Accurate Banking System?

Accurate Banking System?

Post by Bill Caswe » Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:00


Robert Byrne says ""Most books that discuss the subject state or assume that
the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection, which is true if you are
dealing with light rays bouncing off of mirrors but not pool balls bouncing off
of cushions."  He goes on to explain (and show) that a naturally rolling cue
ball hit with moderate speed will go long.

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 talks
about?  Any good books that discuss this?

Bill

 
 
 

Accurate Banking System?

Post by Patrick Johnso » Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> Robert Byrne ... goes on to explain (and show) that a naturally rolling cue
> ball hit with moderate speed will go long.

This is also shown in VP2 and can be easily observed by standing behind the rail
contact point when your opponent banks or kicks.  The ball swerves a short distance
(depending on speed) after rebounding, due to the topspin that has become masse
with the change of direction.

Quote:
> Is there a banking system that takes this into account?

Not that I've heard of.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

 
 
 

Accurate Banking System?

Post by QuantumDo » Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> 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 talks
> about?  Any good books that discuss this?

> Bill

Try the Billiard Atlas, Vols. I-IV.

http://www.billiardsatlas.com

 
 
 

Accurate Banking System?

Post by Rupe - ArseWe » Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:00

Quote:


> > Robert Byrne ... goes on to explain (and show) that a naturally rolling cue
> > ball hit with moderate speed will go long.

> This is also shown in VP2 and can be easily observed by standing behind the rail
> contact point when your opponent banks or kicks.  The ball swerves a short distance
> (depending on speed) after rebounding, due to the topspin that has become masse
> with the change of direction.

> > Is there a banking system that takes this into account?

> Not that I've heard of.

What about this one?

Banking the cueball 2 rails into an object ball, find the
line joining the point midway between the 2 balls and
the pocket between the 2 cushions, and play the cueball
parallel to this line, with a slight amount of running
side. I read this in rsb and it's made a big difference
to me. Much easier to find the angle on these shots now.
I don't know if I always do use running side, but I guess
how much it matters depends on acuteness of angles,
distance and speed of shot, and margins of error. But
this is the system as it was presented.

Since according to Euclid (as Joe Davis would say) no side
is required, the running side must be correcting for
deviations from angle of incidence = angle of reflection.

?

Rupe.

 
 
 

Accurate Banking System?

Post by Stone » Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:00

"Bill Caswell" inquired

Quote:
> Robert Byrne says "Most books that discuss the subject state or assume
that
> the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection, which is true if
you are
> dealing with light rays bouncing off of mirrors but not pool balls
bouncing off
> of cushions."  He goes on to explain (and show) that a naturally rolling
cue
> ball hit with moderate speed will go long.

He also said something to the effect that "banking systems" do not work, or
words
to that effect, and then proceeds to offer instruction in several diamonds
systems.
I am confused by this apparent contradiction but he is correct in saying
that the
angle out does not equal the angle in - in most cases.

Quote:
> 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
talks
> 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
for
banks to the right and vice versa.  I do not recall if he addresses any
necessary
"adjustment" for object ball distance from the contact rail but the closer
the
object ball is to the cushion the greater the compensation required for lack
of
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
Pocket
Billiards" (my copy is out on loan) but it would be worth the effort to read
what he
has to say on the subject.

Regards,
Stoney <-----Banks and kicks o.k. - just can't shoot straight in for shit.

 
 
 

Accurate Banking System?

Post by J Du » Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
> Robert Byrne says ""Most books that discuss the subject state or assume
that
> the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection, which is true if
you are
> dealing with light rays bouncing off of mirrors but not pool balls
bouncing off
> of cushions."  He goes on to explain (and show) that a naturally rolling
cue
> ball hit with moderate speed will go long.

> 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
talks
> about?  Any good books that discuss this?

Everything affects everything.  Things you can see/do..... speed, cloth,
height of the nose of the rail, top spin, back spin, sliding, and english.
Add to that the things you can't see such as composition, age and density of
the *** under the cloth, how the rails are attached (3 versus 4 bolts,
floating rails) and the answer is "yes, there are a hundred clues, but it's
not quite the same as hitting whitey to the proper point on the target and
watching it split the pocket.

--Jim

Quote:
> Bill

 
 
 

Accurate Banking System?

Post by nhoo » Mon, 20 Nov 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
>...he is correct in saying that the angle out does not equal the angle in - in most cases.

PreZactly! That's why I get suspicious when someone says they have the
perfect banking "system". They come up with a bunch of half-angles and
point counting, then blow it all with the note that the ball must be hit
just so hard and with just a "touch" of whatever English.

All this STILL puts judgement into the equation, further confusing the
beginner who is now actually worse off than he was, as he hasn't learned
anything useful and has more "stuff" to think about - distracting him
from the basics which are the key to success.

Best,

Nat Hooper
Oxford, Arkansas

  OK, so I didn't win today, but I was beaten only by the very best.

 
 
 

Accurate Banking System?

Post by Bob Jewet » Tue, 21 Nov 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> 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 talks
> about?  Any good books that discuss this?

I have a student who is developing one of his own.  He is gathering the
necessary data and putting it into a general framework.  The problem with
any such system, as with aiming systems in general, is that it needs to take
into account every factor that is big enough to result in a miss.  This
includes shot speed, angle of the cut if the shot is not straight on, side
spin on the cue ball (these last two can transfer side spin to the object
ball, no matter what JB says to the contrary), height and composition of
the cushions, age and condition of the bed and rail cloth, condition of
the balls, ... but you get the idea.

Banking systems -- like the kicking systems Byrne discusses -- can only
work partially.  You have to work with them and then give complete trust
to your own internal computer to make the right corrections to allow for
all the minor details.  Read Robin's "Winning One Pocket" for the best
discussion of this that I've seen in print.

--

Bob Jewett

 
 
 

Accurate Banking System?

Post by Rupe - ArseWe » Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:36:11

Quote:

> >...he is correct in saying that the angle out does not equal the angle in - in most cases.

> PreZactly! That's why I get suspicious when someone says they have the
> perfect banking "system". They come up with a bunch of half-angles and
> point counting, then blow it all with the note that the ball must be hit
> just so hard and with just a "touch" of whatever English.

> All this STILL puts judgement into the equation, further confusing the
> beginner who is now actually worse off than he was, as he hasn't learned
> anything useful and has more "stuff" to think about - distracting him
> from the basics which are the key to success.

I guess it depends on what you're lookign for from such
systems. Seems to me that lots of players could do with
something to help them find the angle. Even though the
incidence=reflection angle isn't perfect, even that's
a good starting point for people who can;t just see
the right angle instinctively (yet).

Rupe.

 
 
 

Accurate Banking System?

Post by LAWLER » Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:33:53

I have tried 4 different banking systems. Angle in=Angle out. Isosceles
triangle. Cutting ball into opposite pocket onto imaginary table. Banking ball
using opposite english. None of them work consistently. The best banking method
I would say to you use intuitiveness. Use your eyes. Angle in almost equals
angle out. Try to compensate. Visualize the banks. Trial and error will
sometimes get you very far in a game with MANY variables.
Quote:

>Robert Byrne says ""Most books that discuss the subject state or assume that
>the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection, which is true if you
>are
>dealing with light rays bouncing off of mirrors but not pool balls bouncing
>off
>of cushions."  He goes on to explain (and show) that a naturally rolling cue
>ball hit with moderate speed will go long.

>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 talks
>about?  Any good books that discuss this?

>Bill