What threads are these you’re talking about? I’ve never responded to you in any other thread, and I can’t even remember seeing your name in any threads I’ve participated in, let alone had a direct argument with you. If you want to invent some beef between you and me, do it in the Pit.
I’m not trying to “push your buttons,” I’m calling you on your behavior in what should be (and was) a very civil thread.
Do you have any cites for those stats? I’m very curious to know …
I don’t think I’m that great of a shot - I get beaten about 10 percent of the time - so now I’m intrigued on what the stats are for bank shots.
I wasn’t exaggerating (though I admit a tendency to do so) when I said I make those long shots about half the time. To me, that sounds like a sucky statistic.
I am better at the long and short bank than the medium bank: I have more difficulty with the side pocket shots off a bank from behind the line.
I don’t have too much trouble with the short banks, off the long ends of the table, and am better at the side pocket shot than the corner, though I have no idea why.
The 99 critical shots in pool – by Ray Martin
shot #76 – In short he states instead of shooting to the far rail and back, shoot just past the head line with strong English, it will be snapped back and hopefully make contact. Higher % shot than all the way down and back.
He makes no statement about moving the object ball forward. I do believe that in Straight Pool, where you play ball in hand behind the balk line, if all object balls are inside the kitchen, the nearest to the line is pushed forward. This is the only time I’ve seen that rule.
Note the difference between a table-length bank shot and a table-length cue ball bank shot. In the first, you precisely hit the object ball and it needs to go down to the end of the table and back into the pocket. Not terribly hard for a decent player. In the second, you send the cue ball down the table and back, and then it needs to hit the object ball precisely enough to get the angle into the pocket. If you can do this reliably, you are extremely good. And anyone that good knows that this is a very hard shot.
I doubt any exist. You could give it a shot next time you’re out, though. Try it ten times, and see how many times you make it. Be sure to move the object ball around for each attempt, as repeatedly trying the exact same shot never happens in an actual game. Ideally, you could place the ball randomly by banking it off the far wall by hand until it comes back and stays behind the line.
I would be surprised if you made it more than twice, and I would be impressed if you made it even once. (In ten tries.) I am curious, though.
It could be selection bias, or whatever that term is. Basically, we remember when things happen that reinforce our beliefs, but forget those that don’t.
But it is by no means a sucky statistic. 50% is not always bad. The best baseball players in the world fail (to hit) 7 out of every 10 tries.
Same here, and the difference in ability is vast. I’m not sure why either.
If I had to guess, I would guess that the rails near the side pocket suffer less wear and tear than the rails by the corners, and so provide a truer bounce.
The reason you make more banks into the side is because the pockets are larger (side 5 3/8 to 5 5/8. Corner is 4 7/8 to 5 1/8). Also note that the side pocket is accessible from damn near 180’ if you shoot correctly and softly.
That may be true, but side pockets are less forgiving. If you’re shooting at a corner at a low angle to one of the rails, you can completely miss the pocket, hitting the low-angle rail and still make your shot. You can only nick the bumper on the side pocket a tiny amount before the ball bounces off in a weird direction. So I’d say the corner pockets, while strictly narrower, have a wider target area.
This one has gone farther than is should. The sniping/insult level belongs in another forum, but I’ve closed this one instead of moving it. The OP certainly was answered somewhere between the insults.
samclem GQ moderator