4 inch pockets ouch

[wincardona]

I originally posted this on the Which table to play thread. This is imo the measuring stick you should use when picking a table that carries the right pocket size for your game.


Let me try to put this debate in the proper prospective. This debate is not how a top player feels playing another top player on differen't pocket sizes, nor is it how one personally feels on what pocket size he plays his best game on. This debate is CAN A PLAYER GIVE MORE OR LESS WEIGHT ON 4 INCH POCKETS OVER 4-1/2 INCH POCKETS. And also what pocket size is right for certain games.

Any time that there is a game established between two players that is a competetive game, played on 4-1/2 inch pockets, would there be a difference in the outcome of that game if it was played on a 4 inch pocket table, and who would benefit with the change of pocket size. .

I believe with my years of experience that there is a certain pocket size that puts limitations on even the best of players, and that pocket size I believe starts around 4-1/4 inch and smaller. Once a pocket size is as small as 4-1/4 the player is limited on what he can do consistently. When the pocket size lessens to 4 inch and smaller the more the player is restricted. The smaller the pocket the more difficult it is for the player.

I also believe that there is a certain pocket size that limits a weaker player, and that pocket size is around 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. Understanding my beliefs there is a pocket size that will maximize the the edge that a top player has over a weaker player, and I believe it's between 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inch pockets. A top player will maximize his ability to win playing a weaker player on the above mentioned pocket size.

A top player will reach his maximum effiency playing a weaker player on pockets that are between 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. This will vary depending on the strength of the weak player.

This is why I said earlier that the perfect pocket size to play your opponent on is a size that doesn't intimidate you but will intimidate your opponent. It's up to you to determine what size pockets that would be.

I also firmly believe once a pocket is reduced in size to 4 inches and smaller it only helps the weaker player over a top player, providing the game was established on pockets that are within the 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. Any time a game is competitive on 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inch pockets and it is moved to a table with 4 inch pockets or smaller the more it favors the weaker player.

There are some people that think that they can give up more weight on 4 inch pockets and smaller than they can give up on 4-1/2 inch pockets, to me it's clearly the opposite, and as a rule of thumb my suggestion will prevail more often than not.

The above has been endorsed by many of the games most creditable players.
I would like to hear opinions on the 4 inch and smaller pocket size debate.

Thanks,
Billy Incardona

 

[bstroud]

Based on my long experience I have to say that Billy I. is absolutely correct.

Four inch pockets are ridiculous for pool. If you want small pockets play on a snooker table. I played lots of one pocket on one. It's a good game but not really one pocket.

Bill Stroud

 

[lll]

I originally posted this on the Which table to play thread. This is imo the measuring stick you should use when picking a table that carries the right pocket size for your game.


Let me try to put this debate in the proper prospective. This debate is not how a top player feels playing another top player on differen't pocket sizes, nor is it how one personally feels on what pocket size he plays his best game on. This debate is CAN A PLAYER GIVE MORE OR LESS WEIGHT ON 4 INCH POCKETS OVER 4-1/2 INCH POCKETS. And also what pocket size is right for certain games.

Any time that there is a game established between two players that is a competetive game, played on 4-1/2 inch pockets, would there be a difference in the outcome of that game if it was played on a 4 inch pocket table, and who would benefit with the change of pocket size. .

I believe with my years of experience that there is a certain pocket size that puts limitations on even the best of players, and that pocket size I believe starts around 4-1/4 inch and smaller. Once a pocket size is as small as 4-1/4 the player is limited on what he can do consistently. When the pocket size lessens to 4 inch and smaller the more the player is restricted. The smaller the pocket the more difficult it is for the player.

I also believe that there is a certain pocket size that limits a weaker player, and that pocket size is around 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. Understanding my beliefs there is a pocket size that will maximize the the edge that a top player has over a weaker player, and I believe it's between 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inch pockets. A top player will maximize his ability to win playing a weaker player on the above mentioned pocket size.

A top player will reach his maximum effiency playing a weaker player on pockets that are between 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. This will vary depending on the strength of the weak player.

This is why I said earlier that the perfect pocket size to play your opponent on is a size that doesn't intimidate you but will intimidate your opponent. It's up to you to determine what size pockets that would be.

I also firmly believe once a pocket is reduced in size to 4 inches and smaller it only helps the weaker player over a top player, providing the game was established on pockets that are within the 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. Any time a game is competitive on 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inch pockets and it is moved to a table with 4 inch pockets or smaller the more it favors the weaker player.

There are some people that think that they can give up more weight on 4 inch pockets and smaller than they can give up on 4-1/2 inch pockets, to me it's clearly the opposite, and as a rule of thumb my suggestion will prevail more often than not.

The above has been endorsed by many of the games most creditable players.
I would like to hear opinions on the 4 inch and smaller pocket size debate.

Thanks,
Billy Incardona

although at first i thought the other way im convinced now.

my only question would be and i think this is arties argument if you are playing someone who doesnt run balls but plays the squeeze and water tortues you to death by getting a couple and playing safe and laying traps until he has high percentage shots
with that type of player is 4 inch pocket not a disadvantage and maybe an advantage since hes not looking to go 8 and out and the weaker player is going to have more trouble making a ball

to whom the four inch pocket benefits does it change if you are a squeeze player or more aggressive player????

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

I originally posted this on the Which table to play thread. This is imo the measuring stick you should use when picking a table that carries the right pocket size for your game.


Let me try to put this debate in the proper prospective. This debate is not how a top player feels playing another top player on differen't pocket sizes, nor is it how one personally feels on what pocket size he plays his best game on. This debate is CAN A PLAYER GIVE MORE OR LESS WEIGHT ON 4 INCH POCKETS OVER 4-1/2 INCH POCKETS. And also what pocket size is right for certain games.

Any time that there is a game established between two players that is a competetive game, played on 4-1/2 inch pockets, would there be a difference in the outcome of that game if it was played on a 4 inch pocket table, and who would benefit with the change of pocket size. .

I believe with my years of experience that there is a certain pocket size that puts limitations on even the best of players, and that pocket size I believe starts around 4-1/4 inch and smaller. Once a pocket size is as small as 4-1/4 the player is limited on what he can do consistently. When the pocket size lessens to 4 inch and smaller the more the player is restricted. The smaller the pocket the more difficult it is for the player.

I also believe that there is a certain pocket size that limits a weaker player, and that pocket size is around 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. Understanding my beliefs there is a pocket size that will maximize the the edge that a top player has over a weaker player, and I believe it's between 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inch pockets. A top player will maximize his ability to win playing a weaker player on the above mentioned pocket size.

A top player will reach his maximum effiency playing a weaker player on pockets that are between 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. This will vary depending on the strength of the weak player.

This is why I said earlier that the perfect pocket size to play your opponent on is a size that doesn't intimidate you but will intimidate your opponent. It's up to you to determine what size pockets that would be.

I also firmly believe once a pocket is reduced in size to 4 inches and smaller it only helps the weaker player over a top player, providing the game was established on pockets that are within the 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. Any time a game is competitive on 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inch pockets and it is moved to a table with 4 inch pockets or smaller the more it favors the weaker player.

There are some people that think that they can give up more weight on 4 inch pockets and smaller than they can give up on 4-1/2 inch pockets, to me it's clearly the opposite, and as a rule of thumb my suggestion will prevail more often than not.

The above has been endorsed by many of the games most creditable players.
I would like to hear opinions on the 4 inch and smaller pocket size debate.

Thanks,
Billy Incardona

In paragrapy three the out come off any game would be different no matter what size or what table they play on. Even if the pockets are all 4 and a half.

That cannot be masured. Because every shot will be different. And every time we shot the same shot the resulte and the position wull be different.

All thats been saud is that 4 inch pockets are better for the weeker player then the better player giving up bug weight. How can it be better for the weacker player.

When he is a week shooter already and now you are even making him weacker. And much harder for hun too make a ball. A weacker player will be lost completly on a real tight table.

He might never make a ball. And a much better player will ajust much better too the tight pockets. Then some none player. That will be lost completly.

And the better player will be shooting way easier shots and play way better position and get way more shots. These are all true and comon sense. If a week player cant shoot then playing on a tight table he has no chance too win.

Lets say a great player gives a week player 8 to 2 on a 3 inch pocket table. How is the weacker player ever going too make a ball. Unless he out moves the better player.

Would you rather start shooting from behind the rack or a long shot off the end rail. Because thats what happines with great players and week players.

And the petter player can use the scratches in his favor were he can take a intentinal scratch if he is in a bad spot. Were if the weacker player does that his odds become wores not better.

And any time a great player can exchange scratches with a weacker player scratch for scratch. He is makeing himself a better game.

And the odds off a good shooter making a tough shot and controling the cue ball is way better then a weacker player.


And tight pockets will demoralize a week player.

I will put this ouy put I realy didnt want too do it.

If you dont belive me. Ask 10 week players getting real big spotsIf they would rather play Scott or Gab Or Eferine on a Tight pocket table or a easy pocket table.

I think 7 out off ten weeker players will say the easy table. And I mite even get 10 out off ten week players that will say that they want easy pocket tables.

IF WAtusie is getting 3 hit and the pick. Do you thunk he wants a easy pocket table or a tight pocket table.

A tight pocket table hurts a week player real bad. Because they cant shoot already. THey might not make a ball.

 

[jrhendy]

I originally posted this on the Which table to play thread. This is imo the measuring stick you should use when picking a table that carries the right pocket size for your game.


Let me try to put this debate in the proper prospective. This debate is not how a top player feels playing another top player on differen't pocket sizes, nor is it how one personally feels on what pocket size he plays his best game on. This debate is CAN A PLAYER GIVE MORE OR LESS WEIGHT ON 4 INCH POCKETS OVER 4-1/2 INCH POCKETS. And also what pocket size is right for certain games.

Any time that there is a game established between two players that is a competetive game, played on 4-1/2 inch pockets, would there be a difference in the outcome of that game if it was played on a 4 inch pocket table, and who would benefit with the change of pocket size. .

I believe with my years of experience that there is a certain pocket size that puts limitations on even the best of players, and that pocket size I believe starts around 4-1/4 inch and smaller. Once a pocket size is as small as 4-1/4 the player is limited on what he can do consistently. When the pocket size lessens to 4 inch and smaller the more the player is restricted. The smaller the pocket the more difficult it is for the player.

I also believe that there is a certain pocket size that limits a weaker player, and that pocket size is around 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. Understanding my beliefs there is a pocket size that will maximize the the edge that a top player has over a weaker player, and I believe it's between 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inch pockets. A top player will maximize his ability to win playing a weaker player on the above mentioned pocket size.

A top player will reach his maximum effiency playing a weaker player on pockets that are between 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. This will vary depending on the strength of the weak player.

This is why I said earlier that the perfect pocket size to play your opponent on is a size that doesn't intimidate you but will intimidate your opponent. It's up to you to determine what size pockets that would be.

I also firmly believe once a pocket is reduced in size to 4 inches and smaller it only helps the weaker player over a top player, providing the game was established on pockets that are within the 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. Any time a game is competitive on 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inch pockets and it is moved to a table with 4 inch pockets or smaller the more it favors the weaker player.

There are some people that think that they can give up more weight on 4 inch pockets and smaller than they can give up on 4-1/2 inch pockets, to me it's clearly the opposite, and as a rule of thumb my suggestion will prevail more often than not.

The above has been endorsed by many of the games most creditable players.
I would like to hear opinions on the 4 inch and smaller pocket size debate.

Thanks,
Billy Incardona

I have talked about pocket size with Ronnie Allen a few times and he hates the smaller pockets. His style is/was always sending balls towards his hole and being an agressive player wants a better chance to pocket balls.

The tables at the action spots in Northern California almost all have 4" pockets. Some play tighter than others because or rails/cloth, ect.... IMO if you are playing on a familiar table the tight pockets do not bother you as much as playing on a strange table. You know which speed will pocket the ball and which will spit it out and adjust your shots accordingly.

I still give out a little weight from time to time and it is usually against 9 ball players and I feel the tighter pockets are to my benefit. I am not a great ball runner either and the tighter pockets also help me there too.

The Ghost never would have slammed those four banks and out in on my home tables like he did on the Diamond's at the DCC and we never would have gotten into the pissing contest we did (now resolved) on tighter tables.He might have made a couple of them though.

 

[wincardona]

In paragrapy three the out come off any game would be different no matter what size or what table they play on. Even if the pockets are all 4 and a half.

That cannot be masured. Because every shot will be different. And every time we shot the same shot the resulte and the position wull be different.

All thats been saud is that 4 inch pockets are better for the weeker player then the better player giving up bug weight. How can it be better for the weacker player.

When he is a week shooter already and now you are even making him weacker. And much harder for hun too make a ball. A weacker player will be lost completly on a real tight table.

He might never make a ball. And a much better player will ajust much better too the tight pockets. Then some none player. That will be lost completly.

And the better player will be shooting way easier shots and play way better position and get way more shots. These are all true and comon sense. If a week player cant shoot then playing on a tight table he has no chance too win.

Lets say a great player gives a week player 8 to 2 on a 3 inch pocket table. How is the weacker player ever going too make a ball. Unless he out moves the better player.

Would you rather start shooting from behind the rack or a long shot off the end rail. Because thats what happines with great players and week players.

And the petter player can use the scratches in his favor were he can take a intentinal scratch if he is in a bad spot. Were if the weacker player does that his odds become wores not better.

And any time a great player can exchange scratches with a weacker player scratch for scratch. He is makeing himself a better game.

And the odds off a good shooter making a tough shot and controling the cue ball is way better then a weacker player.


And tight pockets will demoralize a week player.

I will put this ouy put I realy didnt want too do it.

If you dont belive me. Ask 10 week players getting real big spotsIf they would rather play Scott or Gab Or Eferine on a Tight pocket table or a easy pocket table.

I think 7 out off ten weeker players will say the easy table. And I mite even get 10 out off ten week players that will say that they want easy pocket tables.

IF WAtusie is getting 3 hit and the pick. Do you thunk he wants a easy pocket table or a tight pocket table.

A tight pocket table hurts a week player real bad. Because they cant shoot already. THey might not make a ball.

What you're failing to recognize is that the best players win by controlling the game, and then their ball running ability takes over to finish the task. It's harder for either side to controll or run balls on a 4 inch pocket table. What you are actually doing by agreeing to play on a 4 inch pocket table is to slow the speed of BOTH PLAYERS, and the better player suffers more because he's the one that needs to perform in order to win.

This is true playing any game including pool. whenever the conditions make it more difficult to score, the more difficult it is to cover the spread. Being a sports professional that you are you should understand why I think the way I do. Let me offer you an analogy. When two football teams play and one team is a 14 point favorite, and then the weather changes and it gets very cold and starts to snow, 90% of the time the line will drop from 14 points to a lower point spread. I know you will agree with that, right? The players dont change the teams dont change the only thing that changes is the condiitions. Just like the 4 inch pocket change to a more difficult condition.

From my experiences watching top players playing weaker players on a 4-1/2 x 9 table they couldn't and wouldn't give the same weight and play on a snooker table. Why not? Easy answer, they cant perform as well on a snooker table as they can on a pool table, giving the weaker player too many opportunities to win.

Billy I.

 

[wincardona]

good question

good question

although at first i thought the other way im convinced now.

my only question would be and i think this is arties argument if you are playing someone who doesnt run balls but plays the squeeze and water tortues you to death by getting a couple and playing safe and laying traps until he has high percentage shots
with that type of player is 4 inch pocket not a disadvantage and maybe an advantage since hes not looking to go 8 and out and the weaker player is going to have more trouble making a ball

to whom the four inch pocket benefits does it change if you are a squeeze player or more aggressive player????

That's a good question, and if any style of player that might benefit with the 4 inch pocket it would be a squeezer,good question. But 90% of all top players are ball runners. I asked Jack Cooney the same question and he said that he would rather give weight on 4-1/2 inch pockets than 4 inch pockets, and he's not regarded as a ball runner.

Billy I.

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

I have talked about pocket size with Ronnie Allen a few times and he hates the smaller pockets. His style is/was always sending balls towards his hole and being an agressive player wants a better chance to pocket balls.

The tables at the action spots in Northern California almost all have 4" pockets. Some play tighter than others because or rails/cloth, ect.... IMO if you are playing on a familiar table the tight pockets do not bother you as much as playing on a strange table. You know which speed will pocket the ball and which will spit it out and adjust your shots accordingly.

I still give out a little weight from time to time and it is usually against 9 ball players and I feel the tighter pockets are to my benefit. I am not a great ball runner either and the tighter pockets also help me there too.

The Ghost never would have slammed those four banks and out in on my home tables like he did on the Diamond's at the DCC and we never would have gotten into the pissing contest we did (now resolved) on tighter tables.He might have made a couple of them though.

Most one pocket players are shooters. I would say 90% or more. Ronnie Corn Bread Red Bugs Eferine Scott Cliff MIke Carrilo Worst Jersey Red Billy Shannon Dauolton these are all shooters.

And the feel comftrable on bigger pocket tables because thier whole game is around running out.

BUt players like Clem Ronberg Myself Varner Jimmy Fosco Gene Skinner Joey spath Eral Hisler Hopkines These are more on the moving side off one pocket.

If you played someone John n that shot good but didnt move too good and you spoted him 8 to 5 . Would you want too play him on a easy pocket table or a tight pocket table?

Even the Goast would you like too play hum on a tight table or a easy pocket table?


BUt thier are the other players Like J

 

[wincardona]

I have talked about pocket size with Ronnie Allen a few times and he hates the smaller pockets. His style is/was always sending balls towards his hole and being an agressive player wants a better chance to pocket balls.

The tables at the action spots in Northern California almost all have 4" pockets. Some play tighter than others because or rails/cloth, ect.... IMO if you are playing on a familiar table the tight pockets do not bother you as much as playing on a strange table. You know which speed will pocket the ball and which will spit it out and adjust your shots accordingly.

I still give out a little weight from time to time and it is usually against 9 ball players and I feel the tighter pockets are to my benefit. I am not a great ball runner either and the tighter pockets also help me there too.

The Ghost never would have slammed those four banks and out in on my home tables like he did on the Diamond's at the DCC and we never would have gotten into the pissing contest we did (now resolved) on tighter tables.He might have made a couple of them though.

That surprises me John that you would rather give the same weight on a 4 inch pocket table that you give on a 4-1/2 inch pocket table.

Now the break is not as much on a 4 inch pocket as it would be on a 4-1/2 inch pocket, that's not the kind of weight you're referring to, are you? Getting out of the break is easier in all games playing on a 4 inch pocket because it is easier to do with the options that would be available on the 4 inch pocket table that wouldn't be there on the 4-1/2 inch pocket table.

Exactly what kind of weight are you talking about?

Billy I.

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

That's a good question, and if any style of player that might benefit with the 4 inch pocket it would be a squeezer,good question. But 90% of all top players are ball runners. I asked Jack Cooney the same question and he said that he would rather give weight on 4-1/2 inch pockets than 4 inch pockets, and he's not regarded as a ball runner.

Billy I.

ASk Jack would he rather play tobby on a tight pocket table or a loose pocket table?

 

[SJDinPHX]

ASk Jack would he rather play tobby on a tight pocket table or a loose pocket table?

I think we are all pissing in the wind here...There are so many factors involved...pocket size, new cloth, humidity, etc....Bottom line is, the player who adjusts best, to whatever the conditions are, will probably be the winner...Has it ever been any different ???

I think some of us tend to over-anylize eh ?.

 

[jrhendy]

That surprises me John that you would rather give the same weight on a 4 inch pocket table that you give on a 4-1/2 inch pocket table.

Now the break is not as much on a 4 inch pocket as it would be on a 4-1/2 inch pocket, that's not the kind of weight you're referring to, are you? Getting out of the break is easier in all games playing on a 4 inch pocket because it is easier to do with the options that would be available on the 4 inch pocket table that wouldn't be there on the 4-1/2 inch pocket table.

Exactly what kind of weight are you talking about?

Billy I.

I am talking about spotting 8/7 or 9/7 with someone that runs balls better than I do.

But in all honesty, the only 4 1/2" pocket tables I have played on and gambled are the Diamond's at DCC and the Diamond at Kolby's in Arizona. Since I almost always play on Gold Crowns, these tables play just as tough to me as the 4" Gold Crowns do. I think this is because of the livlier rails and difference in the rails for banking.

I agree that getting out of the break is easier and sometimes taking balls out of the opponents pocket is also easier with 4" pockets, but the Diamonds, with their longer shelf and little bit wider pocket allows some takeout shots than are either harder or impossible on a Gold Crown. The double kiss shot out of your opponents pocket and over to yours has a much better chance to work on a Diamond IMO.

I think anything under 4", and there are some out there, is a gaff table and to be avoided unless you have way the best of it. If the best player in the country (Scott) can't adjust to it, it would be silly for me to think I can.

 

[Dudley]

I originally posted this on the Which table to play thread. This is imo the measuring stick you should use when picking a table that carries the right pocket size for your game.


Let me try to put this debate in the proper prospective. This debate is not how a top player feels playing another top player on differen't pocket sizes, nor is it how one personally feels on what pocket size he plays his best game on. This debate is CAN A PLAYER GIVE MORE OR LESS WEIGHT ON 4 INCH POCKETS OVER 4-1/2 INCH POCKETS. And also what pocket size is right for certain games.

Any time that there is a game established between two players that is a competetive game, played on 4-1/2 inch pockets, would there be a difference in the outcome of that game if it was played on a 4 inch pocket table, and who would benefit with the change of pocket size. .

I believe with my years of experience that there is a certain pocket size that puts limitations on even the best of players, and that pocket size I believe starts around 4-1/4 inch and smaller. Once a pocket size is as small as 4-1/4 the player is limited on what he can do consistently. When the pocket size lessens to 4 inch and smaller the more the player is restricted. The smaller the pocket the more difficult it is for the player.

I also believe that there is a certain pocket size that limits a weaker player, and that pocket size is around 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. Understanding my beliefs there is a pocket size that will maximize the the edge that a top player has over a weaker player, and I believe it's between 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inch pockets. A top player will maximize his ability to win playing a weaker player on the above mentioned pocket size.

A top player will reach his maximum effiency playing a weaker player on pockets that are between 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. This will vary depending on the strength of the weak player.

This is why I said earlier that the perfect pocket size to play your opponent on is a size that doesn't intimidate you but will intimidate your opponent. It's up to you to determine what size pockets that would be.

I also firmly believe once a pocket is reduced in size to 4 inches and smaller it only helps the weaker player over a top player, providing the game was established on pockets that are within the 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. Any time a game is competitive on 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inch pockets and it is moved to a table with 4 inch pockets or smaller the more it favors the weaker player.

There are some people that think that they can give up more weight on 4 inch pockets and smaller than they can give up on 4-1/2 inch pockets, to me it's clearly the opposite, and as a rule of thumb my suggestion will prevail more often than not.

The above has been endorsed by many of the games most creditable players.
I would like to hear opinions on the 4 inch and smaller pocket size debate.

Thanks,
Billy Incardona

Billy,

I agree with everything you say here.

To play strong on a 4" table a player has to be ok with a much slower game. In my own experience playing in a game which I have an edge, switching to super tight pockets made it much harder to shoot the correct shot. (partly because of my lack of experience) There are situations where I would comfortably shoot a cut for shape to run a bunch of balls that would really punish me when they hung up in the jaws. It is very hard to adjust the percentages of your shots when you are so accustomed to draining that ball and doing some damage.

A tighter player/mover will not have the same difficulties in adjusting.

Dudley

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

I think we are all pissing in the wind here...There are so many factors involved...pocket size, new cloth, humidity, etc....Bottom line is, the player who adjusts best, to whatever the conditions are, will probably be the winner...Has it ever been any different ???

I think some of us tend to over-anylize eh ?.

Yes I agree I have been agreeing with you too much lately. But we both no the better player and the player that has the better game will win more times. Then the player with the worst off the game.

Let me ask you SJD If you played a player spotting him 9 to 7 would you play him on a tught pocket yable or a loose pocket table.
Just asking a qouistion.

I no weather we agree or not. WE are both from the old School. That is a fact and nobody can change that. And I wouldnt chsnge it for 10 million.

 

[SJDinPHX]

Yes I agree I have been agreeing with you too much lately. But we both no the better player and the player that has the better game will win more times. Then the player with the worst off the game.

Let me ask you SJD If you played a player spotting him 9 to 7 would you play him on a tught pocket yable or a loose pocket table.
Just asking a qouistion.

I no weather we agree or not. WE are both from the old School. That is a fact and nobody can change that. And I wouldnt chsnge it for 10 million.

Artie,

If I were playing someonen 9/7...I would not care what kind of table, or size pockets we were playing on...I would think I had the best of it...whatever..

 

[One Pocket Ghost]

So as not to hijack Billy's thread, I moved my post to here >>> http://www.onepocket.org/forum/showthread.php?p=63193#post63193

 

[gulfportdoc]

What you're failing to recognize is that the best players win by controlling the game, and then their ball running ability takes over to finish the task. It's harder for either side to controll or run balls on a 4 inch pocket table. What you are actually doing by agreeing to play on a 4 inch pocket table is to slow the speed of BOTH PLAYERS, and the better player suffers more because he's the one that needs to perform in order to win.

Billy, you're giving lip service to the fact that both players' speed will diminish on a 4" pocketed table, but apparently you're not actually taking into consideration that the weaker player's ball pocketing will suffer in direct proportion to the stronger player's, all things being equal.

The stronger player will miss more balls, but so will the weaker player. I suspect that if it's an evenly handicapped match, then the handicap will hold up whether they're playing on tight or loose pockets.

We've got experienced players firmly on both sides of the issue. The answer is probably square in the middle.

Doc

 

[cuesmith]

I originally posted this on the Which table to play thread. This is imo the measuring stick you should use when picking a table that carries the right pocket size for your game.


Let me try to put this debate in the proper prospective. This debate is not how a top player feels playing another top player on differen't pocket sizes, nor is it how one personally feels on what pocket size he plays his best game on. This debate is CAN A PLAYER GIVE MORE OR LESS WEIGHT ON 4 INCH POCKETS OVER 4-1/2 INCH POCKETS. And also what pocket size is right for certain games.

Any time that there is a game established between two players that is a competetive game, played on 4-1/2 inch pockets, would there be a difference in the outcome of that game if it was played on a 4 inch pocket table, and who would benefit with the change of pocket size. .

I believe with my years of experience that there is a certain pocket size that puts limitations on even the best of players, and that pocket size I believe starts around 4-1/4 inch and smaller. Once a pocket size is as small as 4-1/4 the player is limited on what he can do consistently. When the pocket size lessens to 4 inch and smaller the more the player is restricted. The smaller the pocket the more difficult it is for the player.

I also believe that there is a certain pocket size that limits a weaker player, and that pocket size is around 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. Understanding my beliefs there is a pocket size that will maximize the the edge that a top player has over a weaker player, and I believe it's between 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inch pockets. A top player will maximize his ability to win playing a weaker player on the above mentioned pocket size.

A top player will reach his maximum effiency playing a weaker player on pockets that are between 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. This will vary depending on the strength of the weak player.

This is why I said earlier that the perfect pocket size to play your opponent on is a size that doesn't intimidate you but will intimidate your opponent. It's up to you to determine what size pockets that would be.

I also firmly believe once a pocket is reduced in size to 4 inches and smaller it only helps the weaker player over a top player, providing the game was established on pockets that are within the 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inches. Any time a game is competitive on 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 inch pockets and it is moved to a table with 4 inch pockets or smaller the more it favors the weaker player.

There are some people that think that they can give up more weight on 4 inch pockets and smaller than they can give up on 4-1/2 inch pockets, to me it's clearly the opposite, and as a rule of thumb my suggestion will prevail more often than not.

The above has been endorsed by many of the games most creditable players.
I would like to hear opinions on the 4 inch and smaller pocket size debate.

Thanks,
Billy Incardona

I agree. Joey Spaeth once gave a much lesser player a spot that I thought was ridiculous. Playing 9 ball, Joey got all the breaks but his opponent only had to drive the lowest ball on the table to a rail on a legal hit to win the game. He played the game on an 8' table with huge pockets. He told me he would have never given the spot on a tight 9' table. Oh, BTW Joey robbed the guy!

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

I agree. Joey Spaeth once gave a much lesser player a spot that I thought was ridiculous. Playing 9 ball, Joey got all the breaks but his opponent only had to drive the lowest ball on the table to a rail on a legal hit to win the game. He played the game on an 8' table with huge pockets. He told me he would have never given the spot on a tight 9' table. Oh, BTW Joey robbed the guy!

Nine ball and one pocket are like night and day. The spot hardly ever showes up. There is no compaireson. In the two games. I player mite run 8 racks in a row.

In One pocket the hight play a whole session and never run out.And on a real easy pocket table thats fast.

A player like Shane can spot a player like Eferine the 6789 If he gets the breacks because the spot is meaningless.

If a player gives another player the eight and nine and the are both good players. THe spot means nothung. If you play a race too 11 it mite never show up.

Taking odds on the sessuin and getting 3to2 on the money is better then the 8 and 9. Or take a game and a half on a race to 11 playing the player even.

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that balls are harder to come by on a tighter table. Each ball is worth more because of that. That means you give up less weight on a tight table than to the same player on a looser table. If you give a guy 10-6 on a table with 4 1/2" pockets and you break even with him, you won't be the favorite on a table with 4" pockets giving him 10-6. It's much harder to get your 10 on a tight table,disproportionately harder than it is for him to get his 6.

Bottom line for me is this: you cannot give the same game on both tables, I would give up less weight to the same player on a 4" pocket table.

If you've ever played one-pocket on a snooker table with a person who knew how to play the game, you would not give him the same weight that you gave him on a pooltable.

Just my opinions from my own experiences.

Dennis