WAXGATE and the Effects of Slick Cloth and Waxed Balls

Bob Jewett said:
I think you hit the balls in the video at different heights to get that much difference in draw with those particular shots.

"Clean" is a relative term. For some fun, slip in a cleaned cue ball on the bar table. Sort of your own mini WaxGate. (y) :devilish:

But I thought you were planning to play in pro tournaments. Those conditions are usually different from bars.

Have you started to use side spin for position yet?
Click to expand...
I hit them all similarly :). Trust me, I wouldnt be so sloppy to be that bad. Yes, I have started spins and positionings and all the good stuff. That is why I can say that aramith cleaners definitely makes balls more slick.

Agreed, Pros plays with either Balls cleaned by Aramiths, or whatever the event teams deemed it. They are definitely very different than Bar conditions (brand new cloth!)

But both Pros and Bar players can compensate to a degree. None of them that I have known to just "blame on the balls cleanliness" for their "losses".

I am sure we all can test what I mentioned, and the result will be the same, Aramith Cleaner makes the balls become very slick 😆
 
Last edited:
Dr. Dave,

Hopefully you know that I am one of your fans and this is the 1st time I have to question you about anything. In your video, you made a statement about waxed pool balls. Generally I know the rules and most specifications about pool equipment. I cited the BCA rules years ago and WPA just the other day on the wax thread getting so much attention.

A different rule perplexes and annoys me is that pool balls can vary up to a 1/2 oz. in weight and still comply with the WPA specifications. The rule on waxed or polished balls is crystal clear and always has been, at least for me. And yes, I do periodically polish my Centennials for appearance sake and the balls play differently for awhile but that’s okay with me.

I think the rule on pool balls you explained became ambiguous because of how you remarked balls may be cleaned using a product with minimal wax. The rule doesn’t imply that and certainly doesn’t state it. Quite the contrary, any wiggle room was apparently omitted and I believe purposely done too. I listened to your explanation and I believe you were a bit unclear. You started to say the rule should be expanded and improved but then quickly went on to say it should be okay to clean the balls using a product with a small amount of wax.

That was spoken so quickly it almost sounded like you were saying it was okay to do that now which it isn’t. I know you were using that only as an example of further change but I didn’t see you mention or list that as one of the suggestions under Recommendations. So unless the listener had a discerning ear, they may be inclined to think it was is okay but it isn’t under current rules.

My point is only that this is the first time I’ve found any fault with your explanation of something. If you had mentioned, for example, it should be permissible……blah,blah, blah. The problem is what amount of wax and then is it certififiable or would someone use a brand that had too much and after it is applied, how do you measure other than some type of slickness test on the cue ball and object balls. I think it opens a Pandora’s Box of new problems.

Why not just obey the current rules, enforce it and make the tournament sponsor and tournament director legally liable
by signing a affidavit? Simply stated, all the pool balls approved for use in the tournament have only been washed and cleaned using soap and water and no other substance containing any wax or polish was used to clean the balls.

Just enforce a strict zero tolerance policy with consequences for failing to enforce the official rules for pool equipment.
 
Last edited:
Bavafongoul said:
Dr. Dave,

Hopefully you know that I am one of your fans and this is the 1st time I have to question you about anything. In your video, you made a statement about waxed pool balls. Generally I know the rules and most specifications about pool equipment. I cited the BCA rules years ago and WPA just the other day on the wax thread getting so much attention.

A different rule perplexes and annoys me is that pool balls can vary up to a 1/2 oz. in weight and still comply with the WPA specifications. The rule on waxed or polished balls is crystal clear and always has been, at least for me. And yes, I do periodically polish my Centennials for appearance sake and the balls play differently for awhile but that’s okay with me.

I think the rule on pool balls was very clear up until you commented that the WPA rules allow that balls may be cleaned using a product with minimal wax. The rule doesn’t imply that and certainly does state it. Quite the contrary, any wiggle room was apparently omitted and I believe purposely done too. I listened to your explanation and I believe you were a bit unclear while explaining the rule. You started to say the rule should be expanded and improved but quickly went on to say it should be okay to clean the balls using a product with a small amount of wax. It was spoken so quickly that it almost sounded like you were saying it was okay to do that now which it isn’t. I know you were using that only as an example but I didn’t see you mention or list that as one of your suggestions under Recommendations. So unless the listener had a discerning ear, they may think a little bit of was is okay but it isn’t under current rules.

My point is only that this is the first time I’ve found any fault with your explanation of something. If you had simply mentioned, for example, it should be permissible……blah,blah, blah. The problem is what amount of wax and then is it certififiable or would someone use a brand that had too much and after it is applied, how do you measure other than some type of slickness test on the cue ball and object balls. I think it opens a Pandora’s Box of new problems.

Why not just obey the current rules, enforce it and make the tournament sponsor and tournament director legally liable
by signing a affidavit. Simply stated, all the pool balls approved for use in the tournament have only been washed and cleaned using soap and water and no other substance containing any wax or polish was used to clean the balls.

Just enforce a strict zero tolerance policy with consequences for failing to enforce the official rules for pool equipment.
Click to expand...

I think some pool ball cleaning products might contain a very small amount of some type of waxing agent. I don't think the WPA would be opposed to a product like this because it is primarily a pool ball cleaner, not a wax or polish. What is strictly forbidden is polishing balls with a dedicated wax or lubricating product that is intended to coat the balls with a substance to reduce friction, instead of cleaning the balls. Regardless, the WPA certainly needs to update many things in the equipment specifications document. Bob and I are on the WPA Rules Committee, and I am sure we will be helping to address this in the next cycle of changes.
 
This is a chemist question, but isnt there something like a litmus test for wax? Silicone is easily detectible by our senses, but wax is not - if I understood it correct.

But if the refs have a chemist way to detect the common wax substances through some kind of litmus test, then maybe we don't need the other precautions.

----
I asked ChatGPT :
Below is a menu of techniques that referees (or tournament organisers) could realistically adopt, starting with “quick-and-dirty” field tests and ending with laboratory-grade confirmation methods. None of these relies on smell or feel, so they are harder for a player to fool.

1. Dye-based “grease-spot” swabs (cost: a few euro / test)​

What you needHow it worksWhat you seePros & cons
Cotton tip pre-soaked in 0.05 – 0.1 % Sudan III/IV or Oil-Red-O in isopropanol (many ready-made field kits exist).The lipophilic dye partitions into any hydrocarbon layer it touches (wax, oil, grease) but does not stay on clean cellulose, phenolic or phenolic-resin cue balls.The tip and the spot on the ball turn vivid orange-red within seconds.• Instant and very sensitive.
• Works on natural (bees-, carnauba) and micro-crystalline waxes.
• A quick wipe with alcohol removes the stain.
• False-positives if the ball is genuinely oiled for maintenance.
How to use on site: tap the suspect area once, wait ~10 s, photograph the colour and wipe the ball clean.

2. Classic “translucent-spot” paper test (near-zero cost)​

  1. Press ordinary filter or copier paper firmly against the cue ball or tip.
  2. Warm the paper briefly with a hair-dryer or hot-water bottle (~50 °C).
  3. A greasy, translucent halo forms where wax dissolved and wicked into the fibres; a clean surface leaves the paper opaque.
Pros: cheap, no chemicals, works even on colour-coded balls.
Cons: slightly less sensitive than the dye test and needs a heat source.

3. Contact-angle “bead test” (visual only)​

  • Place a 1 µL droplet of de-ionised water on the suspect spot and view it side-on (a €100 USB goniometer or a phone+macro lens is plenty).
  • If the contact angle > 90 °, the surface is strongly hydrophobic, typical for a waxed patch; an unwaxed phenolic ball sits around 40–60 °.
Tip: always compare with a certified clean reference ball to account for brand-to-brand variations.

4. Hand-held ATR-FTIR confirmation (shared between tournaments)​

Modern battery-powered FTIR units (Agilent 4300, Bruker ALPHA II, etc.) can be held against the ball for a 30-s scan; their libraries contain spectra for bees-, carnauba-, paraffin- and silicone-based products. A built-in match score > 80 % is defensible evidence in disciplinary hearings.

5. Laboratory back-ups (rarely needed, but decisive)​

MethodWhat it tells you
GC-MS of a hexane swabExact molecular fingerprint (even detects fragrance additives used to mask wax).
Iodine or bromine “value” titrationDegree of unsaturation – useful to distinguish carnauba (low IV) from beeswax (higher IV).
DSC (differential scanning calorimetry)Melting range and enthalpy; confirms the wax identity and purity.

Putting it into practice​

  • Fast screen: keep Sudan-IV swabs (or an OilScreenSoil™ kit) at the referee’s desk. One dab gives an answer in under a minute and costs less than a piece of chalk.
  • Document: photograph the stained swab/ball next to a colour card for the match report.
  • Confirm if challenged: run a quick handheld-FTIR scan; if still disputed, seal the ball in a zip-bag, take a solvent swab and ship it to the lab.
With this two-tier approach (dye spot → FTIR), wax cheating can be detected quickly, objectively and with minimal disruption to match flow—no need for elaborate pre-match ball exchanges or player searches.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I think you hit the balls in the video at different heights to get that much difference in draw with those particular shots.

"Clean" is a relative term. For some fun, slip in a cleaned cue ball on the bar table. Sort of your own mini WaxGate. (y) :devilish:

But I thought you were planning to play in pro tournaments. Those conditions are usually different from bars.

Have you started to use side spin for position yet?
Click to expand...
I think the follow thru was a tad bit different on his first poke.
 
DaWizard said:
This is a chemist question, but isnt there something like a litmus test for wax? Silicone is easily detectible by our senses, but wax is not - if I understood it correct.

But if the refs have a chemist way to detect the common wax substances through some kind of litmus test, then maybe we don't need the other precautions.

----
I asked ChatGPT :
Below is a menu of techniques that referees (or tournament organisers) could realistically adopt, starting with “quick-and-dirty” field tests and ending with laboratory-grade confirmation methods. None of these relies on smell or feel, so they are harder for a player to fool.

1. Dye-based “grease-spot” swabs (cost: a few euro / test)​

What you needHow it worksWhat you seePros & cons
Cotton tip pre-soaked in 0.05 – 0.1 % Sudan III/IV or Oil-Red-O in isopropanol (many ready-made field kits exist).The lipophilic dye partitions into any hydrocarbon layer it touches (wax, oil, grease) but does not stay on clean cellulose, phenolic or phenolic-resin cue balls.The tip and the spot on the ball turn vivid orange-red within seconds.• Instant and very sensitive.
• Works on natural (bees-, carnauba) and micro-crystalline waxes.
• A quick wipe with alcohol removes the stain.
• False-positives if the ball is genuinely oiled for maintenance.
How to use on site: tap the suspect area once, wait ~10 s, photograph the colour and wipe the ball clean.

2. Classic “translucent-spot” paper test (near-zero cost)​

  1. Press ordinary filter or copier paper firmly against the cue ball or tip.
  2. Warm the paper briefly with a hair-dryer or hot-water bottle (~50 °C).
  3. A greasy, translucent halo forms where wax dissolved and wicked into the fibres; a clean surface leaves the paper opaque.
Pros: cheap, no chemicals, works even on colour-coded balls.
Cons: slightly less sensitive than the dye test and needs a heat source.

3. Contact-angle “bead test” (visual only)​

  • Place a 1 µL droplet of de-ionised water on the suspect spot and view it side-on (a €100 USB goniometer or a phone+macro lens is plenty).
  • If the contact angle > 90 °, the surface is strongly hydrophobic, typical for a waxed patch; an unwaxed phenolic ball sits around 40–60 °.
Tip: always compare with a certified clean reference ball to account for brand-to-brand variations.

4. Hand-held ATR-FTIR confirmation (shared between tournaments)​

Modern battery-powered FTIR units (Agilent 4300, Bruker ALPHA II, etc.) can be held against the ball for a 30-s scan; their libraries contain spectra for bees-, carnauba-, paraffin- and silicone-based products. A built-in match score > 80 % is defensible evidence in disciplinary hearings.

5. Laboratory back-ups (rarely needed, but decisive)​

MethodWhat it tells you
GC-MS of a hexane swabExact molecular fingerprint (even detects fragrance additives used to mask wax).
Iodine or bromine “value” titrationDegree of unsaturation – useful to distinguish carnauba (low IV) from beeswax (higher IV).
DSC (differential scanning calorimetry)Melting range and enthalpy; confirms the wax identity and purity.

Putting it into practice​

  • Fast screen: keep Sudan-IV swabs (or an OilScreenSoil™ kit) at the referee’s desk. One dab gives an answer in under a minute and costs less than a piece of chalk.
  • Document: photograph the stained swab/ball next to a colour card for the match report.
  • Confirm if challenged: run a quick handheld-FTIR scan; if still disputed, seal the ball in a zip-bag, take a solvent swab and ship it to the lab.
With this two-tier approach (dye spot → FTIR), wax cheating can be detected quickly, objectively and with minimal disruption to match flow—no need for elaborate pre-match ball exchanges or player searches.
Click to expand...
Wow!!! Excellent addition Mr. Wizard!!👍🏻
 
kling&allen said:
Like secretly putting crap on the ball when your opponent isn’t watching?
Click to expand...
No. Think like tennis and golf. Differences at every stop but in plain sight for the players to wrap their heads around.
I used to play at a room that Pledged the sets daily. Radical departure from bars but real pool nonetheless.
 
dr_dave said:
FYI, I just posted a new video that discusses the WaxGate controversy following the recent $1M World Championship in Saudi Arabia. I break down example shots from the tournament, comparing typical and slick or waxed conditions. I also demonstrate all ball-reaction effects that are different with a waxed ball. Finally, I offer recommendations for changes that should be made to the game in response to move forward positively. Check it out:


Contents:
0:00 - Background
2:42 - Example Shots
5:00 - Fedor's Banana Carom Shot
6:52 - All Waxing Effects
---- 7:01 - draw is easier
---- 7:06 - sidespin reacts less
---- 7:50 - rolling speed is similar
---- 8:05 - more speed loss off rails
---- 8:23 - pockets play larger
---- 8:39 - CB persists on tangent line longer
---- 9:40 - follow shots stall off rails
---- 10:40 - rolling kick and bank shots go longer
---- 11:20 - balls throw less
---- 12:31 - miscue limit no different
---- 12:46 - not all spin lost on kick
---- 13:33 - shallow-angle follow scratch more likely
---- 13:51 - massé shots are more impressive
14:32 - Recommendations
16:31 - More Info

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
As usual Doc, thank you for the video and the info contained. I suggest players take what they can use and leave the rest.
 
Speaking of secrets, how about research that will grade the drag coefficients of lube and varying degrees of lube. One experiment might be doing sets with an increasing drag coefficient where the higher numbered balls are virgin out the box or vice versa.
 
GideonF said:
Increased net deflection when shooting with English due to reduced swerve.

I don’t think you mentioned the effect on check side - the fact that inside English doesn’t take properly (at least that’s the case with brand new cloth).

One other thing that you mentioned but doesn’t get enough attention is the effect in the kicking game. I’d like to see the effect on 2 and 3 rail kicks that are so important in these pro matches.
Click to expand...
I took the net down bcuz the balls kept getting stuck in it.😉
 
CocoboloCowboy said:
Pool Players are know to be Straight Arrows, Totally Honest they would never try on purpose Cheat, Hustle you, or be anything but totally honest.

They are sort of like politicians, AC guys, car sales people, doctors, dentists, or hookers who never tells lies for profit.
Click to expand...
Or your husband...or your wife !! 🤣 but sore losers are only a Toes full
 
CocoboloCowboy said:
Pool Players are know to be Straight Arrows, Totally Honest they would never try on purpose Cheat, Hustle you, or be anything but totally honest.

They are sort of like politicians, AC guys, car sales people, doctors, dentists, or hookers who never tells lies for profit.
Click to expand...
all paragons of truth who would never lie for money… I mean really, what kind of world would this be if they couldn’t be trusted? 😳
 
vincett said:
Not sure what makes the balls slide more effortlessly with these cleaners, but they do. If i cleaned my stuff with water/soap/vinegar/alcohol solution then my balls behaves similar to clean balls at the bars. That is why I dont use aramith cleaner anymore. They dont cling or skids the way balls at the bars do lol

I am not a pro, just a casual player. But this is my video of demonstration. The dotted CB is solution clean, the Solid white CB is Aramith cleaner. The Black OB is solution clean and white OB is Aramith cleaner

You can see that the solid CB draws more effortlessly, where as the DOT CB doesnt

Click to expand...
Soap/vinegar/alcohol will all make the surface of the ball dull, when you take a new set of balls out of the box they are shiny but not real slippery to the touch like a "waxed" ball. I want mine to be the same as a new set of boxed balls as that is the condition of the balls in most tournaments. That is also the same condition the balls are in for pro tournaments, the camera guys always like to get a shot of the racked balls with the arena lights reflecting off of them. Bars are a bad example to use for balls, I have seen bar balls that look like they were used on the concrete street in front of the bar.
 
all the products to clean that adds shine will have something in them that also makes the balls more slippery. yes you have pretty looking new balls but they do not act like the balls were designed to do.

just see how much draw and things the top players can do nowadays compared to years back when the ref just wiped the ball off and they only used soap and water to clean them.

and it gives more of an edge if the player puts something on certain object balls only when he racks them. as its harder to detect and only he knows or can tell which will change its outcome.
that's why ronnie allen used to carry his own set of balls and insist you played with them. fools did. as his set was gaffed on only certain balls.

even a bunch here in an older thread said they would gamble with players that brought their own set with them as its better to play with newer balls than the pool room ones.
 
fastone371 said:
Soap/vinegar/alcohol will all make the surface of the ball dull, when you take a new set of balls out of the box they are shiny but not real slippery to the touch like a "waxed" ball. I want mine to be the same as a new set of boxed balls as that is the condition of the balls in most tournaments. That is also the same condition the balls are in for pro tournaments, the camera guys always like to get a shot of the racked balls with the arena lights reflecting off of them. Bars are a bad example to use for balls, I have seen bar balls that look like they were used on the concrete street in front of the bar.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and dont WPA rules states that only Soap/water/Alcohol should be used to clean balls ? Hence I was thinking that in the event matches, Aramith Cleaners were used instead of Soap/Water/Vinegar/Alcohol stuff which were allowed for
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top