Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[itsnoteasy]

Well fellas this is my last effort on this subject because if this video doesn't convince you nothing will. First off I will say I should have read all the correspondence I got from Dr Dave as I got all excited when he agreed with my reduced throw theory and didn't look into the rest of the subject and I was wrong, yes certain shots you are reducing throw but my other theory of you can't induce or create throw from a straight shot was , well, just plain wrong. If anyone can't see throw happening here I just give up, I'm not interested in anything else except the obvious fact that the object ball , because of spin , is thrown off its natural path, that is all this subject is about. If you want to practice it ,the video explains exactly how to do it, no swerve no jacking the butt up , no tilting the cue ball, just let the spinning ball do it's work.
https://youtu.be/GpsVeOYGcu8

[itsnoteasy]

I loved playing for Brazil?

You've not got a fag I could tap have you?

[Terry Davidson]

They remind me of the 9/11 conspiracy nut jobs - there is no proof that will satisfy them, ever. Their conviction they alone are right - and the scientific community and millions of players are wrong - is a little disturbing. Denial is amazingly powerful.

Pool players though, not snooker players

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Pool players though, not snooker players

Lol. And the difference is?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I loved playing for Brazil?

A bottle of whisky and 80 fags a day. Legend.

[Terry Davidson]

The problem is that they're still in denial about xfer side, even though Travis has done a video. Even though Mr Stark has done a video. Even though Nic Barrow boy has said it's real. They only have themselves to blame for comic ignorance. I didn't believe it a week ago. But look, I've opened my mind, understood the mechanics and looked at the evidence. I was wrong. It's not so hard to man up and admit such a small thing. But dullards can't; their minds can't take it! Remember what Socrates said!

This is exactly why. Now tell me how I can use it in snooker or better yet explain to me how I can use it. The Travis pink ball didn't show any OB throw at all despite what you say.

Why don't you stop with the insults and agree to disagree? I don't care whether it exists or not as long as I can use it to effect when I need to, whether it happens to be transferred side, OB throw or curving the cueball into the sweet spot.

I AGREE transferred side can happen in snooker (I've already agreed that by the way) however it's of no use as even you experts have agreed it can't be used to bend the OB around an intervening ball as all it does is change the direction which remains in a straight line. Every video put up is from a pool table but perhaps the effect is less on a snooker table with smaller balls and pockets where there is a lot more area involved.

itsnoteasy has said here that OB throw, be it angled or side, happens on every shot but as I've never noticed and thousands of great snooker players have never noticed then perhaps it has only come to light because Dr. Dave filmed it and now he has his proof that it happens but I have to wonder how many pots I've missed because I misjudged this OB throw. I know the answer to that one sure enough and I bet a lot of pool players (before Dr. Dave) never noticed it either.

So I ask you 3, of what use is it to the AVERAGE snooker player. It's of no consequence as long as that average snooker player is able to use side to curve the cueball to where he wants it, whether he hits BOB to pot the ball or gets some kind of 15* OB throw which he has never noticed before and up until your proof from Dr. Dave snooker players were very happy in their supposed ignorance of what's really happening.

I note in the video itsnoteasy posted the maximum spin OB throw is 6 degrees. What we don't know is just how the incoming path of the cueball was determined as it's hard to see in the video over such a short length. Tell your Dr. Dave it would be a lot more convincing to us 'unbelievers' if he showed a few full table shots from over the pocket to which the ball is pocketed.

[Terry Davidson]

You 3 are very critical of vmax and my abilities but you have never posted your own records and in some cases not even your real names. Why don't you do that so you can prove to us just how knowledgeable you are? Or will you ignore this post too?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

OK, if you're not good enough to make the same contact with left hand side, strike the cue ball plain ball dead centre with no side and see if you can make the same contact.

Where do I think the red went ? Don't know, I'd rather see it go in and know for certain than have to take a guess.

Now get on the table and show us that left hand side shot that you know you can't make, and show us the plain ball shot that you know you can't make as well, you can even have the red out of the picture and tell us you made it and we'll all believe you

Or you can admit it can't be done and then give some thought as to why instead of throwing insults while trying to defend your pathetic attempt to show something that you constantly failed to do and eventually gave up and showed us something deliberately inconclusive.

I'm calling you out travis, either show us or admit you're wrong.

I sometimes find myself wondering whether you realise this but it bares repeating regardless: the burden of proof less squarely with you.

Disprove spin induced throw and your name will be remembered for ever.

[Terry Davidson]

I am also trying to figure out how, before Dr. Dave, did we ever pot a ball since he shows you can get between 2* and 6* OB throw using pool balls, pool table, very short length with not showing where the cueball started but gee, those balls are deflecting. So how did we ever pot ANY balls at all if every shot was changing direction by up to 6*, maybe not enough to matter on a pool table though.

Secondly, as Dr. Dave proves up to 6*, how in hell are some of us here getting 15* (and possibly more)? You should stay within the boundaries of the proof provided by Dr. Dave. The pink Travis did could have possibly changed direction from OB throw more than 6* yet he says 15* at least! Could it be with RH side on the cueball and using aim-off to compensate for side that the cueball did curve a bit, maybe as much as 15*?

[matthias]

could it be the reason I miss those easy ones.......

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

You 3 are very critical of vmax and my abilities but you have never posted your own records and in some cases not even your real names. Why don't you do that so you can prove to us just how knowledgeable you are? Or will you ignore this post too?

Why?

I couldn't out argue Isaac Newton on the laws of gravity but i know a falling apple when i see one.

[Terry Davidson]

could it be the reason I miss those easy ones.......

Has to be, so now you've lost that excuse but it's funny no one thought about it before it was proven by Dr. Dave who (we should ask) might be receiving some remuneration for that proof.

[Terry Davidson]

Lol. And the difference is?

Everyone knows pool players (not British ones though like yourself) have bigger balls, smaller tables, no nap and bigger tips. They also seem to have a lot of videos proving various different theories especially aiming systems and OB throw.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I am also trying to figure out how, before Dr. Dave, did we ever pot a ball since he shows you can get between 2* and 6* OB throw using pool balls, pool table, very short length with not showing where the cueball started but gee, those balls are deflecting. So how did we ever pot ANY balls at all if every shot was changing direction by up to 6*, maybe not enough to matter on a pool table though.

Secondly, as Dr. Dave proves up to 6*, how in hell are some of us here getting 15* (and possibly more)? You should stay within the boundaries of the proof provided by Dr. Dave. The pink Travis did could have possibly changed direction from OB throw more than 6* yet he says 15* at least! Could it be with RH side on the cueball and using aim-off to compensate for side that the cueball did curve a bit, maybe as much as 15*?

Firstly, your eyes, brain and muscle memory takes care of any adjustment that is required - hit a million balls and all that.

Secondly, you'll not hear me say 15 degrees, although i do think i get more than 6.

[Terry Davidson]

Why?

I couldn't out argue Isaac Newton on the laws of gravity but i know a falling apple when i see one.

Because when we disagreed with you your first arguments were to use insults and sarcasm to attack our abilities. Do you play just pool? What kind of pool? Do you play snooker too? Just how good/bad are you at billiards. This is so we can attack you the same as you attacked us.

Now go away and have a nice drinky with Dr. Dave in Denver and run down all those ignorant snooker players who never even knew about OB throw and must have missed millions of pots because of it and still are because the refuse to BELIEVE!