Bob Jewett

Double-Elimination FormatsAnother loss isn't necessarily the player's gain.

In the past two months I've tried to con-vince you that round-robin or single-elimi-nation formats are the best. This month,we'll go over what has become the standardfor large tournaments in the US, the dou-ble-elimination format. I don't like the DEformat myself, but it's useful to understandit if you're going to be a tournament direc-tor or even a player in one.

The basic goal behind DE is to allowevery player to have more than one match;the main complaint about single-elimina-tion is that everyone who loses in the firstround only gets one match. You stay in theDE tournament until you have two losses.(Interestingly, you don't hear about tennisplayers clamoring for DE in tennis tourna-ments.) The problem is how to arrange thematches fairly, and for a reasonably speedyconclusion.

Diagram 1 shows a standard DE chart foreight players. The first matches are downthe middle. Seeding and byes for the firstround are done the same as for single-elim-ination, which was covered last month. Thematches are numbered for reference.

The winners of the first round advancetowards the right, while the losers move tothe left. The winners' side remains simple.The losers' side is complicated by the needto make room for the later losers on thewinners' side. This is shown by the appear-ance of L7 and L8 in matches 10 and 9,who are the losers of matches 7 and 8.

An important thing to note is that whenL7 and L8 move over to the losers' side,they swap top and bottom. This is to avoidrepeated matches. For example, if L7 werenot swapped to the bottom, he might haveto play the same person he played in match1 or 2. While there is no way to avoidrepeated matches at some point in the tour-nament, they should be delayed as long aspossible, so that they can only occurbetween players who are already in themoney. With eight players, you can't dobetter than this one swap, but with 64 or128, things get more complicated. A goodlarge DE chart will do at least two levels ofmixing/shuffling to delay repeats.

I shudder to think of all the DE eventsI've played in that didn't do this shuffling,and I ended up losing twice to one player. Iwould have much preferred to play some-one else for my second loss.

When a winner on the losers' side is final-

ly determined, she or he comes over to playthe winner of the winners' side in match 14.There are two basic ways to do this finalmatch. In the old days, if the winners' final-ist lost, then each player would have onlyone loss, and in keeping with the conceptof DE, there would have to be anothermatch. The potential of needing a wholeextra match at the end of the tournamentcan really mess up scheduling, especially ifit is being taped for TV. The solution that isused nearly always today is to have a singlefinal match. Sometimes this single match ismade longer to make it a better decider ofwho's the best.

One problem while scheduling the roundsfor DE is that there are twice as manyrounds on the losers' side. This means thatif you play the winners through as quicklyas possible, the winner of match 11 will bewaiting for several rounds, getting rustyand fretting. If matches are played in theorder numbered on Diagram 1, there willbe fewer long waits.

If you lose in the first round, winning thetournament will be a real challenge, sinceyou have to win twice as many matches toget to the finals as the person who just beatyou. The best example of someone whomet this challenge was Jimmy Caras in the1967 U.S. Open 14.1 tournament, who lostin the first round and came back to beatLuther Lassiter twice in the finals to winthe tournament.

For scheduling, it's important to note thatthere will be nearly two matches for eachplayer entered, and there will be about

twice as many rounds as for single-elimina-tion. Tournament spreadsheets on the Websites mentioned before will keep track ofthese details for you.

An alternative DE chart is shown inDiagram 2. The idea here is that the losersfrom each round on the winners' side formtheir own single-elimination tournament.The winners of each mini-tournament comeback together to find the overall winner ofthe losers' side. This chart is easier to fol-low and plan the schedule for than the nor-mal DE chart.

The main problem with this system is thatif the original chart has nearly 50% byes,the bracket for the losers in the first roundwill be very sparsely populated, and theplayers will have an easy ride into themoney. This can be corrected by combiningthe first- and second-round losers into asingle bracket, as shown in Diagram 3. It islike part of the DE chart folded over.

A final system that lets players have asecond chance is the "buy-back" format.For this, you have a bunch of preliminary,small single-elimination groups. Eightplayers is usually a good number. The win-ner of each flight goes on to the main com-petition. The seven players who lost can re-enter the tournament. Usually they will payanother entry fee, but you could alsoinclude one re-entry in the original fee. It ispossible for a player to get back in the tour-nament several times, depending on howmuch time is available and how quickly themaximum number of entries (and re-entries) is reached. I've seen one player

14 I BD-JANUARY 2002

Bob Jewett

start five times and eventually end up withthird place in the main event.

One advantage of this format is that youcan start play when only some of the play-ers are present. For example, as soon as 16were at the site, you could draw into twogroups of eight. As more players arrive,

they sign up and youhave flights with amixture of new and re-entered players. It isbest to form twogroups at a time, sothat no one knowsexactly who will be intheir flight when they

sign up.Once all the preliminary groups of eight

are played out, the main event begins as asingle elimination. You can use seeding sothat any byes go to those players who qual-ified first. This encourages players to arriveearly. The winners of the initial groups do

have to wait before the "main" event, butthey can know when that will start andschedule their time accordingly.

This "buy-back" format offers the best ofdouble-elimination — players get as manychances as they want — and single-elimi-nation — with the straight-forward chartand schedule. It works best in an handi-capped event, since the players don't careso much whether Efren is going to be intheir flight, but with the second and thirdchance, an initial bad draw can be over-come.

If you have a competition format youenjoy, please send it in and I'll discuss themost interesting in a future column.

BD • JANUARY 2002 15

Bob Jewett

8-Ball RulesThe many different versions of one of today's most co mmon games.

Do you think you know the rules of 8-ball? Unless you check the rule book fairlyoften, your knowledge is likely out of date.Since an early version of the game appearedin 1925, there have been at least four majorrevisions and many minor modifications.

Fig. 1 is taken from page 53 of the 1925Brunswick-Balke-Collender publication,Rules Governing the Royal Game ofBilliards. It is quite clearly 8-ball, but it is akinder, simpler form of the game. It is alsoapparently a marketing ploy, since itrequires a special set of balls to play it.

A main theme running through the histo-ry of 8-ball is the method of choosinggroups. In 1925, if you only made onekind of ball on the break, that was whatyou got. If you made both kinds, youchose. If neither, your opponent presum-ably chose before his shot, but the rulesare silent on this case.

Scratches had no penalty except givingyour opponent ball-in-hand behind theline. In fact, it seems that scratching whenmaking the black ball was not loss ofgame. The only way that you could loseearly was to pocket the black before yourcolors were gone. Also, there was norequirement to contact your own object ballfirst, even when playing the black, so allcombinations were fair.

The rule for a bad break was a littlestrange. You had to get two balls to a cush-ion or pocket a ball on the break, or youropponent got to break and select a groupwhether he pocketed a ball or not.

The entire 1925 rules for 8-ball are barelya page long. I wonder whether they succeed-ed in selling any sets of red/yellow/blackballs?

In 1945, a brand-new rules publicationappeared from a new organization, theBilliard Association of America. This wouldtransform into the Billiard Congress ofAmerica in 1948, and the 1945 rule bookwas carried along with a slightly differentcover but identical rules text through the1963 edition.

This new version of 8-ball was both closerto and further away from the present gamethan B.B.C.Co. pool. Standard numberedballs were used in high and low groups.These were not referred to as "stripes andsolids," perhaps because some sets of ballswere not the current solid/stripe style.

The most notable change in 1945 was a

special rule for the 1 and 15 balls. These hadto go in the right and left-side pockets, asindicated in Diagram 2. Although the rulebook said nothing about where those twospecial balls should be racked — only theeight was specified —I've played in an old-time room where the standard spots were asshown, presumably to keep them out of playat the start of the game.

If you made your special ball in a wrongpocket, it spotted up, and you went on shoot-ing. This rule is actually quite useful to agood player who can continue to make the

Fig. 1. An early variation of 8-ball from 1925.

ball off the spot, perhaps breaking up a lastcluster, and then taking a few shots to getonto the right pocket.

Choice of group, in 1945, was up to thebreaker if he pocketed a ball or up to hisopponent if not; balls pocketed on the breakwere irrelevant.

A major addition was a lot of ways to losewith the 8 ball. If you hit the 8 ball directlywhen playing it, then you had to drive the 8or the cue ball to a cushion or you lost. Thisrule was probably mistaken for 20 years, asyou would lose even if you had driven sev-eral of your opponent's balls to cushions —it had to be the 8 or the cue ball to a cushion.On the other hand, if you were hooked onthe 8 ball, and you banked to hit it, you did-n't need to hit any cushion afterwards. If youdidn't hit the 8 at all, you lost, as well as ifyou scratched or made the 8 in the wrongpocket.

All combinations were allowed, exceptwhen on the 8, so the concept of "hit yourown ball first" did not yet exist.

In 1925, you could make the black in somerandom pocket on a combination andscratch, and you still won the game — or atleast that's the way the rules read.

Around 1967, the first changes to the rulesin 20 years appeared, and the result wasclose to the current rules. The special rules

for the 1 and 15 were gone, perhaps becauseof the growing number of coin-op tables forwhich it was expensive to spot balls.

Choice of group was determined on thebreak shot if only one kind of ball was made,or by the first person to legally pocket a ballfrom a chosen group. The requirement to hityour own ball was in, and if you made ballson a bad hit, you had to spot your own butnot your opponent's. Slop was still allowedexcept on the 8.

1970 through 1974 saw only one minorchange: if you didn't drive a ball to a cush-

ion, your opponent got to take ball-in-hand in the kitchen.

In 1977 there was a substantial rewrite,and rules for "The Championship Game"expanded to five pages, largely due tomany of the general rules of pool beingrestated in the 8-ball section. Ballsjumped off the table were mentioned forthe first time; they were spotted, but theshot was not a foul.

Choice of groups was rather strange.After the break, the table was still open,

and then you got whatever you made moreof. The rule on needing to drive the cue ballor the 8 ball to a cushion, which had beenbroken since 1945, was finally fixed. Until1977, making the 8 on the break had been aloss; then it became a win, unless youscratched. The rule about calling the 8 wastightened up, so that an uncalled 8 ball wasloss of game, even if you didn't pocket it.

The penalty for a foul became taking theballs in position, or taking the cue ball inhand in the kitchen. If you were on the 8,you could have it spotted and shoot a spotshot. Presumably this last wrinkle kept youropponent from surrounding the 8 ball tokeep you from any shot.

The 1978 rule book had both the "SinglesChampionship Game" and the "Coin-Operated Championship Game," with minordifferences.

1980 saw another major rewrite. In a flash-back to 1925, the groups were described aseither "stripes and solids" or "bi-colored,"and for several years, the BCA used red/yel-low/black sets in the NationalChampionships. The corner balls on the rackwere specified to be one of each group.

The required open break was now definedas four balls to a cushion; previously it waswhatever the referee was comfortable with.If you failed, your opponent could shoot

22 BD • FEBRUARY 2002

Bob Jewett

from the position or rebreak. Making the 8on the break was a win, but an optionalrerack-rebreak rule was listed.

Presumably following 9-ball, three con-secutive fouls was loss of game. An option-al ball-in-hand, anywhere rale was listed,and these two rules together must have beenvery interesting — imagine being on the 8with all of your opponent's balls still up.

Another optional rule listed in 1980 was"last pocket." Under this rule, you had tomake the 8 in the same pocket as the last ofyour group. An exception was that if the 8was hanging on the lip of the wrong pocket,you could bank the cue ball three or morecushions to play it in that pocket.

In 1985, making the 8 on the break was are-rack, but for team play, it was a win. Call-shot was introduced as an optional rule, andif you pocketed uncalled balls, they spottedup, except for your opponent's which stayeddown, and on a coin-op everything wouldstay down. In a surprising change, callingthe 8 became a "should-do" for the shooter,and it was the duty of the opponent or refer-ee to ask for a call if none was heard.

Also in 1985, the three-foul rule wasstricken, and the stalemate rale appeared. Ifeach player had three turns with no attemptto make a ball, the game was a draw. Theidea of "cue-ball fouls only" was introducedfor casual play. Sadly, bicolor sets bit the

dust that year.Choice of groups changed to the first

legally pocketed ball after the break. Allcombinations were permitted on an opentable, even using the 8 ball first.

In 1986, call-shot was required to theextent that every ball and every pocket had

to be indicated. An 8 on the break gave arerack and rebreak, or spot the 8 and playon. Jumped balls were considered a miss butnot a foul, and your own balls would spot,but your opponent's would stay down.

In 1988, a scratch when playing the 8 waschanged from loss of game to just a foul aslong at the 8 was not pocketed. A one-

minute time-limit rule was suggested, and astalemate was redefined as six consecutivefouls (three by each player).

1992 saw "Gentlemen's Call" introduced,no longer requiring calling obvious shots.Alternate breaks became the standard;before it was loser-breaks or not specified.

In 1993, a "safety shot" was explicitlyadded, so that you could shoot in a ball andforce your opponent to shoot from theresulting position. Jumped object ballsbecame a foul and all were spotted.

In 1994, a special rule for "cue-ball foulsonly" was added so that if you moved anear-by ball on a jump or masse shot, it wasconsidered a foul. Stalemate got its thirddefinition, which removed fouls as arequirement but did require exactly threeobject balls on the table. On an open table,you could still hit the 8 first, but it would becounted as a miss.

The year 2000 saw the last major changes,but the millennium is young. Winner-breaksis the standard, but options are listed. Hittingthe 8 first on an open table is now a foul.Jumped balls no longer spot. A stalemate canoccur with any number of balls on the table.

So, do you still think you know how to play8-ball? Come on over and we can play some"B.B.C.Co." Pocket Billiards. I picked up ared/yellow/black set in the 80s — the 1980s.It takes about 30 seconds to learn the rules.

BD • FEBRUARY 2002 23

Bob Jewett

Who Wants a Spot?Calculating your odds.

Handicapping and calculatingthe odds at billiards is older than cue tips— literally. Figure 1 is a section of abook by E. White from 1807 called APractical Treatise on the Game ofBilliards. While he does mention chalk,leather tips were unknown to him, so herecommends rough-ing the wood of thepoint of the cue witha file before trying toapply spin such asdraw.

White devotes alarge part of the bookto tables of the cor-rect odds at billiards.Evidently theonlookers were fondof betting on theside, as the rulesinclude a clausewhich forbids proposing a bet not in linewith the accepted odds.

In White's day, the standard game wasa sort of pocket billiards to 12 points.The odds reproduced are just for the casewhen someone is giving up 4 points on12, and the weaker player has nine or 10points. For example, if the better playeris ahead 10-9, the correct odds are 7-2 inhis favor, according to White. The oddsare complicated because most shotsscore multiple points in that game.

White goes on through many tables ofspecific odds on all possible scores withall possible handicaps in games to 12points. He supports this with pages ofcalculations of fractions and powers andfinite series. In one example, he calcu-lates — using fractions with seventh andninth powers — the odds as 71828 to28172 or "very near to 23 to 9" for onepossible situation.

I suspect that the modern billiard audi-ence is just as interested in that level ofdetail as White's readers were in 1807,so I'll keep the arithmetic in the follow-ing to a minimum. What I'll outline is asystem that allows you to do manythings: estimate the relative strengths oftwo players who have played a match;calculate a fair game between two play-ers if they have both played a third play-er but not each other; figure a fair handi-cap between players who have been

rated; and figure the odds in a handi-capped match when the spot is not quiteright.

The underlying idea is that players ofdifferent abilities will score balls, points,or games at certain rates or ratios, andthese can describe the relative abilities of

those players with a single number. Youmay not agree with this idea. You mightimagine a "paper, scissors, rock" situa-tion: A beats B with better shot-making,B beats C with better safety play, and Cbeats A by better position and long runs.The game is multi-dimensional, but theassumption here is that players can beplaced in a pecking order on a singleline. I think that most of the time thatassumption works pretty well.

The first thing to do is set up the abili-ty rating scale. A simple way to state it isthat if you beat me by 2:1 on score,you're 30 rating points better than I am.Suppose in turn, that Efren and Earl bothbeat you by a 2:1 margin. This makesthem 30 points above you. We could saythat they are at the top, rated at 100. Thatwould make you a 70 and me a 40. Theproblem with this is that there are playerswhom I can beat 2:1 who beat others 2:1who beat others 2:1 ... and the lowestplayer on the totem pole is rated at -70.Some players would take offense atbeing told that they have a negative abil-ity rating. Fortunately, we can fix this byadding 100 to everyone's rating andeveryone is back in positive territory, andthe differences don't change.

How would Efren and I match up? Wewould be 60 rating points apart (100-40or 200-140 after inflation), which meanstwo steps of a 2:1 ratio of games won.

This means that if we play a race-to-eight games of 9-ball, I can expect to winabout 2, or 1/4 of Efren's score.

How should Efren match up with some-one rated 60 points below me? In theory,he would win 16 games for each gamethey won — 120 points difference is four

times 30, or four fac-tors of 2. Theory andpractice mightdiverge for this case,as any hung 9-ballwould be a very cost-ly mistake on Efren'spart, relative to thesame mistake in ascratch game.

Using math, whichI won't go into here,you can calculate fairmatch-ups for anyparticular rating dif-

ference. Figure 2 shows a tiny part of acomplete chart. The left column is thedifference in skill rating (RD for RatingDifference) of two players and the rightcolumn is the correct spot. This could beat one-pocket, and the spot would be theballs needed for game, or it could be 9-ball and the spot would be games neededfor the match.

Note that the RD for an 8-6 pairing isdifferent from the RD for a 4-3 pairing.This is the same ratio ofgames/points/balls, so you would expectthe same rating difference, but thedetailed math says that the longer matchfavors the better player. Similarly, a 2-1match has an RD of 38 because in such ashort match, chance plays a larger partand gives the weaker player the edge. Fora 2:1 ratio, the simple explanation of thesystem gives an RD of 30 as mentionedabove, but this really applies only to verylong matches.

You could use a table like Figure 2 toestablish your own player-ranking sys-tem. Suppose Earl beats you in a tourna-ment by a score of 9-5. From the table,this means that you're 27 points belowhim. Of course, one match does not acareer make, and you would have toaverage a bunch of matches together toget an accurate estimate of relativestrengths.

If someone had a lot of data about

24 BD • MARCH 2002

Fig. 1. White's odds from his A Practical Treatise on the Game of Billiards.

Bob Jewett

matches, a lot ofspare time, andplenty of energy,they could estab-lish player rank-ings based onlong-term tour-nament perfor-mance using thisRD technique. Ithink therewould be consid-erable interest insuch rankings.

Figure 2 canalso suggest howto change a spotthat doesn't seemquite right.Suppose you aregiving someone9-7 at one-pocket— they need tomake seven ballsbefore you makenine. You're win-ning consistent-ly, so a change ofspot seems inorder. 8-6 is aminor adjust-

ment, as the RD change is less than twopoints, while 9-6 is a seven-point changeand about four times as much adjust-ment.

In fact, the math allows you to estimatehow much change would be fair based onthe percentage of wins you're recording.In Figure 3 is a table of the expectedwinning percentages in a 9-7 match forvarious rating differences. For example,if you are winning 65% of the gameseven giving up that spot, your real supe-riority is 20 RD points, rather than the11.3 the spot implies. Checking the tablein Figure 2, you could give up 9-6 andretain a small edge, assuming the calcu-lations have been perfect.

As long as people have struck ballswith cues, they have been interested inthe odds of winning. These ideas andtechniques may answer some of yourquestions. For more details on how thissystem works or for more completetables of probabilities, contact me at Jew-ett® sfbilliards .com.

Bob Jewett is a Billiard Congress ofAmerica Advanced-level instructor, and apartner in the San Francisco BilliardAcademy, which has courses for beginnersto instructors.

26 BD-MARCH 2002

Bob Jewett

Outside AssistanceA little spin to help the angle?

One of the most-repeated maxims inpool instruction is that you should neveruse sidespin unless you really need it toposition the cue ball. Many teachers assertthat nearly all shots can be played with a hiton the vertical centerline ofthe cue ball; draw and followare OK, but side is to beavoided.

Willie Mosconi told us,"My experience has taughtme that more than 85% of theshots can be accomplished bystroking the cue ball in thecenter of its vertical axis." Helater said, "The vast majorityof shots can and should beexecuted by stroking the cueball at its exact center," and"Resort to English only whenyou are confronted with the need to altercue- or object-ball action radically." InDiagram 1, you'll need that somethingspecial to get to either the 2 or 3.

The case against sidespin is easy to support.Squirt, swerve, throw and cling due to the spinare each impactful enough to make shots miss.If you're facing a tough shot, it would beinsanity to make it harder with those factorsunless the position demanded it. If you havean easy shot, you run the risk of changing a100% proposition to a 95% chance.

On the other hand, long-time readers ofthis magazine may have noticed a formerworld champion advocating the use of out-side English to help the ball into the pocketon cut shots. (Outside is right English forcuts to the left, and vice versa.) The idea isthat some outside English will counteract thethrow from the cue ball rubbing across thesurface of the object ball during the colli-sion. Since you can hit the object ball fuller,you will also take more of the speed off thecue ball and it will be easier to control.

Ideally, the outside English will exactlycancel the "collision-induced throw" andthe cue ball will roll across the surface ofthe object ball without any rubbing. Inresponse, the object ball will move awayexactly along the line of centers of the ballsat the instant of collision, and the ghost- orphantom-ball method of aiming — and alltheir equivalent systems — will be perfect.

Before we get into the details, what doyou usually do? Does a shot down the rail

feel better with a little outside? If you haveto shoot a spot shot, do you help the anglea little with spin? A pool buddy of minemuch prefers inside English on tough cutshots when position isn't a factor, as it

would be in Diagram 1 if the 1 were thegame ball. He doesn't follow the theory ofsome who claim that such spin, especiallydown a rail, will put enough sidespin on theobject ball to make it zip into the pocket; hejust finds it easier to aim with inside. He'sgot a point. The contact points on the cueball and object ball are both close to theline of the cue stick, so the shot is more"compact" with all parts along your sight-ing line.

To analyze the problem, two basic factsare important: object-ball throw is deter-mined by how the surface of the cue ball atthe contact point is moving relative to thesurface of the object ball at the instant ofcontact; and if the balls slide against eachother during the entire contact, there is amaximum amount of throw that can beimparted to the object ball, and it is in thedirection of relative motion.

The first point is critical to the use of out-side English to "relieve the angle." Thinkabout a half-ball cut shot like the one inDiagram 1. The cue ball is generally mov-ing across the face of the 1 ball, so the 1will be thrown towards the cushion. If someoutside English is used, right english in thiscase, the surface of the cue ball will rollacross the 1 ball without nibbing. Thus theamount of sideways rubbing, or throw, hastwo contributors: the general motion of thecue ball, and the sidespin on the cue ball.The tricky part is to know how muchEnglish to use. If you don't have enough,

the cue ball's motion will dominate, andyou will still have throw. If you have toomuch sidespin, the ball will be thrown inthe other direction.

Is it even possible to get this last condi-tion of "excess" outsideEnglish? Absolutely! Thefuller the hit, the easier it is todo, since the cue ball'smotion across the object ballis slower. On a half-ball hit, ittakes only a moderateamount of spin, not evenclose to maximum possibletip offset on the cue ball.

So, to get cancellation ofthe two sources of throw, youneed to balance the Englishagainst the amount of cut.This leads to the question of

how perfectly this needs to be done in orderto get pretty good results. This is a difficultexperiment to do, as you need to controlspeed, angle, spin and draw/follow. Youmay have noticed that many of the experi-ments I've suggested here involve combi-nation shots so that you can repeat the setupprecisely. Studying a shot with more vari-ables quickly becomes hard to control.

Fortunately, we already have a theoreticalresult. Ron Shepard, scientist at theArgonne National Laboratory in Argonne,111., has worked out the physics of throw fora lot of different cases of spin and cut, andhas made them available in a 109-page on-line paper you can access at www.play-pool.com. The paper does have a lot ofequations about all aspects of pool, and ifthose aren't your cup of tea, just pay specialattention to the many practical questionsand solutions he includes. Throw is coveredaround page 44.

Figure 2 is adapted from Shepard'sFigure 4.4. It shows the amount of throwaccording to the amount of outside spin forthe shot shown in Diagram 1. If you havejust the right amount of spin, there is nothrow. If you have not enough spin, you getthrow to the right; too much spin throws tothe left. The interesting part is how quicklythe throw changes if the spin is a littlewrong. If you have between no spin andhalf enough, the throw is almost constant.If you have, say, between 50% too muchand great steaming gobs of outside, the

2 4 BD-APRIL 2002

Bob Jewett

throw is again almost constant. In themiddle region, around the "perfectcancellation" spot, if the Englishvaries a little, the throw varies a lot.

This theory predicts that if you areinterested in accuracy and consisten-cy, the worst possible plan is to try forzero throw when you are cutting theobject ball. Either no outside Englishor lots will get much more consistentobject-ball paths.

What does this theory say to thepeople who like to use insideEnglish? In Figure 2, their shotswould be farther out to the left of thecurve, and are in the region that'snearly constant throw. Providing thatyou can overcome the general pitfallsof using sidespin, this is a betterchoice than outside, generally.

The theory also has something veryinteresting to say about what followand draw do when factored into thethrow equation. The curve in Figure 2is drawn for shots with moderateamounts of draw or follow. If youplay the shot as a stun shot — that is,so the cue ball arrives at the objectball without draw or follow, like a stop shot— the curve in Figure 3 applies. Note themuch sharper transition between throw to

the left and right. In effect, draw or follow"mellows" the effect of the English, andmakes the cut angle much less sensitive to

small errors in the amount of spin.Notice also that for a stun shot, youget more throw in either direction.This is related to the second majorpoint mentioned above: the draw orfollow in some sense competes withthe sidespin, and makes it less effec-tive.

This last point says something veryimportant for a stop shot. Many of ustend to put small amounts of sidespinon the cue ball unintentionally. If weare playing a stop shot, the result issimilar to Figure 3, where the horizon-tal axis is relabeled as "UnintendedLeft or Right English." It is not so easyto get exactly no English, and if youfail, there is a large penalty in throwangle. The trick, suggested byShepard, is to make sure you have justa little draw or follow on the cue ballwhen it gets to the object ball. Youwon't get perfect stop action, but smallamounts of side will be tempered bythe draw or follow.

So here's my recommendation:Take Mosconi's advice, and usesidespin only when you have to. And

when it comes to avoiding the effects ofunwanted side, mix in a little follow ordraw.

26 I BD-APRIL 2002

Bob Jewett

9-Ball ProgressDrills and methods for playing better 9-ball.

Do you want to playbetter 9-ball? Here aresome drills that will helpyour game.

The first drill lets youtrack your run-out abili-ties. It is a form of pro-gressive practice that Ithink was first proposedby Ron Shepard, the bil-liards-physics writer.Throw out two balls onthe table, and see if youcan run them in orderwith ball-in-hand. If yousucceed, add one ball andtry again. If you run out,add a fourth ball. If youfail to clear the table, sub-tract one from the num-ber of balls to attempt.

Of course there will besome variation in yoursuccess rate according tohow the balls happen toarrange themselves, butafter twenty or so tries,you should have a prettygood idea of when youhave a chance to clear thetable. If you're the fanat-ical type, keep track ofthe number you get to atthe end of each practicesession. This will allowyou to look back and seehow your game is pro-gressing.

Here are some varia-tions on this drill. Insteadof throwing the balls out,shoot a normal break shot— it's important to prac-tice that too — and thenremove the lowest balls(and a ball from any cluster) to get to thenumber you're trying for. Allow yourselfone extra ball-in-hand in the middle of therun, so when you completely miss position,you can recover. This will bring your atten-tion to the position shots you have troublewith, and maybe you will find alternatives.Instead of changing by a whole ball in dif-ficulty each time, keep track of runs/miss-es, and adjust the number when you have a

net of three in either direction.Another very useful practice routine is

"playing the ghost." The idea is that youare playing against someone who nevermisses, so if you miss, you lose. If yourname isn't Deuel, you're allowed to takeball-in-hand after the break. Score eachrack as a win for you, or as a win for theghost if you miss. Play to 11 or so, andkeep track of your scores. One variation on

this theme is to take an extra ball-in-handafter your first miss or two. Another is tokeep a count of balls pocketed in ten racks.Give yourself a point per ball, counting twopoints for the 9. A perfect score is 100. Forthis, you can spot the 9 if pocketed tooearly.

When playing the ghost, you willencounter run-stopper shots. These are agood thing, since they tell you which shots

24 | BD • MAY 2002

Bob Jewett

you have to practice. An example is inDiagram 1, where you have left yourselftoo little angle on the 2 ball to move easilyto the 3. Control of the cue ball requires alot of power and a very accurate hit on the2. Suppose you fail to get position on the 3and you miss the resulting bank, endingyour game with the ghost. Turn the shotinto a progressive practice right then.Mark the positions of the cue and 2, and tryto move the cue ball a few inches towardsthe final position, say to A (or within a fewinches of A). If you can do that, try thesame shot to move the cue ball to B, and soon, making the goal harder or easier as yousucceed or fail with the shot. Take 10 shotsat the drill, or shoot until you're satisfiedwith your improvement.

Note that although you missed the bankon the 3 originally, that's probably not thebest shot to practice. The real mistake wasnot moving well from the 2 to the 3. Or wasit? Maybe you could have left a betterangle on the 2, so you might also practicewhatever shot led to the too-shallow angleon the 2.

Not all run-stoppers will lend themselvesto progressive practice; some will have afactor in the shot such as distance, whichcan make the shot either harder or easier.In the example above, if you want to prac-

tice the long bank, there is no good way tomake it easier, and it may be that you willtake a long time to reach even 50 percenton the shot. For shots like this, just play theshot several times, perhaps with the ballsremaining from the rack, and go on to thenext rack.

Do you ever practice your safeties? Youcan turn that into a competition by playing9-ball but only scoring points when youropponent fails to make a good hit. In thisgame, the 9 itself is worthless. You can alsouse progressive practice to work on yoursafeties. In Diagram 2 are two such drills.In Shot A, assume that all pockets for the 2ball are blocked, and the best play is to nes-tle the cue ball behind the 7. As more andmore players come equipped with jumpcues, it's important to leave the cue ball notjust hidden but crowded as well. The basicsafety is easy to play, but it's not so easy toleave the cue ball close to the 7 and prefer-ably frozen. I'd say that freezing the cueball to the 7 and thereby eliminating anyeasy bank to the 2 is ten times better thanjust a run-of-the-mill snooker. The progres-sion here is to move the 2 ball towards thecenter of the table. The goal is to leave thecue ball within a ball's width of the 7. Thecue ball is in hand on each attempt. Ofcourse, if you drive the 2 ball up and back

down the table and leave a shot, the safetyis a failure.

In Shot B, the goal is about the same, butyou need to judge the action off the cush-ions. You still need to drive the 2 ball to theother end of the table, and you may findthat some reverse sidespin (left in this case)will help kill the speed on the cue ball so itdies nicely behind the 7. For this shot, theprogression is to move the cue ball fartheraway. Again, consider it a failure if the cueball ends more than a ball's width from the7. For an easier drill, just require a hook,but no close snuggling.

There are two final things you need to doto raise your game to the next level. Play incompetition. Some people recommendgambling against better players to sharpenyour skills, but I suspect this advice is com-ing from those better players. Many roomshave tournaments or leagues you can use totest yourself against other players. Next, gosee great players. Watch what they do right,but also note what they could do better.While there is some pool on TV, there arelots of things you'll only see by going to amajor event, and the players will appreciatethe support.

So, if you want to improve your 9-ballgame, practice, practice some more, com-pete, and watch the best.

26 BD • MAY 2002

Bob Jewett

A Challenge to ImproveBob Jewett has a little proposition for you.

In the billiard rooms of the 1700s,you might have heard, "I bet I can shootfrom this table and make a ball on thattable." Propositions and challenges area time-tested part of pool. They offeropportunities for impromptu competi-tion and insights into parts of the gamethat you might normally avoid.

I've met players who dismiss these"trick shots" as useless sleight-of-hand,unworthy of their consideration. Theyprobably pass over one of the regulargems in this magazine — WillieJopling's column on trick shots, chal-lenges and propositions. There is alwayssomething to learn there about how theballs work, and often something abouthow people work.

Here are some shots to illustrate whypropositions are worthy of your consid-eration.

Diagram 1 shows two shots that willhelp improve the quality of your draw.In Shot A, the goal is shoot the objectball straight up the table and draw thecue ball back to hit the end rail beforethe object ball gets there. No masseshots allowed. (If you can get the cueball back without the object ball return-ing, either you need to fix your table, orwe should go on the road.) The chal-lenge is to see who can move the objectball farthest up the table and still do theshot. You will probably find that a medi-um stroke is best.

Shot B has been seen here before. It isa good test of your soft draw. Can youdraw the cue ball back to the cushionwithout the object ball touching thesame cushion? The knowledge you getfrom this shot seems especially useful atone pocket and straight pool. This shotdepends some on the equipment — see howfar from the line you can move the objectball and still make the shot. No masse.

In Diagram 2 the goal is to shoot the cueball three cushions (or more) and eventual-ly pocket the 8 ball in pocket A. You canreset the cue ball after each shot. The farcushion must be the second cushion youcontact. The break shot is shown. Thisillustrates one aspect of proposition shots— since you often repeat shots, you canfind special landmarks on the table for cer-tain shots. Note that the cue stick passes

over a particular part of the corner pocket,and is pointed towards the first diamondfrom the opposite pocket. This works onmy table, but your table may need a differ-ent starting point.

After the break shot, place the cue ballwhere you want, and shoot again. As acompetition, try to make the black ball infewer shots than your opponent. As aproposition, don't give the shooter morethan 15 shots.

I've seen two great finger-pool artists dothis proposition by hand — throwing thecue ball rather than shooting it. Cue Ball

Kelly would try it in a dozen throws on apool table. On a 6-by-12-foot snookertable, I saw Canadian Alain Robidoux tryand succeed in 25 shots. The amazing thingabout Robidoux's performance was thatevery throw improved the situation, eitherby moving balls out of the way or advanc-ing the black towards the pocket.

A simpler version of this shot is to placea single object ball on the spot. Five shotsis par to sink the ball in pocket A. Youshould quickly learn the best spin to get themost consistent path for the cue ball; I rec-ommend that you start with equal follow

24 BD-JUNE 2002

Bob Jewett

and running English — left follow for thepath shown.

Diagram 3 shows three more "I bet I canand you can't" shots. Shot A is a simple cutshot. The cue ball is on the head spot andthe object ball is at the intersections of thediamonds, as shown. Your goal is pocket A.When you set the shot up, it looks absolute-ly impossible, but you can even over-cutthe ball. This is a good shot for Englishexperiments. Does outside help you on this

one, or is it better to aim with center ball?Shot B is a handy shot to have at one-

pocket. Can you bank the object ball intopocket B? Again, at first glance, it looksimpossible, but with a little practice, youshould be able to over-cut the shot and stillget the object ball across the table. On thisshot, experimenting with outside English tohelp may get a different result than for ShotA. You will surely note during your teststhe effects of squirt, swerve and throw.

Finally, Shot C is an old friend. The goalis to make the object ball hit the foot railwithout the cue ball going over the line.Mr. Jopling recently revealed a trick tomake this one: run your grip hand into therail to stop the stick. If your mark — I mean"client" — knows that trick, you can pro-pose the next step up: make the object ballgo up and down the table two more times soit hits the far cushion twice. The strokeneeded is called fouette and is a standardpart of Mike Massey's exhibitions.Studying this shot will teach you a lot aboutdouble-hit fouls and how to avoid them. Itis also possible to play the one-cushion shotby moving your grip hand forward very,very far on the butt. This technique is easi-er on the knuckles and doesn't require aconveniently-placed rail.

I hope that Willie releases a new editionof his book of trick and proposition shots.In the meantime, review his past articles,and get a copy of Byrne's Treasury of TrickShots. Some of the shots in each of theseare multi-ball setups of kisses and combi-nations, which those pooh-poohers men-tioned before will ignore, but look at eachone for long enough to understand whereeach ball will go and why. Some of the"obvious" shots will have you scratchingyour head for a while.

26 I BD-JUNE 2002

Bob Jewett

99 Critical PointsBob Jewett splits some important hairs.

In the May issue was an extensivereview of the top billiard instruction books.Among the cream was Ray Martin's "The99 Critical Shots in Pool and Billiards,"which was the best pool book availablewhen it was published in1977. While other booksare now better, as a firstbook for beginners,"99CS" remains requiredreading for any seriouscue student.

I have found that thereare many layers to under-standing. I recall when Iwas first learning poolfrom Willie Mosconi's"Winning PocketBilliards" 40 years ago,that on each of four orfive readings that wereperhaps three monthsapart, I learned some-thing new from eachreview. Part of it was that my game wasdeveloping at the same time, and Willie'shelp on draw shots couldn't do me muchgood — or really make any sense — untilmy arm moved more or less straight. Witheach new reading, more parts fit.

As my game and understanding have pro-gressed further, I now see that there's morethan one mistake in Willie's book, andsome of them can seriously hold up a stu-dent's progress beyond the beginner level.It could be that in another 40years I'll have a very differenttake. A sad part of this furtherlearning is the loss of an oldfriend. Well, maybe not a loss,but it can hurt to see a friend in anew, clearer light that shows fea-tures you wish weren't there.

When "99CS" was reissued tenyears ago, I was glad to see thisclassic available again for a newgeneration of pool fanatics, but I was not sohappy to see that Ray didn't take the oppor-tunity to update the book and fix some of"the features we wish weren't there." Hereare some of the things I hope will find theirway into a second edition.

The diagrams need to be fixed. Pool is ageometrical game, and scale, proportion,and accuracy are important. In Diagram 1

is an example straight-pool break shottaken from the book (p.141). The cue balland object ball are larger than the pocket.Notice that the balls in the rack are smaller.It would help to show the cue applying

right English, but this isshown in a separate insetabout where to hit theball.

Another problem is theshading of the balls. Therack balls are supposed tobe gray, but in both theoriginal paperback andthe reprint, they are veryhard to tell from the blackof the main object ball. Inthe illustrated shot, thisisn't important, but othershots can only be deci-phered if you can figureout which ball is very,very dark gray but notblack.

The path the cue ball takes also needs tobe fixed, and this applies to nearly all thediagrams in the book. The cue ball inDiagram 1 is shown leaving the object ballfrom the middle of the object ball, when itfact it comes from a location a ball closer tothe shooter. This means that the cue ballwill not hit the indicated rack ball first, butits neighbor. The details are hard to seebecause the balls aren't even close to theright size. Also, when the cue ball hits the

rail, the contact point and turning should beshown at the rail groove, where the centerof the cue ball makes its turn.

Martin doesn't have the worst diagrams inbilliards. There are some carom diagramswhere the balls are the size of pumpkins.Most of the time it's possible to puzzle outwhat Ray means, but diagrams should beclear enough that you don't have to solve a

puzzle to understand them. Two examplesof authors with excellent diagrams areByrne and Capelle — open both "99CS"and one of their books and compare foryourself.

Finally, to the shot itself. The line of thestick is nearly parallel to the end rail.Willie says to use left, not right, English forthis shot, and I think Willie was right. Trythe shot yourself, and see which works thebest for you, and then make a note in"99CS" about what you discovered.

The fundamental how-to-play section atthe start of "99CS" is quite good, but coulduse some updates. Few people now recom-mend using 600-grit sandpaper to cleanshafts. Modern cue papers seem to be atleast twice as fine as that. The photos for

bridge and stance are excellent,but the open bridge and thesnooker-player stance deserve amore positive mention — justwatch the top players on TV forexamples.

In Diagram 2 is the bankingsystem that Martin explains asShot 27. Maybe there is some-one, somewhere, who actuallyshoots banks this way, but I

doubt it. Willie shows the same system.Both of them actually have the ideal con-struction wrong, but the ideal constructiondoesn't work anyway. I think the studentwould be better off spending time with themirror system, which is much easier tovisualize but which Ray doesn't mention.

In my very first column for this magazine,in 1992,1 asked the reader to do an experi-

24 BD-JULY 2002

Bob Jewett

ment to find the best way to run a frozenball down the cushion without English onthe cue ball. All the experimenters foundthe same thing: you must land the cue ballabout a quarter-inch up the cushion fromthe object ball. The reason, of course, iscollision-induced throw; the motion of thecue ball across the object ball drags ittowards the cushion. Koehler had shownthe same thing in his 1989 book, "TheScience of Pocket Billiards," complete withdiagrams of the changes with inside andoutside English. It's high time that all bil-liard authors expunge this myth of "hit balland cushion at the same time."

Shot 42 of 99 shows an example of whatI call the "twice as full system," in whichthe cue ball is blocked from the desiredpath by a close ball. The system asdescribed doesn't have the geometry quiteright, but more importantly, it doesn't havethe cue ball frozen to the object ball, whichis absolutely required for this shot to belegal and to work well.

In Diagram 3 is the carom systemexplained in Shot 43. Unfortunately, itdoesn't even come close for a half-ball hit.The point of aim — the point on the firstobject ball your stick is aimed at — is thepoint on the first object ball that is closestto the target ball, and Martin says to play it

as a stop or stun shot, with no spin on thecue ball. This is the sort of bogus systemthat can be debunked with a few examples.If the second object ball is at a right angleto the line of your stick, the system says toaim your stick at the edge of the first objectball. This is our old friend the half-ball hit,and the cue ball is deflected 60 degrees onthe shot and not 90. Even worse, if theobject ball is ahead of the right-angle line,the system says to hit the first object balleven fuller, which means you will miss thesecond object ball by even more.

A very interesting kiss situation is illus-trated in Diagram 4, drawing from itsappearance in both the examples on page165 of "99CS." A ball is frozen betweentwo others. Where does it go if struck intoboth of them simultaneously? You mightthink that it will go along one of the kisslines (A or B), but in fact it will seem toignore both balls and go nearly straightaway from the cue ball. You could make aproposition shot from this. In "99CS," theball is incorrectly said to go along one ofthe kiss lines.

Finally, I have a bone to pick about therules listed at the back of the book. Theywere the official Billiards Congress ofAmerica rules in 1977 when the BCA wason Michigan Avenue in Chicago (as listed),

but the BCAaddress haschanged at leasttwice, and therules a dozentimes, since then.The old rules maybe okay forbeginners to startwith, but they arelikely to causeconfusion amongbetter playerswho try to play intournaments. Forexample, in 9-ball, you are nolonger permitted to push out at the start ofevery turn at the table — yes, people reallydid play like that in the last millennium.

The above is not an exhaustive list. Asyou read or re-read "99CS," or any otherbook about pool, be sure you do it critical-ly. Maybe you don't have to be so tough onthe author the first time through; go forcomprehension of what he may have beentrying to say. But if you ever hope to getpast that first, superficial layer of under-standing, you will need to get out yourmicroscope and fine-toothed comb and putaway your mercy.

26 BD -JULY 2002

Bob Jewett

Squirt a ReviewA new look at this old friend.

Squirt has been thetopic here a couple of timesin the past. It stirs passionsamong some, often becauseit is not well understood.Recent revelations about themechanism that causes ithave prompted me to try amore complete review.(Briefly defined, whensidespin is used, the cue ball"squirts" off somewhat tothe side away from the tip.More on the definitionlater.)

There are some who don'tbelieve that squirt exists, orif it does exist, they think itisn't important. When cueball deflection — or squirt,as I prefer to call it —comes up on the Internet,one of the most commonremarks of the non-believ-ers is, "Why haven't weheard about this before, ifit's so important?" Well, Ilooked around a little atwhat has been said before,and found several treasures.

In Figure 1 is a plate fromThe Game of Billiards byEdwin Kentfield, which wasfirst published in 1839. Yes,over 160 years ago. Theleather tip had been in usefor only about 25 years,although the use of chalk was somewhatolder. Cushions weren't yet rubber, andmost table beds were not yet slate. But herewe see clear demonstrations of both squirtand swerve.

The shot on the left shows how to play abilliard or carom (canon, for the British),from one ball to the other, by using heavysidespin. The text says in part: "The dottedlines in this plate are introduced to indicatethe direction the ball would take if struck inthe centre; for, as it has already beenobserved, the ball when struck, on its side,does not take a direct line." [EmphasisKentfield's.]

The shot on the right shows two differentcases. When the second object ball is near,reverse or right sidespin off the cushion is

needed, but running side is needed when itis farther down the table. Again, he showsthe straight-line path, but notice what thecue stick does. For right English, it is piv-oted to the right, while for left English, it ispivoted to the left. This shows roughly theamount of squirt compensation thatKentfield thought necessary on this kind ofshot. We'll talk more about this techniquelater.

In Figure 2 is a plate from the Americanstandard, Modern Billiards, which waspublished by the Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. beginning in 1891. Shown isthe path of the cue ball with extreme leftsidespin. The 1908 version says: "When"English" or "twist" is applied to the cue-ball in its course, it is forced from a straight

line and diverges to an extent that it willpass around a ball placed in a direct linebefore it. ... The dotted line d shows thedirection in which the ball is forced bybeing struck on the side, but the ball rotat-ing in the opposite direction to that which itis impelled, in consequence of the twist anddraw imparted, aided by the resistancethrough friction of the nap of the cloth,serves to bring it back to the original pointof aim, as shown by the curved loop-line,L, which denotes twist."

Sadly, the knowledge in Modern Billiardsseems to have been lost in the U.S. by1941, when Willie Hoppe's Billiards As ItShould Be Played was published. Hoppewarns against "spineless" cues, and has adiagram of a cue ball going off at an uncer-tain angle while the spineless cue quivers

24 BD-AUGUST 2002

Bob Jewett

back and forth, but no connection is madeto problems with using sidespin. Neither ofMosconi's books (1948 and 1965)describes squirt.

Figure 3 is from Joe Davis' bookHow I Play Snooker, which wasfirst published in England in 1949.Davis dominated English cuesports — both billiards and snook-er — for over 20 years. The dia-gram shows a ball played straightup the table with right side, and ismostly intended to warn the begin-ner away from English. In the text,Davis makes the point that if strucksoftly, the cue ball has time torecover and may cross over theoriginal line, while if struck hard, itwill not have time to return to theoriginal line of aim.

In 1978, Robert Byrne'sStandard Book of Pool andBilliards warns of the problemespecially when shooting hard. Hegave it the name of squirt, whichseems to have been coined origi-nally by a player from Napa,California named Jack Leavitt. You maysee other authors call the "jumping awayfrom the cue tip on sidespin shots phenom-enon" by the name "deflection," but there

are lots of kinds of deflection, and "squirt"invites less confusion. We'll see later thattechnically, it's the cue stick that deflects

and not the cue ball.More recent texts have gone into more

detail on squirt. Phil Capelle's Play YourBest Pool has four pages on the subject,

including tables of experimental results andseveral example diagrams (pp 92-96). EwaMataya-Laurance's Idiot's Guide to Pool

and Billiards has several pageson it (pp 198-200), and makes theimportant point that knowingsquirt is present will help youmake the necessary adjustmentsfaster, even if those adjustmentshave to be made by feel gainedthrough experience. She alsopoints out that sticks vary signif-icantly in the amount of squirtthey produce, which is a factor toconsider when buying a newstick or borrowing one from afriend or the wall. In PrecisionPool, Gerry Kanov and ShariStauch point out that most play-ers — even top players — haveonly a fuzzy notion of how muchsquirt enters into play. For them,unconscious compensation is theway to go.

Next time, I'll go over themechanism behind squirt andgive you some suggestions on

how to deal with it. In the mean time, if youknow of a shot mat requires squirt — thatis, could not be made with a squirt-freestick — please send it in.

26 BD-AUGUST 2002

Bob Jewett

Squirt Where it Comes FromBob Jewett continues his discussion of squ irt.

In last month's column, I went oversome references in pool literature aboutsquirt, although it didn't get that name until1978. This month we'll look at its majorcharacteristics and the mechanism thatseems to cause it.

First, let's be clear about what we meanby squirt. In Diagram 1 is a cue ball beinghit off-center as shown from above. Ratherthan go along a path parallel to the axis ofthe cue stick, the ball starts off at an angleaway from that ideal path. This angle isalways away from the side of the Englishapplied.

Although the angle shown is much largerthan you will eversee on the table,the actual angle isplenty largeenough to affectnormal play. If youneed to hit a ballon a far cushionwith lots of outsideEnglish, aiming fora thin hit may getthe cue ball to landfull or even on thewrong side of theobject ball. Anattempted thin hitwith inside Englishis likely to miss theball completelyunless you com-pensate for thesquirt angle. Inextreme cases, that angle is as large as threedegrees. Note that this is not the change inthe object-ball path; it is the error in the ini-tial path of the cue ball. This means thatthe farther the cue ball has to travel to thetarget, the larger will be the total error ininches when it arrives.

Squirt has been found to vary due to manyfactors. The largest effect is from theamount of tip offset (side spin). As far weknow, two tips of English will producetwice the squirt angle of one tip. Maybethere are small effects if the tip is not per-fectly round, but this rule seems to holdfairly well. We'll see that it is the basis ofone system of squirt compensation.

Another large contributor is the amountof mass in the front part of the cue stick.

I've reported here before on a special shaftthat Jim Buss made to demonstrate this; ithad a brass rod inserted in the first fiveinches of the shaft. It also has tremendoussquirt. In experiments reported by PredatorCues, a gram of lead tape wrapped aroundthe ferrule increased squirt significantly.(For reference, a U.S. nickel weighs aboutfive grams.)

Perhaps the ultimate added-weight exper-iment was performed by Dr. Mike Page, auniversity professor in Fargo, N.D. InNovember of 2000, he took an old stick andclamped locking pliers to the shaft at vari-ous distances from the tip. When the pliers

were near the tip, the squirt was huge. Asthe pliers were moved back, the squirtreduced, so that with the pliers even fiveinches back from the tip, the stick playednearly normally.

Dr. Page also noticed a considerablechange in squirt with the speed of the shot.For normal cues, this change is not clearlyevident. Many people seem to notice thatthere is less squirt for softer shots. It mayjust seem that way because at slowerspeeds, the cue ball will have time toswerve back and cancel some of the squirt.This is an experiment that should be fairlyeasy to do, except that it takes a perfectlylevel cue stick to avoid contaminating theresults. It is nearly impossible to hit the cueball on its equator with a truly level stick.

But what, exactly, causes squirt?While the details of the stick-ball interac-

tion — including the main squirt-producingmechanism — seem to be obvious now, ittook ultra-high-speed videos of the hit toreveal the fundamental cause of squirt. Thefirst cue company to use such fast cameraswas Meucci — well, maybe there were oth-ers, but they didn't publicize their results.Soon after Bob Meucci showed his tape ata BCA Trade Show, Predator Cues hadscheduled a rental of a special camera sys-tem that works 200 times faster than nor-mal TV cameras. Several experimenters,including myself, Mike Shamos and Jim

Buss (representingthe AmericanC u e m a k e r sAssociation) sub-let a week of therental in

November 1998.Some of thoseexperiments havealready beenreported here.

In Diagram 2 isan illustration ofwhat the tapeshowed about thetip-to-ball contacton a spin shot. Atthe start of thisshot with left-sidespin, the stick iscoming straightforward and the

cue ball is at rest. In the middle of the con-tact time — which lasts about one thou-sandth of a second — the tip has com-pressed some onto the ball, and the ball hasstarted to move forward and has some spin,as shown by the arrows. The critical pointfor understanding squirt is that the tip is nolonger moving straight forward. Because itdoesn't slip on the ball, the tip must followthe rotation of the ball, and move to theside. At the end of the shot, the tip hasuncompressed and leaves the ball. The ballhas its full spin, and the stick has slowedand is moving partly sideways, away fromthe ball.

At this point we can apply the Law ofConservation of Momentum. At the start ofthe shot, nothing was moving sideways. At

24 BD-SEPTEMBER 2002

Bob Jewett

the end of the shot, the stick — or atleast the front part of the stick — ismoving to the left. The Law requiresthat something must be moving to theright at least partly to cancel themomentum of the stick to the left, andthat something is the cue ball.

You could say that the ball pushes thetip to the side, but it is equally correctto say that the tip pushes the ball to theside. In fact you can't have one withoutthe other; "for every action there is anequal and opposite reaction." A physi-cist would say that there is a sidewaysforce between the tip and the ball with-out imputing motive to either one.

With the realization that it is this"pushing the tip to the side" on spinshots that causes squirt, most or all ofthe phenomena are explained. Whenmass is added to the ferrule or front ofthe stick, there will be more momen-tum in the thing that's pushed aside bythe ball, so there'll be more squirt.Similarly, more spin means more squirtbecause with a more eccentric hit, thestick will be moving faster to the sideat the end of contact than for a morecentered hit. Sadly for those of us whowould like to try a squirtless stick, suchan ideal now looks impossible; it

would require a stick without any massat all.

Page's pliers experiment brings upan interesting question: How much ofthe stick is pushed aside? If you gothrough the numbers, if the wholestick were involved, the squirt wouldbe much larger than observed. If mov-ing the pliers five inches (or so) backreduces their effect, maybe it's onlythe first five inches of the stick that areinvolved. It's pretty clear that the stickmust bend some during the hit, but thishasn't been measured. Ron Shepard, aresearcher at Argonne National Labsand serious pool-physics fanatic, hasworked out a lot of the math behindsquirt, and in the end, arrives at an"effective mass" for the stick. Thisrepresents the fraction of the stick thatyou could say was involved if it allmoved sideways together at the speedof the tip. Interestingly, this works outto be the mass in the front several inch-es of the stick.

A possible design path is now clearto reduce squirt: reduce the mass nearthe tip. Next month we'll see what hasbeen done so far along this course, andhow you can deal with whatever squirtyour stick happens to have.

BD-SEPTEMBER 2002 I 25

Bob Jewett

Squirt ContinuedHow to deal with it.

In the August issue, we reviewed dis-cussions of squirt (divergence of the cueball when using side spin) in 150 years ofbilliard writing. Last issue, we looked at thebasic physical cause of squirt: the tip'smoving to one side causes the cue ball tosquirt to the other. This month we'll look atseveral ways of dealing with squirt.

Is squirt something that has to be dealtwith? If your game has not yet progressedto the point where you use side spin to posi-tion the cue ball — and most pool playerswill never reach that level — there's nopractical reason foryou to worry about it.If you do resort toEnglish when neces-sary or amusing,you'll need to com-pensate one way oranother. Many play-ers, perhaps most, doall of their compen-sation unconsciously.I remember standingnext to Bob Meucciwhile he was mea-suring squirt — hewould call it deflec-tion, but we've seenwhy that's a mis-nomer — at a tradeshow, and a top-tenpro player asked, "My cue does that?!" Myconclusion is that some can reach champi-onship levels without ever understandingthe true geometry and physics happeningon the table in front of them.

If you are unwilling to let your subcon-scious be in charge of this aspect of yourgame, here are several ways of coping:

The first is to reduce the amount of squirtthat your stick has. The idea is that the lessthe cue ball diverges from the line of thestick, the less compensation you need tomake. The Holy Grail here is a squirtlessstick, but based on the physical analysis lastmonth, this seems to require a shaft with noweight at all.

Two cue companies have made signifi-cant advances towards the ideal. Predatorreduces the mass up front by boring a holedown the center of the shaft. This reducesthe weight that causes the cue ball to moveto the side. Meucci has modified the ferrule

in a way that also has less mass moving tothe side during impact. Traditional snookerand carom cues have less squirt than typicalpool cues because of smaller shaft diame-ters at the tip, and shorter, lighter ferrules,which both reduce the front mass. If youhave a chance, try spinning your ball with a12mm or smaller diameter shaft fitted witha ferrule no more than half an inch long.

If your pool cue has a typical amount ofsquirt, there is a compensation techniquethat will get you close on many shots.Imagine that you want to drive the cue ball

straight to the right with no spin as shownin Diagram 1 (view from above). The axisof the cue stick passes straight through thecenter of the cue ball along the line youwant the cue ball to take. Now considerwhere the axis of the cue must be to drivethe cue ball along the same path, but withserious left English. The axis will be alongsomething like line L. The stick is shootingthe ball off at an angle, but the squirt willbring it back to the same line as for the ini-tial shot. The amount the stick has beenangled to the left exactly matches — forthis particular hypothetical stick — theangle of squirt back the other way. Ofcourse, for right English, the angling wouldbe just the same but in the other direction.

Now for the delicious insight. The twostick angles — for left and right English —have an intersection or common pointmarked X. Suppose your bridge hand wasat X. You could aim with no spin, pivot the

stick over to line L, stroke and shoot alongthat line, and the cue ball would travelalong your original line straight to the right.If you wanted right English instead, youwould first aim as before and then pivot toline R and shoot.

This method of compensation seems to bevery old. Diagram 2 is a detail of the pageshown in August from Edwin Kentfield's1839 book. It shows two positions for thecue stick to hit the same target with eitherleft or right English. While Kentfield does-n't stress the possibility of having your

bridge hand at thecommon or pivotpoint of the twosticks, his diagramclearly suggests it.

In modern discus-sions, this tech-nique goes by twoself-explanatorynames: "aim andpivot" and "back-hand English." Thestandard procedureis to take a fewwarm-up strokesafter you have piv-oted over to L or Rand then comestraight through.This allows you to

check how much side spin you have set upfor. A similar technique, which we mightcall "aim and swoop," has you come over toL or R only on the final forward stroke, sothe amount of spin is determined by howmuch your back hand moves to the sideduring the final forward motion. Thissounds like it should be horribly inconsis-tent, but some top pros use this or evenworse techniques.

How can the aim-and-pivot technique gowrong? First, the pivot point varies fromstick to stick. If your stick happens to havea pivot point just at your usual bridge posi-tion, the compensation will be exact. If thestick has lots of squirt, you will need ashorter bridge; less squirt will force alonger bridge.

The speed of the shot is also important.As far as has been demonstrated, the squirtangle doesn't change much with the speedof the shot, but the cue-ball swerve will

24 BD • OCTOBER 2002

Bob Jewett

change a lot with the speed — less speed,more swerve. Players sometimes confusethe two effects and think there is moresquirt on fast shots. Similar confusionoccurs on new, slippery cloth, which seemsto have more squirt but really has lessswerve than standard or worn cloth.

Does aim-and-pivot still work if you useless English? It seems to. If you pivot onlyhalf as far over as L or R but with the samebridge position, you get half as much spinand about half as much squirt. This maydepend slightly on the shape of the tip. Theresult is that if your bridge hand is at thepivot point, the cue ball can go only alongone line no matter how much left or rightEnglish you use.

This last point can be important for theselection of a break stick. If you choose onewith a pivot length equal to your breakbridge length, the accuracy of your hit onthe rack will not be ruined by your inabili-ty to hit the cue ball in the middle at breakspeed.

Pivot length — the distance between yourbridge hand and the cue ball for perfectsquirt compensation — has quite a largerange depending on how the shaft of thestick is made. Reported values range from8 to 50 inches. You clearly must be carefulin your selection if you want to use the aim-

and-pivot method. On the other hand, ifyou're like me and want a cue with lowsquirt to reduce the needed compensation,and the chance for error to creep in whileapplying that compensation, you'll want tolook for a cue with a longer pivot length.

Measuring pivot lengths is easy if not per-fectly accurate — try different bridgelengths until you find one that gives goodsquirt compensation. As a target, try to hitan object ball full that is only a diamond orso from the cue ball; that will give swerveless chance to corrupt your results. Also, besure to shoot fairly firmly, for the same rea-son.

Earlier in this series, I asked if there wasany shot that required squirt. Rick Malmemailed to point out that if an alley formedby nearby object balls restricted your cue-ing to only one level line of approach to thecue ball, squirt might be required to makethe shot. I do not recommend buying a vari-able-squirt shaft to be ready for thisimprobability. Rick also pointed out that ondraw shots, a high-squirt cue stick shouldshoot the cue ball more parallel to the table,since the "vertical squirt" would tend tocancel stick elevation. This might help a lit-tle, but I think that all normal sticks don'thave nearly enough squirt to get a perfectlyflat shot.

26 BD • OCTOBER 2002

Bob Jewett

Chalk Marks, Cue MarksThe devil's in the details.

My v i e w is that the game is 85 percentphysical and 10 percent mental. In thephysical part, I include knowing the basicshots, seeing the shot at hand, and bringingthe stick through consistently enough topocket the ball. In the mental category, Iplace attitude about the game, strategy, andthe ability to concentrate on the shot at hand.

You may have a different opinion of theimportance of the mental side of the game,and those of you who read BobFancher's interesting andinformative views on this mayhave revised your estimatesrecently.

If you have the physical partright, you're going to make allbut two shots out of a 15-ballrack, and maybe more. Thereis no substitute for physicalability. This lesson can belearned from watching excel-lent 9-ball players try their hand at straightpool. I watched a young Cole Dickson run80, and he may have been on the right ballwith the right angle once or twice. Themental aspects of patterns and shot selec-tion are trumped by a good eye every time.

So, let's suppose that you have the physi-cal part down well enough — see the shot,make the shot — the first 85 percent. Let'salso suppose you have the mental partdown, and you're in the right state of mindand you know the strategy and shots for thegame you're playing — the next 10 percent.What is the remaining 5 percent? It's thefun part. It's the special knowledge or tech-nique that will help you maybe one time in20. It's the part I usually write about here.

Is the final 5 percent important? Not ifyou routinely miss 30 percent of yourshots. You should be spending all of yourtime — or as much time as you can standand afford — on the first 85 percent of thegame. You need to fix your arm.

But if you want to play at the top level,you need to have that 5 percent ready. Thetop players in good form miss so rarely thata 5 percent error rate would be a disaster. Iremember a match between Mike Sigel andLouie Roberts at one of Terry Stonier'stournaments in the 1980s. In 21 games of 9-ball, there was one missed ball. Sigelmissed it, and lost 11-10. Luther Lassiterwas asked how he could tell if he could beat

someone. He would watch them play for anhour, and if they missed a ball in an hour,he knew he could beat them.

What is in that 5 percent? All the minorstuff after you get your arm to movestraight and get your mind in the rightplace: special shots, special techniques,special strategies.

Here is a checklist of things in that 5 per-cent which I have covered here before:

Left to right: bad chalk, salvaged chalk, and correctly-worn chalk.

close-ball aiming and stroking; choosingthe easiest shot; dealing with squirt; effectsof dampness on banking and draw; speed,spin, and distance effects in banking, ifbank pool is not your usual game; accurate-ly predicting draw and follow angles; thespecial systems to use when balls arefrozen; dealing with equipment defects;unusual safety plays; masse, swerve andjump shots; special reactions in combina-tion shots; multi-rail position; and weirdstroke techniques.

You may be saying that the above is sure-ly more than 5 percent of the game. No, itisn't. Some of the above might come uponly once in a month of play, and you'relikely to play many racks in which none ofthem is important. Of course, if you playbank pool or one-pocket often, your armneeds to learn the right way to move tomake banks for all conditions, spins andspeeds. In my system, those considerationsbecome a part of the physical aspect of thegame. Similarly, if you play three-cushionbilliards, multi-rail position must be madepart of your nature, not something specialto be used rarely. And if you play EnglishBilliards, the precise speed and angle thatgives a scratch with follow will be pro-grammed right down into your spine andyou will make those shots naturally.

These last three points make a generalpoint: to move some of the 5 percent stuff

into your 85 percent area — that is to say,to put more shots into your arm where theyare natural — you would do well to branchout and play a wider variety of games.

Two other items that I put in the 5 percentgroup are chalking and stick rotation. Let'slook at those two in more detail.

Is chalking that important? It's beenargued that most shots can be played withan unchalked stick, and if you have perfect

speed control, you may be ableto get through a few rackswithout any spin at all on thecue ball. I've watched begin-ners at the pool hall who neverchalked. When they did get arare miscue, they simply gotanother stick from the wall.

Most players learn to chalkbadly. They get some chalk onsome parts of their tip some ofthe time, maybe. The most

primitive chalkers belong to the Clan of theBorers. In the first picture is the result oftheir vile practices. Their goal seems to beto bore through the chalk to the back paper.When they are not chalking, you can recog-nize them by their sloped foreheads, vacanteyes, and open, drooling mouths. Surely noreader of this magazine is a member of theBorers.

A sub-clan of the Borers is the Squeekers.The more talented Squeekers can play folktunes with chalk on tip. Some foreignersand children may squeak the chalk out ofignorance or carelessness — correct themgently.

The problem with the Borers is that theydon't cover the tip evenly with chalk. Theyleave caked spots and bare spots. If theyever bothered to look at the tip, they wouldsee this and perhaps reform.

An effective way to chalk is to bring theedge of the chalk across the edge of the tip.You don't really need chalk in the exactcenter of the tip; you do need chalk on thepart of the tip that will spin the ball. Thechalk shown in the left-hand photo could beused for this, except the edge of the chalk— the rim around the bored hole — is hardand shiny from age or oil from hands.Using this chalk with the proper chalkingmotion will remove chalk from the tiprather than add it. This can be fixed by fil-ing down the top of the chalk. This is

BD-NOVEMBER 2002

Bob Jewett

shown in the center photo, where fresh,clean chalk has been exposed. At the sametime, you should wrap the chalk with cello-phane tape to keep the paper from falling off.

In the right-hand photo on page 24 is myown piece of chalk that I've been using forabout three months. It started out as a nor-mal, full piece of chalk. Notice that theedges of the chalk havetaken on the shape of mytip. As I bring the edge ofthe chalk across the edgeof the tip, a lot of surface ischalked simultaneously. Ido have to worry abouttrimming the tape andpaper as the chalk wearsdown. If left ragged, it willtake the chalk right backoff. Shown in the left-hand photo on thispage is the file that quickly changed theuseless, bored-out, shiny chalk into goodchalk.

Are you saying to yourself, "Bob's latewith his April-fools column"? No, I'mmostly serious about this chalk thing. Ifyou need more convincing, go to a pro tour-nament and look at the use patterns on thechalk, then compare it to my used chalk. Orread what Jack Koehler has to say about notsharing your chalk in his 1995 book

"Upscale One-Pocket."Many beginners never learn to spin the

ball because they never learn to chalk well.They need to look at what they're doing.

Finally, here is a suggestion that youmight put in the final 0.5 percent. Alwaysshoot with your stick in the same rotation.That is, always shoot with the same side up.

A file and the bad chalk it fixed up (left); s hafts marked for rotation (right).

The players who need the most precision— snooker players — do this already. Asnooker cue has a flat bevel at the end ofbutt, so that it looks a little like a chisel. Theback hand holds the end of the butt with the"flat" always held the same way, maybe inthe palm. This means that the stick will havethe same rotation on every shot.

If there is any slight bend in the stick, itwill always be the same way. If there is anyharder or softer spot on the tip, it willalways be in the same place, for example

for draw. If the shaft is more flexible withor against the grain, that flexibility willalways be the same way. The idea is that allof these effects will be learned and dealtwith subconsciously.

Meucci Cues already has a solution forthis. Their Red Dot and Black Dot shaftsare marked to allow the player to choose

the right rotation. Theright-hand photo on thispage shows the way I do it.With a permanent marker,make a sight on the ferrulejust back from the tip.Always shoot with thesight up. After a little prac-tice, it will be a natural partof your game. One advan-tage is that if I plan to

shoot a draw shot, I only need to check forchalk on the part of the tip I use for draw.

Shown are three kinds of ferrule. Fromlonger to shorter, they have progressivelyless squirt because ferrules are denser thanwood. The one with the nearly invisible fer-rule — about 1/16-inch long — is one I'veplayed with for 20 years. Mike Massey hasrecently gone to a similarly short ferrule.

Should you worry about the final 5 per-cent? Only if you want to have fun or be thebest. At the very least, don't be a Borer.

26 BD-NOVEMBER 2002

Bob Jewett

An Experiment in ThrowWin a year's subscription to BD in Bob Jewett's contest.

Readers of the instructional columnsand letters of this magazine may havenoticed a recent controversy about the phe-nomenon of throw. Its very existence,except for a very small set of shots, hasbeen put into question. Authority has beeninvoked on each side.

Fortunately, this is not a matter that youhave to leave to respected authority; youcan decide the matter for yourself. Below Idescribe a simple experiment, and if youhave a little spare time and a table, you cando some testing on your own. If you read-ers send in your results, I'll tabulate themand Billiards Digest will donate a one-yearsubscription to the two best experimenters.

First, we need to clearly understand whatwe mean by "throw." When the cue ballcollides with an object ball, the simplesttheory of aiming says that the object ballwill move away from the cue ball along theline joining their centers at the instant ofcontact. Throw is the departure of theobject ball from this ideal line due to thespin or motion of the cue ball. If throw hap-pens on a shot, there will be an anglebetween the line of centers and the line theobject ball takes away from the collision.In Diagram 1, this is drawn as an anglelarger than zero.

In one standard demonstration of throw,two object balls are frozen together and thecombination is shot from an angle. Unlessthe contact point is wetted, the secondobject ball is always thrown, with an angleof up to six degrees. I think the result thatan object ball can throw a ball it is frozen tois not questioned by any rational being,human or otherwise. But we are going totest a much tougher situation — whetherthe cue ball can throw the object ball.

Yes, you could argue that the cue ball ispretty much like an object ball and a colli-sion from the cue ball is more or less likepushing a frozen object ball into another,but let's try to do the real thing and see

what happens.The difficulty — and the challenge of

designing the experiment — is in knowingthe line of centers of the cue ball and objectball at the instant of collision. Taking a beltand suspenders approach, here are two dif-ferent methods to measure the angle — ifany — of cue ball/object ball throw.

In Diagram 2 is a very simple shot. Theobject ball is on the head spot, and the cueball is straight towards the head cushionand an inch or so away. The balls are closetogether so that we know the line of centerswell. A problem with testing for throw isthat the results can be polluted by bothsquirt and swerve. Having the object ballclose to the cue ball reduces both factors.

In addition, to make sure the cue ball doesnot have time to swerve, you must play theshot just firmly enough to drive the objectball to the foot cushion and back to thehead cushion. This also reduces the effectof table slope.

To make sure the balls are in the sameposition every time, either use some donut-shaped paper reinforcements or tap theballs firmly into place. To get a referenceline, shoot a shot with no spin on the cueball. Place chalk or some other marker onthe rail to indicate the center position.Shoot a few more shots to see if you have aconsistent reference. At this point, youcould estimate how much random variationyou have just for your center-ball shots. It

J

24 BD • DECEMBER 2002

Bob Jewett

should be less than half an inch, if you setup consistently. This spread should be partof your report.

Now set up the shot again. Shoot the shotwith left English and no follow or draw; hitthe cue ball right on itsequator. Make sure yourstick is as level as possibleand pointed straight up thetable, parallel to the centerline. Note where the ballhits the foot cushion andmark it. Shoot several moretimes and check how accu-rate your mark is and howconsistent your shots are. Ifthe mark is not the same asfor the center-ball shot, notewhether it is to the left orright and by how much.Next, do the same for rightEnglish. For extra credit,note where the object ball hits the head rail.

It may be that you will double-hit the cueball because it is so close to the object ball.This may be distracting, but it shouldn'tchange the path of the object ball, whichwill be long gone by the time the tip hits thecue ball a second time.

In Diagram 3 is a second way to do theexperiment. Place an object ball on thehead spot as before. Now freeze the cue

ball to it pointed straight down the middleof the table. Freeze a third ball to both ofthem, and then move the cue ball back asshown. The test is to see how far to the rightthe object ball can be brought by using side

spin on the cue ball. The added ball keepsyou from cheating by simply cutting theball to the right.

For this test, you may — due to less thanperfect aim and stroke — hit the blockingball first, which will keep you from gettingthe object ball maximally to the right.Shoot the shot ten times, and only recordthe result that is farthest to the right foreach of right, left and no side spin. On this

test, the position of the object balls is criti-cal, so you will definitely need some posi-tioning aid.

This setup comes up in normal play, andhappens often at one-pocket when multiple

balls have been spotted, asin Diagram 4. Can youmake the back ball of twospotted balls straight into acorner pocket? If not, howabout for three balls? Doesspin on the cue ball help?

Write up your results andeither mail them to me incare of this magazine [122S. Michigan Ave., Suite1506, Chicago IL 60603], ore-mail them to Jewett®sfbilliards.com. For bonuspoints, note whether theballs are old or new, clean ordirty, and what kind of cloth

you are playing on.One last point to ponder: Physics predicts

an interesting connection between throwand transferred spin on the object ball.Because throw is caused by tangential orsideways force, if the object ball is thrown,it must also have acquired side spin in thecollision. Conversely, if the object ball hasside spin after the collision, it must havebeen thrown.

26 BD • DECEMBER 2002