Which Pocket & Why?

no brainer for me
lower right bigger pocket and no back cut
much more natural shot
 
The correct shot is what you are comfortable with. With that being said lower right is the better choice because you are not shooting into a "Blind" pocket, with the lower right you can see the "line" between the object ball and the pocket better while you are down on the shot which increases your chances of making the ball.

As in most things in pool there is not a 1 thing fits all scenario. If you shoot to that blind pocket better then you shoot the higher percentage shot.

Set up both shots and shoot them 10 times and see which one you make the most, then figure out which one is your weak shot and work on it until it is not a weak shot anymore.
 
I'm going top right because even if I miss it thin, there is a good chance it goes off the rail and in. When looking at the angle of being able to make it, I would think you have a "wider" pocket when including the rail you can hit and still make it. I'm a novice at best though, so take it for what it is.
https://pad.chalkysticks.com/67641.png

My other thought, depending on who I am playing, and how confident I am in the shot... if I miss while going top right, I can use a little low, come off the bottom rail and leave myself near the end rail. Chances are this leaves my opponent with a bank shot. Missing in lower right, I think there is a better chance of my opponent being able to shoot it into the same pocket.
 
On a Diamond table, bottom right because the full pocket is open. It is typically considered the correct shot. But if you are playing on a Valley bar box, or a big table with loose pockets, or even a Diamond with brand new cloth, and you are doubting yourself, feeling so nervous that you can't shake it, it might be better to slow roll the back cut. I mean, on a loose table or on new cloth that slides a lot, you could hit the 9 way off, sending it an inch or so above the pocket into the side rail, and still make it because the pocket will play much wider at that angle. It all depends on your level of confidence at the moment.
 
Bottom right for me.

I do like both shots so it realy doesn't matter much. I just like the bigger pocket.

Both aims are identical.

randyg
 
I've redrawn the shot. There was a slight problem with that as the Chalkysticks image does not quite have the correct 2:1 ratio for table dimensions.

I would shoot the shot to pocket A. I would try to float the cue ball to the nameplate.

The object ball lines shown in each case are for making the ball and for shooting a half-ball shot without side spin on the cue ball. Neither half-ball shot (if shot precisely) will pocket the object ball. Said another way, neither shot is a half-ball shot.

CropperCapture[112].png
 
Bob Jewett said:
I've redrawn the shot. There was a slight problem with that as the Chalkysticks image does not quite have the correct 2:1 ratio for table dimensions.

I would shoot the shot to pocket A. I would try to float the cue ball to the nameplate.

The object ball lines shown in each case are for making the ball and for shooting a half-ball shot without side spin on the cue ball. Neither half-ball shot (if shot precisely) will pocket the object ball. Said another way, neither shot is a half-ball shot.

View attachment 487275
Click to expand...

I made both shots several times aiming for a half ball hit and above center on the CB with no stun. Everyone try it and lets get a consensus. If you aren't accustomed to fractional aiming, you'll probably not do very well.

According to my numbers/method, the back-cut is slightly thinner than a half ball, but just a touch thinner. I still make it by aiming for a 1/2 ball and using an above-center hit on the CB at medium speed, no stun. If hitting it firm use a lot of draw. The throw wants to push it away from the pocket. The other shot is a touch thicker than a half ball, but it still goes at about any speed because the throw pushes it toward the pocket.

Granted, my brain might be making slight adjustments to that 1/2 aim. I might automatically be hitting it 1/32 thinner on the back cut and 1/32 thicker on the right cut, but it's so close to a half ball I label both shots as that.
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
I've redrawn the shot. There was a slight problem with that as the Chalkysticks image does not quite have the correct 2:1 ratio for table dimensions.

I would shoot the shot to pocket A. I would try to float the cue ball to the nameplate.

The object ball lines shown in each case are for making the ball and for shooting a half-ball shot without side spin on the cue ball. Neither half-ball shot (if shot precisely) will pocket the object ball. Said another way, neither shot is a half-ball shot.

View attachment 487275
Click to expand...


Picky, Picky, Picky!

randyg
 
BC21 said:
.. Everyone try it and lets get a consensus. ...
Click to expand...
If people want to print out the original diagram and measure the cut angle (after putting on a ghost ball) then that might be reasonable. (Or better, do it as I did in a graphics system with better than 0.1 degree resolution.) Asking people to guess at an angle on their screen, which might not even be an isotropic system, is pointless.

28 degrees is not the same as 30 degrees or 32 degrees, and the difference is more than enough to causes shots to miss. Neither of the shots in the OP diagram was a half-ball shot. Close to 30 degrees at a quick glance, yes. Close enough that a true half-ball hit without subconscious correction will make the shot, no.
 
Bob Jewett said:
If people want to print out the original diagram and measure the cut angle (after putting on a ghost ball) then that might be reasonable. (Or better, do it as I did in a graphics system with better than 0.1 degree resolution.) Asking people to guess at an angle on their screen, which might not even be an isotropic system, is pointless.

28 degrees is not the same as 30 degrees or 32 degrees, and the difference is more than enough to causes shots to miss. Neither of the shots in the OP diagram was a half-ball shot. Close to 30 degrees at a quick glance, yes. Close enough that a true half-ball hit without subconscious correction will make the shot, no.
Click to expand...

You are correct. On the shot to the right pocket, the 30° line leads slightly right of the pocket. Fortunately a half ball shot comes off closer to 28° due to throw, so the ball gets pushed toward the pocket and goes with a half ball hit. It goes right of center pocket, which leaves no room for error, so a slightly thicker aim would be better (between a 5/8 and a 1/2, but closer to the 1/2).

The back cut is a little thinner than a half ball, not quite a 3/8 but in-between a 1/2 ball aim and a 3/8 aim.

I call them both half ball shots because that's the closest basic fractional aim for each shot. The fine tuning takes place automatically when I align for the 1/2 ball and my mind says it's a touch thinner or thicker. If it's a touch thicker the natural throw fixes it, no aiming adjustment needed. If it's a touch thinner, I can use spin or a slightly thicker aim. So you are correct that some fine tuning is taking place.

Sorry to go off topic. I'd pick either pocket. On a tight table I'd pick the more open pocket to the right. On a loose table, the pocket on the left is just as open.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Illustrating that fractional aims are almost always approximate, and require some "finalizing" by the shooter - no matter how they may "seem".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

There in lies the simplicity of fractional aiming. Tweaking a shot that's almost a 3/8 aim or almost a 1/2 ball aim becomes very easy to do when you begin recognizing the shots.
 
BC21 said:
There in lies the simplicity of fractional aiming. Tweaking a shot that's almost a 3/8 aim or almost a 1/2 ball aim becomes very easy to do when you begin recognizing the shots.
Click to expand...
Therein also lies a common source of confusion, misunderstanding and arguments - a shot is called "a half ball shot" when it's really "somewhere near a half ball shot".

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Therein also lies a common source of confusion, misunderstanding and arguments - a shot is called "a half ball shot" when it's really "somewhere near a half ball shot".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
The British tend to talk a lot about half-ball (and other fractional hits, especially at English billiards) and a common turn of expression is "fullish" or "thinnish" half-ball. While not perfectly correct, I think it's perfectly understandable.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The British tend to talk a lot about half-ball (and other fractional hits, especially at English billiards) and a common turn of expression is "fullish" or "thinnish" half-ball. While not perfectly correct, I think it's perfectly understandable.
Click to expand...

I like that. The basic label for the shot is "Half Ball", but the it fine tunes to slightly thicker (fullish) or slightly thinner (thinnish). Recognizing that it's very close to a half ball is step 1. Determining which way to go from there is step 2, and that usually requires some experience. After a while your brain will automatically do the fine tuning for any shot near a half ball hit.

Now imagine the brain fine tuning this way for every basic quarter fractional aim point and the in-between (eighths) aim points. You see a shot that you've labeled a "3/8", but when you get down to shoot the shot your brain automatically fine tunes it based on whether it looks slightly thicker or thinner than a true 3/8 aim.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Therein also lies a common source of confusion, misunderstanding and arguments - a shot is called "a half ball shot" when it's really "somewhere near a half ball shot".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Exactly. Sometimes it's dead on a half ball, other times it needs tweaked a little.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top