This type of shot happens all the time. I'd like to understand its exact mechanics to exploit it better because right now it's not working very well for me.
For instance, in the following configuration, I want to pocket the 1 by caroming it off the 6. The 1 and the 6 are frozen or very close, and the 1-6 line is perpendicular to the 1-(corner pocket) line.
Ignoring throw, and playing hard (or low) enough to make the cueball hit the 1 without any spin, I should be able to hit the 1 with the cueball almost anywhere on the table and with almost all kind of ball fullness, provided the cueball is driven into the 6, right?
If I carefully set the 1 and the 6 perfectly in those positions, it's almost what happens. But in reality, what happens is this, with more or less deviation according to where the cueball hits from, and how full it hits:
That makes sense to me: the 6 behaves exactly as I expect it to, because of throw, and I'm assuming the 1's path changes too for the same reason. Or in other words, since after the collision, the 1's path and the 6's path should be 90 degrees apart, if the 1 is thrown to the side, so should the 6.
So far so good. Now, if I want to exploit those shots, I do things in reverse: I look for frozen (or very close balls), and if they look like they're in line perpendicularly to one of the ball's path to a pocket, I check if they really are with by cue, to the best of my ability. If they seem exactly perpendicular, then I correct the throw I expect to get with some english on the cueball. If they aren't exactly perpendicular, and the deviation should cancel out the throw, I use no english on the cueball. Then I play the ball full.
My problem is, half of the time I get this:
The 1 catches the point and doesn't go in. Because of that, I'm wary of playing that sort of shot if the pocket is too far.
I tried with no english, with reverse english, hard, soft, but it doesn't change much. When I set the balls myself, it almost never happens, but when I try to exploit an existing situation, I get a lot more misses. I figured maybe I had trouble evaluating whether the balls where perpendicular to the path to the pocket, but when the ball misses, it always seems to miss toward the same point (the angle closes, never opens), so I think there's something I'm not understanding correctly here. Finally, it seems to happen more when the balls are completely frozen, and less if they're slightly separated.
Anybody knows what I'm doing wrong here? These shots happen surprisingly often, and I can't count the number of balls that should have gone in, but haven't.
For instance, in the following configuration, I want to pocket the 1 by caroming it off the 6. The 1 and the 6 are frozen or very close, and the 1-6 line is perpendicular to the 1-(corner pocket) line.
Ignoring throw, and playing hard (or low) enough to make the cueball hit the 1 without any spin, I should be able to hit the 1 with the cueball almost anywhere on the table and with almost all kind of ball fullness, provided the cueball is driven into the 6, right?
If I carefully set the 1 and the 6 perfectly in those positions, it's almost what happens. But in reality, what happens is this, with more or less deviation according to where the cueball hits from, and how full it hits:
That makes sense to me: the 6 behaves exactly as I expect it to, because of throw, and I'm assuming the 1's path changes too for the same reason. Or in other words, since after the collision, the 1's path and the 6's path should be 90 degrees apart, if the 1 is thrown to the side, so should the 6.
So far so good. Now, if I want to exploit those shots, I do things in reverse: I look for frozen (or very close balls), and if they look like they're in line perpendicularly to one of the ball's path to a pocket, I check if they really are with by cue, to the best of my ability. If they seem exactly perpendicular, then I correct the throw I expect to get with some english on the cueball. If they aren't exactly perpendicular, and the deviation should cancel out the throw, I use no english on the cueball. Then I play the ball full.
My problem is, half of the time I get this:
The 1 catches the point and doesn't go in. Because of that, I'm wary of playing that sort of shot if the pocket is too far.
I tried with no english, with reverse english, hard, soft, but it doesn't change much. When I set the balls myself, it almost never happens, but when I try to exploit an existing situation, I get a lot more misses. I figured maybe I had trouble evaluating whether the balls where perpendicular to the path to the pocket, but when the ball misses, it always seems to miss toward the same point (the angle closes, never opens), so I think there's something I'm not understanding correctly here. Finally, it seems to happen more when the balls are completely frozen, and less if they're slightly separated.
Anybody knows what I'm doing wrong here? These shots happen surprisingly often, and I can't count the number of balls that should have gone in, but haven't.
So I tried to find a method with my cue. The best I could find is to line the cue with the pocket and the center of the object ball, and determine visually if the frozen balls look perpendicular to the shaft. And indeed this seems more accurate than what I used to do. I get much better results than before.
