"Bill Caswell" inquired
> Robert Byrne says "Most books that discuss the subject state or assume
> the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection, which is true if
> dealing with light rays bouncing off of mirrors but not pool balls
> of cushions." He goes on to explain (and show) that a naturally rolling
> ball hit with moderate speed will go long.
He also said something to the effect that "banking systems" do not work, or
to that effect, and then proceeds to offer instruction in several diamonds
I am confused by this apparent contradiction but he is correct in saying
angle out does not equal the angle in - in most cases.
> Is there a banking system that takes this into account? Or is it just a
> correction that everyone who banks well makes automatically but never
> about? Any good books that discuss this?
Tom Rossman proposes that the object ball have forward roll when it contacts
the rail, that the cue ball be struck with "moderate" speed and bottom left
banks to the right and vice versa. I do not recall if he addresses any
"adjustment" for object ball distance from the contact rail but the closer
object ball is to the cushion the greater the compensation required for lack
forward roll using his method.
Mitigating factors will be rail speed, cloth speed and bank angle, with
cross table banks of
less than one-half the table or shorter being the most predictable.
I do not remember if Jack Kohler addresses this in his book "The Science of
Billiards" (my copy is out on loan) but it would be worth the effort to read
has to say on the subject.
Stoney <-----Banks and kicks o.k. - just can't shoot straight in for shit.