Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Ramon]

Ramon:

I'm not following you here. How do myself and vmax talk about using side 'like that'? All I've ever said is you can use side to kill the cueball on a thickish cut or you can go around an intervening ball to make the pot. Is that 'like that' to you? What do you understand this discussion to be about?

I think the CB curves into BOB (or at least within the margin for error on the pocket) and others believe placing side on the CB causes the 2 balls to stick together longer and this alters the path of the OB from 180* opposite contact to some other angle and up to 15*, which I find amazing and I don't understand how this is possible given the amount of time the balls would have to cling together to cause this. It would have to be some sort of mini-kick but I never see the OB kick when I curve around an intervening ball.

Remember Occhamh's Razor.

Good morning Terry ,

Sometimes there is no room for CB to curve . Hence using side can be useful.
( see the vid J6 and travis uploaded ).

*What you and Vmax are describing ( in many of your posts ) , is happening when you play a swerve shot.
Playing a shot with side is no diff shot comperd to playing any other shot .
You gonna have to cue stright and effortless .
*the less power / the better timing / the more spin you create. and the effect would be more noticeable.

*Unfortunately, you consider this as sum kind of attack towards your knowledge and experience. believe me, it's not .

Even pros have sometimes struggled with playing this kind of shots. especially during the match under pressure.

let me ask you a question , is every scrwback shot you play , a perfect shot ?
Well , it's the same with using side .

[travisbickle]

In my experience my answers would be:
a. as long as you contact BOB correctly or within the pocket's margin for error you will make the pot.
b. you have to aim a little thicker to compensate for CB throw unless of course you are playing very slow and over a distance which allows the CB to recover and hit BOB.
c. if you shoot slow enough, but try it with using a lot of power to get on the yellow ball say and you would aim even thicker as you get more CB throw from the side. At any rate, one way or another you must hit the correct potting spot on the OB.

Now remember please, this is just my opinion of what I have experienced and how I play shots with side. Travis and Biggy will undoubtedly have lots of heartache with my theory BUT somehow without considering the effects of SIT it works for me. (When you're standing behind a shot like this do you even think about SIT? I know I don't.)

Of course BOB is the correct shot most of the time, I've never said it wasn't.

But there is not a snooker/pool player in the world who can consistently put the CB where he wants all the time.
That's where the subtle version of this shot is very handy and I can't imagine any top player who doesn't use it.

Plus if you find yourself semi snookered like Selby/Wilson were I'd much rather play the shot they were playing then trying to swerve the CB onto the correct BOB that's for sure.

But hey each to their own I guess.
Like you keep saying to us, whatever works for you is good.

[Terry Davidson]

a. so high on a 1/2b black using helping side do you still make the pot if you actually contact bob at 1/2b?
b. or do you aim and contact a little thicker?
c. or maybe you aim thick but it curves onto bob at 1/2b?

In my experience my answers would be:
a. as long as you contact BOB correctly or within the pocket's margin for error you will make the pot.
b. you have to aim a little thicker to compensate for CB throw unless of course you are playing very slow and over a distance which allows the CB to recover and hit BOB.
c. if you shoot slow enough, but try it with using a lot of power to get on the yellow ball say and you would aim even thicker as you get more CB throw from the side. At any rate, one way or another you must hit the correct potting spot on the OB.

Now remember please, this is just my opinion of what I have experienced and how I play shots with side. Travis and Biggy will undoubtedly have lots of heartache with my theory BUT somehow without considering the effects of SIT it works for me. (When you're standing behind a shot like this do you even think about SIT? I know I don't.)

[Terry Davidson]

There is no point.

You would still say I was hitting BOB or my balls were too dirty :biggrin-new:

You and vmax are beyond any help.

I'm quite happy to let you both live in your SIT free little bubble

Well, through all this discussion there's been one thought in the back of my head, maybe 2 thoughts regarding SIT. I am making the assumption that on an angled pot with no intervening ball to go around and if you play it harder you should get more SIT. So if we use the pink and make it 3/4-ball (maximum energy transfer) with extreme side with the higher power there should be more spin on the CB and logically more SIT affecting the OB. When I play a shot like this I choose my aim-off to contact BOB the same as if I was using centre-ball with no aim-off. According to the SIT theory all the side spin should alter the path the pink takes off from that extra-cling contact point and I should miss the pot or maybe catch the side of the pocket. Are you saying that since I've been doing this for so long that I unconsciously adjust my aim-off to compensate for SIT?

Second thought is...you have a frozen plant aimed directly into a pocket 4ft away but you need to have the cueball come off the first OB at a different angle for position and you need a lot of power again. So you put on extreme side and aim-off to compensate for CB throw but hit BOB correctly. There should be some SIT on the first OB which should then be transferred to the second OB in the plant and this should cause the pot to go off-line. The problem is I tried this one this afternoon and as long as I hit BOB accurately there was NO deviation in the pot. Can you explain the lack of a SIT effect in this situation because you can't pick and choose whether SIT happens or not when you use side.

I would think the maximum spin SIT effect would take place on a high power shot using maximum spin but in my experience it doesn't unless there's something like an unconscious adjustment to compensate for all the induced SIT but as far as I can tell there isn't. Why does SIT disappear when you use more power when logically it should be increased because the CB is spinning more rapidly? I've tried these 2 shots and I don't think about SIT and never have but I still pot them.

A quite common shot is a 3/4-black off the spot where you use extreme top and side to get the CB around 2 cushions and up past the pink. On a slow table this requires a lot of power and every good player has this shot mastered but as far as I know not one of them has said 'Oh yeah, you also have to compensate for the spin induced throw when you attempt this pot'. I think if we had to compensate for SIT we would all go crazy and quit the game. Just hit BOB and you'll pot the ball is my thought and don't worry about some mini-kick which only apparently happens with very low power shots which are fairly thick cuts.

Actually, I don't think vmax or myself require any help but you keep consciously calculating that SIT for every shot with side, but please concentrate on the higher power shots.

[j6uk]

When you are attempting to hold the cueball you are trying to hit the OB thicker so there's less energy left in the CB. That is the opposite of 'helping side' so I guess could be called 'unhelping side'.

When a player uses helping side he does curl the CB onto BOB but at a steeper angle so there's more energy remaining in the cueball since he makes the angle a little steeper. This is usually referred as running side if a cushion is involved.

But let me ask you a question...you have a fine cut red near the cushion and you're on a 147 so rather than going up for pink of blue you decide to use check side to hold the CB for the black and you know you have to hit it a bit harder to get the CB off the cushion. I've missed these simple shots quite a few times and I'm sure you and others have because check side or 'inside stuff or English' as the pool players call it is a tricky little shot especially to a partially closed pocket on a tighter table. No problem on a pool table though.

A lot of players use helping side all the time on any angled pot as they are comfortable with it and have more confidence, Willie Thorne for example. vmax would be an example of an amateur player. You don't see Ronnie, Hendry, Murphy, Davis using helping side though unless there's a cushion involved in their position.

a. so high on a 1/2b black using helping side do you still make the pot if you actually contact bob at 1/2b?
b. or do you aim and contact a little thicker?
c. or maybe you aim thick but it curves onto bob at 1/2b?

[travisbickle]

How about showing us one of those 15* SIT shots where there is no kick and on a snooker table. If you could show that you might turn me into a believer and would be right in your world.

There is no point.

You would still say I was hitting BOB or my balls were too dirty :biggrin-new:

You and vmax are beyond any help.

I'm quite happy to let you both live in your SIT free little bubble

[Terry Davidson]

If I was wrong I would happily hold my hands up and apologize. Not gonna happen though I'm afraid.
You & Vmax are way off the mark on this

How about showing us one of those 15* SIT shots where there is no kick and on a snooker table. If you could show that you might turn me into a believer and would be right in your world.

[Terry Davidson]

He could actually try hitting the table and working it all out for himself.

I have done that multiple times and I have used side a lot of times to go around an intervening ball and I have checked and it always seems to me the CB lines up at or near BOB, but depending on how close the OB is to the pocket and if the pocket is open there is a lot of room for error by sliding off either horn.

[Terry Davidson]

You're turning into Donald trump more by the day.

This is bigly.

What is 'bigly'?

[Terry Davidson]

You're turning into Donald trump more by the day.

This is bigly.

I am the opposite of the Trumpster and that was sarcasm. Comparing me to Trump is the ultimate insult as the man is one fry short of a Big Meal.

[travisbickle]

If someone ever proves or disproves this theory conclusively with 2 hi-speed cameras and lines on the video one of us would have to apologize and as you seem to take all this so seriously let's hope it's not you as you would go into meltdown. On my part I'm not bothered as I know the shots can be accomplished no matter what the foundation theory is. I'll say it again, it just doesn't matter to the snooker players but maybe to pool players, I don't know not being bothered to ask any of them as it would have to be a world class pro and I don't know any of them.

If I was wrong I would happily hold my hands up and apologize. Not gonna happen though I'm afraid.
You & Vmax are way off the mark on this

[Terry Davidson]

it was not sarcasm. I'm in shock. When I read some of your posts, I think your account has been hacked by someone else. ( you and vmax ).*
How is it possible that someone with your knowledge and experience talks about using side in the game of snooker,* like that.
And FYI , i do'nt care about Dr Dave .
Anyway , I'm gonna* follow your advice and not getting involved.
As a matter of fact , i'm gonna take the gun and shoot myself . goodbye TSf.

Ramon:

I'm not following you here. How do myself and vmax talk about using side 'like that'? All I've ever said is you can use side to kill the cueball on a thickish cut or you can go around an intervening ball to make the pot. Is that 'like that' to you? What do you understand this discussion to be about?

I think the CB curves into BOB (or at least within the margin for error on the pocket) and others believe placing side on the CB causes the 2 balls to stick together longer and this alters the path of the OB from 180* opposite contact to some other angle and up to 15*, which I find amazing and I don't understand how this is possible given the amount of time the balls would have to cling together to cause this. It would have to be some sort of mini-kick but I never see the OB kick when I curve around an intervening ball.

Remember Occhamh's Razor.

[Terry Davidson]

Lol, You losing it Tel!
If I were you I would just stay away from this thread for the sake of your health

If someone ever proves or disproves this theory conclusively with 2 hi-speed cameras and lines on the video one of us would have to apologize and as you seem to take all this so seriously let's hope it's not you as you would go into meltdown. On my part I'm not bothered as I know the shots can be accomplished no matter what the foundation theory is. I'll say it again, it just doesn't matter to the snooker players but maybe to pool players, I don't know not being bothered to ask any of them as it would have to be a world class pro and I don't know any of them.

[throtts]

distance was too short. Did'nt have to worry about that part.

Hahaha,
Head still and lose grip too..

[Cue crafty]

Mr. Praline [John Cleese]: It's not pining. It's passed on. This parrot is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late parrot. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. THIS IS AN EX-PARROT.
Monty Python's Flying Circus