PDA

View Full Version : Efren & Johnny A, one-rail shape



phil in sofla
11-12-2002, 04:16 PM
Two current threads discussed the merits of one-rail or generally lesser rails shape vs. multiple rail shape.

One, the 10 ways you do or do not run out, advocated the less rails is better idea. This prompted one poster to say the author of that notion was totally wrong.

The not simpler, but more reliable thread, pointed out that multiple rails may not be simpler, per se, but more reliable, arguably.

Just got Capelle's video/book combo on a '96 match at the Regency between Archer and Reyes, and he provided a pertinent stat to that dispute.

From page 138:

"One rail shape was the most common by far. Archer used it on nearly half of his position plays while Reyes used a single cushion on nearly 58% of his position plays.

Position plays that used no-rail and two-rail routes were next in importance. ...three-rail routes were only used on about 6% of all position plays."

From a chart combining the two of them, they used no rails on position plays as much as 2 rails (19.8% of the time, for each one), one rail for 54% of the position plays, and 6.8% for 3 rail position (Archer at 5.6%, Reyes at 7.3%).

Capelle heads up one summary paragraph with 'Your game: master 1-rail position.'

This seems a fairly good recommendation of the fewer rails is better theory, and has the added credential of agreeing with Mr. George Fels!

Ross
11-12-2002, 04:37 PM
Interesting stats. Remember though, these are two of the best position players in the world. They usually set themselves up in ideal position so the next shot is easy. If they were shooting from the positions we leave ourselves in, they might be using multiple rail routes a lot more often!

Ross
11-12-2002, 04:38 PM
By the way, how is the book/dvd combo?

phil in sofla
11-12-2002, 04:44 PM
Ross:

Good point. However, needing to do extreme things to recover once you get out of line is by definition not playing great pool, at least compared to staying in line in the first place.

And how often would getting out of line be due to the same kind of more than necessary shot, originally?

I didn't get the dvd, got the tape. I think I would have preferred to have the dvd so I could randomly access particular shots or sequences more easily.

I've only watched it once, and haven't worked through the book entirely yet, so I haven't had a chance to put the two together. But it's a very interesting match, including sort of a highlights sequence review at the end, with commentary.

eg8r
11-12-2002, 11:28 PM
I think phil is trying to start an arugment. lol.
I really hope the name of your thread does not get changed into something ugly. Just so you know, there is at least one person here that is getting training from some pros and they advocate to run all over the table. A little hot shot I guess. lol

eg8r <~~~Helping to stir the pot but mostly joking

Rod
11-13-2002, 01:32 AM
The instances you cite was not necessarly correct. Most shots I saw were 2 rail shots, by two different people, except for a none or 1 rail shot as I recall. Some threads I just don't get involved in when there is an attitude. I don't find the numbers unusual for pro players. Quality players, and not pro's will have a high percentage of one rail position shots. None and two rail shots to follow as mentioned. Sometimes three rails is the best way and your speed isn't as critical. I know mine would be a high percentage of one railers. My 2 rail shots would be a little higher in comparison, with stop shots about the same. 3 rail shots would be low percentage. I don't know what those numbers would be, never kept track. It might be fun or interesting just to keep a tally with another person say for 20 racks of 9 ball. I know this, those with poor c/b control and strategy will end up with a large number of rails. There should be a another stat for amatures, how many balls did you run into (unintentional) on a position route.

11-13-2002, 06:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote phil in sofla:</font><hr> Two current threads discussed the merits of one-rail or generally lesser rails shape vs. multiple rail shape.

One, the 10 ways you do or do not run out, advocated the less rails is better idea. This prompted one poster to say the author of that notion was totally wrong.

The not simpler, but more reliable thread, pointed out that multiple rails may not be simpler, per se, but more reliable, arguably.

Just got Capelle's video/book combo on a '96 match at the Regency between Archer and Reyes, and he provided a pertinent stat to that dispute.

From page 138:

"One rail shape was the most common by far. Archer used it on nearly half of his position plays while Reyes used a single cushion on nearly 58% of his position plays.

Position plays that used no-rail and two-rail routes were next in importance. ...three-rail routes were only used on about 6% of all position plays."

From a chart combining the two of them, they used no rails on position plays as much as 2 rails (19.8% of the time, for each one), one rail for 54% of the position plays, and 6.8% for 3 rail position (Archer at 5.6%, Reyes at 7.3%).

Capelle heads up one summary paragraph with 'Your game: master 1-rail position.'

This seems a fairly good recommendation of the fewer rails is better theory, and has the added credential of agreeing with Mr. George Fels!

<hr /></blockquote>

I think the more I play, the more I appreciate one rail position routes better. If nothing else, then because you aren't letting the speed of the rails govern your postion as much. There are alot of times where 2 or 3 rails will keep you from crossing the angle, however, it is sometimes easy to mis-judge the speed needed to send the cueball 3 rails, and sometimes you end up short, or the cueball locks up against the ball you were trying to play postion for.. whereas a one rail route, there is only a 3-6" gap where you could leave yourself bad.

Ie: This position:
START(
%Hn9I1%IN8R0%Pb2L5%QL7L6%RO3L4%Wq5J7%Xn3J1%YJ9M4%Z r7K0%[m3J2
%\c2L4%eB5`6
)END

somewhere between A and B is the only spot that would leave a difficult shot, but:

START(
%Hn9I1%IN8R0%Pb2L5%QG0E9%RO5L2%S[2T2%Tb7Z0%Wr1M5%Xn3J1%Yd6Z2
%Zr5N5%[m3J2%\c2L4%]G5F4%^c7Z5%eB9`9
)END

In this 3 rail route, if you leave yourself anywhere between the a and b or between the C and D, then you'll have a hard shot.. not to mention the possibility of scratching if you hit it a little too hard.

With the one rail route, you are pretty much guaranteed a good shot without having to use alot or any english, and you can just go with speed control. I mean, how many times have you went the 3 rail route, and ended up with a bank shot instead of a simple cut? I know I've done it a couple times, but the one rail route is almost foolproof.

Fred Agnir
11-13-2002, 07:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote phil in sofla:</font><hr> From a chart combining the two of them, they used no rails on position plays as much as 2 rails (19.8% of the time, for each one), one rail for 54% of the position plays, and 6.8% for 3 rail position (Archer at 5.6%, Reyes at 7.3%).

Capelle heads up one summary paragraph with 'Your game: master 1-rail position.'

This seems a fairly good recommendation of the fewer rails is better theory, and has the added credential of agreeing with Mr. George Fels!<hr /></blockquote>
Not for nothing, but as I read it over and over, the conclusion doesn't match the statistics. Or at least, the statistics and the conclusion is misleading.

I think if statistics is one's bag, then the comparison for pros should be on shots where one-rail and two-rail were both options. Similarly, a comparison between no rails and one rail where both are options would be a fair comparison.

There is absolutely no doubt that being comfortable with the two-rail position route is a powerful technique that will give an advantage over those who don't feel comfortable with it. After all, by the stats, it's important on nearly 20% of your game. That's huge.

Fred

Ross
11-13-2002, 10:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Seattle-kid:</font><hr>


Ie: This position:
START(
%Hn9I1%IN8R0%Pb2L5%QL7L6%RO3L4%Wq5J7%Xn3J1%YJ9M4%Z r7K0%[m3J2
%\c2L4%eB5`6
)END

somewhere between A and B is the only spot that would leave a difficult shot,

<hr /></blockquote>

This is an interesting shot and comes up frequently. Even though it looks easy, it is also easily botched. First, it would need some inside english to take the route you diagrammed. Without the inside it would take a path directly toward the 9 or even below it. Also, the 6" you show as a problem area can easily come into play, so I think I would make sure I came up short of that position. I would set my target as 1/2 diamond past the center pocket. This would give me an acceptable shot if I ended up a diamond short or a diamond long. Note that the final position of the cb is going to be fairly sensitive to how thick you hit the 8 (which side of the pocket you cut it into).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Seattle-kid:</font><hr>
but:

START(
%Hn9I1%IN8R0%Pb2L5%QG0E9%RO5L2%S[2T2%Tb7Z0%Wr1M5%Xn3J1%Yd6Z2
%Zr5N5%[m3J2%\c2L4%]G5F4%^c7Z5%eB9`9
)END

In this 3 rail route, if you leave yourself anywhere between the a and b or between the C and D, then you'll have a hard shot.. not to mention the possibility of scratching if you hit it a little too hard.
<hr /></blockquote>

It would be better to shorten up your three rail route with slightly below center right:

START(
%Hn9I1%IN8R0%Pb2L5%QQ9H2%R\9J9%US7H3%VV5C7%Wr1M5%X n3J1%Yl7Z6
%Zr5N5%[m3J2%\c2L4%]W5D4%^k7[2%eC3a3
)END

This gets you going down the line of the shot off the 3rd rail. Of course you have to be comfortable enough with this shot that you can reliably avoid the side pocket. Picking the appropriate second rail target point and focusing on hitting that is a good way to do this.

You could also shoot this shot as a 2-railer:
START(
%Hn9I1%IN8R0%Pb2L5%Rc0^5%UT5V3%V_9Z6%Ws0L1%Xn3J1%Y a1Z4%Zs6L7
%[m3J2%\c2L4%eC0`4
)END

This approach takes a fairly natural angle and comes down the line of the shot. If I had a table handy I would try all three routes 20 times each and see what percentage of the time I got out with each route.

How would others shoot this shot?

Fred Agnir
11-13-2002, 11:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> You could also shoot this shot as a 2-railer:
START(
%Hn9I1%IN8R0%Pb2L5%Rc0^5%UT5V3%V_9Z6%Ws0L1%Xn3J1%Y a1Z4%Zs6L7
%[m3J2%\c2L4%eC0`4
)END


How would others shoot this shot? <hr /></blockquote>

This one . This actually looks like the natural path with follow.

Fred

Rod
11-13-2002, 11:36 AM
Ross,
I never noticed this shot. This is a 1 rail with just a touch of left to hold a straight angle off the cushion. The two and three rail shots are not a good choice. Also 1 rail comes into rather than across the line.

dddd
11-13-2002, 11:17 PM
they played better position to start with and allowed themselves easy one rail position shots.
multiple rails only when loss of shape dictates such.
simple one rail is easier to accomplish that simple 3 rail, distance for one is far greater and resulting shape could be rough to play from.
three rails are nice for some things of course but, there is the rub, "some things"
give me the short easy bounce off of that one rail for shape
less to concern my mind...

11-14-2002, 03:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting shot and comes up frequently. Even though it looks easy, it is also easily botched. First, it would need some inside english to take the route you diagrammed. Without the inside it would take a path directly toward the 9 or even below it. Also, the 6" you show as a problem area can easily come into play, so I think I would make sure I came up short of that position. I would set my target as 1/2 diamond past the center pocket. This would give me an acceptable shot if I ended up a diamond short or a diamond long. Note that the final position of the cb is going to be fairly sensitive to how thick you hit the 8 (which side of the pocket you cut it into).
<hr /></blockquote>

Well, I didn't diagram it perfect.. but you're right, you'd probably have to use a touch of inside english.. however, I would rather be 2 or 3 feet from the 9, than take chances running into it.


[ QUOTE ]

You could also shoot this shot as a 2-railer:
START(
%Hn9I1%IN8R0%Pb2L5%Rc0^5%UT5V3%V_9Z6%Ws0L1%Xn3J1%Y a1Z4%Zs6L7
%[m3J2%\c2L4%eC0`4
)END

This approach takes a fairly natural angle and comes down the line of the shot. If I had a table handy I would try all three routes 20 times each and see what percentage of the time I got out with each route.

How would others shoot this shot?
<hr /></blockquote>

I would probably take the inside english, 1 rail route, trying to land in the middle of the table, a little to the right of the 9, since I am left-eye dominant, it's easier for me to shoot towards my left.

START(
%Hn9I1%IN8R0%Pb2L5%Rb3_1%Ws0L1%Xn3J1%YW9N9%Zs6L7%[m3J2%\c2L4
%eB0`4
)END

unless the angle was too difficult for the inside english, then I'd probably hit with draw, and come out 2 rails to the middle of the table.

START(
%Hn9I1%IN8R0%Pb2L5%Rb3_1%Wr5N5%Xn3J1%Yl9Y8%Zr9O5%[m3J2%\c2L4
%]Y0N2%^k8Z4%eB0`4
)END

I don't like playing for the other corner because for me, it takes too much speed control.. much easier to just plop the cueball in the middle of the table.. concentrate on the speed of the cueball coming off the second rail, and you have a pretty good margin of error.

The 3 rail shot I don't like because, although it is pretty easy, I don't like risking leaving myself on the rail, or with a wierd cut shot from a little ways away from the rail. Being in the middle of the table, it's hard to wind up with anything less than a 90% makeable shot, whereas shooting a cutshot off the rail is more like a 70% shot.. at least for me.

Ross
11-14-2002, 10:12 AM
Well I decided to take it from the theoretical to the practical last night at the pool hall. I wasn't sure what I would find out. I set it up exactly as diagrammed and shot it several times trying different position routes. Surprisingly to me the results weren't even close.

The 1 rail shot turned out to require quite a bit of inside (more than I thought) and for that reason was miss-able. It also was difficult to control the speed, I think because the inside is fighting the cb's natural angle off the rail.

The 2-rail was so natural I NEVER missed position (nor the shot). Center ball, medium speed and the ball rolled right down the line of the 9ball for a gimmee.

START(%Hn9I1%IN8R0%Pb2L5%Rb3_1%Wr8L1%Xn3J1%Y^8Z9%Z s3M0%[m3J2%\c2L4
%]V3W2%^]8[1%eB0`4)END

I just hit the 3 rail route a couple of times because the 2 rail was so easy. It worked OK, but was no match for the 2-rail route.

If the cut were thinner and didn't require so much inside the results might be different. For example this shot:

START(%Hp5I2%IN8R0%Pb2L5%eB5a6)END

Would this be an automatic 1-railer?

Thanks for the example, SK. While my results didn't agree with your 1st choice, I did learn from trying the different options on the table.

Fred Agnir
11-14-2002, 03:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Well I decided to take it from the theoretical to the practical last night at the pool hall.

The 2-rail was so natural I NEVER missed position (nor the shot). Center ball, medium speed and the ball rolled right down the line of the 9ball for a gimmee.
<hr /></blockquote>
This of course is a strong case for why people shouldn't dismiss the multi-rail shot just because it's more rails. As you've attested, it was by far the easiest overall for this shot.

This particular shot is really part of the bread-and-butter shots that always come up in 9-ball and 8-ball. It's an angle that many of us play position for because of the natural position path.

Fred