Made my head hurt too
Sometimes things worth doing take work.
Many things in pool are tough, but they are worth doing.
(Dr Dave’s quotes of the day
)
TWICE-PLUS-TENTHS … The Most Useful Bank Shot Diamond System You’ll Ever Learn
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Sometimes things worth doing take work.
Many things in pool are tough, but they are worth doing.
(Dr Dave’s quotes of the day
)
Sometimes things worth doing take work.
Many things in pool are tough, but they are worth doing.
(Dr Dave’s quotes of the day
Truth!
Could be an alternate way to visualize without the (admittedly simple) math: sight a rolling bank/kick from the target pocket to the OB and use that rail spot for the sliding bank target in the opposite direction.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Seems like the tables I play on are more like twice plus 20 as in 20%, but that's from diamond to diamond. Anyways that's what I've using the last couple of years. I'll chech out your system. Thanks
I watched the video, it looks like you took a lot of time to get the math figured out correctly. it all probably is spot on in terms of the math, but I recall a sentence in the video early on, "if your calculation at the table is off by a hair- it does not work."
This is the reason that I rely much more on experience and feel for banks / kicks- yes I will use the " half distance " diamond method on parallel kick shots and some banks - so your method makes sense for someone desiring to adopt a mathematical approach to banks/kicks - good job on that- just not for me- I have enough to think about in terms of PSR, alignment, grip, stance, stroke. I am one who is just trying to avoid too much in my head as I approach each shot- I'll put math equations aside for now, until I feel that all the rest is perfect for each and every shot approach- probably never
Your stuff is very good- I have my own approach to aiming any shot- straight, cut, or bank - I'll leave it at that, as an experienced player.
This is the reason that I rely much more on experience and feel for banks / kicks- yes I will use the " half distance " diamond method on parallel kick shots and some banks - so your method makes sense for someone desiring to adopt a mathematical approach to banks/kicks - good job on that- just not for me- I have enough to think about in terms of PSR, alignment, grip, stance, stroke. I am one who is just trying to avoid too much in my head as I approach each shot- I'll put math equations aside for now, until I feel that all the rest is perfect for each and every shot approach- probably never
Your stuff is very good- I have my own approach to aiming any shot- straight, cut, or bank - I'll leave it at that, as an experienced player.
I watched the video, it looks like you took a lot of time to get the math figured out correctly. it all probably is spot on in terms of the math, but I recall a sentence in the video early on, "if your calculation at the table is off by a hair- it does not work."
This is the reason that I rely much more on experience and feel for banks / kicks- yes I will use the " half distance " diamond method on parallel kick shots and some banks - so your method makes sense for someone desiring to adopt a mathematical approach to banks/kicks - good job on that- just not for me- I have enough to think about in terms of PSR, alignment, grip, stance, stroke. I am one who is just trying to avoid too much in my head as I approach each shot- I'll put math equations aside for now, until I feel that all the rest is perfect for each and every shot approach- probably never
Your stuff is very good- I have my own approach to aiming any shot- straight, cut, or bank - I'll leave it at that, as an experienced player.
I think the real benefit of the the more mathematical systems is reducing 10,000 hours of practice to master a skill down to 1,000 or so by starting with a fundamentally correct set of information.
I gave a test run on my diamond this afternoon. It came up short, just like other systems. For smaller banks (2-3 diamonds on the base of the triangle) 1/3 more than twice seemed to work, and larger banks than that it was more like 1/2 or 2/3 more than twice--confirming my approximation from a previous test I did.
That all said, I doubt I was nearly as fastidious as you are with my trials, given I had barely more than 30 mins between job committments. Example: at one point I was trying the 3.3 bank and managed to come up both short and long in successive attempts which were intended to be along the same line. So clearly I'm not all that proficient at creating a reliable, repeatable experiment.
But I am convinced that my Diamond does bank shorter than some other tables. I will likely continue to rely more on my own sense and intuition than trying any exact calculations, at least in-game. In practice, knowing the various ratios could get me started close to correct as I then work on practicing to develop that intuition.
I’m older - don’t have 1,000 hours of practice time left on me to bounce back again around age 75 or so
Yep. 20% of the banking rail number or 10% of opposite rail number. I just thought “doubling and adding that many tenths” would be an easier way for most people to “do the math.”Twice plus 10%??
I‘m impressed with your approach to developing this system Dr Dave.
I’ve generally heard that the through-diamond 2-1 system works for rolling-ball banks and kicks, but I’m a little skeptical that it would just magically work out so well. Have you thought about applying this approach with rolling balls?
I’ve generally heard that the through-diamond 2-1 system works for rolling-ball banks and kicks, but I’m a little skeptical that it would just magically work out so well. Have you thought about applying this approach with rolling balls?
I showed some through-diamond sliding-bank system in a previous video:
but they are not as accurate and don’t work over as large a range. Two of them (Eckart and Briesath) are 8/3 times the banking rail diamond number, so they are “twice plus about 30% of twice.”
The “calculation” isn’t the problem. That part is easy. The errors I demonstrated were the aim being off a hair or adding a hair of sidespin by mistake.
It’s on my list; although, the 2-to-1 rolling-ball system does work well over a limited range (on most tables).
Dr. Dave, Howdy;
Correct me if I'm wrong or outta step. Were you using that older Olhausen table to develop this?
Granted the Olhausen is a nice table but not what most folks will find in their local Bar/Tavern or
Pool hall. Have you tested this theory on other tables to see what bits play or not? Interested to
hear if this theory has more substance.
Thanks for all you do to help us with the brainy side of this game.
hank
Correct me if I'm wrong or outta step. Were you using that older Olhausen table to develop this?
Granted the Olhausen is a nice table but not what most folks will find in their local Bar/Tavern or
Pool hall. Have you tested this theory on other tables to see what bits play or not? Interested to
hear if this theory has more substance.
Thanks for all you do to help us with the brainy side of this game.
hank
The work was done on my Olhausen, but it plays very much "on system" (in other words, common and traditional kick and bank shot systems perform as expected on this table). I have also compared this table to other common tables (Gold Crown, Valley, Diamond) in this video:
My previous Connelly table also banked "on system." Regardless, I do plan to duplicate my careful experiments on other tables to see how the results compare. I expect the results to be the same as in my previous comparison ... all the tables will "on system" except typical Diamonds (which bank short).
By calculation at the table - I meant aim - you are correct- thanks Dr. Dave
FYI, I did a careful experiment today for 2-to-1 through-diamond rolling-ball kicks. That system is tough to beat. On most tables (including mine), it works near perfectly 5-to-2.5 and below, and only needs small corrections above that. I can't imagine finding a better system than that for rolling kicks or banks.
Aiming through the diamonds automatically corrects for the angle going longer at larger angles, but only up to a point.