PDA

View Full Version : "Plus 2 Kicking System"



Cuemage
05-20-2002, 05:00 PM
I watched an Acuu-stats tape where Nick Varner said he uses this system. Does anybody know what it is or where I could find out?
Thanks, yous guys r tha best.

Tha Cuemage

Doctor_D
05-20-2002, 05:06 PM
Good evening:

With-in this book, Win at Pocket Billiards by Desmond Allen, Ph.D., you will find some of the best formulas and kicking strategies available. Simple, yet effective.

Amazon.Com has the book in stock. I highly recommend it ...

Dr. D.

Tom_In_Cincy
05-20-2002, 08:18 PM
Best tape I have ever seen on kicking instructions is Grady Mathews KICKS. Great investment.

Seems like everyone I play now, plays great safes. I have had better success since I saw that tape. But, my opponents that have seen the tape have even better success against my safeties.

05-21-2002, 12:19 AM
Yep. It happens to be one of my favorite systems. It's a 3-rail kicking system and it works like a charm and you don't have to factor in too many variables. It comes up a lot in 9-ball too.

It really needs to be shown with diagrams (or better still, in person) but I'll give you some info here. It's used when the cue ball and object ball you need to hit are along the same long rail and are blocked by another ball in-between. You count the diamond widths between the two balls, lets say 5 diamond widths for example. Then you count out 5 half diamonds on the short rail to find the spot on the short rail to shoot the cue ball three rails to make the hit. So each half diamond on the short rail equals one full diamond on the long rail....with one exception. The first half diamond you count on the short rail counts for 2 diamonds on the long rail. Every other half diamond counts for one. That's why they call it the plus 2 system, because you have to factor in that the first half diamond as 2.

It's one of those systems I've never seen in print. It was passed on to me by an old-timer. You just have to make sure you shoot through the diamond and not at it, give it a little running english, and you're there.

I don't expect you'll get it from my explanation but at least you'll have an idea of what Nick was referring to.

Fran

Jay M
05-21-2002, 12:01 PM
Here's a quick explanation with diagrams from Wei-
http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~wei/pool/caromtable.html


The plus two system is basically the way that Fran explained it, I just thought I'd add in the diagrams. Note that the distance between the CB and OB(s) is used for the calculation. In the first diagram, the distance between the cue ball and the 2 OBs is close to 2 diamonds (it's really the contact points on the rails, A and C that count). Starting with the OB's, figure out where the CB would have to hit the rail in order to make contact with the OB's (C). Then look at where the CB would contact the rail if it was to be shot into the first half diamond (B)(forget the corners, they are nearly impossible to be accurate on). drawing a line backwards from the line of travel, find the point directly behind the CB on the rail (A). Count the distance between A and C, in this case, it's exactly 2, therefore a good hit.


START(
%Bj4W2%CY6X4%E\3W9%Qh1Z8%Rs7F0%S\7[5%Ws3G3%Xj4W1%Yr3D1%Zs4F6
%[^0Z7%\q5C5%][4Y3%^]0Z9%eA4a5
)END

Now to show how this works when the two points (A and C) are not 2 diamonds apart, here's another shot.

START(
%AU2Z9%Bj4W2%CN4V9%EQ4W0%Qf9[3%Rs7F0%SX4[3%Ts7H4%Ws0H7%Xj4W1
%Yp8D6%Zs4G7%[Y6Z6%\o9C2%]P1X1%^X3[2%eA4a5
)END

The CB is still in the same place, so we know the shot will be short if we aim at B (from the shot before this one). So we try aiming at D and figure the shot out again. D will go 3 diamonds down the rail (1 diamond = 1 first half diamond (2) + 1 extra half diamond = 3 diamonds) I've placed a second CB on the table where it will hit, that will be long (past the two balls, although it hits the red on the wrong side in this example). Now we know that the aiming point is somewhere between B and D. If you have to get more accurate than a quarter diamond, you're shooting the wrong shot (IMO). Take aim and go for it...

Note that for many players, +2 is not truly accurate, on the table that I spend most of my time playing, I am about +1-1/2 and on the other table, I am +2-1/4 with my normal stroke and a clean CB.

HTH

Jay M <--- took months to figure out what they were talking about with +2

Cuemage
05-21-2002, 08:32 PM
Thanks Fran...a picture is beginning to form...

Tha Cuemage

Cuemage
05-21-2002, 08:36 PM
Thanks Jay...this looks like something you could learn without having to be at the table.

Tha Cuemage

Cuemage
05-21-2002, 08:38 PM
Tom, where's tha best place to buy this (read:cheapest)

Tha Cuemage

Ralph S.
05-21-2002, 11:12 PM
Hey Fran, the plus2 sounds alot like the 50-20 system for 3 rail kicks. Can you shed some light on similarities or differences for me please?
Ralph S.

05-21-2002, 11:31 PM
I'm afraid I don't know that one, Ralph. You've got me curious, though. I'll see if I have the 50-20 in any of my books and let you know. Maybe Jay can shed some light on it.

Jay?

Fran

05-21-2002, 11:42 PM
There is a book called Byrne's Standard Book of Pool and Billiards. My copy is from 1978 after I had quit playing for about 8 years. It's billiard section contains The Diamond System. That is the diamond system eveyone I know used in the 60s and before. But on almost evey pocket or 3 cushion table I played on it was off by about up to a full diamond or so. But it could give you a general idea. You can probably borrow a copy from the public library. It did contain a plus system for when you had to shoot into the short rail first. I doubt if this is the same system they are talking about it.

Ralph S.
05-22-2002, 12:12 AM
Thanks Fran, I'll be looking forward to any info you can find in them books.
Ralph S.

Alfie
05-22-2002, 07:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Cuemage:</font><hr> Does anybody know what it is or where I could find out? <hr></blockquote>
http://cu.imt.net/~jimloy/billiard/kick3.htm

http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?as_ugroup=rec.sport.billiard &amp;num=100&amp;as_scoring=d&amp;lr=lang_en
search for "plus 2" or "2 plus"

Jay M
05-22-2002, 10:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I'm afraid I don't know that one, Ralph. You've got me curious, though. I'll see if I have the 50-20 in any of my books and let you know. Maybe Jay can shed some light on it.

Jay?

Fran <hr></blockquote>

I've not heard of the 50-20 system, but that doesn't mean that I don't know it...lol, I've heard some names for things that were very basic, but that I knew by another name. I'm kinda wondering if the 50-20 system isn't the normal 3 rail kick
START(
%Bn8F8%Cr4Y4%Eq3Z8%QT6\4%RN0D5%Sr3Z6%Tu0@6%UW2]7%Vu1]8%WV7Z5
%Xr6C9%YD0N8%ZV2Z8%[N1D3%\C9N0%]p2X8%^O3C8%eA5a5%_M9A4%`H9A2
%aA2@9%bv7\7%cu9J7%du6A2
)END

Just a guess, but it kinda fits the way a natural corner-to-corner kick works.

BTW, the link that was given for the plus two method uses the long rails first and appears to be a different system, that is incorrectly identified as plus two or is an extension of the plus two method that I haven't seen. Personally, I don't think I would trust the system that is described if I was playing billiards as there is too little margin for error.

Jay M

Alfie
05-22-2002, 02:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Ralph S.:</font><hr> the plus2 sounds alot like the 50-20 system for 3 rail kicks. <hr></blockquote>
Is this the 50-20 system?
http://cu.imt.net/~jimloy/billiard/kick1.htm
(this is the corner-5 system)

IMO

Ralph S.
05-22-2002, 03:57 PM
Alfie, I don't have fullworking knowledge of the 50-20 but I know enough to tell you that what you have mentioned is not it. Fran should have something in her library and if I see the first parts I'll be able to identify it immediately. Thanks for trying to help.
Ralph S.

Tom_In_Cincy
05-22-2002, 05:00 PM
I have seen the cost of this video at $29.95

but at this website, its $10 cheaperhttp://www.vque.com/shop/only_kicks.html

Jay M
05-22-2002, 07:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>
Is this the 50-20 system?
http://cu.imt.net/~jimloy/billiard/kick1.htm
(this is the corner-5 system)
<hr></blockquote>

Just a quick note here, I don't know who that Jim Loy guy is, but most of the information that I've seen so far (on the subject of kicking systems) is inaccurate so I wouldn't spend a lot of time studying his pages.

Jay M

05-22-2002, 08:49 PM
Fran,

Great information...THANKS! One quick question. Whick way do you start counting on the short rail? Would 1 be on the side closest to the rail the balls are on, or farthest? I hope this made sense,

Thanks,

Zach

05-22-2002, 09:45 PM
It would be the farthest side from the balls, Zach. Closer to the corner you want the cue ball to come out of for the kick. Remember, 1 would be 1/4 diamond since 2 is the first 1/2 diamond on the short rail.

Fran

Alfie
05-23-2002, 02:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr> Quote:<a target="_blank" href=http://cu.imt.net/~jimloy/billiard/kick1.htm>http://cu.imt.net/~jimloy/billiard/kick1.htm</a>"

Just a quick note here, I don't know who that Jim Loy guy is, but most of the information that I've seen so far (on the subject of kicking systems) is inaccurate so I wouldn't spend a lot of time studying his pages. <hr></blockquote>
Of course this is IYO.

Would you tell us specifically what information is inaccurate on these pages
http://cu.imt.net/~jimloy/billiard/kick.htm
http://cu.imt.net/~jimloy/billiard/kick2.htm
http://cu.imt.net/~jimloy/billiard/kick0.htm
http://cu.imt.net/~jimloy/billiard/kick3.htm
http://cu.imt.net/~jimloy/billiard/kick1.htm
so that it may be corrected so as not to mislead any future pool and billiard web surfers?

Barring this, I invite all to compare Jim's diagrams and text with Jay's (here in this thread) at both the reading and playing tables, then decide for yourselves.

Jay M
05-23-2002, 08:01 AM
Take a look at the page (kick1). The shot that is shown first is the "basic shot of the three rail kick system". Yes, according to the diamond method it should work. But it doesn't work on a pool table with pure running english. To make that shot on a pool table (diamond, brunswick or gandy) the aiming point is actually the second diamond according to the way he has it numbered. The rails on a pool table don't reflect the CB the same way as the rails on a 3C table. With the absolute maximum running english that I can get (and I've got a really good stroke for spinning the cue) I can make the shot that is diagrammed maybe one out of 5 tries. I should note that if I use top left, I make the shot about 2 in 5. With medium running english I can make the shot aiming at the second diamond and ending in the corner pocket about 9 of 10.

The point that I was making is that the pages have a lot of theoretical information based on the geometry, but that don't work on a real pool table in the real world. The parts where he quotes other people are generally fine, but he makes some glaring inaccuracies.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Note: Reverse English is relatively unpredictable. <hr></blockquote>

Not true, reverse english is entirely predictable, it follows the laws of physics just like anything else on the pool table.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: kick2:</font><hr>For the two rail kick, the formula is y=a(x1+x2)/(a+b). <hr></blockquote>

That would be true if pool were a two dimensional game, unfortunately the cue ball is a sphere and it picks up rotation (english) from the contact with first rail and doesn't come off the second rail the way that he describes (parallel).

I'm not going to go through the rest of the pages, but I am sure that the flaw in his thought process, thinking in two dimensions rather than three, continues throughout.

And yes, feel free to put his information and mine into play on a pool table and see which is correct. BTW, the systems that I explained above are designed for carom tables, which have a different type of rail and different sized balls causing the angles to be different than on a pool table. The plus 2 shot as I described it will not work on a pool table without adjustment because I explained it for 3C, I don't use +2 in pool very often.

Systems give you a starting place, experience makes the shot.

Jay M

edit:

I should note that I am talking about the two and three rail methods that he explains, the single rail information that I read seems to be a compilation of other people's information.

Doctor_D
05-23-2002, 08:17 AM
Good morning:

An observation on kicking systems. Most of the systems I have looked at and studied were designed for Billiard Tables. As such, since the surface area of a Billiard Table is larger then that of a pocket billiard table, adjustment must be made and accounted for.

Dr. D.

Alfie
05-23-2002, 03:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr> Take a look at the page (kick1). The shot that is shown first is the "basic shot of the three rail kick system". Yes, according to the diamond method it should work. But it doesn't work on a pool table with pure running english. To make that shot on a pool table (diamond, brunswick or gandy) the aiming point is actually the second diamond according to the way he has it numbered. The rails on a pool table don't reflect the CB the same way as the rails on a 3C table. With the absolute maximum running english that I can get (and I've got a really good stroke for spinning the cue) I can make the shot that is diagrammed maybe one out of 5 tries. I should note that if I use top left, I make the shot about 2 in 5. With medium running english I can make the shot aiming at the second diamond and ending in the corner pocket about 9 of 10.

The point that I was making is that the pages have a lot of theoretical information based on the geometry, but that don't work on a real pool table in the real world. The parts where he quotes other people are generally fine, but he makes some glaring inaccuracies. <hr></blockquote>
It is the same system (and numbered the same way) that is described in Eddie Robin's "Winning One-Pocket, chapter 6 Systems and Methods, page 182; Desmond Allen's "Win at Pocket Billiards" (formerly "One Rail, Two Rails, Three Rails, and More!"), chapter 1 The Three Rail Kicking System; Koehler's "Science", chapter 10 Bank Shots; Byrnes "New Standard Book", Book Two (Three-Cushion Billiards), chapter 4 Diamond Systems; and Jim's website is referenced in the Pool and Billiard FAQ, section 6 ** What is the "Diamond System"? http://www.thebilliardlist.com/faq.txt

Byrne uses carom table diagrams, the rest use pocket table diagrams.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr> Quote Jim Loy-- "Reverse English is relatively unpredictable."

Not true, reverse english is entirely predictable, it follows the laws of physics just like anything else on the pool table. <hr></blockquote>
It is unpredictable from table to table due to differences in ball, cloth, and atmospheric conditions. You know, slow table fast table, more friction less friction.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr> Quote Jim Loy-- "For the two rail kick, the formula is y=a(x1+x2)/(a+b)."

That would be true if pool were a two dimensional game, unfortunately the cue ball is a sphere and it picks up rotation (english) from the contact with first rail and doesn't come off the second rail the way that he describes (parallel).

I'm not going to go through the rest of the pages, but I am sure that the flaw in his thought process, thinking in two dimensions rather than three, continues throughout. <hr></blockquote>He, as do the others, imply or state that these systems start with approximations and you adjust to conditions from there with aim point, speed, or spin (table size is a condition, IMO). What more do you want from them? /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif All of them (except Bob Jewett in the FAQ) start with the #3 aim point in the 3 rail kick from corner to corner. I don't know why. I do agree with you (and Bob) that #2 is the better aim point.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr> Systems give you a starting place, experience makes the shot. <hr></blockquote>
Or as Eddie Robin says- "Don't use diamond systems as substitutes for natural ability. Develop your natural abilities first and then use systems in co-ordination with those abilities."

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr> I should note that I am talking about the two and three rail methods that he explains, the single rail information that I read seems to be a compilation of other people's information. <hr></blockquote>
It is ALL a compilation from others. Jim Loy did not invent the Plus-2 and Corner-5, either.

IMO

05-24-2002, 01:34 AM
Fran:

The man claiming to be the original "Fast Eddie" says whenever you aim to the short rail first, as in this system, you should aim to the nose of the rail out from where the diamond is, not through the diamond.

Tom Rossman's version of the system aims through the diamond, as you say, but adds a half-tip of of extra outside English (to normal running English) for each diamond length past 3 away from the cue ball the object ball is laying.

Rossman is going longer than the regular running English line with the extra English; Eddie does the same thing by aiming at the nose of the cushion rather than through the cushion.

05-24-2002, 05:19 AM
QUOTE:

The man claiming to be the original "Fast Eddie" says whenever you aim to the
short rail first, as in this system, you should aim to the nose of the rail out from
where the diamond is, not through the diamond.


This is also the way Willie Hoppe explains this Plus System in his book. He says to shoot straight through/at the diamonds on the first cushion when playing from the end rails and opposite the diamonds on the first rail when shooting from the side cushions. Terry

05-24-2002, 09:51 AM
That's good information. I'll have to try it both ways. It makes sense to me because I generally hit the short side of my target shooting through the diamond with running english, particularly when I get past 3. But in most cases, since there's approx a 5 5/8 inch spread in hitting the target ball (2 1/2 ball widths), the short side is the side I generally want to hit anyway.

Fran