Potting With Side

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Then we have the difference in throw from different tips, a Kamui black throws a lot less than an elk. Thick walled brass ferrules throw more than thin walled ferrules (TD has knowledge of this) which throw more than fibre ferrules which throw more than blackspin. Steel throws differently to brass. The throw on a 6811 C cloth is different to a Precision Pro and there are a myriad of cloths on tables out there. Chalks grip to different degrees, so there's another variable. How about the heat of the cloth and balls, another factor. Result: lots of factors that simply aren't in Dr. Daft's model that do affect throw. That's why they're called models, they're a simplification of what happens, and they're never completely accurate in predicting what will happen. No model produces an R squared of 1 (100%), so no model including his could ever be relied upon to accurately work out how to pot a ball with side, too many extraneous variables at work. That's why players on here and every legend and champion learned the same way; play to miss and see if you pot it, allow for the throw. Rinse and repeat 100,000 times. Very simple, because accuracy is paramount. It's not a seminar, it's winning or losing.

On a US pool table, throw is pretty easy to deal with as VMax points out, the pockets and cut are so large, you can play to pot and the throw error will be cancelled out by a gift of a pocket. Why anyone wants to play with side on a US table is beyond me, the pockets are so large, you can make up angles that you wish and simply move the CB with stun, run through, top and bottom. Side isn't really needed. You can turn a straight pot into one off straight by simply playing the OB towards the knuckle such is the hugeness of the pockets and cut. As long as you miss the corner knuckle the cut will take the ball down, so you've got about 5 inches to play with. EASY!

Lol. You don't need spin to play 9 ball? Lol! I guess that's why every 9 ball pro uses english on virtually every shot- why don't you tell them where they're going wrong - they could learn a lot from you blasts.

"Hey Daz, there's this 30 break troll on some obscure snooker forum who reckons we're doing it wrong, pal."
"Well that's me convinced, Karl, let's follow him, pal".

You should also tell Dr Dave where he's going wrong, I'm sure he'd appreciate your insightful input. He's exceptionally accommodating when it comes to crediting other people's work on his website and always encourages players to challenge his methodology or improve his results.

Off you pop then, lad.

[focus]

I will use snooker terminology the minute you bother to invent it. In the meantime, I'll stick to traditional cue sport terminology, understood the world over for centuries.

Actually, I'll have a go at using your jabbering nonsense:

"I can turn the red over feet, rather than inches"
"I can create the angle with side over feet, rather than inches"
"I can straighten the ball over feet, rather than inches"
"I can pluck some nonsense out my arse and leave everyone going 'WTF is that walrus lookalike Willie Thorne on about now' over feet, rather than inches.

And so on and so forth. But yes, you can throw balls for feet, quite easily - even on a snooker table.

You've made all that nonsense up, I've never seen anyone type that baloney. It's throw, always has been and always will be. It's a snooker term is throw, we used it first and we still use it. Are you on drugs?! Also, have a go at understanding the rules of snooker. You do look a tit when you don't even know these basics. I bet you've never played in your life.

You wrote this:
'Throw is much larger on an american pool table, as you're fond of pointing out, so can be much more than aiming at one side of the pocket and hitting another. Balls throw in feet, not inches.'

Show me a video of a CB throwing feet rather than inches please, I'd love to see that. You're just making it all up. Sir Nonsense, along with your other account Sir Marmite.

ROFL!

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Over the length of an 8-foot table the cue ball will throw in feet not inches? Really?! Wow, you must be one bad player to miscue that severely.
You really are a muppet. More hyperbole rot.

I will use snooker terminology the minute you bother to invent it. In the meantime, I'll stick to traditional cue sport terminology, understood the world over for centuries.

Actually, I'll have a go at using your jabbering nonsense:

"I can turn the red over feet, rather than inches"
"I can create the angle with side over feet, rather than inches"
"I can straighten the ball over feet, rather than inches"
"I can pluck some nonsense out my arse and leave everyone going 'WTF is that walrus lookalike Willie Thorne on about now' over feet, rather than inches.

And so on and so forth. But yes, you can throw balls for feet, quite easily - even on a snooker table.

[focus]

I can vouch for the above, the MW with blackspin ferrule played oddly. I'd say it's a fantastic cue to give to a beginner but too difficult to adapt to for an already established well practiced player.

Then we have the difference in throw from different tips, a Kamui black throws a lot less than an elk. Thick walled brass ferrules throw more than thin walled ferrules (TD has knowledge of this) which throw more than fibre ferrules which throw more than blackspin. Steel throws differently to brass. The throw on a 6811 C cloth is different to a Precision Pro and there are a myriad of cloths on tables out there. Chalks grip to different degrees, so there's another variable. How about the heat of the cloth and balls, another factor. Result: lots of factors that simply aren't in Dr. Daft's model that do affect throw. That's why they're called models, they're a simplification of what happens, and they're never completely accurate in predicting what will happen. No model produces an R squared of 1 (100%), so no model including his could ever be relied upon to accurately work out how to pot a ball with side, too many extraneous variables at work. That's why players on here and every legend and champion learned the same way; play to miss and see if you pot it, allow for the throw. Rinse and repeat 100,000 times. Very simple, because accuracy is paramount. It's not a seminar, it's winning or losing.

On a US pool table, throw is pretty easy to deal with as VMax points out, the pockets and cut are so large, you can play to pot and the throw error will be cancelled out by a gift of a pocket. Why anyone wants to play with side on a US table is beyond me, the pockets are so large, you can make up angles that you wish and simply move the CB with stun, run through, top and bottom. Side isn't really needed. You can turn a straight pot into one off straight by simply playing the OB towards the knuckle such is the hugeness of the pockets and cut. As long as you miss the corner knuckle the cut will take the ball down, so you've got about 5 inches to play with. EASY!

[focus]

Throw is much larger on an american pool table, as you're fond of pointing out, so can be much more than aiming at one side of the pocket and hitting another. Balls throw in feet, not inches.

But why bother? Why not educate players as to what is happening instead? Players respond better if they are given a visual representation of what happens when balls collide. 'Just miss' it's wishy washy hocus pocus.

Same with deflection: a 14mm mofo of an american pool cue will see a lot of deflection - aim to just miss one side of the ball and you'll miss the other side of the ball if you hit it hard with a ton of gear - that becomes very difficult to tell people to 'aim to miss'.

Explain to them what will happen to both CB and OB when you use side and they will be better able to understand it, and make adjustments accordingly. I fail to see how it can hurt, either.

Over the length of an 8-foot table the cue ball will throw in feet not inches? Really?! Wow, you must be one bad player to miscue that severely.
You really are a muppet. More hyperbole rot.

[tomwalker147]

Don't insult me, it was 96

But yes, I really couldn't get on with my MW. For long pots it was a dream, couldn't miss a thing. But for the shots in and around the balls, the amount that the white was thrown when playing shots with side felt greatly reduced. As a result, I would find myself missing balls as a result.

Sure, I could have adapted in time, but I wasn't prepared to go through all that effort when I was getting on just fine with my MAC cue at the time.

When the TW came, it felt spot on from the very first shot.

I can vouch for the above, the MW with blackspin ferrule played oddly. I'd say it's a fantastic cue to give to a beginner but too difficult to adapt to for an already established well practiced player.

[pottr]

I remember when you bought a cue from each of the top makers and settled for your Trevor White over the Mike Wooldridge as the blackspin ferrule didn't throw as your old maple cue with brass ferrule did, whereas the TW was almost identical and you fell into your natural game straight away with it, what did you say again, something like first poke, long red, 70 odd break.

Don't insult me, it was 96

But yes, I really couldn't get on with my MW. For long pots it was a dream, couldn't miss a thing. But for the shots in and around the balls, the amount that the white was thrown when playing shots with side felt greatly reduced. As a result, I would find myself missing balls as a result.

Sure, I could have adapted in time, but I wasn't prepared to go through all that effort when I was getting on just fine with my MAC cue at the time.

When the TW came, it felt spot on from the very first shot.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Check side on 9 ball table, aim for the near jaw and you'll pot it centre pocket, aim centre pocket and you'll still pot it off the far jaw. It ain't so on a snooker table as that far jaw will be the cushion because it's a smaller pocket, so aim to miss is the old adage and it works.
No need for any video evidence, you'll see the results with your own eyes, adjust your aiming to suit and try again until it starts working.

Throw is much larger on an american pool table, as you're fond of pointing out, so can be much more than aiming at one side of the pocket and hitting another. Balls throw in feet, not inches.

But why bother? Why not educate players as to what is happening instead? Players respond better if they are given a visual representation of what happens when balls collide. 'Just miss' it's wishy washy hocus pocus.

Same with deflection: a 14mm mofo of an american pool cue will see a lot of deflection - aim to just miss one side of the ball and you'll miss the other side of the ball if you hit it hard with a ton of gear - that becomes very difficult to tell people to 'aim to miss'.

Explain to them what will happen to both CB and OB when you use side and they will be better able to understand it, and make adjustments accordingly. I fail to see how it can hurt, either.

[vmax4steve]

Don't you think play to miss is a little, er, dark ages?

Check side on 9 ball table, aim for the near jaw and you'll pot it centre pocket, aim centre pocket and you'll still pot it off the far jaw. It ain't so on a snooker table as that far jaw will be the cushion because it's a smaller pocket, so aim to miss is the old adage and it works.
No need for any video evidence, you'll see the results with your own eyes, adjust your aiming to suit and try again until it starts working.

[focus]

No, no ,no focus, I'm not an advanced billiards player, I won my leagues billiards singles once, that's all. But I learned a little bit more about helping side in learning certain in offs and cannons by playing billiards, using what I read in Mr. Reardons excellent book, trial and error, missing a lot, adjusting until it started to work.



Quite.
I remember when you bought a cue from each of the top makers and settled for your Trevor White over the Mike Wooldridge as the blackspin ferrule didn't throw as your old maple cue with brass ferrule did, whereas the TW was almost identical and you fell into your natural game straight away with it, what did you say again, something like first poke, long red, 70 odd break.

This is what I'm saying here, to use side you need to get to know your own cue and how it throws the cue ball when it's struck off centre, if you go to those pool websites you just get bombarded with jargon.



Quite, you have to practise it, you won't get it immediately from a book or an internet post. Snooker pro tips on youtube has a good video where it is explained and shown, but you need to know your own cue to make it second nature.

Imagine a 6 times world champion, gent and hero nailing the use of side in his book without help from Dr. Daft, whatever next? Every cue, ferrule, tip and player is different. People play on different tables with different cloths and cushions that vary in reactiveness (a very important aspect of using side!). Videos will only do so much good, it's about understanding one's cue and table environment eventually. No formulae will help. As for whether you are really good, I bet you're being humble. I will defer to Eddie!

[vmax4steve]

For me it's an emergency measure, for an advanced billiards player like VMax, a weapon he has known for a long time and used well. If there was a potting with side comp, he'd murder me.

No, no ,no focus, I'm not an advanced billiards player, I won my leagues billiards singles once, that's all. But I learned a little bit more about helping side in learning certain in offs and cannons by playing billiards, using what I read in Mr. Reardons excellent book, trial and error, missing a lot, adjusting until it started to work.

This thread is confusing to me.

What is the actual debate that's going on?

Where do you want the white?
Oh, you want it there.

Ok, how do you get it there easiest and making sure you get the pot?
Sometimes with side, sometimes without.

Does it really matter? Use side; don't use side... If the white ends up where you want and the ball goes in, who cares?

Quite.
I remember when you bought a cue from each of the top makers and settled for your Trevor White over the Mike Wooldridge as the blackspin ferrule didn't throw as your old maple cue with brass ferrule did, whereas the TW was almost identical and you fell into your natural game straight away with it, what did you say again, something like first poke, long red, 70 odd break.

This is what I'm saying here, to use side you need to get to know your own cue and how it throws the cue ball when it's struck off centre, if you go to those pool websites you just get bombarded with jargon.

Ah, my advice to him would be to get a table to himself and try and work out what works for him.

No amount of advice will translate from the page for him yet, he's just not at the level x

Quite, you have to practise it, you won't get it immediately from a book or an internet post. Snooker pro tips on youtube has a good video where it is explained and shown, but you need to know your own cue to make it second nature.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Mate, I'm far, far more qualified than thee, so it's you who needs skool.

2ndly, Dr. Daft highlights some factors but his model is incomplete and therefore even as a M+E interest, faulted. These factors are numerous but suffice to say, anything modelled on pool is not well transferable to snooker de facto. The cues aren't the same, the ferrules aren't the same, the tips aren't the same, the cloths aren't the same, the balls are different, the tables are at different heights and thus rakes, the chalk is different, and so on. Different explanatory variables.

3rdly, we don't pot balls using research papers, we pot balls using hand to eye to target coordination.

4thly, snooker players can't be bothered reading research hocus pocus

5thly, they won't be better players for it, none of the greats read this crap. Occam's razor proves that the simplest approach is the best.

Lastly, play to miss and you learn how to use side. That's what all the good players on here have done. You're not in that group, so your advice has no weight. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Don't you think play to miss is a little, er, dark ages?

We've invented video. It's tremendously useful - even to those who choose to dwell in a cave.

[focus]

Lol. Keeps? I mentioned it once, on page one. Nobody is forcing him to look. He won't turn to stone, you know.

After that, i advised mastering centre ball until he has that down pat and warned of the dangers of being a spinner, like i am.

-----------------

As part of your ongoing education, you need to know where the line between hyperbole and nonsense lies. You're not there yet.

Mate, I'm far, far more qualified than thee, so it's you who needs skool.

2ndly, Dr. Daft highlights some factors but his model is incomplete and therefore even as a M+E interest, faulted. These factors are numerous but suffice to say, anything modelled on pool is not well transferable to snooker de facto. The cues aren't the same, the ferrules aren't the same, the tips aren't the same, the cloths aren't the same, the balls are different, the tables are at different heights and thus rakes, the chalk is different, and so on. Different explanatory variables.

3rdly, we don't pot balls using research papers, we pot balls using hand to eye to target coordination.

4thly, snooker players can't be bothered reading research hocus pocus

5thly, they won't be better players for it, none of the greats read this crap. Occam's razor proves that the simplest approach is the best.

Lastly, play to miss and you learn how to use side. That's what all the good players on here have done. You're not in that group, so your advice has no weight. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

To be fair mate, folk like VMax have tried to keep it simple which boils down to put the side on and aim to miss and if you do miss, aim a bit less to miss. So if we have a black into the pocket and you want to take it up to the blue area, hit it with left hand side and play to miss the pot by overcutting it to the near jaw. Opposite for check side, if you want to keep the white in the black area, aim to miss with right hand side by hitting the OB towards the far jaw. Then try other shots, medium and long with side until you succeed and begin to understand your cue/ferrule/tip.

But squark dr dave, squark dr dave, squark dr dave! keeps ruining the thread by insisting that folk need to go and read a hocus pocus research paper in a crap journal on the subject. To which most people have rightly said, overdoing the analysis with the wrong language, and so the thread goes on........................

All I would say to the OP is only begin to experiment with side once you've got very good up and down the centre of the CB controlled. Straight cueing and control of the cue ball comes first, side is advanced stuff.

Lol. Keeps? I mentioned it once, on page one. Nobody is forcing him to look. He won't turn to stone, you know.

After that, i advised mastering centre ball until he has that down pat and warned of the dangers of being a spinner, like i am.

-----------------

As part of your ongoing education, you need to know where the line between hyperbole and nonsense lies. You're not there yet.

[focus]

Ah, my advice to him would be to get a table to himself and try and work out what works for him.

No amount of advice will translate from the page for him yet, he's just not at the level x

To be fair mate, folk like VMax have tried to keep it simple which boils down to put the side on and aim to miss and if you do miss, aim a bit less to miss. So if we have a black into the pocket and you want to take it up to the blue area, hit it with left hand side and play to miss the pot by overcutting it to the near jaw. Opposite for check side, if you want to keep the white in the black area, aim to miss with right hand side by hitting the OB towards the far jaw. Then try other shots, medium and long with side until you succeed and begin to understand your cue/ferrule/tip.

But squark dr dave, squark dr dave, squark dr dave! keeps ruining the thread by insisting that folk need to go and read a hocus pocus research paper in a crap journal on the subject. To which most people have rightly said, overdoing the analysis with the wrong language, and so the thread goes on........................

All I would say to the OP is only begin to experiment with side once you've got very good up and down the centre of the CB controlled. Straight cueing and control of the cue ball comes first, side is advanced stuff.