As an interjection to the 15-Mar-2005 report, I’d just like to add one or two things - firstly, here in the UK, the cueball is almost always smaller than the object balls, as opposed to being bigger. Also, in situations with magnetic pool balls (and while I don’t profess to be anywhere near professional, I play pool to a fairly high standard) a lot of strange reactions concerning ‘kicks’ occur - a lot of research has gone into kicks on a snooker table and not much seems to be known about them by all accounts, but in my experience, more kicks occur with magnetic cueballs. A kick is frustrating thing, and it’s a rather vague term for any number of things that happens between cueball and object ball, from either or both balls jumping off the bed of the table upon contact and balls seemingly defying the laws of logic and physics in their trajectories after contact.
As you will already know, assuming that there is no friction on a table, balls after contact will move away from that point of impact at a 90 degree angle, which is what should happen with a stun shot (English terminology, I know you Americans call it something else but I forget what). However, in some kick occurrences both cue ball and object ball straighten up considerably before the friction of the table kicks in (at which point the balls straighten up further, obviously), resulting in a much more acute angle than the expected 90.
Just my two pence.