I second this. It would be a very impressive run out and I'd really like to see it. 10 chances, run 'em out on the practice table.
What would you do?
- Thread starter Neil
- Start date
I second this. It would be a very impressive run out and I'd really like to see it. 10 chances, run 'em out on the practice table.
Neil, I enjoy all of your "What would you do here" posts. It does get me to thinking about how I would play it. Also, you have showed me different methods to get out on a layout that I wouldn't have otherwise thought about.
I appreciate that you're trying to do with this post and your method on this layout..... but...
Remember, you asked "What would you do?" ... I, and many others, said what we would do. Most of us play safe here...... and I'm glad you gave your reasoning on why we should try the runout.
... maybe it's how you placed the ball in the diagram, but that 3-ball looks less than a balls-width away from the rail.... maybe in your real-life situation it might have been a little farther out? .... but regardless at my level, I don't think I could get a good shot when dealing with the 3-6 cluster.... but that's just me.
I think you may be getting pissed and instead of trying to teach us, you may be a little hard on those of us that don't think our ability to make a high-percentage shot there is probable.
I appreciate that you're trying to do with this post and your method on this layout..... but...
Remember, you asked "What would you do?" ... I, and many others, said what we would do. Most of us play safe here...... and I'm glad you gave your reasoning on why we should try the runout.
... maybe it's how you placed the ball in the diagram, but that 3-ball looks less than a balls-width away from the rail.... maybe in your real-life situation it might have been a little farther out? .... but regardless at my level, I don't think I could get a good shot when dealing with the 3-6 cluster.... but that's just me.
I think you may be getting pissed and instead of trying to teach us, you may be a little hard on those of us that don't think our ability to make a high-percentage shot there is probable.
The issue isn't one of disagreeing with Neil, the issue is one of making a pissing contest out of it. An issue of "make a video and prove it" crap. An issue of being combative and an instigator, rather than one of having a respectful conversation.
I am sure that Neil would continue to have a reasonable discussion about the chances of making this run-out, if he were being spoken to in a civil manner. The manner in which he presented this in the first place.
We could all get so much further in this world if we would try to get along and not try to stir-the-stuff. Keyboard cowboys are the ruination of anything productive here.
I always learn something from Neils "What Would You Do" scenarios. I want to see them continue. So I would like you guys to lay off, and if you disagree, state it like a real human that you might want to have a conversation with someday.
Sheesh.
I am sure that Neil would continue to have a reasonable discussion about the chances of making this run-out, if he were being spoken to in a civil manner. The manner in which he presented this in the first place.
We could all get so much further in this world if we would try to get along and not try to stir-the-stuff. Keyboard cowboys are the ruination of anything productive here.
I always learn something from Neils "What Would You Do" scenarios. I want to see them continue. So I would like you guys to lay off, and if you disagree, state it like a real human that you might want to have a conversation with someday.
Sheesh.
And, that is the truest definition of irony.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/irony
You see, everyone here was civil with their honest opinions and questions. The only person on this thread that got condescending, defensive and started name calling (calling ppl jerks, etc) was...the guy you're defending.
Eric >show us how easy it is on vid, Neil
I believe one would call that tit-for-tat. Or perhaps getting a little of what you're dishing out.
I'm not gonna get into a post-by-post analysis. What I will say is that if the arguments weren't spiteful and snide, this thread would have a whole different tone to it. Please don't tell me that challenging Neil to make a video of this isn't condesending and argumentitive, and beyond the scope of the thread.
Neil has posted something he has done, and feels is easier accomplished than it might look initially. And that one should try it before dismissing it as being too tough. If you don't agree, cool, say so and move on. Stop trying to beat him down for actually believing that you and I might have a better chance at doing it than we would think when looking at it.
There are a lot of ways to approach this layout. Many prefer the safety to maybe get a better starting point on the one. Which is an ok option.
I don't fault the attempt that Neil took for the chance of running out. Remember this is a bar table. Myself, I don't agree with the way he positioned the two ball. I would prefer the three rails forward to assure the chance of getting better position for the two-four combination. The results of this combo and the position of the two will now determine if I would continue with the chance to run out.
If the carom on the six is available then ok, if not, maybe a breakout on the three is there, if not, then there is always the opportunity for a safe.
A Safety with the enitial ball in hand, and with so many balls on the table, and it being a bar table, could turn your advantage around if your opponent happens to make a legal hit on the one and in turn putting you on the defense.
I don't think the out, because it's on a bar table, is as difficult as many think it to be. The key to this out would be how the two is positioned after the combantion on the four.
How many times one does it out of so many means nothing. You only need to do it once when it counts.
I don't fault the attempt that Neil took for the chance of running out. Remember this is a bar table. Myself, I don't agree with the way he positioned the two ball. I would prefer the three rails forward to assure the chance of getting better position for the two-four combination. The results of this combo and the position of the two will now determine if I would continue with the chance to run out.
If the carom on the six is available then ok, if not, maybe a breakout on the three is there, if not, then there is always the opportunity for a safe.
A Safety with the enitial ball in hand, and with so many balls on the table, and it being a bar table, could turn your advantage around if your opponent happens to make a legal hit on the one and in turn putting you on the defense.
I don't think the out, because it's on a bar table, is as difficult as many think it to be. The key to this out would be how the two is positioned after the combantion on the four.
How many times one does it out of so many means nothing. You only need to do it once when it counts.
I honestly believe Neil ran this out...but, this is NO WAY an easy out. If it was a tourney or a money game, can you honesty say you would try and run out with CB in hand every time....NO.
I will say this, I would put money down that this couldnt be ran out 5 out of 10x..by a normal player....
I will say this, I would put money down that this couldnt be ran out 5 out of 10x..by a normal player....
...if you're name is Frank the Barber. In fact, it's a hanger!!!
Chris
...still remembering all those 1-10 combo's Frank made in the Ring Game!.
(Honestly, this is why I don't participate in the bar table discussions. The bar table game is foreign to us guys who are glued to 9' tables with tight pockets.)
Last edited:
As long as you ran it when it counted is all that really matters. As far as my odds, heck I havnt picked up a cue in 4 months but I bet I play a solid 7 low 8 speed right now.
Yes, I would play safe on that layout..it might be the wrong choice, but that is what I would feel more comfortable doing...
Regarding the safe or lack thereof, could you have banked the 1 ball 1 rail off the side rail towards the 9, freezing the cue ball on the 7-ball for a strong safety and leaving a 1-9 combo if you got ball in hand?
I was thinking the same thing, and the tickie with the edge of the 3 overlapping the 6 requires an absolute perfect hit with lots of follow I believe. Very difficult to pull off.
If you could fit the cue ball between the 3 and the rail the shot becomes a lot easier.
Edited: I guess they are both tickies
Last edited:
I hate to be stupid, but actually - what the heck is a tickie anyway? Is it just a kiss?
tickie (ticky?) - rail first hit, but generally only used when the object ball is close to a rail and the cueball returns to the same rail after the hit.
Last edited:
This shot is normally struck with running english and with the second object ball not to far from the pocket. The farther from the pocket the more precise the hit needs to be. Rail first, then first object ball, and then to second object ball. If the second ball is fairly tight to the rail the running english will give a little insurance by hitting the rail for the second time and then spinning to the ball.
A unique variation of this shot is when the two balls are frozen to each other with the second ball also frozen to the rail. You strike rail first and then the first ball. The first ball then separates and positions the second ball slightly off the rail and waits for the cue ball to come off the rail for the second time to strike it into the pocket. We need the wei table to show a magnified view of this.
A bonus rep for someone that can diagram this.
Last edited:
TheCueHunter
Banned
I have read this whole thread....(time of my life I will never have back) and I call Bullcrap! I enjoyed the part Neil called the AZ world "idiots" if they dont try this out.. nice christian talk BTW...
But my only question after sifting through this non sense is directed at Neil....
Neil...Do you gamble? And when can I come to your city and play you? If you try to run out from there in a tourny, great! But if you try that gambling time and time again...you will need a third job:thumbup:
Can you promise to never play safe when we gamble?? If so you have the eight
good night
But my only question after sifting through this non sense is directed at Neil....
Neil...Do you gamble? And when can I come to your city and play you? If you try to run out from there in a tourny, great! But if you try that gambling time and time again...you will need a third job:thumbup:
Can you promise to never play safe when we gamble?? If so you have the eight
good night