One of two great lines I heard this past week. Perhaps Fred remembers the other one.

Old guy is playing Tang Hoa in 9-Ball, losing badly, and says, "You're a pretty easy opponent."

Tang jerks his head around and asks, "What makes you say that?"

Old guy responds, "All I have to do is kick every now and then, and rack. Pretty easy."

My first table was a 3x6 bar table. Heck, for a while I had it shoved into a corner of my living room and I could only shoot from two sides. I think any pool table is better than no pool table. In the case of a 3x6, I think you'll find it makes for pretty good practice of cue-ball control and cluster breaking. If you play a lot of 8-ball on a 3.5x7 then practicing on a 3x6 could help your game a lot. If you play a lot of 9-ball then it won't help you as much since cue-ball control is not as critical, but again, even a small table is better than no table, IMO.

Another thing about smaller tables - there aren't any long shots (duh) - so you'll probably have more runouts than you might have on a bigger table. This can really help your confidence and make solo practicing more fun.

I wouldn't pay much more than $300 or so for a 3x6 table. Most of the time when these things go up for sale it's because either the owner (a)bought a bigger table, or (b)just didn't want the table anymore. In either case they're usually pretty anxious to sell.

barenada wrote...
> Patrick Johnson wrote...
>> What does "takes a different angle off the OB" mean?
>
> I was talking about the fact that, using this method, I
> don't have to allow for squirt, so I don't have to
> compensate in selecting my CB/OB contact point. I can
> use the same contact point I'd be using with no english
> at all. So the path the CB takes off the OB is different
> than it would be if I had allowed for squirt and moved my
> contact point accordingly.

Dave you don't know what you're talking about. The CB/OB contact point can't change if you still want to make the shot. Saying the contact point was different just because you weren't allowing for squirt was just plain stupid. If you had gone to the trouble of actually going and shooting some shots you'd have realized that the reason that the path the CB takes off the OB when you're using this fancy new swerve stroke is different is because you're not getting as much follow/draw as you would with a more conventional stroke. This can be confirmed by using your fancy swerve stroke on some plain-jane english shots - no follow or draw - and noting that in these cases the CB path off the OB is identical to what you'd expect with a regular stroke.

tom simpson wrote:
> Dave,
>
> How are you doing the Kinister/Hall et al swerve without
> involving your wrist? As far as I know, curling the wrist is
> the whole idea. It's how they pivot the stick on the hit
>stroke.

I'd say when I do it my it's my forearm and elbow making the swerve. I haven't had a chance to tape myself to see what's really happening yet, but I'm sure it's not my wrist because when I tried to do it with just my wrist I was barely able to hit the cue-ball at all. I just kind of swerve the tip like I'm trying to "rub" the english on. I'll tell you it's a lot easier to do that it is to describe. My tip stays pretty level during the stroke - at least as level as it can for someone with a push stroke like me. I have no trouble hitting the CB high and getting the desired results, so there mustn't be too much of a dip - other than the shooter himself :) - involved.

tom simpson wrote:
> I'm wondering whether the twisting motion it takes to
> execute this stroke might be causing additional CB curve? In
> both the outside and inside twists, the wrist is curling
>sideways and UPward, which will make the tip swipe sideways
>and DOWNward into the CB. This additional curve effect (if
>it's real) would wash out against the squirt. Anyone?

I can't really comment on this, since I don't really get my wrist involved. That takes more coordination than I've been blessed with. It does make sense though that introducing a downward component to your stroke could cause a bit of a masse' effect. If this is happening, I'd say that a curve is even less desirable than squirt (At least squirt is straight). Of course for shorter distances the curve may not have time to "take" so this may still be better than having to allow for squirt when using a more conventional stroke.

Just thought I'd throw in my $.02 here.

After watching Bert's deflection tape I tried his technique out on a type of shot I've always had trouble with - hard hit shots nearly straight-in with top right or top left.

The fact is, for me, that steering the cue tip into the cue-ball contact point instead of using a straight stroke into the contact point has GREATLY reduced squirt-induced misses for me on these shots.

The amount of english seems to be the same, but the CB takes a different angle off the OB (don't have to allow for squirt) so it's kind of hard ot tell for sure - it's certainly very close to the same amount.

As Tom just pointed out, the physics here are very similar to the squirt test in the FAQ. What I found is that for me at least my bridge doesn't need to be at the pivot point. Perhaps the difference is because I'm not shooting straight along the revised line, I'm curving my tip into the CB.

Tom's right. Just because it's in a book (or a tape) doesn't make it gospel. But then again, just because Tom doesn't do it doesn't make it undoable.

My right eye has problems as well - although it's not as bad as yours seems to be. Do you still have usable depth perception? Can you stand at the head on the table and discern the different distances between the foot rail, a ball an inch off the foot rail, and a ball 2 inches off the foot rail?

If you've still got adequate depth perception, and you can see pretty well with your left eye, I think you can get used to it. You may have to become more of an FP to do it though.

I see pretty fuzzy balls from more than 3 or 4 feet away, and I've just gotten used to aiming at them. I can't wear my glasses when I shoot because it forces me to bend my neck up too much, and that puts too much strain on my neck after a short while. My depth perception is still good so I don't really have to change anything except my attitude towards aiming at fuzzy blobs of color instead of at clean crisp balls.

If your depth perception has suffered too much to keep the same stance you may want to consider raising up to get a better view of the angles when you shoot. You'll have to be more careful of your alignment since that gets harder to judge the higher your head gets.

Another option to help make up for the loss of depth perception is to raise and lower your head a few inches several times as you take your practice strokes. I know this is not "by the book" but the books assume good vision with both eyes and strong depth perception. A friend of mine who lost an eye was able to become a pretty good player by bobbing his head in this manner. The slight change in perspective allowed his mind to generate a 3D view of the table even though his body wasn't capable of seeing in 3D anymore.

Ron Shepard wrote:
> Sorry Dave, but geometry, inches, and angles are all analysis, not
> "feel".

I think analysis is quite useful when I'm not shooting. I would never think about any of this stuff in getting ready to shoot, but since it was pointed out to me I find it pretty interesting - especially since it was a completely new subject for me.

There's a bit of a misconception here. As an FP, I do not simply tra-la-la through life and then rely on my good looks to make the shots for me. I like to analyze things and try new techniques - just not when I'm shooting. Knowledge gained from books, videos, other players, etc has proven invaluable to my game. What makes me an FP is not a lack of knowledge, or even a lack of proper technique (some will disagree with that), but the fact that when I shoot a shot I rely on what FEELS right regarding alignment, speed, english, stroke quality, and so on, instead of what I CALCULATE to be right. Another big thing about being an FP is a lack of choreographed steps involved in getting into shooting position and shooting. What we lack in consistency in this area I feel we more than make up in relaxation and mental awareness.

Unless the balls are super clean I can shoot at a frozen kiss shot and either pull or push the first OB off the tangent line with draw or follow. This be very helpful in making these kiss shots that are very close but not quite "on".

Tom Bellhouse wrote:
> Very interesting, but how do you take shot length into account,
> when keeping that angle constant? Stand further away for long
> shots, closer for short ones?

I seem to be maintaining the view of the cue-ball instead of, say, the center of the cue-ball's path to the object ball. Except for stretch shots I can stand the same distance from the cue-ball while surveying every shot.

It would make more sense if I maintained perspective on a point more towards the center of the shot's action, wouldn't it? It works for me maintaining a perspective on the cue-ball. I suppose it could work equally well for other people using perspectives - object ball, cue-ball path's midpoint, etc. I think the important thing is to maintain perspective on something throughout the movement so your brain has something to tie the two images together.