or 80 or even 90 on my factory Olhausen with buckets and I thought I was good, but I wasn't because I couldn't run 20 on a tight table. I thought tight tables were "unfair". I had a table mechanic double shim the table and it sucked. They were still buckets but with crappy pockets. Finally I realized that I was going to be playing on tight equipment at all the pool rooms, Hard Times, The Billiard Connection, the Plush Pocket, Hollywood Billiards, so I hired Ernesto to replace the rubber and cut new rails my Olhausen to 4" corners with Artemis rubber. It took several years to break all the bad habits I developed on the Olhausen buckets. At first I was happy with a 20 ball run. Then I started playing rotation games and it was even worse. Eventually I started playing run out pool on the tight table. Then I bought an even tighter Brunswick Gibson with sub 4" pockets. That's my regular playing table and now it just seems normal to me. I play all rotation games on it and play it like any other table. Every facet of my game improved and I no longer cheat the pockets.

The only shots I play different are the long bank shots. They are very low percentage on a really tight table. If you want me to post some videos of how I play on a 4" table, I'll be happy to. You can see for yourself I don't baby shots just for the sake of pocketing the ball.

A properly cut pocket is critical on a tight table. If it's not cut right, then it's not a good thing at all. The pocket needs to be able to accept a fired rail shot.

By the way, when I compete, naturally I want a tight table. My game doesn't change a bit but most of my opponents decline 20%.

Chris

My game doesn't drop 20%... probably more like 30. Sounds like we live near each other... and perhaps have met. Whats my spot?

Other than that (which is meant playfully) ... I agree with much of what you said - and would continue by saying that with tight pockets, you're FORCED to experiment and learn. You're punished for nearly everything, and apparently punishment is educational.

That said, I think I'll let you shoot at combos of a ball frozen to the rail, as well as at shots in which the combinators aren't straight in nor close to each other, nor the pocket... even money on 4" pockets, the ghost, and will bet double on all games that require a break-out .... that you don't get out.

None of that is an insult to you, but rather my way of putting my $ where my mouth is that, physics being what they are, stricter margins result in fewer runouts.

What I want are for a standard of 4.33 - 4.5 inch pockets (plus 1/2 for sides), square up (parallel each other, not flared), and better rules!!

Good rules (without getting convoluted you ask??)....
In descending order of importance/fairness
Call pocket - (if you miss a shot it's equivalent a push out)
Call safe - (if you pocket a ball your opponent is still required to shoot)
Two 2-way shots per game (or one, whatever people think)
Ideally, point per ball would be fairest.
Break + first shot, irrespective of pocketing a ball (allows position on the low number)

Pool isn't on TV, and at that, only the girls (because it feeds some weird interest men have in seeing women play???) ... which was the whole rationale for which the measle (crappy ball) and a lucky game were so promoted. I doubt there's anything that can be done with a measle which can't be done with a red circle, but there are things that can be done with a red circle which I've yet to see done with a measle... not that I want to degrade this in to a cue ball debate.

So, while I agree, tighter pockets give you more "play" opportunities by unforced turn overs and changed statistics (as he astutely said, 95% to the 8th power is 63% .... whereas 90% to the 8th power is 38%) ... results in us both getting opportunities to express our ability -- but should it really be so decisive that someone misses late vs. early in the game? The earliest part is when there's the most traffic (i.e., difficulty).

The idea is to find equipment and rules that measure skill. And [that] is soon to be my signature.

 

[TATE]

My game doesn't drop 20%... probably more like 30. Sounds like we live near each other... and perhaps have met. Whats my spot?

Other than that (which is meant playfully) ... I agree with much of what you said - and would continue by saying that with tight pockets, you're FORCED to experiment and learn. You're punished for nearly everything, and apparently punishment is educational.

That said, I think I'll let you shoot at combos of a ball frozen to the rail, as well as at shots in which the combinators aren't straight in nor close to each other, nor the pocket... even money on 4" pockets, the ghost, and will bet double on all games that require a break-out .... that you don't get out.

None of that is an insult to you, but rather my way of putting my $ where my mouth is that, physics being what they are, stricter margins result in fewer runouts.

What I want are for a standard of 4.33 - 4.5 inch pockets (plus 1/2 for sides), square up (parallel each other, not flared), and better rules!!

Good rules (without getting convoluted you ask??)....
In descending order of importance/fairness
Call pocket - (if you miss a shot it's equivalent a push out)
Call safe - (if you pocket a ball your opponent is still required to shoot)
Two 2-way shots per game (or one, whatever people think)
Ideally, point per ball would be fairest.
Break + first shot, irrespective of pocketing a ball (allows position on the low number)

Pool isn't on TV, and at that, only the girls (because it feeds some weird interest men have in seeing women play???) ... which was the whole rationale for which the measle (crappy ball) and a lucky game were so promoted. I doubt there's anything that can be done with a measle which can't be done with a red circle, but there are things that can be done with a red circle which I've yet to see done with a measle... not that I want to degrade this in to a cue ball debate.

So, while I agree, tighter pockets give you more "play" opportunities by unforced turn overs and changed statistics (as he astutely said, 95% to the 8th power is 63% .... whereas 90% to the 8th power is 38%) ... results in us both getting opportunities to express our ability -- but should it really be so decisive that someone misses late vs. early in the game? The earliest part is when there's the most traffic (i.e., difficulty).

The idea is to find equipment and rules that measure skill. And [that] is soon to be my signature.

It doesn't sound like you're a fan of 9 ball. I think I remember you from Hollywood a long time ago but you disappeared. You were a good player. How come you don't play in the tournaments?

 

[Island Drive]

Billy Stroud POV

Makes too much sense....

''I was completely wrong. Nothing is more discouraging than a well hit shot that does not stay in the pocket. Running balls makes a good player. Not playing safe''

 

[Paul Schofield]

From what I know, every player always aims to the center of the pocket, no matter what the pocket size is (the exception being when a player aims off center to create an angle). This being the case, tight pockets would only mean that a player would miss more often.

I am unaware of NBA players shooting at a smaller hoop to improve their accuracy. I think there are many ways a player can improve his accuracy. None of them involve shrinking the pocket, the hole, the hoop, the goal post, or the net. Developing sound fundimentals that closely match the equipment you are playing on, is the key to improvement.

 

[Baxter]

From what I know, every player always aims to the center of the pocket, no matter what the pocket size is (the exception being when a player aims off center to create an angle). This being the case, tight pockets would only mean that a player would miss more often.

I am unaware of NBA players shooting at a smaller hoop to improve their accuracy. I think there are many ways a player can improve his accuracy. None of them involve shrinking the pocket, the hole, the hoop, the goal post, or the net. Developing sound fundimentals that closely match the equipment you are playing on, is the key to improvement.

Basketball hoops aren't 2 basketballs wide to begin with. In essence, basketball is already played on sub 4" pockets anyways. Consider how easy basketball would be if the hoops were relative to the standard pockets you advocate. Apples and oranges here. All things are relative to the game the equipment is being played one. Pool is a game of minute angles and precise control of the balls over small distances with small motions. You can't compare it to anything that is unlike it.

 

[Baxter]

Paul,

Same thing happened to me. In the 20 years I quit, pockets went from 5" to an average of 4 1/4" on the West Coast.

At first I was upset because I thought the tables were "unfair". I could run 60 or 80 or even 90 on my factory Olhausen with buckets and I thought I was good, but I wasn't because I couldn't run 20 on a tight table. I thought tight tables were "unfair". I had a table mechanic double shim the table and it sucked. They were still buckets but with crappy pockets. Finally I realized that I was going to be playing on tight equipment at all the pool rooms, Hard Times, The Billiard Connection, the Plush Pocket, Hollywood Billiards, so I hired Ernesto to replace the rubber and cut new rails my Olhausen to 4" corners with Artemis rubber. It took several years to break all the bad habits I developed on the Olhausen buckets. At first I was happy with a 20 ball run. Then I started playing rotation games and it was even worse. Eventually I started playing run out pool on the tight table. Then I bought an even tighter Brunswick Gibson with sub 4" pockets. That's my regular playing table and now it just seems normal to me. I play all rotation games on it and play it like any other table. Every facet of my game improved and I no longer cheat the pockets.

The only shots I play different are the long bank shots. They are very low percentage on a really tight table. If you want me to post some videos of how I play on a 4" table, I'll be happy to. You can see for yourself I don't baby shots just for the sake of pocketing the ball.

A properly cut pocket is critical on a tight table. If it's not cut right, then it's not a good thing at all. The pocket needs to be able to accept a fired rail shot.

By the way, when I compete, naturally I want a tight table. My game doesn't change a bit but most of my opponents decline 20%.

Chris

I tried to rep you again TATE, but apparently I have to spread it around first. I think we're both on the same page with this topic. Good post, mirrors my thoughts. I play on a Diamond Professional with 4" pockets, and I don't baby anything or play any differently than I would on any other table. My buddy has a home table with even tighter pockets, and I'll fire balls on that table too, while playing 3 rail shape. I fear no table!

 

[victorl]

In snooker, the pro tournament tables are purposefully set up to be tighter than regular club tables, and they seem to be doing pretty well with it. I believe that it creates separation between the top tier of pros and the average pros, and rewards the players who shoot with accuracy, and can get pinpoint shape closer to the object ball with the proper angles.

 

[CreeDo]

Basketball hoops aren't 2 basketballs wide to begin with. In essence, basketball is already played on sub 4" pockets anyways. Consider how easy basketball would be if the hoops were relative to the standard pockets you advocate. Apples and oranges here. All things are relative to the game the equipment is being played one. Pool is a game of minute angles and precise control of the balls over small distances with small motions. You can't compare it to anything that is unlike it.

You can't use the basketball hoop to support your argument,
then say "And anyway, it's a different game, so all comparisons to basketball are invalid"...
that's cheating

FYI a basketball is 9.5" in diameter and the hoop is 18". It's 1 inch short of being "2 balls wide".
It'd be the equivalent of a 4.25" pocket.

I do agree it's apples and oranges anyway. The pocket size reflects what the table is being used for.
Is it a bar box with the goal of raking in quarters as fast as possible and making some drunk feel like
a pool hustling hero? Valley-size pockets.
Is it for average players who play pool casually or semi-seriously? Brunswick factory size.
Is it for serious players and pros? IMO Diamond size is perfect.
Is it for two macho guys who want to risk their bankroll just to see who shoots straightest?
Ridiculous tiny triple shimmed pockets.

 

[TATE]

You can't use the basketball hoop to support your argument,
then say "And anyway, it's a different game, so all comparisons to basketball are invalid"...
that's cheating

FYI a basketball is 9.5" in diameter and the hoop is 18". It's 1 inch short of being "2 balls wide".
It'd be the equivalent of a 4.25" pocket.

I do agree it's apples and oranges anyway. The pocket size reflects what the table is being used for.
Is it a bar box with the goal of raking in quarters as fast as possible and making some drunk feel like
a pool hustling hero? Valley-size pockets.
Is it for average players who play pool casually or semi-seriously? Brunswick factory size.
Is it for serious players and pros? IMO Diamond size is perfect.
Is it for two macho guys who want to risk their bankroll just to see who shoots straightest?
Ridiculous tiny triple shimmed pockets.

What I am not sure I understand is how a standard size table got to be 9' and a pockets almost 5" anyway.

The old championship tables in the 1920's were 10' with 4" pockets. Somewhere along the line the pockets got larger and the tables got shorter.

My guess is Brunswick wanted to make pool easier for the masses. Large pockets make straight pool a lot easier. Being able to cheat the pocket is a great advantage with the subtle angles in straight pool and break outs. Blocking balls are smaller and combo's and caroms, shots that are difficult to be accurate with, are easier.

 

[01rkclassic]

I once asked Buddy Hall that question. He answered with an emphatic NO. He said you want to practice on something that fills you with confidence. You want to feel like you can make everything.

In Buddy's book "Rags To Rifle Man" he was asked that question and his response was tight pockets don't matter because they don't move the center of the pockets.

 

[TrumanHW]

Basketball hoops aren't 2 basketballs wide to begin with. In essence, basketball is already played on sub 4" pockets anyways. Consider how easy basketball would be if the hoops were relative to the standard pockets you advocate. Apples and oranges here. All things are relative to the game the equipment is being played one. Pool is a game of minute angles and precise control of the balls over small distances with small motions. You can't compare it to anything that is unlike it.

This is an erroneous comparison. As soon as basketball players need to make a ball bounce in to another ball to make that ball go in your analogy will apply. Or if they have to make 9 baskets in a row to be credited for one. Or if they have to slam the ball in to the floor and then through the hoop... preferably where they have to side spin the ball to twist it in.

Caroms, combos, banks, billiards, short-side position .... There is simply no parallel between the two.

It doesn't sound like you're a fan of 9 ball. I think I remember you from Hollywood a long time ago but you disappeared. You were a good player. How come you don't play in the tournaments?

Your name sounds so familiar to me... I wish I could place the face. I've been playing sporadically (thanks for the kind words). I was thinking about heading to hard times this weekend to watch the champs... maaaaaybe to donate my 150. I just despise playing on brand new cloth - and no matter how hard I tried to convince Eddie that new cloth is a synthetic play-condition and that real skill is measured with worn cloth, he insisted that the pros would demand and complain if it weren't brand new. From what I heard as of yesterday, it's still like playing on glass.

Where are you playing now?

 

[Matt]

This seems to be a problem that is fairly unique to pool. It's pretty common in other sports and games to allow a range of specifications when it comes to individual equipment used by the player, I can't think of many examples where there is so much variability in the "acceptable" dimensions for the playing field and target or goal.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the WPA specs for a tournament table (corners 4.5"-4.625" and sides 5"-5.125"; there are also specs for the cut angles and shelf sizes). The "Pro-Cut" Diamond tables conform to these specs, and I think they strike a good balance between enforcing accuracy and allowing a decent player to run out an open table. I don't know how they came up with these dimensions, but they really do seem to feel "right", and I'd be happy to play and watch pool on such tables for the rest of my life.

I do think that tighter tables have their place. For practicing, lots of sports have tougher practice equipment available. Practicing on a tight table has definitely improved my accuracy in the past, and it's also good for a confidence boost when you get back to a regular table.

For gambling, a tight table can serve a purpose as well. Playing a ring game on a tight table tends to slow things down a bit and give the weaker players a chance to catch an easy money ball here and there, so sometimes that's fun. Matching up on a tight table can shift the odds; but how it does that depends on the strengths of the players. I've seen it do some weird things to match-ups, especially when there is a spot to go along with it. That's why I never understood the question of whether a tight table favors a "better" player; the answer seems to vary as you go through the skill levels. There's always going to be a point where cinching up the pockets makes run-outs so rare that it just gives the underdog more chances at the table.

If there are some players that are harder to beat on tight pockets because of their accuracy in pocketing balls, it stands to reason that some players that are stronger in other aspects of the game would be harder to beat on buckets. Which player is "better" at pool: the one that can run out every 5th rack on buckets because of their break, strategy and cue ball control but rattles balls constantly on a tight table, or the one that can fire in a ball from the opposite end of the table on 4" pockets but hardly ever gets out on any table? I've certainly seen both.

 

[His Boy Elroy]

I just entered this thread for the first time today and I'm surprised this has gone on so long with nobody talking about the size of the shelf. I have a 1971 minnesota fats 8 footer with 4.25 pockets but only a 1 inch shelf. I've played on a gold crown with 4.5 pockets and a longer shelf (I think it's a 2 inch shelf?) and I was shocked at how much more difficult the gold crown was. Balls that rattle go in much easier on my table.

 

[genomachino]

Hinders working on the rest of the game.........

If a player shims up the pockets too tight you have trouble practicing doing the things you need to do because your too worried about making the ball.

Having said that, now your gambling or in a tournament you need to decide when to play safe and when to go for the shot.

For some players the tight pockets are a trap and for others they are the ones doing the trapping.

Myself. I don't like practicing on a super shimmed tale. Pro cut Diamonds are as tight as i like it. This is kind of where I draw the line.

When they made the Diamond pro cut pockets someone knew what they were doing.

Didn't they greg......Best Tables in the world...........

 

[TrumanHW]

This seems to be a problem that is fairly unique to pool. It's pretty common in other sports and games to allow a range of specifications when it comes to individual equipment used by the player, I can't think of many examples where there is so much variability in the "acceptable" dimensions for the playing field and target or goal.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the WPA specs for a tournament table (corners 4.5"-4.625" and sides 5"-5.125"; there are also specs for the cut angles and shelf sizes). The "Pro-Cut" Diamond tables conform to these specs, and I think they strike a good balance between enforcing accuracy and allowing a decent player to run out an open table. I don't know how they came up with these dimensions, but they really do seem to feel "right", and I'd be happy to play and watch pool on such tables for the rest of my life.

I do think that tighter tables have their place. For practicing, lots of sports have tougher practice equipment available. Practicing on a tight table has definitely improved my accuracy in the past, and it's also good for a confidence boost when you get back to a regular table.

For gambling, a tight table can serve a purpose as well. Playing a ring game on a tight table tends to slow things down a bit and give the weaker players a chance to catch an easy money ball here and there, so sometimes that's fun. Matching up on a tight table can shift the odds; but how it does that depends on the strengths of the players. I've seen it do some weird things to match-ups, especially when there is a spot to go along with it. That's why I never understood the question of whether a tight table favors a "better" player; the answer seems to vary as you go through the skill levels. There's always going to be a point where cinching up the pockets makes run-outs so rare that it just gives the underdog more chances at the table.

If there are some players that are harder to beat on tight pockets because of their accuracy in pocketing balls, it stands to reason that some players that are stronger in other aspects of the game would be harder to beat on buckets. Which player is "better" at pool: the one that can run out every 5th rack on buckets because of their break, strategy and cue ball control but rattles balls constantly on a tight table, or the one that can fire in a ball from the opposite end of the table on 4" pockets but hardly ever gets out on any table? I've certainly seen both.

You're a smart guy. Enjoyed reading your views. Thanks for the effort and clarity... I agree with you.

I'm an advocate for (as the subsequent writer wrote) relatively short shelves (deep balls are absurd to play position off of and shooting down the rail is a nightmare to hit at more than cinch speed) and 4-1/3 up to 4.5 inch pockets with parallele interior (aka squared up)... also, I think single vs. double shimmed makes a difference.

If a place IS going to have tight pockets (sub 4-1/3) then they need to keep the balls in perfect condition (all identical in weight), have even lighting from edge to edge of all 50 x 100 inches of playing surface and make the table as level as possible. The balls should be clean but never polished (why would anyone want to play with a synthetic interface??), in a constant temperature and relatively low humidity room. If you don't meet those criteria, then make the pockets playable. I also think that if you're going to have tight pockets, you should have the reason for them in the first place; players are running so many racks that sets are decided by the winner of the lag/flip.... if no one is running 3 racks at a time... then whats the urgency to make it more difficult? Who're you trying to "slow down?"

And lastly, I want rotation to look like rotation, and OP to look like strategy. I don't enjoy (at all) watching people nit and safe etc etc... grinding 9 ball down to 10+ min per rack. I want to see people run racks, and do it relatively quickly, at that.

I want jacking up off the end rail and drawing the ball table length to not be a stupid shot. I don't want a 1-9 combo to be more intelligent (statistically) then trying to run out... but on some pockets, even if there's nothing tied up, it is.

 

[MoonshineMattK]

The old championship tables in the 1920's were 10' with 4" pockets. Somewhere along the line the pockets got larger and the tables got shorter.

Tate,
I appreciate your website and all the knowledge you share here.
Do you have personal experience with an antique Brunswick 5x10 with 4 inch pockets?

Thanks

 

[TATE]

This is an erroneous comparison. As soon as basketball players need to make a ball bounce in to another ball to make that ball go in your analogy will apply. Or if they have to make 9 baskets in a row to be credited for one. Or if they have to slam the ball in to the floor and then through the hoop... preferably where they have to side spin the ball to twist it in.

Caroms, combos, banks, billiards, short-side position .... There is simply no parallel between the two.




Your name sounds so familiar to me... I wish I could place the face. I've been playing sporadically (thanks for the kind words). I was thinking about heading to hard times this weekend to watch the champs... maaaaaybe to donate my 150. I just despise playing on brand new cloth - and no matter how hard I tried to convince Eddie that new cloth is a synthetic play-condition and that real skill is measured with worn cloth, he insisted that the pros would demand and complain if it weren't brand new. From what I heard as of yesterday, it's still like playing on glass.

Where are you playing now?

Right now I'm not playing,- I'm bogged down with a big business project, but I occasionally play in tournaments, mostly at Hard Times.

It was a real bummer to me when Hollywood made the big change then closed. I used to like the atmosphere for entertaining members from out of town and playing socially there. My home table is set up like the tightest tables at Hollywood were. I thought their tables were done pretty well when they took care of them (before the red cloth).

10 ball is a pretty good game with the call shot rules, a decent set of balls and a Magic Rack. except for the front two tables, the tables at HT in the tournament room play pretty fair.

 

[TATE]

Tate,
I appreciate your website and all the knowledge you share here.
Do you have personal experience with an antique Brunswick 5x10 with 4 inch pockets?

Thanks

Thank you - no experience on the old 5 X 10 with tight pockets -but I would love to try one. I only know from the stories I read of Ralph Greenleaf. It took a lot more innings in those days to reach 125 points.