Snooker discussion : Pocketing a ball along the rail.

I don't, but then again I'm useless at snooker.

Very good answer, sir.

If they are right tight against the cushion if you're anygood makes them very difficult to miss plus you can put as much side on as you like which actually makes you to be able to do anything with the cueball.

I disagree. Its good advice. If its a few mm off the cushion - a rail is on a pool table in America! - then its another story.

You're a brave man...

Yesterday I disagreed, today I agree.

I haven't got the foggiest but I do know it's generally a good idea to side with PM.

.
http://bbc.in/e2ScIr
.

Ask them.

Pokermonster World Snooker Championships - 0
BBC Team - 8(?)

Now answer my torque query on t'other thread, thankyou.

All angled shots (with the exception of those played with running sidespin instilled in the white) experience a reaction commonly known as throw on the object ball.

Therefore, when any coach advises the contact required for the pot is at a point on the object ball exactly opposite the intended pocket you are receiving bad advice.  All angled cut shots must be played slightly thinner to allow for the throw effect.  An exception arises if a cuist imparts running sidespin into the cueball, which negates the throw.  In these instances aiming for a contact point directly opposite the pocket is most certainly advisable.

So, for angled shots along the cushion, unless you impart running sidespin, you should aim to strike the cushion a fraction before the object ball.

Good morning Mr Nibbs.

I have answered that specific question several times on the other thread.  As it is quite a lengthy explanation and I am using a tiny mobile computer with a miniscule keyboard, please could I respectfully ask you to have a quick read through, sir.

Somebody posted up a link to a Youtube clip experiment with sandpaper.  It explained the concept very well if you would care to have a look.

It looks like the contact point issue might be addressed this afternoon; Steve Davis is trying out one of those laser sight gizmos.

Sadly, of course, most of these devices work on the 'opposite from the pocket' aiming point which, as I have explained above, is often a flawed strategy.

Fk knows, good job I work with computers, if I was a snooker pro I'd be living in a cardboard box by now.

*still be living

*still be living

If he was a good coach he wouldn't leave the advice simply at 'hit cushion & ball at same time' though.
Playing these shots with running side & screw/stun helps the pot considerably & this is how any decent play would usually play it.

decent player

Playing the shot with running side only helps a shot along the rail if you hit the cushion first, RM.  If you struck the ball and cushion simultaneously with running side instilled in the cueball it would most certainly throw the object ball on and off the cushion, quite possibly causing a miss.

And as to how most decent players would usually tackle the situation?  I would say it largely depends where they wish the white to go afterwards.

Worked well enuff for me down the years!

And that's all that really matters, RM.

Believe me though, sir, when I tell you that you must have been hitting the cushion a fraction before the ball if playing with running side.  Most good players do this subconsciously.

Strangely enough, if position is not a factor, I always find it easier to run balls down the rail with check (outside) sidespin.

Adopting this tactic one may safely hit cushion and colour simultaneously.

It looks like Higgins and Lee are both trying to lose the first frame.  Some terrible shots being played.

I always tell the players I coach that potting a ball along the rail is easier when applying running side.

Do you coach professionally, Tucky?

I don't hold any licenses, and I don't normally take payment. I just use the lads as practice partners, and give them a few tips along the way. I can't stand practicing on my own, so it's a passable version of symbiosis.

Very good, sir.

As a coach, I'd be interested to learn if you were aware of the throw effect present in angled cut shots I mentioned above.  Most I have spoken to are very surprised to learn such strokes should be aimed thinner than the 'opposite the pocket' approach usually advised.

I can't stand practicing on my own

You'll never make it as a Chit Chatter.

Some quite interesting moments (a joke for you mathematicians, there) on this thread.

'Throw', I did not know that. I smash the bugger.

Agree with tuckyboy.
For an along the cushion shot I prefer a touch of running side and aim slightly behind the object ball.
Sometimes works

Running side, aiming slightly behind the object ball, is a very good tactic KC.  You haven't fallen into the trap of striking cushion and colour simultaneously.

mathematician got it Orioles!

As you say pokermonster, nothing teaches like experience. For most players, it's what works for them that counts - I dare say the throw has been having its influence on my thinking for all these years, without me ever giving much thought to its effect.

I tend to play most shots with side, so the plain ball throw would not affect me as much as more plain ball merchants, I guess.

I agree about check side also helping the pot

I've drawn a rough little sketch for you, Tucky.  If you would care to try it out on your students, it proves beyond doubt the existence to cut shot throw.

Set up the balls as shown in the diagram.  As indicated, the chain of reds are targeted directly at the far corner pocket. If you were to now play the cueball straight at yellow number 1, the furthermost red would throw somewhere to the region of position X on the side rail.

Most good players are aware of this reaction.

However, what surprises most, is if you now remove all the reds and play the stroke again.  I think we can agree that yellow number 2 would strike yellow number 3 at a point directly opposite the target pocket.  Would yellow number 3 therefore be potted?

No.  It throws to point X just as before. 

This is proof positive throw exists on cut shots and you should not aim for the point on the object ball directly opposite the pocket despite what most snooker coaches insist upon.

[img]http://community.cdnbf.net/community.betfair.com/user/pokermonster/pokermonsters_gallery/588e98f1d7f863b2fdde9e36f206b5a0.jpg?v=223427[/img]

Good man, Ivor [;)]

My pure and applied maths A level was not wasted

If you were to remove all the balls in the above diagram except the number 3 yellow and the cueball, attempting to pot the colour using right hand sidespin would cause the yellow to throw even further wide of its intended pocket.

Left hand side, if the position allows it, would be your friend here.

Is this a similar phenomenon that means that when two balls are lined up as a plant, when you would expect the second ball to follow a specific path, striking the object ball in different places will produce different results as regards the second ball?

It is exactly the same, Tucky.  Most are very surprised to learn the effect is also present in all angled shots, not just touching-ball plants.

It stands to reason, thinking about it. A most informative thread, good work pokermonster.

Thank you, sir.  Glad you found it interesting.

I could talk about snooker all day. I absolutely love the game. Fortunately I have lately been able to devote a little bit of time to restoring my game to its former potency, and am quite pleased with the results so far.

Good luck, Tucky.

If you get a spare hour sometime you might find my thread concerning topspin (see further down the main page) quite an interesting read.

I'm off out for dinner now, sir, so I'll bid you good evening.

I did indeed read your topspin thread, and I must confess at first I thought you were talking bollox.

Well, you certainly weren't alone, sir!

Just resurrecting my snooker discussion threads as I wanted to save them from falling off the bottom of the archives.

My apologies if they clutter the forum for a while.

Words fail me with this clip.  I don't like to get too personal with my criticisms but this gentlemen is the EPA's head coach, so one might reasonably expect him to know better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKfdTlPUGGY&feature=relmfu

if it's on a left-h cushion apply right-h 'side' and aim to hit both cushion and object ball simultaneously. vice-versa for opposite cushion.

that's if it's possible to impart 'side' of course.

Pokermonster. You may very well know your snooker...but what about your sums?
Surely, your advice given @10:28 on the 20th is entirely dependant upon the size of the fraction!
I would suggest that most of the fractional parts of a second would be far too large, and on that basis I declare it bad advice.

Did you mean an itty-bitty fraction?

I have'nt read all the replies but hitting the cushion and ball at the same time with a wee touch of running side would be the way i would have played this shot in my heyday. Assuming its just a single pot with no consideration for position.

Taking the shot(say 100 times) from the same position and varying the different techniques it should be possible to find your highest strike rate and the technique giving you the best success rate.Incorporate the shot(and any others you don't feel confident about)into your practice.GL.

Like a lot of things I do its all in the wrist action.

its best to hit the cushion and object ball at the same time with as much top spin as you can muster

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a few years ago.

Pokermonster wrote: 20th April 2011

It looks like Higgins and Lee are both trying to lose the first frame.  Some terrible shots being played.

How strangely prophetic!

Excellent example of the cushion trough effect in the Ding v King match this afternoon.

Just bumping a few threads I wanted to save from the upgrade.  My apologies for cluttering the forum.

Pokermonster wrote on 20th April 2011:

It looks like Higgins and Lee are both trying to lose the first frame.  Some terrible shots being played.

That was unusually prescient of me.

Haven't read the full thread and it's years since I last played snooker but I always aimed to just miss the object ball with a touch of side played on the cue ball.

A very good strategy, Akabula, you did not fall into the trap (as many coaches advocate) if hitting the ball and cushion simultaneously.

I loved the game and played with guys like Matt Gibson and Eddie Sinclair.

From day one Pokermonster the advice was always hit the object ball and cushion at the exact same moment with side(directed to the pocket). This side obviously negates the throw as the ball grabs the cushion along the rail.

Playing the same shot without side it would make sense that one side(far side) of the hits the cushion first as the second half(object ball side) of the cueball catches the object ball secondary.

We would need a hot spot sensor like cricket has, on the slow mo cameras to see it, but you are correct.

*Playing the same shot without side it would make sense that one side(far side) of the cue ball hits the cushion first as the second half(object ball side) of the cueball catches the object ball secondary.

Good afternoon, AG, I trust you are well.

I think there might be a small typo in your post, sir.  Hitting the object ball and the cushion at the same time with sidespin directed at the pocket wouldn't negate the throw, it would make it worse.  When one plays the ball and cushion simultaneously it is imperative to employ sidespin directed away from the pocket.

Something akin to the explanation given with the diagram earlier.

On older snooker tables (and most pool tables) the results of experiments such as there are skewed somewhat by cushion troughs, the imperceptible valleys in the cloth caused by a thousand balls being forced downwards under the cushion rubber.  This factor, more than anything else, is what encourages a ball to 'stick' to the rail.

Hitting the object ball and the cushion at the same time with side spin directed at the pocket wouldn't negate the throw, it would make it worse.

Place side on the cue ball directed at the pocket( ie right hand side, black ball end cushion, pocket to your right ) and hit the object ball and cushion at the same time. The throw is negated by the side(directed at the pocket) which creates the grab as the object ball clings along the rail.

So although the side on the cue ball (directed at the pocket) in angle terms creates more of a throw, what it does is create the grab on the object ball, and it is the grab from the side which negates the throw.

It doesn't, AG.  Presuming a simultaneous ball/cushion strike, playing sidespin directed at the pocket would throw the object ball onto, and consequently away from, the cushion.  This effect can be proved via the experiment shown on page one.

On older snooker tables (and most pool tables) the results of experiments such as there are skewed somewhat by cushion troughs, the imperceptible valleys in the cloth caused by a thousand balls being forced downwards under the cushion rubber.  This factor, more than anything else, is what encourages a ball to 'stick' to the rail.

PM are you suggesting that there will be no grab on a new cloth and that it is a trough that is the cause? This would put the cat among the pigeons because what is thought is what i mentioned in my 18:08 post.

I remember a time when English was the language of choice amongst discerning gentlemen.

I'd imagine there's a few variables at play here. Where is the starting point of the white? Where do you want it to end up? As a rule of thumb when I played a lot if I was confident about how true the table was I usually sought to put as little force onto the cue ball as I could get away with to allow the object ball to comfortably reach its destination. Most novice and indeed intermediate players tended to hit the cue ball a little too hard presumably thinking they were the next Jimmy White.

Assuming the cue ball was away fro the cushion I would indeed have followed pokermonster's suggestion of aiming to strike the cushion marginally before the actual ball but we'd be talking small fractions.

In the same scenario, however, playing the cueball with the opposite sidespin would not only negate the throw, it would also impart a tiny measure of rolling sidespin on the object ball which would help it cling to the rail.  By far the most important factor for cushion cling, though, is the valleys present on older tables.

Blimey!  You guys are fast typists.

I`ve mention this before PM your science would make for great discussion during the interval.

Have you thought about sending your work into the BBC?

I wouldn't say no grab, AG, as there is always what is known as contact friction or adhesive friction between two touching bodies, but applying sidespin directed at the pocket most certainly wouldn't help it.

By the way i am not at all suggesting you are wrong, it does make complete sense and i have spent the last 10 mins spinning balls along cushions in my head and what you say make perfect sense.

Hitting the object ball and cushion at the same time time must be one of the greatest fallacy in the game. Does Willie Thorne know?

My apologies for my replies seeming a bit disjointed.  You type a little faster than me, gentlemen!

I have sent a few emails to the BBC over the years about one thing or another, but they never reply.

Very true PM as in my example the object ball is spinning along the cushion anti clockwise away from the cushion, so what is this magic force our elders taught us?

I knew that they didn`t understand the game in the 70`s

Brand new tables don't have the troughs, they're caused by countless balls striking the cushion and being ever so slightly forced downwards into the cloth by the cushion rubber.  Over time all these miniscule divots join up to form a trough.

Very good thread PM. It`s been the troughs all along.

Apr 21, 2015 -- 3:46PM, akabula wrote:

Haven't read the full thread and it's years since I last played snooker but I always aimed to just miss the object ball with a touch of side played on the cue ball.

this was the tactic I used to employ after about the sixth pint.

Great chatting as always, gentlemen.  Good evening to you all.

I have sent a few emails to the BBC over the years about one thing or another, but they never reply.


Davis would love this, it would make an interesting segment. Perhaps they don`t want there commentators to look like idiots though.