aiming

[nrage]

@nrage

I agree.

Just out of interest, I see that you understand the principle, but do you actually employ the effect in play as I do when necessary?

Nope, but only because I already miss too many pots without bringing side into the equation too. When I get more comfortable/consistent with my potting I will look to practice with side, and only then will I bring it into my match play.

[vmax4steve]

I think all the ideas above are possible, some more likely than others, and I think they all can explain why you do get spin transfer on straight shots and why it might not occur along the rail.

I tried to play the shot shown in that video yesterday while practising and the only time I ever got close to getting it was when I just brushed the edge of the intervening ball first. As the shot cannot be aimed directly straight to BOB because of the cue ball deviating to the left when struck with right hand side I had to aim at the edge of the intervening ball in order to just miss it, and every attempt I made that missed the intervening ball there was no deviation of the object ball at all.
I also played the shot with both the cue ball and the object ball touching the same cushion. Running side was impossible because the cue ball went straight into the cushion, as it should, check side was impossible as the cue ball left the cushion, as it should.
Now when I played the shot in the video and put the cue ball a little further away than one balls width I could get the shot with running side quite often because I had more distance for the cue ball to move to the left and then come back to the right around the intervening ball to contact BOB and pot the ball. With both balls touching the same cushion the running side shot was still impossible but the check side shot could be judged to leave the cushion and come back onto BOB, but at no time did I witnes any "throw" when the cue ball came back onto BOB, the object ball always hugged the cushion.
My hypothesis stands, that there is no throw and that the shot demonstrated in the video was a foul (intervening ball struck first or simultaneously) and that the effect of throw is in fact due only to the deviation of the cue ball first away from the tip of the cue on contact and then coming back onto and beyond the line of aim.

[DandyA]

which video vmax? I'm probably being dumb (or blind) but looking back over the last couple of pages of postings, I couldn't see the "video yesterday" you're talking about ...

[nrage]

I tried to play the shot shown in that video yesterday while practising and the only time I ever got close to getting it was when I just brushed the edge of the intervening ball first. As the shot cannot be aimed directly straight to BOB because of the cue ball deviating to the left when struck with right hand side I had to aim at the edge of the intervening ball in order to just miss it, and every attempt I made that missed the intervening ball there was no deviation of the object ball at all.
I also played the shot with both the cue ball and the object ball touching the same cushion. Running side was impossible because the cue ball went straight into the cushion, as it should, check side was impossible as the cue ball left the cushion, as it should.
Now when I played the shot in the video and put the cue ball a little further away than one balls width I could get the shot with running side quite often because I had more distance for the cue ball to move to the left and then come back to the right around the intervening ball to contact BOB and pot the ball. With both balls touching the same cushion the running side shot was still impossible but the check side shot could be judged to leave the cushion and come back onto BOB, but at no time did I witnes the any "throw" when the cue ball came back onto BOB, the object ball always hugged the cushion.
My hypothesis stands, that there is no throw and that the shot demonstrated in the video was a foul (intervening ball struck first or simultaneously) and that the effect of throw is in fact due only to the deviation of the cue ball first away from the tip of the cue on contact and then coming back onto and beyond the line of aim.

Ok, I'm going to have a go at replicating it today on the pool table downstairs, and later at the club on a snooker table - to compare. But, I need to make sure we're doing the same thing...

The video you're referring to is this one right?
http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/NV4-15.htm

Did you set the shot up as described, using frozen balls, 3 balls off the rail? Did you play the shot slowly (at pocket speed)? Did your cue ball end up spinning on the spot (easier to see with a spotty cue ball)

I am not necessarily suggesting spin induced throw occurs on the rail, but it is possible, so..

Which rail did you take it to, the nearest one .. meaning "running" side in this case is right hand side?

[linglomsri]

Nic advocates the BOB method the same as Terry does if you read all of his materials.

Can you give me some links(w/ pictures) of BOB method explaining please, I really don't understand how to use. Thx

[vmax4steve]

Ok, I'm going to have a go at replicating it today on the pool table downstairs, and later at the club on a snooker table - to compare. But, I need to make sure we're doing the same thing...

The video you're referring to is this one right?
http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/NV4-15.htm

Did you set the shot up as described, using frozen balls, 3 balls off the rail? Did you play the shot slowly (at pocket speed)? Did your cue ball end up spinning on the spot (easier to see with a spotty cue ball)

I am not necessarily suggesting spin induced throw occurs on the rail, but it is possible, so..

Which rail did you take it to, the nearest one .. meaning "running" side in this case is right hand side?

Yes that video, I set it up and played it exactly as in the video and then played the same shot with cue ball and object ball one balls width apart both touching the top cushion. Right hand side would be running side and left hand side would be check side.

[sealer]

Going back to the point of focus when potting i must say that I also look at the air molecules every time that little bit or more off the object ball
Obviously I do understand both approaches but very suprised that only couple of people replayed in that thread.

I only started to play snooker couple of months ago and my method is developed over a pool table. I only must say i made some consistent crazy pots looking at certain distance outside of the edge of object ball.

I will now try to adapt the method of looking at BOB and will see the results.

Very interested if that 99.9% is for real.

@komakino i also have a similar approach with the angles you mentioned earlier, just adjusting fractions of mm around 30 degrees and 45 , may have something to do with impatience and logical mind, i wanted to pot there and then never had time to wait for the brain to adjust, quickly noticed the 45 degree angle, you know the rest, i also take into consideration the distance of the OB from each cushion when potting, i would describe it all as very geometrical
best of luck to everyone i am going to have a good focus on BOB for some time see how it goes
Regards

[throtts]

I aim, cue straight and pot.

[sealer]

I aim, cue straight and pot.

Brilliant where do you look when you deliver the cue, just out of pure curiosity

[sealer]

Regarding the throw.

Maybe some of you remember Steve Davis explaining the nature of kicks on bbc during WC. Have not got idea if that is the case but sounded resonable. In that case if the back spin of CB could make the OB jump up, it could be easy transfered to sides.

Just found the video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/snooker/13209259.stm

take it easy
regards

[vmax4steve]

Regarding the throw.

Maybe some of you remember Steve Davis explaining the nature of kicks on bbc during WC. Have not got idea if that is the case but sounded resonable. In that case if the back spin of CB could make the OB jump up, it could be easy transfered to sides.

Just found the video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/snooker/13209259.stm

take it easy
regards

Come on man, that was very tongue in cheek from Davis, and if it was true then every single shot except a perfectly played plain ball stun shot would kick every time, and as we know plain ball stun shots are not immune to kicks, even perfectly played ones.

[throtts]

Brilliant where do you look when you deliver the cue, just out of pure curiosity

Object ball. If your completely still on the shot its going to be the OB all the time.

[nrage]

Come on man, that was very tongue in cheek from Davis, and if it was true then every single shot except a perfectly played plain ball stun shot would kick every time, and as we know plain ball stun shots are not immune to kicks, even perfectly played ones.

The key fact is one he mentioned early in the video; "any increase in friction between the balls, magnifies the effect". Which is why after a kick the pros always have the balls cleaned, to remove the chalk, which is one possible cause of increased friction and kicks.

[komakino]

Ok, I'm going to have a go at replicating it today on the pool table downstairs, and later at the club on a snooker table - to compare.

Any results?

[nrage]

Any results?

I keep forgetting