PDA

View Full Version : Analysis of Hal Houle's basic aiming system



Pages : [1] 2

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 11:07 AM
After speaking with Hal on the phone for a couple of hours, I tried his method out on my table and I created and thought about several drawings and examples. The results of my analysis can be found in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf). I know I will be accused of being too analytical and some people will think that I'm missing the whole point. Well, I'm willing to take that risk. I hope this posting results in some productive debate.

Hal's basic aiming system is described online (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/msg/9d491b6392cbd7de?dmode=source&hl=en). Basically, the claim is there are only three different aims for all cut shots: a "15-degree cut," a "30-degree cut," and a "45-degree cut." In TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf), I show that these aims are equivalent to 3/4-, 1/2-, and 1/4-ball-hits and the 15- and 45-degree angles are not exact. Also, I show an example shot "in between" two of the aim references to show a deficiency of the method. The method provides easy visual aiming, and it helps a player establish good reference aims for different ranges of cut shots; but for "in-between" cut angles, one must adjust or compensate between the aim references.

I know believers of the Hal system have much anecdotal evidence. In fact, if a method works for somebody, that's all that really matters. It is difficult to refute anecdotal evidence. So I'm not saying going to say his method doesn't work. I just think that it is not as much of a silver bullet as some people think.

By the way, I very much enjoyed my conversation with Hal. He is a great man with a wealth of pool experience, knowledge, and stories. Also, obviously, he has had a big effect on the thinking of many people. I have tremendous respect for him, even if I disagree with the magic of his method.

Respectfully,
Dr. Dave

Leviathan
06-22-2005, 11:27 AM
Thanks for the info, Dave--very interesting!

AS

Fred Agnir
06-22-2005, 11:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> I tried his method out on my table <hr /></blockquote> and what were your results?

[ QUOTE ]
and I created and thought about several drawings and examples. <hr /></blockquote> Not that it's not useful, but drawing them out is misleading. Unless you draw them in 3-D, then what you're attempting to do is diagram in 2D something that we see in 3D. I think both throw and 3D perspective is as much part of the systems as the aim points.

[ QUOTE ]
The results of my analysis can be found in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf). <hr /></blockquote> You can also see some previous diagrams on Bob Jewetts site (http://www.sfbilliards.com/misc.htm) under the fractional aiming diagrams of Patrick Johnson.

[ QUOTE ]
I know I will be accused of being too analytical and some people will think that I'm missing the whole point. Well, I'm willing to take that risk. I hope this posting results in some productive debate.<hr /></blockquote> There will never be productive debate. Instead of showing why it doesn't work, I think more effort should be spent on why it does work.

Further, remember that what you've been now exposed to is the basic portion of his systems. Imagine in the end, discussion will end up something like this:

Houle-igan: There are only 3 angles in pool.

Dave staring at paper instead of the balls going in the holes: No there aren't because in my diagram, I show this in between shot that can't be hit with any of those three.

Houle-igan: Okay, add two more in between angles.
.
.
.

If you keep going like this, you'll find that after 5 angles, maybe 9 angles, you won't be able to come up with any more angles that can't be made. Suddenly, instead of thinking in Ghost Ball terms where the aimpoints are infinite, you'll end up with a system with a finite number of aiming points.

BTW, if you did talk to Hal, I'm surprised he said anything about fractional aiming. That is, looking at your diagrams, I would have expected something else. Maybe Small Ball or similar.

Fred

1Time
06-22-2005, 11:43 AM
Any system is an aid for your imagination. Some work better for some folks than others. I call mine the "dial in to focus" system. I'm sure it's nothing that already hasn't been used before, but I only offer a description / demonstration of it in Las Vegas. Now, back to your regular programming.

tsimpson
06-22-2005, 12:09 PM
Hal is 80, and is retiring. I am his designated successor. I don't know "everything", but I work with Hal regularly, trying to pick up as much of his knowledge as I can.

This is just one of Hal's systems. We worked through 7 or 8 different systems, at least. This is the one many of my students adopt (or partially adopt). Unlike Hal, I maintain there are FIVE shots: straight in, not quite straight in, typical cut, thin cut, very thin cut. These correspond to 0 quarters, 1 qtr, 2 qtrs (half-ball), 3 qtrs, and 4 qtrs w/slight overalp. I also believe there are occasional "tweeners", especially on longer shots and bigger tables.

Hal's other systems are nothing like this one. This is a fractional aiming system, and not the only one out there. However, Hal teaches it with a couple of novel twists that make it more "objective" than the typical fractionals. You're always lining up objective things you can actually see.

There are other systems that are radically different. They do not have tweeners - they make all shots. I'm not going to try to discuss them here. We spend a 7-hour day at my academy, working through the quarters system and two of the others.

Changing the way you sight shots, aim, and apply english is difficult, even though the actual techniques are simple &amp; objective. You're standing on a different line, looking at different things. It all looks wrong, so your "good habits" cause you to subconsciously adjust. The process of burning in one of these systems is to work with it until you realize you are missing when you do NOT trust the system, and somehow interfere.

wolfdancer
06-22-2005, 12:43 PM
Dr. Dave,nice analysis, excellent graphics...on that basis, it does look like the system doesn't work......BUT....
I've seen Hal demonstrate it, and also took a lesson from him, and while he made most of the shots in the half table range, the results dropped off a bit as the distances increased.
I "cut" Hal some slack there..he's over 80, with enough med problems to contend with, that they'ld shoot him, if he was a horse.
It's easy to see why the 30'cut, half-ball shot works, if you think of the shot backwards...a straight on half-ball hit produces a 30' throw-off angle.
Now throw in the pocket opening area, which equals the base of the triangle....and there's an allowable margin of angle error..which diminishes as the distance increases from the OB to the pocket.
In your example, the 1/2 ball aim would be my initial reference point....then as the dendrites gather some info, send them along the neuron to the axon terminal to the synaptic cleft, the snyapsis will begin firing...(I'm appealing to your engineering background here)...well that's they way they used to work, before the 70's and LSD. If there is still some residual brain activity,I might recognise that the hit is a bit off....I could still make it with a firmer hit, or aiming with the inside edge,or just tweak the aim a bit.
Having the ref points is the key...I believe....then as has been already noted in some other posts, you'll make some "unconscious" adjustments.
I think everybody plays by feel after they have hit a million balls, but for the first half million, having a system like Hal's is a great help.
After playing the game for several years before employing the system, well, my version of it....I've never been so comfortable on long cuts....and as Hal demonstrates...on shorter shots,,,you don't even have to look at the pocket.
You just set up for the half-ball hit, or one of the other ref points....set it, and forget it....it's in
..........but you're trying to confuse us adherents......
with facts....lol

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 12:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> I tried his method out on my table <hr /></blockquote> and what were your results?<hr /></blockquote>
For shots with cut angles close to one of the three angle references, when I hit the CB where I was aiming, I pocketed balls. For shots like the example in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf), when I hit the CB where I was aiming, I missed.

Often, when I miss a shot, it is because I didn't hit the CB where I was aiming. I think my aim is usually fairly good, but my stroke execution isn't always as good. Often, I realize that I will miss a shot before the CB even hits the OB because I can tell I didn't hit the CB where I was aiming. I see this even with pros sometimes also. Sometimes they can tell a shot is bad as soon as they hit it. So I know I'm not alone.

Regards,
Dave

pooltchr
06-22-2005, 12:51 PM
In reading the description described by Hal, it seems like he is saying that one of those 3 angles will get the object ball into one of the 6 pockets. As we know, it's not always practical to try to make a 2 or 3 rail shot just because we are limited to only aiming at one of 3 points. This is where the SAM method that Randy told you about takes it further. There are 6 different angles and they cover the majority of shots. Again, there may be those shots that fall in between certain angles, but the majority of shots are going to fall along one of the 6 aiming lines.

Great job on the drawings...that's the visual part that I have a hard time getting into words.
Steve

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 12:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I created and thought about several drawings and examples. <hr /></blockquote> Not that it's not useful, but drawing them out is misleading. Unless you draw them in 3-D, then what you're attempting to do is diagram in 2D something that we see in 3D. I think both throw and 3D perspective is as much part of the systems as the aim points.<hr /></blockquote>
Throw would affect all of the shots in my example (see the bottom of TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf)) fairly equally. With a tight shot, one would obviously need to adjust for throw (and squirt and swerve) based on the shot speed, type of English, and cue stick elevation.

Concerning 3-D perspective, I resist "going there" because that will start the whole dominant eye and binocular vision parallax debate again. Are you implying that Hal's basic system relies on visual distortion of the shot? If so, is dominant eye alignment, head height above the cue stick, and distance behind the CB important? I would think they might be if the visual effect is important.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 12:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I know I will be accused of being too analytical and some people will think that I'm missing the whole point. Well, I'm willing to take that risk. I hope this posting results in some productive debate.<hr /></blockquote> There will never be productive debate. Instead of showing why it doesn't work, I think more effort should be spent on why it does work.<hr /></blockquote>
I can show how it does work for many shots. I can also show how it doesn't work with other shots (e.g., the example at the bottom of TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf)).

Regards,
Dave

Qtec
06-22-2005, 01:00 PM
Dave, I did some research of my own.

From RSB.

[ QUOTE ]
I posted a problem in another thread with two different shots that were
first proposed by George McBane and subsequently diagrammed on wei's table
by Pat Johnson. The answers I received, from Houle followers, defied the
laws of geometry and, as such, were absurd. I commented that, from my
recollection, Hal Houle was a decent guy and had always been forthcoming in
our prior discussions. I hoped that he would chime in and help explain
away the apparent dilemma. Thankfully, Hal sent a private email inviting me
to call him at home and indicating that he would be happy to answer any
question that I might have.


I took Hal up on his offer, called him tonight, and we spoke about these
matters for about an hour.


First of all, Hal Houle is a delightful gentleman, pleasant, conversational,
responsive, reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful. From
all that I can tell, he is not a mystic, magician, charlatan, eccentric, or
otherwise disposed to offer up systems or ideas that defy the laws of
physics or geometry. He is painfully aware of the normal behavior of
ball-to-ball collisions and like matters. Hal was quick to agree with me
when I asserted that his devotees were not helping his cause especially
well. He acknowledged that many of them are beginners and, as a routine
teaching practice, he does not provide explanations for why things behave as
they do. He wishes that many of them would just keep their silence rather
than attempt to explain things that they do not understand.


OK. On to the specific problem...


When presented with the Case A (30 degree shot to a corner) and Case B (36
degree shot to a corner), notwithstanding the contentions of his devotees,
there is a reasonable and relatively straightforward explanation.


1) Hal states unequivocally that for both Case A and Case B, if the
center of the cueball is aimed at the object ball's exterior edge, and
propelled with no spin on the cueball, the object ball will move in a 30
degree angle after contact, collision-induced throw notwithstanding (meaning
that we'll ignore that effect for the sake of the examples). As far as I
understand it, being a non-mathematician, this object ball behavior follows
the laws of geometry precisely.


2) Here comes the only tricky part to describe. Hal explains that,
when shifting from Case A's position to Case B, the focus spot on the object
ball has moved; that is, if we slide the cueball to the right several
inches, leaving the object ball in its original position, the spot (on the
object ball's edge) we are seeking has rotated "n" degrees to the right of
the original spot. This shifting of the relative aiming spot, from one shot
to the next, is what has been termed rotating edges. Similarly, from the
perspective of Shot A, the center axis has also slid to the right in Shot B
when aiming to the edge of the fixed object ball. This is what is meant by
"apparent centers." In other words, all that is being said is that, from
the perspective of one fixed shot, any other shot does not use the same
exact center or precise edge as the reference shot. The centers and edges
will have rotated relative to the original points. Truthfully, I have not
yet figured out the significance of this observation, but I am now quite
certain that this is the explanation of the otherwise mysterious "rotating
or apparent centers" and similar verbiage.


3) Now, having established that each shot has to be aimed the same way,
i.e., center ball axis to outside edge of the object ball, how is it that
the object ball can split the pocket in two different situations (6 degrees
apart), if the cueball is stuck the same way? The answer, according to
Houle, is that "THEY CANNOT." At least not without some adjustment. When I
mentioned that his followers were claiming that they could "split the
pocket" in both cases, he laughed. The truth is that his system is based on
the understanding that the pockets are typically twice as wide as the ball
and that, with a 1/2 ball hit, there is an error allowance (in degrees)
which will accommodate variations up to some limit that depends on the
particular table conditions (pocket width, cut, facings, etc.). When that
limit is exceeded, you have to switch to 1/4 ball up to its allowable error,
and so on... If players are using the fractional ball aiming system and
splitting the pocket for both 30 and 36 degree angle shots, they are
obviously making minor adjustments when aiming/shooting.


Clearly, Hal Houle is NOT CLAIMING TO DEFY THE LAWS OF GEOMETRY. According
to Hal, this particular system is usually provided to beginners because they
need approximate methods. After a while, they learn to make minute
adjustments (a hair this way or that) which allows them to split pockets
with shots that are within the allowable error range.


People -- there is no mysticism, magic, or other voodoo involved here
<hr /></blockquote>

?


Qtec

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 01:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>BTW, if you did talk to Hal, I'm surprised he said anything about fractional aiming. That is, looking at your diagrams, I would have expected something else. Maybe Small Ball or similar.<hr /></blockquote>
I did talk to Hal. In fact, we had a very nice conversation, and I thought we hit it off fairly well. Are you implying that I would tell an outright lie on this public forum? If you are, I take great offense at your accusation.

Hal did not mention fractional aiming. However, after thinking about what he told me and by constructing the drawings in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf), I realized his angles correspond exactly to the fractional aiming references; although the visualization is different (see my comments in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf)).

Regards,
Dave

Fred Agnir
06-22-2005, 01:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> Instead of showing why it doesn't work, I think more effort should be spent on why it does work.<hr /></blockquote>
I can show how it does work for many shots. I can also show how it doesn't work with other shots (e.g., the example at the bottom of TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf)).

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote> No, no. You don't understand. There is no reason to show where it doesn't work if people are saying it works. If it works as people are saying, then it is more useful to find out why it works, not why it doesn't work. Aren't you more interested in finding out how to pocket balls as opposed to how not to?

Fred

Qtec
06-22-2005, 01:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You're always lining up objective things you can actually see.
<hr /></blockquote>

I dont think 1/4, 3/4 and 1/2 a 1/4 ball are definite points. These are all estimated points on the OB.

Using Hal,s method, for a 1/2 B shot, I would be aiming a definite point[ the edge of the QB] to the middle of the OB[ an estimated point]
Using my method, I would be aiming with an estimated point on the QB to a definite point on the OB!

Isnt it the same thing?

The other question is, is it easier the estimate the center of a ball when it right on the end of your cue or on a ball that is 7ft away?

Qtec

Fred Agnir
06-22-2005, 01:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> I did talk to Hal. In fact, we had a very nice conversation, and I thought we hit it off fairly well. Are you implying that I would tell an outright lie on this public forum? If you are, I take great offense at your accusation.<hr /></blockquote>

Chill out Dave. I didn't accuse you of anything. Your answer below validates my question.

[ QUOTE ]
Hal did not mention fractional aiming. However, after thinking about what he told me and by constructing the drawings in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf), I realized his angles correspond exactly to the fractional aiming references; although the visualization is different (see my comments in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf)).

<hr /></blockquote>If what you got out of your discussion was basic fractional aiming, then you missed out. There is a reason Hal doesn't talk about fractional aiming as you laid it out. So, it's incorrect to represent your graphics as what he told you. I was sure that your graphics was not what he told you.

Fred

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 01:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tsimpson:</font><hr>Unlike Hal, I maintain there are FIVE shots: straight in, not quite straight in, typical cut, thin cut, very thin cut. These correspond to 0 quarters, 1 qtr, 2 qtrs (half-ball), 3 qtrs, and 4 qtrs w/slight overalp. I also believe there are occasional "tweeners", especially on longer shots and bigger tables.<hr /></blockquote>
This seems more reasonable to me.

I agree that it is very useful to have visual references, regardless of what "system" you are using, because it is difficult for many to visualize AND aim at the center of the imaginary ghost-ball target; although, many people seem to use it with some success (see NV 3.1 and NV 3.2 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/normal_videos/index.html) and the How the Pros Aim (http://www.sfbilliards.com/PnB_aiming.pdf) article).
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tsimpson:</font><hr>Changing the way you sight shots, aim, and apply english is difficult, even though the actual techniques are simple &amp; objective. You're standing on a different line, looking at different things. It all looks wrong, so your "good habits" cause you to subconsciously adjust. The process of burning in one of these systems is to work with it until you realize you are missing when you do NOT trust the system, and somehow interfere.<hr /></blockquote>
Wow ... that's deep. I think I rather just aim where I think I should and diagnose errors and make corrections when I miss shots. Usually, the problem is not with my aim ... there are those other matters of not having a perfect stroke or perfect vision.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 01:24 PM
wolfdancer,

Nice post. I'm sorry about the facts-induced confusion. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I probably would have been stoned or burned at the post in the past for being such a trouble-maker. Isn't the Internet great?

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Dr. Dave,nice analysis, excellent graphics...on that basis, it does look like the system doesn't work......BUT....
I've seen Hal demonstrate it, and also took a lesson from him, and while he made most of the shots in the half table range, the results dropped off a bit as the distances increased.
I "cut" Hal some slack there..he's over 80, with enough med problems to contend with, that they'ld shoot him, if he was a horse.
It's easy to see why the 30'cut, half-ball shot works, if you think of the shot backwards...a straight on half-ball hit produces a 30' throw-off angle.
Now throw in the pocket opening area, which equals the base of the triangle....and there's an allowable margin of angle error..which diminishes as the distance increases from the OB to the pocket.
In your example, the 1/2 ball aim would be my initial reference point....then as the dendrites gather some info, send them along the neuron to the axon terminal to the synaptic cleft, the snyapsis will begin firing...(I'm appealing to your engineering background here)...well that's they way they used to work, before the 70's and LSD. If there is still some residual brain activity,I might recognise that the hit is a bit off....I could still make it with a firmer hit, or aiming with the inside edge,or just tweak the aim a bit.
Having the ref points is the key...I believe....then as has been already noted in some other posts, you'll make some "unconscious" adjustments.
I think everybody plays by feel after they have hit a million balls, but for the first half million, having a system like Hal's is a great help.
After playing the game for several years before employing the system, well, my version of it....I've never been so comfortable on long cuts....and as Hal demonstrates...on shorter shots,,,you don't even have to look at the pocket.
You just set up for the half-ball hit, or one of the other ref points....set it, and forget it....it's in
..........but you're trying to confuse us adherents......
with facts....lol
<hr /></blockquote>

Fred Agnir
06-22-2005, 01:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Concerning 3-D perspective, I resist "going there" because that will start the whole dominant eye and binocular vision parallax debate again. Are you implying that Hal's basic system relies on visual distortion of the shot? If so, is dominant eye alignment, head height above the cue stick, and distance behind the CB important? I would think they might be if the visual effect is important.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>Well, I can say that there are several disciplines to consider, optics certainly being one of the heavies. What is probably the worst tool to use in this case might be geometry.

So, yes, it's all in the visualization. In fact, all of Hal's systems are about visualizing aim and contact points as finite targets. Is it voodoo? No more than trying to equate a 2D geometrical picture to a real world physics and optics problem.

Fred

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 01:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> In reading the description described by Hal, it seems like he is saying that one of those 3 angles will get the object ball into one of the 6 pockets. As we know, it's not always practical to try to make a 2 or 3 rail shot just because we are limited to only aiming at one of 3 points. This is where the SAM method that Randy told you about takes it further. There are 6 different angles and they cover the majority of shots. Again, there may be those shots that fall in between certain angles, but the majority of shots are going to fall along one of the 6 aiming lines.<hr /></blockquote>
Actually, Randy didn't have time to cover SAM when I was there, but I think I know what it is (6 references instead of three, all with easy-to-identify visual "markers"). Six references would obviously do a much better job at dealing with more non-bank shots than just three.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>Great job on the drawings...that's the visual part that I have a hard time getting into words.<hr /></blockquote>
Thanks and you're welcome.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 01:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> Instead of showing why it doesn't work, I think more effort should be spent on why it does work.<hr /></blockquote>
I can show how it does work for many shots. I can also show how it doesn't work with other shots (e.g., the example at the bottom of TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf)).

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote> No, no. You don't understand. There is no reason to show where it doesn't work if people are saying it works. If it works as people are saying, then it is more useful to find out why it works, not why it doesn't work. Aren't you more interested in finding out how to pocket balls as opposed to how not to?

Fred <hr /></blockquote>
I wish I could explain why it works, but I can't.

And yes ... I do want to pocket balls more reliably. That's why I am working so hard on my technique ... so I can more reliably hit the damn ball where I'm aiming.

Respectfully,
Dave

Sorry,
Dave

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 01:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>Hal did not mention fractional aiming. However, after thinking about what he told me and by constructing the drawings in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf), I realized his angles correspond exactly to the fractional aiming references; although the visualization is different (see my comments in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf)).

<hr /></blockquote>If what you got out of your discussion was basic fractional aiming, then you missed out. There is a reason Hal doesn't talk about fractional aiming as you laid it out. So, it's incorrect to represent your graphics as what he told you. I was sure that your graphics was not what he told you.<hr /></blockquote>
The graphics on the right ("Hal's angle cuts") represent what Hal told me. The graphics on the left represent fractional aiming (see the headings in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf)). I just pointed out that the systems are no different geometrically.

Regards,
Dave

SPetty
06-22-2005, 01:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>There is no reason to show where it doesn't work if people are saying it works. If it works as people are saying, then it is more useful to find out why it works, not why it doesn't work. <hr /></blockquote>Hi Fred,

To the best of your knowledge, has that ever been done (yet)? There's just this huge dichotomy between "trust it, it'll work" and "the geometry and physics prove it's impossible"!

The "trust it, it'll work" guys will demonstrate to you over and over again that it works (for them). They seem to truly believe that they're doing what they say and that what they're doing is giving the real results of pocketing balls. But they can't explain the physics behind it.

The "the geometry and physics prove it's impossible" guys will show you over and over again that it's impossible as described. They seem to truly believe that the other guys are fooling themselves and are sub- or un-consciously adjusting their aim to pocket the ball.

If we could just get those two ends to come together in the middle, we'd have something truly special!

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 01:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr>The "trust it, it'll work" guys will demonstrate to you over and over again that it works (for them). They seem to truly believe that they're doing what they say and that what they're doing is giving the real results of pocketing balls. But they can't explain the physics behind it.

The "the geometry and physics prove it's impossible" guys will show you over and over again that it's impossible as described. They seem to truly believe that the other guys are fooling themselves and are sub- or un-consciously adjusting their aim to pocket the ball.

If we could just get those two ends to come together in the middle, we'd have something truly special!<hr /></blockquote>
I propose that we call the solution to this problem: "The Grand Unified Theory of Pool." /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

BTW, I don't think the people that can reliably pocket shots with Hal's system are fooling themselves. I just think they are damn good pool players, because anybody that can pocket a wide range of shots (various cut angles and distances) reliably are just good ... period. Just like I think the pros that claim to use no system at all (other than just "seeing the angle") are also awesome.

Dave

wolfdancer
06-22-2005, 02:03 PM
I think you have the best reply here, on why the system works/ doesn't work. It's the allowable error, and adjustments, off of the ref points, that make the system work it's magic.

Ross
06-22-2005, 02:05 PM
Any system that claims you can pocket most shots on a pool table by accurately sending a cue ball toward only 4 or 5 discrete aiming points on the object ball is full of hooey. (Note: I'm not talking about Hals whole package of systems, I'm just talking about this part of his system, if it really is something he believes and teaches.)

To understand this you only need to know the following: a difference of 1 degree in a track line = 1" difference at 60 inches. So if the ob is a cuestick length (about 5 diamonds) away from a pocket, a one degree change in ob direction will result in a 1" difference in where the ob hits (or misses) it's target.

When you change your aim point in 1/4 ball increments as these systems call for (for example from a half ball hit to a quarter ball hit) you are changing the ob path by approximately 15 degrees for each increment. (Does anyone dispute this?) So for the common shot described the strike point of the ob when it reaches the end rail or pocket changes BY OVER A DIAMOND each time you move your aim point on the ob a quarter ball. (It's little less than 15" since the relationship between degrees and strike point isn't quite linear.)

So you are going to need REALLY, REALLY BIG POCKETS or shoot only VERY, VERY SHORT SHOTS to make any 4 or 5 aiming point system work. Or else you are going to have to add a little throw english or do some unconscious aim adjustments to make this work.

I think the reason such a system "works" for some people is that is really focuses your attention on your target on the object ball. Then-- outside of your awareness -- your brain takes care of the needed adjustments to actually pocket the ball.

JMO, of course.

Qtec
06-22-2005, 02:07 PM
Dr Dave,
"I wish I could explain why it works, but I can't".

You cant because it doesnt work for all balls!
The 3 point system that pots all balls doesnt exist. Hal says it himself...................!



[ QUOTE ]
3) Now, having established that each shot has to be aimed the same way, <font color="blue"> ie, a 36 and a 30 degree cut] </font color>
i.e., center ball axis to outside edge of the object ball, how is it that
the object ball can split the pocket in two different situations (6 degrees
apart), if the cueball is stuck the same way? The answer, according to
Houle, is that "THEY CANNOT." At least not without some adjustment. When I
mentioned that his followers were claiming that they could "split the
pocket" in both cases, he laughed. The truth is that his system is based on
the understanding that the pockets are typically twice as wide as the ball
and that, with a 1/2 ball hit, there is an error allowance (in degrees)
which will accommodate variations up to some limit that depends on the
particular table conditions (pocket width, cut, facings, etc.). When that
limit is exceeded, you have to switch to 1/4 ball up to its allowable error,
and so on... If players are using the fractional ball aiming system and
splitting the pocket for both 30 and 36 degree angle shots, they are
obviously making minor adjustments when aiming/shooting.

<hr /></blockquote>





Qtec

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 02:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Dr Dave,
"I wish I could explain why it works, but I can't".

You cant because it doesnt work for all balls!
The 3 point system that pots all balls doesnt exist. Hal says it himself!<hr /></blockquote>
I wonder if Hal's just having fun with us. Seems like a fun retirement pursuit to me. I'll have to make a mental note to do this in my retirement with some unsuspecting future Dr. Daves and Freds out there.

Dave

SpiderMan
06-22-2005, 02:37 PM
Wolfdancer,

I think what you're saying is that, in most cases, you'd recognize that the shot was a little off, and you'd compensate. If that is the case, I agree also.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
06-22-2005, 02:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> There will never be productive debate. Instead of showing why it doesn't work, I think more effort should be spent on why it does work. <hr /></blockquote>
I believe some of us are arguing that it works because of "compensation". That's one reason it's more successful if you just shoot without thinking about it.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>If you keep going like this, you'll find that after 5 angles, maybe 9 angles, you won't be able to come up with any more angles that can't be made. Suddenly, instead of thinking in Ghost Ball terms where the aimpoints are infinite, you'll end up with a system with a finite number of aiming points. <hr /></blockquote>
If you allow the possibility of enough "in between" angles, then your discretized system becomes no different in function than a continuous system.

The real argument is: (1) are you somehow CONSCIOUSLY hitting one of a set of EXACT angles, or (2) are you really drawing from a CONTINUOUS set of options (angle, spin, throw, swerve, etc) and integrating these subconsiously to achieve the shot and correct aftermath?

I would bet a paycheck on the latter vs the former.

SpiderMan

wolfdancer
06-22-2005, 02:55 PM
Fred, I'm sure that you understand Hal's systems better then the rest of us here....and I think Dr. Dave is just trying to both understand them himself, and show his empirical data to the rest of us....it's not the "Empire Strikes Back" though. He's trying to reach your level of "enlightenment"
You also write as an accomplished pool player, and I'd guess the the good Doc. is somewhere near my level...in fact I might give up the 7 to him, so that might be a problem??
What I see are two very intelligent men, that can't seem to agree on some basic issues relating to this game.
Thank the good Lord, that this is not a discussion board about the swing mechanics of the golf stroke.....
Anyway, us non-techies, non-engineers, have benefited from both of your inputs....and I think you could both agree to keep disagreeing....just make it less confrontational, less-in-your-face.
There's one thing that stands out to be in all this discussion on systems....why are there systems...and not just a system?....( I do use one of Hal's systems )

SpiderMan
06-22-2005, 03:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Dave, I did some research of my own.

From RSB.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I posted a problem in another thread with two different shots that were
first proposed by George McBane and subsequently diagrammed on wei's table
by Pat Johnson. The answers I received, from Houle followers, defied the
laws of geometry and, as such, were absurd. I commented that, from my
recollection, Hal Houle was a decent guy and had always been forthcoming in
our prior discussions. I hoped that he would chime in and help explain
away the apparent dilemma. Thankfully, Hal sent a private email inviting me
to call him at home and indicating that he would be happy to answer any
question that I might have.


I took Hal up on his offer, called him tonight, and we spoke about these
matters for about an hour.


First of all, Hal Houle is a delightful gentleman, pleasant, conversational,
responsive, reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful. From
all that I can tell, he is not a mystic, magician, charlatan, eccentric, or
otherwise disposed to offer up systems or ideas that defy the laws of
physics or geometry. He is painfully aware of the normal behavior of
ball-to-ball collisions and like matters. Hal was quick to agree with me
when I asserted that his devotees were not helping his cause especially
well. He acknowledged that many of them are beginners and, as a routine
teaching practice, he does not provide explanations for why things behave as
they do. He wishes that many of them would just keep their silence rather
than attempt to explain things that they do not understand.


OK. On to the specific problem...


When presented with the Case A (30 degree shot to a corner) and Case B (36
degree shot to a corner), notwithstanding the contentions of his devotees,
there is a reasonable and relatively straightforward explanation.


1) Hal states unequivocally that for both Case A and Case B, if the
center of the cueball is aimed at the object ball's exterior edge, and
propelled with no spin on the cueball, the object ball will move in a 30
degree angle after contact, collision-induced throw notwithstanding (meaning
that we'll ignore that effect for the sake of the examples). As far as I
understand it, being a non-mathematician, this object ball behavior follows
the laws of geometry precisely.


2) Here comes the only tricky part to describe. Hal explains that,
when shifting from Case A's position to Case B, the focus spot on the object
ball has moved; that is, if we slide the cueball to the right several
inches, leaving the object ball in its original position, the spot (on the
object ball's edge) we are seeking has rotated "n" degrees to the right of
the original spot. This shifting of the relative aiming spot, from one shot
to the next, is what has been termed rotating edges. Similarly, from the
perspective of Shot A, the center axis has also slid to the right in Shot B
when aiming to the edge of the fixed object ball. This is what is meant by
"apparent centers." In other words, all that is being said is that, from
the perspective of one fixed shot, any other shot does not use the same
exact center or precise edge as the reference shot. The centers and edges
will have rotated relative to the original points. Truthfully, I have not
yet figured out the significance of this observation, but I am now quite
certain that this is the explanation of the otherwise mysterious "rotating
or apparent centers" and similar verbiage.


3) Now, having established that each shot has to be aimed the same way,
i.e., center ball axis to outside edge of the object ball, how is it that
the object ball can split the pocket in two different situations (6 degrees
apart), if the cueball is stuck the same way? The answer, according to
Houle, is that "THEY CANNOT." At least not without some adjustment. When I
mentioned that his followers were claiming that they could "split the
pocket" in both cases, he laughed. The truth is that his system is based on
the understanding that the pockets are typically twice as wide as the ball
and that, with a 1/2 ball hit, there is an error allowance (in degrees)
which will accommodate variations up to some limit that depends on the
particular table conditions (pocket width, cut, facings, etc.). When that
limit is exceeded, you have to switch to 1/4 ball up to its allowable error,
and so on... If players are using the fractional ball aiming system and
splitting the pocket for both 30 and 36 degree angle shots, they are
obviously making minor adjustments when aiming/shooting.


Clearly, Hal Houle is NOT CLAIMING TO DEFY THE LAWS OF GEOMETRY. According
to Hal, this particular system is usually provided to beginners because they
need approximate methods. After a while, they learn to make minute
adjustments (a hair this way or that) which allows them to split pockets
with shots that are within the allowable error range.


People -- there is no mysticism, magic, or other voodoo involved here
<hr /></blockquote>

?


Qtec <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec,

This argument of "rotating" aimpoints is easily debunked by considering equal movement of both the cueball and object ball. Set up the two balls along the centerline of the table, such that your standard "Houle" alignment pockets the ball in the side.

Now move BOTH balls two inches downtable, still on the centerline and shoot again. Your aimpoint and contact point are unchanged, therefore the object ball moves away from the table's centerline at the same angle as before. But, since it starts two inches from the original position, you miss (unless you compensate).

Another way of thinking about this is to imagine the pocket moving by two inches and the balls remaining stationary - it's the same relative change, and the results are identical (you miss). Unless someone is prepared to argue that the second shot does not go in the same direction as the first, when the balls haven't moved /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan

wolfdancer
06-22-2005, 03:11 PM
Spidey, it ain't like a pair of socks, where one size fits all. If you just think of these angles as ref angles to
"get you into the ballpark" as someone else wrote...then a little tweaking, a little adjusting, and even a new player can begin hitting "home runs"
I once read that all systems fail at a distance...but having a ref point to start with...helps narrow the eyes focus...imho...helps someone like me, not naturally gifted enough to "see" the angles.I used to continuously miss, with the continuous systems
Do pool playing spiders suffer from a "Rack-no-Phobia" ???

Fred Agnir
06-22-2005, 03:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>If you keep going like this, you'll find that after 5 angles, maybe 9 angles, you won't be able to come up with any more angles that can't be made. Suddenly, instead of thinking in Ghost Ball terms where the aimpoints are infinite, you'll end up with a system with a finite number of aiming points. <hr /></blockquote>
If you allow the possibility of enough "in between" angles, then your discretized system becomes no different in function than a continuous system.
<hr /></blockquote>
I was making the point that after 5 or even 9 discreet aim points, you're not going to go further than that. So, 5 or 9 discreet aim points is far from a continuous infinite number.

That being said, I don't think it's beyond 5 anyway, but I threw 9 out there just for example.

Fred

Cane
06-22-2005, 03:22 PM
OK Dave, I've read your analysis and viewed the drawings (right after you posted) and I just now got back from the pool table. Now, I immediately printed out the pdf file and took it to the pool table. Here's what I did...

I set up the object ball on the black spot, just as it shows on your table drawing on TP A.11. I took a 24" Starrett Machinist protractor and a laser level (greatest thing in the world for accurately marking lines and positions on a pool table), a carpenters chalk line and a sheet of paper hole reinforcements. Now, I marked the position of the object ball in the exact center of the footspot with a paper hole reinforcement so that when it settled in the center of the reinforcement it would be in EXACTLY the same place every time. I used the protractor and the laser level and laid out a 39° shot (sorry, the Starrett would not be accurate in fractions of degrees in this application, so I set it up at a full 39°) and marked the cue ball position with a paper hole reinforcement to keep it constant. Both of these balls were laid out in approximately the same position as your drawing on TP A.11, but not quite. I'm sure that drawing was just an example, but the angle on that table is not 39°, at least not according to my protractor after I printed it out. Close enough, though. Next, I got out my chalk line. I put the object ball in position and snapped a chalk line to the outer edge of the object ball from the center of the paper hole reinforcement marking the position of the object ball... This FORCED me to stay on exactly the same aim line and NOT make any "compensations". To further prevent myself from "compensating", I have a curtain of sorts, home fashioned from an old sheet and a clothing rack Billie had picked up for me at a yard sale, that straddles the table, and prevents me from seeing the target pocket. This curtain is one that I use to TEACH aiming systems with. I mean, if you can't see the pocket, how can you compensate, right? The only other things I had were my 17 year old son, to retrieve balls from the pocket and to mark down how many balls I shot, how many I made, how many I missed.

So, here's the setup. I have CB and OB in constant positions on the "in between" shot that you sited as an example of a shot that will not work with this system and that, according to you drawing, that neither the 1/2 ball or 1/4 ball hit should make. I have a chalk line aimed from the center of the cue ball to the edge of the object ball on exactly a 39° angle. I have a ball retriever with a notebook and piece of paper.

Equipment. 44x88 table, pro cut pockets (they'll spit em out at ya if you don't hit center pocket), Simonis 760 cloth, Aramith Pro Balls, Logo Aramith Cue Ball... just grabbed a Valley Cue out of my wall rack that I keep for guests to use. A little short for me, but hell, it's just balls and a stick, right... no need to get fancy! *S*

Note, All shots that I did in all these setups were shot at "stroke speed" or 3 speed. (Dave's been to pool school, he understands 3 speed)

NOW, I shot this shot aiming along the chalk line, and NOT being able to see the pocket. This INSURES a half ball hit.

Results

# of shots = 50
# of makes = 50
# of misses ZERO

OK, so now let's change things up a little. I put paper hole reinforcements on approximately EVERY degree from 30° to 40°... According to my son's notes, AFTER the initial 50, I shot an additional 112 shots from the 30° to 40° random marked positions, never shooting from the same cue ball position twice in a row and always trying to move at least two marks away from the last shot, with the curtain still in place so I could not see the pocket, and the results weren't so positive as they were in the first run of 50 shots. I did have to take the table brush and brush out the chalk line I had to edge of ball for the first "in between" angle... that thing was distracting as hell when you weren't shooting right down it!

# of shots = 112
# of makes = 109
# of misses = 3 (keep in mind, there are NOT buckets, they're pro cut pockets... pockets which I cannot see for the curtain...)

Not shabby... but I didn't stop there. I set a cue ball at the exact center of the table (already marked with a paper hole reinforcement for one of my many drills). I used the laser to plot a straight in shot from a line one diamond from the end of the table. I put the first paper hole reinforcement one inch to the left of that line, so that there is a slight cut to the left. I put 6 more reinforcements shoulder to shoulder with this one along the line of the first diamond, so I have several different degree of angle shots, all not straight in, but just slight cuts... ones that I say should be potable with a 3/4 ball hit. I repositioned the curtain so that I could NOT see the corner pocket. I shot a total of 30 shots from these spots, just randomly picking a cue ball starting position among the 7 CB postition markers... Results

# of shots = 31
# of makes = 29
# of misses = 2 (both of those were those war drums sounding shots where it just settled in the jaws... I hate when that happens)

LAST TEST. This was wasn't so hard. I put the curtain just above the side pocket and just threw out a CB and an OB for a fairly shallow angle cross side bank. All of these banks were set up within 2 daimonds of the side pocket, with the CB always up table of the OB. (I practice these, because, as the late Chris Cass Airdo said, you should NEVER miss a cross side bank). I was getting tired by now and had a helluva sweat worked up, even with the AC running full blast in my pool room. I just threw out 10 different cross side banks that were all either full ball or 3/4 ball hits.

# of bank shots = 10
# made = 9
# missed = 1 (I don't know what I did on that one, but Tyler, my son, told me I missed it by over half a ball... it hit the facing short and spun down near the corner pocket.

Summary, Taking all precautions to insure that no compensation for aim was made and that every shot was executed EXACTLY as the system describes, My shotmaking percentage in this test was 97.04%. I'll take that ANYTIME!

Now, You know I'm an engineer, and I worked in the engineering field for many years with a very well known Fiberglas Manufacturer. One thing I found out a long time ago, as a working engineer, is equations and computer models, while ideal, don't always work in the real world, and many things that do work in a mechanical setting WILL NOT work on paper.

I may be wrong, but I feel like this is the problem here. Is there an "unknown" variable that makes this system work when the equations say it should not? There is something there, Dave, because I took every possible step, to insure that I was not making any sort of compensation or adjustment and STILL made an extremely high percentage of the shots.

So here are my thoughts on the system. You don't have to trust it, JUST USE IT EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED, and it will work. You don't have to believe in it... if you execute it perfectly, you WILL MAKE THE SHOTS. I think the biggest problem with not believing it and in overanalyzing it, is that those who do overanalyze might possibly be the ones that are making those psychological compensations and "tweeking" the system a little to "help" it work. If they do that, they miss, plain and simple. As another instuctor, whom I greatly admire, told someone who was trying to pick apart another system "What you're asking me is how can I f#@k this up?" The point: Execute it perfectly and it works perfectly. It all goes back to the story about the roach, the rat, the pool player and the maze... sometimes we try SO hard to make things so complicated that we'll get them so screwed up that they'll NEVER work.

Tired of hitting balls! Don't make me do that again! LOL I'm too old to fire that many shots without a cigarette and a beer!

Later,
Bob

PS: Dave, do you remember the three rail bank in the side pocket that I showed you and LilCajun in Dallas... nothing but a 3/4 ball hit from the approximate positions the balls were in (they don't have to be in the exact position, just ball park... the shot will go), and I can make that shot on a very high percentage basis. I couldn't before I learned the aiming systems from Randy and Hal. Before, it was a SWAG shot (Silly Wild A$$ Guess), but now it's a calculated precision shot that, once I get a feel for the cloth and cushions, I'm not afraid to shoot at all.

wolfdancer
06-22-2005, 03:27 PM
C. J. wiley claims on his aiming tape that he only aims at the center or the edge of the O. B. .....using different points on the C. B. to aim with.
I'm sure someone can prove mathmetically...it can't work, just as I'm sure he compensates, but nevertheless...it works for him.
I've also heard that one could prove with aerodynamics, that helicopters can't fly ...but they do, kind of like Hal's systems.
So folks that don't use systems can argue that they don't work, and the ones that do, can swear by them.....in the meantime, they're both running tables....kind of useless to debate the issue, since neither side will come to their senses, and agree with my views....

SpiderMan
06-22-2005, 03:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Spidey, it ain't like a pair of socks, where one size fits all. If you just think of these angles as ref angles to
"get you into the ballpark" as someone else wrote...then a little tweaking, a little adjusting, and even a new player can begin hitting "home runs.
<hr /></blockquote>
I agree completely! That's my argument for why the system works.

It's a reference point, and as you say, you tweak and adjust to make the shot. Even if you don't realize you're adjusting.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
06-22-2005, 03:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> C. J. wiley claims on his aiming tape that he only aims at the center or the edge of the O. B. .....using different points on the C. B. to aim with.
I'm sure someone can prove mathmetically...it can't work, just as I'm sure he compensates, but nevertheless...it works for him.<hr /></blockquote>
Actually, I'd say that CAN work, as it's a continuous system.

SpiderMan

wolfdancer
06-22-2005, 03:41 PM
Bob, first off, congratulations on setting up such an experiment....there's a big difference between working something out on paper, then physically testing out the premise....as the designers of the Harrier aircraft soon
found out.
It would seem from a practical standpoint that you have proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the system works
BUT...we have an unknown factor here....how do we know someone didn't get to the 17 yr old, and buy him off? or maybe he was fudging the results, to help out his dad? lol
Nice going on the "lab" test.....that might convince someone to at least experiment themselves before knocking the system(s)

Cane
06-22-2005, 03:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> Even if you don't realize you're adjusting. <hr /></blockquote>

Marty, if that's true, then how can you explain what I did with that particular system this afternoon (posted above)? Did I somehow magically compensate to make the OB travel along a line to the pocket that I could not see?

Bob

wolfdancer
06-22-2005, 03:45 PM
His ref points are on the cueball, as opposed to the object ball....you might say it's Hal's system....in reverse.
How about Bob nunley's experiment?....sounds like a winner to me

dr_dave
06-22-2005, 03:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr>I used the protractor and the laser level and laid out a 39° shot (sorry, the Starrett would not be accurate in fractions of degrees in this application, so I set it up at a full 39°) and marked the cue ball position with a paper hole reinforcement to keep it constant. Both of these balls were laid out in approximately the same position as your drawing on TP A.11, but not quite. I'm sure that drawing was just an example, but the angle on that table is not 39°, at least not according to my protractor after I printed it out. Close enough, though.<hr /></blockquote>
The "cut angle" is the angle between the cue ball "aiming line" and the object ball "impact line" (the "line of centers"). Did you measure the angle from the foot string instead? I will try to verify the angle on my table and in my drawing.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr>NOW, I shot this shot aiming along the chalk line, and NOT being able to see the pocket. This INSURES a half ball hit.

Results

# of shots = 50
# of makes = 50
# of misses ZERO
<hr /></blockquote>
I will try the same experiment at home and verify that my drawing is correct. I'll report my results soon. Maybe others can also try it.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr>So here are my thoughts on the system. You don't have to trust it, JUST USE IT EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED, and it will work. You don't have to believe in it... if you execute it perfectly, you WILL MAKE THE SHOTS. I think the biggest problem with not believing it and in overanalyzing it, is that those who do overanalyze might possibly be the ones that are making those psychological compensations and "tweeking" the system a little to "help" it work. If they do that, they miss, plain and simple. As another instuctor, whom I greatly admire, told someone who was trying to pick apart another system "What you're asking me is how can I f#@k this up?" The point: Execute it perfectly and it works perfectly. It all goes back to the story about the roach, the rat, the pool player and the maze... sometimes we try SO hard to make things so complicated that we'll get them so screwed up that they'll NEVER work.<hr /></blockquote>
Thank you for sharing your perspective and thanks for your efforts. My perspective has already been expressed.

Regards,
Dave

PS: I look forward to hearing back from you and Spiderman concerning your deliberations and experiments this weekend.

Cane
06-22-2005, 04:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> The "cut angle" is the angle between the cue ball "aiming line" and the object ball "impact line" (the "line of centers"). Did you measure the angle from the foot string instead? I will try to verify the angle on my table and in my drawing.
<font color="blue">Dave, yes, I measured the cut angle as the angle between the line of centers of the object ball and the aim line of the cue ball. Don't worry about the drawing angle. It may not have printed WYSIWYG and could possible be distorted somwhere between Adobe and my Laser Printer. Not important anyways, since I moved the CB over a range of 10° in the experiment. </font color>
PS: I look forward to hearing back from you and Spiderman concerning your deliberations and experiments this weekend. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">I'm just trying to figure out how to get my clothes rack curtain in my G6! LOL Nah, maybe Spetty will loan me a sheet or a towel and we can get a couple of people to hold it.

Wendy's Friend: "Wendy, What did you do when you went to Texas?"

Wendy: "Geez, I went to play pool and this big guy with a southern drawl makes me hold a sheet over the pool table!"</font color>

Later,
Bob

Troy
06-22-2005, 07:18 PM
I've spent time with Hal and I can say the description has a basic error ---
It should discuss the two edges of the OB and three vertical lines on the CB (plus center ball to center ball for straight in shots).
The primary reason Hal's method(s) work is that the balls are (obviously) round but your mind sees them as flat.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>Hal's basic aiming system is described online (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/msg/9d491b6392cbd7de?dmode=source&amp;hl=en).
Dr. Dave <hr /></blockquote>

caedos
06-22-2005, 09:09 PM
I just lost a post I worked on for twenty minutes or so. In short, I've been teaching and studying aiming as a part of what I do pretty heavily for two years and off and on for two years before that. There is no system on the planet that can remove the creative or artistic and imaginative components of performing.


I like what Fred said:"There is no reason to show where it doesn't work if people are saying it works. If it works as people are saying, then it is more useful to find out why it works, not why it doesn't work. Aren't you more interested in finding out how to pocket balls as opposed to how not to? "


I agree that there are analytically proveable impossible shots in S.A.M. Usually I'm having this explained to me while I'm watching several other students using S.A.M. with great success. It's an analytical reference used to execute with peace of mind. A 'driver', 'creative', or whatever Briggs-Meyer type personality that just does things without much thought will believe or 'see' the system and just let their brain/body do all of the work and not stress the details. The theoretically proveable impossibilities will get shot in like any other shot, by using an agreeable aimpoint and telling the brain/body to pocket the ball. Trust the system? Maybe that's needed. Trust yourself and your stroke? Highly recommended. Seeing the shot go in before doing so? I believe this must happen on some level for almost everyone who's played very long at all. Running out like magic? Priceless! For everything else, there's _________(insert credit card, noun, or favorite results oriented behavior)!

"If people don't wanna come to the park, no one's going to stop them." - Yogi Berra

'nighty-night,


C

Thunderduck
06-22-2005, 09:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote caedos:</font><hr> I just lost a post I worked on for twenty minutes or so. In short, I've been teaching and studying aiming as a part of what I do pretty heavily for two years and off and on for two years before that. There is no system on the planet that can remove the creative or artistic and imaginative components of performing.



<hr /></blockquote>

Yes, I agree with this... I'd rather use my imagination and feelings then trust some overly analytical mathematical system... even the ghostball system is very useless, in my opinion...

Qtec
06-22-2005, 10:48 PM
Cane, do you think that just because you cant see the pocket, you dont know where it is?
Try the same experiment shooting to a piont on the table and not a pocket.
Something like this.

START(
%Ag7O3%BL7P8%CJ5O4%DT0N5%EM7P1%FK6P1%GK6N8%HK1O3%I T3K0%JK6M5
%KJ5P7%LJ5N2%MK6Q4%NJ5R0%OJ5M0%Pp8U0%QS0K9%WW1M0%X f4N6%]i8P1
%^o6T4
)END
wei (http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/%7Ewei/pool/pooltable2.html)

Qtec

wolfdancer
06-22-2005, 10:53 PM
so it all comes down to M.B.P.T.....or even Carl Jung..that will determine if SAM will work for you.....who wudda thought??

charlieb
06-22-2005, 11:03 PM
I talked to Hal 11 days ago and thoroughly enjoyed myself. I am an old guy who didn't take up the sport until I was 58 and have bad vision. (trifocals) You are all way above my level of play and knowledge and much more analytical. For the time being I am having a ball with the system Hal explained to me. I am pocketing balls far more consistently and am gaining confidence daily. Fundamentals are crucial but are also useless if you do not have confidence in your basic aiming system. Somebody used the "term wild ass guess" and that type of play is masochistic. I may not understand all of the points made here but I do know that pool is a lot more fun now. Thanks Hal.

Qtec
06-22-2005, 11:07 PM
Dave, Hal is obviously a very clever guy. He used to teach tennis so he probably has a good grounding in psychology.
IMO, Hal likes to fish, internet forums are the pond, his posts are the bait and I dont have to tell you who the fish are! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec

caedos
06-23-2005, 06:23 AM
On a seven foot table, SAM is the best thing I’ve ever seen. You can be as analytical as you like at those short distances and relatively huge pockets. Jung doesn’t get involved until the table gets bigger and the pockets are shimmed!

Jungianism: Aiming is a dream, be the dream.
Taoism: Aiming happens.
Buddhism: If Aiming happens, it isn’t really Aiming.
Zen Buddhism: If Aiming happens, it isn’t really Aiming. What is the sound of Aiming happening?
Catholicism: If Aiming happens, you deserve it. If not, practice until you deserve it. If you aim poorly, practice until you are forgiven.
Congregationalist: Aiming that happens to one person is just as good as Aiming that happens to another.
Unitarianism: Aiming that happens to one person is just as bad as Aiming that happens to another.
Lutheran: If Aiming happens, don’t talk about it.
Seventh Day Adventist: No Aiming shall happen on Saturday.
Creationism: God made all aiming.
Secular Humanism: Aiming evolves.
Utopianism: This Aiming does not stink.
Capitalism: That’s my Aiming!
Communism: It’s everyone’s Aiming!
Commercialism: Let’s package that Aiming!
Impressionism: From a distance, Aiming looks like a garden.
Idolism: Let’s bronze this Aiming.
Existentialism: Aiming doesn’t happen; Aiming IS. What is Aiming anyway?
Jehovah’s Witnesses: &gt;Knock&gt;Knock&gt;Knock… May we have a moment of your time to show you some of our Aiming? Only the righteous Aiming will survive.
Moonies: Only really happy Aiming happens.
Hare Krishna: Aiming happens, rama rama.
Satanism: Sneppah Gnimia
Atheism: I don’t believe in Aiming.
Nietzsche: Don't battle with Aiming, lest ye are ready to Aim with yourself. And if you stare at the table, the table also stares at you.
Freudianism: Lust, rage, and repression battle in the struggle to Aim. Tell me about your mother.
Alcoholism: My Aiming is under control.
Alcoholics Anonymous: We must aim one day at a time according to the twelve steps.
Howard Jones: What is Aiming, anyway?
Maroon 5 (Pool Instructor Version): What you are shooting is screwing things up inside my head. You should Aim better you never listened to a word I said. Clutching your cue stick and writhing in a useless stance. Hoping somebody someday that plays you has no chance.
Shakespeare: To aim, or not to aim; that is the question.

Pick what works for you or make up a new one.

-Carl

wolfdancer
06-23-2005, 06:38 AM
very funny....!!!!

Fred Agnir
06-23-2005, 07:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> His ref points are on the cueball, as opposed to the object ball....you might say it's Hal's system....in reverse.<hr /></blockquote>Oh, I would say that reference points on the cueball is also represented in one or many of Hal's systems. I think the one CJ teaches is one of the first one Hal described to me.

Fred

dr_dave
06-23-2005, 07:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr>NOW, I shot this shot aiming along the chalk line, and NOT being able to see the pocket. This INSURES a half ball hit.

Results

# of shots = 50
# of makes = 50
# of misses ZERO
<hr /></blockquote>
I will try the same experiment at home and verify that my drawing is correct. I'll report my results soon. Maybe others can also try it.<hr /></blockquote>
Experiment completed. I set up the shot exactly as shown in my illustration in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf). I measured the cut angle with a protractor and checked my drawing again. The angle was in fact 39 degrees (in the real world AND on paper). Here are my results for the 1/2-ball hit:

# of shots = 10
# of makes = 0
# of misses = 10

I didn't shoot more than 10, because the OB was hitting very close to the cushion spot shown in the diagram for every shot (i.e., not very close to the pocket). I honestly don't think I would make that shot in a million years shooting a 1/2-ball hit.

Now, when I aimed the shot where I thought I should, by "seeing the angle" and visualizing the required ghost-ball target and visualizing the necessary contact point, and aiming a little outside of the 1/2-ball hit, and whatever else my brain does when I aim normally, my results were:

# of shots = 10
# of makes = 10
# of misses = 0

I suspect I would miss this shot many times in a million years, but when I had good concentration, focus, and technique, I felt fairly confident.

As another experiment, I moved the CB some towards the end rail to the point where the 1/2-ball-hit direction was lined up perfectly to make the ball in the side pocket. It was no surprise what my results were (shooting a 1/2-ball hit):

# of shots = 10
# of makes = 10
# of misses = 0

I think the only possible explanations for the radical disagreement in our experimental results are:
- you didn't line up the shot the same way I did (i.e., as shown in the drawing).
- you weren't actually hitting 1/2 of the OB. Maybe, if you are sighting down a line off the CB center (as the Hal system recommends), visual distortion (e.g., parallax) causes you to hit less than 1/2 the OB even though it might appear that you are hitting 1/2.
- something spooky is happening under that sheet. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
- you really did get too much sun on your fishing trip. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I hope others also try the experiment. Hopefully, independent experimental verification will paint a clearer picture.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-23-2005, 07:36 AM
My drawings in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf) do clearly show the aiming lines going through the two edges of the OB and the three lines of the CB. The balls ARE round in my drawings. Now, in 3D, the balls are spherical (I guess the world's not flat after all /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif), and any lines you might talk about could also have elevation, and that elevation (and the resulting 3D perspective) would change with the height, position, and angle of your head. However, the way Hal described the system to me (and I asked many questions of him on the phone), my drawings do adequately represent the top (overhead) view of what he describes. I've asked Hal for feedback on my analysis, but he hasn't returned my call yet. I will report back after Hal and I talk again.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> I've spent time with Hal and I can say the description has a basic error ---
It should discuss the two edges of the OB and three vertical lines on the CB (plus center ball to center ball for straight in shots).
The primary reason Hal's method(s) work is that the balls are (obviously) round but your mind sees them as flat.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>Hal's basic aiming system is described online (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/msg/9d491b6392cbd7de?dmode=source&amp;hl=en).
Dr. Dave <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-23-2005, 07:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Dave, ... IMO, Hal likes to fish, internet forums are the pond, his posts are the bait and I dont have to tell you who the fish are! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif<hr /></blockquote>
You should be a poet. That's a cute story. I also enjoy dabbling in pool poetry (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=187418&amp;page =0&amp;view=&amp;sb=&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=&amp;PHPSESSID=) at times.

Regards,
Dave

PS: It's funny, but I've had a strange craving for worms lately.

Cueless Joey
06-23-2005, 07:46 AM
Dr. D, have you read Marvin Chin's equal parts aiming system?
That one is physically correct imo.
If the contact point is half an inch from the right edge of the ob, the cueballs contact point will be half an inch form the left side.
Thnx.

SpiderMan
06-23-2005, 07:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> Even if you don't realize you're adjusting. <hr /></blockquote>

Marty, if that's true, then how can you explain what I did with that particular system this afternoon (posted above)? Did I somehow magically compensate to make the OB travel along a line to the pocket that I could not see?

Bob <hr /></blockquote>

Bob,

My gut feel is "yes". You know where the pocket is, whether you see it or not. I don't look at the pocket when I shoot, either.

If the pocket were moved two inches either way, you would have missed, correct? So if both the cueball and OB were moved two inches (moving together, so your visualization, aim, and contact points are unchanged) you would also miss, unless you compensate by realizing this.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
06-23-2005, 07:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> Dr. D, have you read Marvin Chin's equal parts aiming system?
That one is physically correct imo.
If the contact point is half an inch from the right edge of the ob, the cueballs contact point will be half an inch form the left side.
Thnx. <hr /></blockquote>

I also have Marvin Chin's book, and have analyzed his system. It is geometrically correct for all shots, and it makes sense to some people to visualize that way.

I don't use that (or any) system, preferring to aim by instinct (or perhaps subconscious integration of many methods, primarily ghost ball), but if I took the time I believe Chin's system could possibly help me in some situations where I'm having a little trouble "seeing" what to do.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
06-23-2005, 07:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Dave, Hal is obviously a very clever guy. He used to teach tennis so he probably has a good grounding in psychology.
IMO, Hal likes to fish, internet forums are the pond, his posts are the bait and I dont have to tell you who the fish are! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec <hr /></blockquote>
Also consider that, at some point in our lives, we become increasingly attuned to where we may be going next and what legacy we may leave behind. This "point in our lives" varies by individual, but my parents' are Hal's age and I see this in them.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
06-23-2005, 08:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> His ref points are on the cueball, as opposed to the object ball....you might say it's Hal's system....in reverse.
<hr /></blockquote>
You said, in your prior post, that you are sure that CJ Wiley "compensates". If you apply that same logic to Hal, we are in total agreement.

SpiderMan

Fred Agnir
06-23-2005, 08:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> Dr. D, have you read Marvin Chin's equal parts aiming system?
That one is physically correct imo.
If the contact point is half an inch from the right edge of the ob, the cueballs contact point will be half an inch form the left side.
Thnx. <hr /></blockquote>This is one of the double-the-distance systems that is "geometrically correct." It is, IMO, much more difficult to see visualize this type of aiming.

Fred

Cueless Joey
06-23-2005, 08:07 AM
Thnx Spidey.
I'm the same way.
It's easier for me to see the ghost.
I just pause with the shaft in line, imagine the two balls colliding and the result.
I supplement it by knowing the tangent line and pretend the center of the pocket is closer .

dr_dave
06-23-2005, 08:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Dave, Hal is obviously a very clever guy. He used to teach tennis so he probably has a good grounding in psychology.
IMO, Hal likes to fish, internet forums are the pond, his posts are the bait and I dont have to tell you who the fish are! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec <hr /></blockquote>
Also consider that, at some point in our lives, we become increasingly attuned to where we may be going next and what legacy we may leave behind. This "point in our lives" varies by individual, but my parents' are Hal's age and I see this in them.<hr /></blockquote>
I also see this in my parents. And like with my parents, I have tremendous respect and admiration for Hal. He has a wealth of experience and knowledge to share, AND he is very willing to share it. He is a mensch (I'm not Jewish, but I love that word)! I still think it is OK to disagree, as long as it is done respectfully and after considering everything he or she has to say. I think wise people like Hal invite such disagreement, embrace it, and use it as an opportunity to share even more.

Dave

PS: Spiderman, please check under Cane's sheet for me this weekend.

SpiderMan
06-23-2005, 08:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> PS: Spiderman, please check under Cane's sheet for me this weekend. <hr /></blockquote>

I'm not sticking around for the sleepover, but if I were, and if I did, hopefully I'd find his girlfriend /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan

dr_dave
06-23-2005, 08:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> PS: Spiderman, please check under Cane's sheet for me this weekend. <hr /></blockquote>

I'm not sticking around for the sleepover, but if I were, and if I did, hopefully I'd find his girlfriend /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>
I hope Cane is as good under the sheet with his girlfriend as he is with pocket pool (woops, I meant pocket billiards). /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Sorry Cane. I couldn't resist with such a perfect set up from Spidey. I hope you don't mind.

Dave

Cane
06-23-2005, 08:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> I think the only possible explanations for the radical disagreement in our experimental results are:
- you didn't line up the shot the same way I did (i.e., as shown in the drawing).

<font color="blue">Thinking that was possible, I went back to the table last night and double checked. The markers are still in place on the table from yesterday and the original line is, indeed, dead on 39°. BUT, even if they weren't exactly the same way as yours, since I did put other markers all throughout a 10° range and shot the half ball hit from all of those spots, it wouldn't have made any difference, would it.</font color>

- you weren't actually hitting 1/2 of the OB.

<font color="blue">or maybe you weren't actually hitting 1/2 of the OB... compensation??? </font color>

Maybe, if you are sighting down a line off the CB center (as the Hal system recommends)

<font color="blue">This particular range of shots doesn' require that you sight anything but down the center of the CB. Besides, I was sighting center of CB down a chalk line that went to the edge of the OB, so I can't see that as being a variable. </font color>

visual distortion (e.g., parallax) causes you to hit less than 1/2 the OB even though it might appear that you are hitting 1/2.

<font color="blue">Now, I have to ask this... have you ever "calibrated in" your half ball hit? If not, then you need to, even if you never use this aiming system. There are so many shooting and safety applications that are just sooooo sweet when you have a prefect half ball hit that having one calibrated in is, IMO, an absolute MUST! Ever heard of the "golden angle".

OK, when I was shooting in contacts and glasses, my perception of a half ball hit was different. I actually had to line up like I was hitting 1/16th inside half ball to actually achieve a half ball hit. In January, I got the Lasik procedure done, and it screwed up my aiming big time. I was hitting EVERYTHING a little full. I had to re-calibrate my half ball hit, and now what my surgically altered eyes see is that I have to hit to EXACTLY half ball... much different than before. See, our eyes are tricky things. What one persons eyes see as reality is not always reality. Here's how I calibrated my half ball hit... set up an appoximately 30 to 35° shot to a corner pocket. Shoot at half ball adjusting, until you not only make that ball, but make it exactly CENTER POCKET every time. Be sure to use some kind of markers so that you're shooting exactly the same shot every time. Most people will be shooting exactly half ball. Some people will be shooting to what appears to them as a little inside half ball or a little outside half ball. This calibration process is, in my opinion, VERY IMPORTANT, and I do apologize to any of you who've tried this for not bringing it up before. </font color>

- something spooky is happening under that sheet. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<font color="blue">Dave, uh... well, Billie went to see the Chippendales in Fort Smith last night, and the spookie stuff under the sheets after she got back... well, maybe that's for non-pool related thread!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

- you really did get too much sun on your fishing trip. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<font color="blue"> Well, the old schnoz is still peeling a little bit and I'm told that there are some pictures on my buddy's computer of me on the Jetty that I really wouldn't want published, but I wore a hat... only brain cells destroyed were by Jim Beam! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

I hope others also try the experiment. Hopefully, independent experimental verification will paint a clearer picture.

<font color="blue">I absolutely agree with you on that. I think aiming is a very individual thing. Hal has, to my knowledge, 23 aiming systems. One that's really my preference, is a pivot system.

In any case, aiming, whether it be CJ's system, Toms, Randy's, Hals, or "feel", or rote, is a personal choice, and for an experienced player that can hit 95% plus on his shots, why mess with success? But as instuctors, we must be able to offer something to those who can't pocket balls at a 95% success rate. These and 5 other easy systems that I've learned, IMO, are ONE OF the answers. Are they the "End All, Cure All". NO, Absolutely not! You still have to have the experience.

I asked a great straight pool player one time how I could get as good as he was. He just looked at me and smiled, and said "5000 miles... Son, you have to walk 5000 miles around the table". What he was telling me was that no matter how much technical knowledge I had, I had to stack the experience on top of it. EXPERIENCE! The only thing that will let you get comfortable enough to let that creative side of your mind go free and just shoot pool... </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Later,
Bob

Troy
06-23-2005, 08:43 AM
Yes, the balls are round in your drawings --- so what ???
OK, your "drawings do adequately represent the top (overhead) view" --- again, so what ???
As I said, the "mind sees them as flat."
Maybe I should have been more clear -- the spherical ball appears FLAT to your mind's eye but in actuality the true contact point moves around both spheres. The result is is far fewer aiming angles than pure science/math/protractors would lead you to believe were the balls flat.

Troy~~~... Wonders if that made sense... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> My drawings in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf) do clearly show the aiming lines going through the two edges of the OB and the three lines of the CB. The balls ARE round in my drawings. Now, in 3D, the balls are spherical (I guess the world's not flat after all /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif), and any lines you might talk about could also have elevation, and that elevation (and the resulting 3D perspective) would change with the height, position, and angle of your head. However, the way Hal described the system to me (and I asked many questions of him on the phone), my drawings do adequately represent the top (overhead) view of what he describes. I've asked Hal for feedback on my analysis, but he hasn't returned my call yet. I will report back after Hal and I talk again.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> I've spent time with Hal and I can say the description has a basic error ---
It should discuss the two edges of the OB and three vertical lines on the CB (plus center ball to center ball for straight in shots).
The primary reason Hal's method(s) work is that the balls are (obviously) round but your mind sees them as flat.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>Hal's basic aiming system is described online (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/msg/9d491b6392cbd7de?dmode=source&amp;hl=en).
Dr. Dave <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Cane
06-23-2005, 08:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> PS: Spiderman, please check under Cane's sheet for me this weekend. <hr /></blockquote>

I'm not sticking around for the sleepover, but if I were, and if I did, hopefully I'd find his girlfriend /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

HEY, if you find anyone BESIDES Billie under there, you have to keep it quiet... either that or get ready for me to move in with YOU! Cause I won't have a place to live!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Later,
Bob

Cane
06-23-2005, 08:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I hope Cane is as good under the sheet with his girlfriend as he is with pocket pool (woops, I meant pocket billiards). /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Sorry Cane. I couldn't resist with such a perfect set up from Spidey. I hope you don't mind.
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

LOL, No I don't mind at all! I wouldn't have been able to resist if the tables were turned! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Bob (playing with his shaft and balls on a regular basis... The wood and phenolic ones, guys!!!)

Barbara
06-23-2005, 09:18 AM
Thanks for the info, Dr. Dave. It's all very good, but how does this work with pocketing the ball?

I see the two outside edges of the CB and the quarters and the center of the OB, so what do you do, stand directly behind the OB and line it up to the pocket you want to putit in and draw a line through the OB to see where you're going to hit it?

Barbara

dr_dave
06-23-2005, 09:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> I think the only possible explanations for the radical disagreement in our experimental results are:
...
- you weren't actually hitting 1/2 of the OB.

<font color="blue">or maybe you weren't actually hitting 1/2 of the OB... compensation??? </font color>

<font color="red">Fair enough. I accept that as a possibility.
Although, in my illustration (at the bottom of TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf)), the shot is lined up exactly as a 1/2-ball hit, and it misses the pocket by a large margin.</font color>

<font color="blue">Now, I have to ask this... have you ever "calibrated in" your half ball hit? If not, then you need to, even if you never use this aiming system. There are so many shooting and safety applications that are just sooooo sweet when you have a prefect half ball hit that having one calibrated in is, IMO, an absolute MUST! Ever heard of the "golden angle".</font color>

<font color="red">I've written many articles (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/bd_articles/index.html) on the 30 degree rule (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=168248&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1) and demonstrated many shots using the 1/2-ball hit (which is the center of the range where the 30 degree rule applies), and it is very easy to visualize, so I don't think 1/2-ball hit calibration is the problem, but I'll check it out anyway. Also, I am still hoping other people will try the experiment. Maybe others will have insight into why our results disagree and, in particular, why your results are in conflict with my illustration.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-23-2005, 09:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr>the true contact point moves around both spheres.<hr /></blockquote>
I and my drawings agree with you on this point.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr>The result is is far fewer aiming angles<hr /></blockquote>
This is where we disagree.

Regards,
Dave

Qtec
06-23-2005, 10:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This particular range of shots doesn' require that you sight anything but down the center of the CB. Besides, I was sighting center of CB down a chalk line that went to the edge of the OB, so I can't see that as being a variable. <hr /></blockquote>


[ QUOTE ]
I put the object ball in position and snapped a chalk line to the outer edge of the object ball from the center of the paper hole reinforcement marking the position of the object ball <hr /></blockquote>


?

Q

Cane
06-23-2005, 10:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
This particular range of shots doesn' require that you sight anything but down the center of the CB. Besides, I was sighting center of CB down a chalk line that went to the edge of the OB, so I can't see that as being a variable. <hr /></blockquote>


&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I put the object ball in position and snapped a chalk line to the outer edge of the object ball from the center of the paper hole reinforcement marking the position of the <font color="red"> CUE </font color> ball <hr /></blockquote>


Sorry, Q, that should have read to the CUE ball's center... correction in Red and I'll do an edit on the original post, also.

Later,
Bob

?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-23-2005, 10:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> Thanks for the info, Dr. Dave. It's all very good, but how does this work with pocketing the ball?<hr /></blockquote>
I actually don't use the aiming systems (the fractional system or Hal's system) presented in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf). I just presented them to show that they are the same geometrically. I also presented an example to help clear up some of the debate that started earlier.

I personally use a combination of straight intuition (just "seeing the angle"), ghost ball aiming (see NV 3.1 and NV 3.2 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/normal_videos/index.html)), and contact point visualization. Bottom line: I just visualize the aim without using any kind of fractional on fixed-reference compensation system. I certainly don't use any kind of math or numbers when I aim, like some people have suggested. I think my aim is usually very good; although, my execution isn't always perfect.

I think (but know) that if a scientific survey were done with all of the pro players, many (maybe even most) of them would say that aiming comes naturally (i.e., its "intuitive" or they just "see the angle"), because they have played so much. Some people might find the How the Pros Aim article (http://www.sfbilliards.com/PnB_aiming.pdf) interesting; although, it is not the result of a rigorous scientific study.

Regards,
Dave

wolfdancer
06-23-2005, 10:47 AM
Hal has stated that he showed that system to C.J.

Cane
06-23-2005, 11:20 AM
The link Dave provided on Aiming from Bob Jewetts site is a great read... however, I'm going to use it for my side of the debate, here! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif'

I won't exactly quote the article here, because it's a reprint of a magazine article, and I don't have their permission, the authors permission or Bob J's permission, but if you'll go to the article and read on page 5 of the article, Nelsi O'Hare talking about the aiming system that Efren Reyes taught her. Is that not exactly the same as one of Hal's systems? I mean, surely we can all agree that Efren Reyes is one of the all time greats of pool, yet he doesn't use an infinite number of angles, rather just divides the object ball into 4 quarters and aims the edge of the cue ball at one of those. OR.... maybe they call him the Magician because the aiming method he uses JUST CAN'T WORK! Yet, at that time in his life, and even today, Efren pulls off some of the most amazing shots ever seen on a pool table.

Mary Guarino also talks about a fractional aiming method just like this. I like her Edges of the Shaft idea of the 45° cuts... going to try that later today.

Regardless of point of view or interpretation of the statements in the article, it's a great read and will give insight to many of the pros philosopy on aiming.

Later,
Bob

dr_dave
06-23-2005, 12:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr> The link Dave provided on Aiming from Bob Jewetts site is a great read<hr /></blockquote>
For easy access, here's the link (http://www.sfbilliards.com/PnB_aiming.pdf) to the article.

Dave

Fred Agnir
06-23-2005, 03:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <font color="red">Fair enough. I accept that as a possibility.
Although, in my illustration (at the bottom of TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf)), the shot is lined up exactly as a 1/2-ball hit, and it misses the pocket by a large margin.</font color> <hr /></blockquote>I must comment on this. Please throw the diagram away. Using it, a geometric 2D representation as some kind of proof is as ridiculous as Patrick telling us that he's the greatest pool player because he plays Virtual Pool like a master.

Further, as people continue to discuss the fractional aiming, you are getting further and further away from any of Hal's systems. None of your or any predecessors drawings represent anything that Hal teaches. He doesn't draw little diagrams, so if he said that your drawings represent what he's talking about, he was appeasing your analytical mind.

As Hal told me, draw whatever you want with whatever lines pointing at the balls and such. But only using the systems on the pool table matters.

Maybe I'll meet up with some CCBers in the northeast, show two or three Hal systems that I know, and then they can come back on here and tell you how far away the systems are from the diagrams.

Fred

Cane
06-23-2005, 03:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'll meet up with some CCBers in the northeast, show two or three Hal systems that I know, and then they can come back on here and tell you how far away the systems are from the diagrams.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Fred,

I'd love to learn what you have from Hal. I know a few of his systems, and hopefully what he's taught me and what he's taught you won't overlap too much. I know 5 of his systems, I think... maybe six... I have notes made on them, and would have to look at the notes to be sure. I really only use 2 of them in conjunction, but the others, from what experience I've had with them, work equally as well.

I'm going to try to make the US Open and almost certainly the DCC in January. Hard to do on an Air Force Retirement Check, but after this move is complete, expenses are going to drop drastically! Hopefully we can get together at one of those, if not somewhere in between.

Bob

Fred Agnir
06-23-2005, 03:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr> Fred,

I'd love to learn what you have from Hal. I know a few of his systems, and hopefully what he's taught me and what he's taught you won't overlap too much. <hr /></blockquote>If you look at my other post, that particular shot is part of a "system" that Hal calls "Shish Kebob" since the initial aim point is through the center of the cueball as if you were going to skewer it. There is some pivoting after that, but if you were going to use that inside english, you'd stay right there at the center. Notice (everyone), that there is no mention of 1/4 ball or centerball alignment.

There are a few other that are very similar to the Shish Kebab method, but they take advantage of both edges as aiming guides, rather than the center of the object ball.

That's more intriguing tidbits than the diagrams, IMO.

Fred

dr_dave
06-23-2005, 03:48 PM
Fred,

Have you tried the shot shown in the bottom of TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf) yet? If so, does the "Hal 30-degree cut" aim work for you? Do you get a 1/2-ball hit when you use that aim? I think the answer to this 2nd question must be no if you make the shot. That's what my diagrams and example show.

Hal told me that for the "Hal 30-degree cut" I should aim the line through the right edge of the CB at the center of the OB. When I do that, I get a 1/2-ball hit. Maybe I'm compensating my aim subconsciously, but that's hard to accept (but I don't exclude it as a possibility).

Fred, I hope you don't think I'm just being a jerk continuing this debate. I truly want to know why the Hal system works for people. And I am still hoping others will try the shot with the Hal aiming method and report their results. If I have misrepresented the method, you and Hal have my apologies. If so, please instruct people how to execute the example shot so the experimental results will be worthwhile.

I'm still hoping to get an explanation that I and other doubters can accept. Respectfully,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <font color="red">Fair enough. I accept that as a possibility.
Although, in my illustration (at the bottom of TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf)), the shot is lined up exactly as a 1/2-ball hit, and it misses the pocket by a large margin.</font color> <hr /></blockquote>I must comment on this. Please throw the diagram away. Using it, a geometric 2D representation as some kind of proof is as ridiculous as Patrick telling us that he's the greatest pool player because he plays Virtual Pool like a master.

Further, as people continue to discuss the fractional aiming, you are getting further and further away from any of Hal's systems. None of your or any predecessors drawings represent anything that Hal teaches. He doesn't draw little diagrams, so if he said that your drawings represent what he's talking about, he was appeasing your analytical mind.

As Hal told me, draw whatever you want with whatever lines pointing at the balls and such. But only using the systems on the pool table matters.

Maybe I'll meet up with some CCBers in the northeast, show two or three Hal systems that I know, and then they can come back on here and tell you how far away the systems are from the diagrams.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Fred Agnir
06-23-2005, 03:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Fred,

Have you tried the shot shown in the bottom of TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf) yet? If so, does the "Hal 30-degree cut" aim work for you? Do you get a 1/2-ball hit when you use that aim? I think the answer to this 2nd question must be no if you make the shot. That's what my diagrams and example show.
<hr /></blockquote>Dave, I can only say it again. Throw the diagram away. If I were to use Hal's System, I would probably use any of the "steep angle" setups (as opposed to 'narrow angle').

If by your diagram the 1/2 ball hit doesn't work and the 1/4 ball doesn't work, then hit it in the middle. There, you have one more point, not an infinite amount of points. Maybe I'm not being clear enough. Find out where and why it works. As an analytical person, you will find that (as I said previously), at the very least, you'll find that there are only a few finite spots on the ball necessary to aim, and not an infinite amount. We humans aren't acurate enough to discern and execute more than the few.

If you start with any of his systems, you will start with two aim points, not three, not five. Are there more? Yes. You will find them if you learn the first two. (Hal will probably bitch at me for saying that). But with two, just two, you'll be able to pocket some 90% of the shots available. How does that compare to your current method? People use the Ghost Ball all the time, but if it worked, we'd all be pros. But we're not. There's a flaw in that we humans have a difficult time visualizing a point in 3D space somewhere down the table. It's optics. Our eyes are tricky and play tricks on us. If you can get a system that uses aim points that are real and readily available (edges and centers), then that's the strength of all of Hal's systems.

I did the diagram drawings when I first started talking with Hal several years ago. What I've found is that you cannot draw what he's explaining. Not easily.

Fred

onepocketchump
06-23-2005, 04:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr>The "trust it, it'll work" guys will demonstrate to you over and over again that it works (for them). They seem to truly believe that they're doing what they say and that what they're doing is giving the real results of pocketing balls. But they can't explain the physics behind it.

The "the geometry and physics prove it's impossible" guys will show you over and over again that it's impossible as described. They seem to truly believe that the other guys are fooling themselves and are sub- or un-consciously adjusting their aim to pocket the ball.

If we could just get those two ends to come together in the middle, we'd have something truly special!<hr /></blockquote>
I propose that we call the solution to this problem: "The Grand Unified Theory of Pool." /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

BTW, I don't think the people that can reliably pocket shots with Hal's system are fooling themselves. I just think they are damn good pool players, because anybody that can pocket a wide range of shots (various cut angles and distances) reliably are just good ... period. Just like I think the pros that claim to use no system at all (other than just "seeing the angle") are also awesome.

Dave <hr /></blockquote>


Here is my anecdotal "proof" that Hal's systems work. My game went up three balls after learning some of them. After showing them to rank beginners they began pocketing balls that they previously could not make one in ten times. The beginners had no possible way to make subconcious adjustments since their skill levels were no sufficient to have had made those shots hundreds or thousands of times before.

My theory on "why" Hal's systems work is this. There is only one line to aim on to get the object ball into the hole. This line may have a minute deviation but there is only one. Hal's systems force the player to approach the ball on that line. If you were to take a player who was lined up correctly using the "book taught" ghost-ball method and a player lined up using Hal's system then the resulting overlay would have both player's cuesticks on nearly the same line, near enough that both shots executed correctly would result in a pocketed ball. And this will be the case for about 99% of shots on a pool table.

The thing that is often not discussed here as far as I can tell is what part backhand english plays in this. Forgive me if it has been discussed extensively as I do not read the forums very much anymore. For me, where Hal's systems diverge the most from convention is where they are not dependent on compensation for squirt and deflection. At least this is my experience.

In my experience with Hal's systems I line up and then swivel my backhand to make the tip stroke towards the quadrant of the cueball for the english I need. Then I just shoot it and watch the object ball go in and the cueball go where I want it to. Where I screw up, even now, is A. not trusting the system and B. twitching in my stroke/delivery.

I also don't think that the sytems can be diagramed properly in 2D. I personally think that they are firmly rooted in the perspective that is experienced when approaching three dimensional objects. I believe that the ghost-ball method became popular because it is easy to diagram on paper. After meeting Hal and starting to try and figure out the how and why of his systems I came to understand and find out that most top players use some form of systems akin to his to the point where it is instinctive and they pretty much automatically line up correctly.

This comes from intensely studying players like Bustamente and Reyes and Morris and truthfully just asking them. There is a geometric and physical reason why they work. The great teachers know that these types of aiming systems (guides/techniques) work and they teach them to varying degrees. But trying to diagram them is another story - believe me, I have tried.

So, the first guy who can demonstrate this on paper and video can be the one who starts the next wave of pool instructional materials and establishes the methods for the next 50 years.

Meanwhile, I'll try and forget the first 18 years of ghost-ball and keep winning with Hal's methods.

john

Qtec
06-23-2005, 07:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Fred,

Have you tried the shot shown in the bottom of TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf) yet? If so, does the "Hal 30-degree cut" aim work for you? Do you get a 1/2-ball hit when you use that aim? I think the answer to this 2nd question must be no if you make the shot. That's what my diagrams and example show.
<hr /></blockquote>Dave, I can only say it again. Throw the diagram away. If I were to use Hal's System, I would probably use any of the "steep angle" setups (as opposed to 'narrow angle').

If by your diagram the 1/2 ball hit doesn't work and the 1/4 ball doesn't work, then hit it in the middle. <font color="blue"> So basically, Dave could play that shot all day and only make that shot by accident or by adjusting his aiming point! </font color> There, you have one more point, not an infinite amount of points. Maybe I'm not being clear enough. Find out where and why it works. As an analytical person, you will find that (as I said previously), at the very least, you'll find that there are only a few finite spots on the ball necessary to aim, and not an infinite amount. We humans aren't acurate enough to discern and execute more than the few. <font color="blue"> I dont think thats true. Qball, actual size;</font color>

http://www.billiardsinstruction.com/_borders/ballintable.gif
<font color="blue"> I think most people could hit at least 2 different points in the first 15 degrees alone.</font color>

If you start with any of his systems, you will start with two aim points, not three, not five. Are there more? Yes. You will find them if you learn the first two. (Hal will probably bitch at me for saying that). But with two, just two, you'll be able to pocket some 90% of the shots available. How does that compare to your current method? <font color="blue">If you are a pro it would be a step down. </font color> People use the Ghost Ball all the time, but if it worked, we'd all be pros. But we're not. <font color="blue"> LOL. So what are you saying, that we are not all pros because we use the wrong aiming system/method! </font color> There's a flaw in that we humans have a difficult time visualizing a point in 3D space somewhere down the table. <font color="blue"> </font color> It's optics. Our eyes are tricky and play tricks on us. If you can get a system that uses aim points that are real and readily available (edges and centers), then that's the strength of all of Hal's systems.

I did the diagram drawings when I first started talking with Hal several years ago. What I've found is that you cannot draw what he's explaining. Not easily.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec

GStrong
06-23-2005, 11:18 PM
I would just like to add another positive vote in the pro Hal system. I just learned one of his systems three days ago and the results have been phenominal. Unlike you dave, (don't take this the wrong way), instead of writing a paper about it, I learned it, then practiced on my table for about 6 hours refining what I had learned, then six more the next night, at work today, but itching to get back to it tomorrow. Like Fred said, take the paper, put it in the trash and try to figure out what he is talking about. I guarantee I would make that shot (from you diagram) using Hal's system. For some reason, when you line up the shot, you get down over your cue, you can just feel the shot locked in. Unbelievable, but the system is just awesome!!! There have been two major milestones in my pool playing career - 1st, when I learned to used backhanded english and 2nd when I learned this system!!! If you read this, Thanks Hal!!!!

Thunderduck
06-23-2005, 11:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote caedos:</font><hr> On a seven foot table, SAM is the best thing I’ve ever seen. You can be as analytical as you like at those short distances and relatively huge pockets. Jung doesn’t get involved until the table gets bigger and the pockets are shimmed!

Jungianism: Aiming is a dream, be the dream.
Taoism: Aiming happens.
Buddhism: If Aiming happens, it isn’t really Aiming.
Zen Buddhism: If Aiming happens, it isn’t really Aiming. What is the sound of Aiming happening?
Catholicism: If Aiming happens, you deserve it. If not, practice until you deserve it. If you aim poorly, practice until you are forgiven.
Congregationalist: Aiming that happens to one person is just as good as Aiming that happens to another.
Unitarianism: Aiming that happens to one person is just as bad as Aiming that happens to another.
Lutheran: If Aiming happens, don’t talk about it.
Seventh Day Adventist: No Aiming shall happen on Saturday.
Creationism: God made all aiming.
Secular Humanism: Aiming evolves.
Utopianism: This Aiming does not stink.
Capitalism: That’s my Aiming!
Communism: It’s everyone’s Aiming!
Commercialism: Let’s package that Aiming!
Impressionism: From a distance, Aiming looks like a garden.
Idolism: Let’s bronze this Aiming.
Existentialism: Aiming doesn’t happen; Aiming IS. What is Aiming anyway?
Jehovah’s Witnesses: &gt;Knock&gt;Knock&gt;Knock… May we have a moment of your time to show you some of our Aiming? Only the righteous Aiming will survive.
Moonies: Only really happy Aiming happens.
Hare Krishna: Aiming happens, rama rama.
Satanism: Sneppah Gnimia
Atheism: I don’t believe in Aiming.
Nietzsche: Don't battle with Aiming, lest ye are ready to Aim with yourself. And if you stare at the table, the table also stares at you.
Freudianism: Lust, rage, and repression battle in the struggle to Aim. Tell me about your mother.
Alcoholism: My Aiming is under control.
Alcoholics Anonymous: We must aim one day at a time according to the twelve steps.
Howard Jones: What is Aiming, anyway?
Maroon 5 (Pool Instructor Version): What you are shooting is screwing things up inside my head. You should Aim better you never listened to a word I said. Clutching your cue stick and writhing in a useless stance. Hoping somebody someday that plays you has no chance.
Shakespeare: To aim, or not to aim; that is the question.

Pick what works for you or make up a new one.

-Carl
<hr /></blockquote>

you left out the Jewish religion... "i feel guilty when I aim"

theinel
06-24-2005, 02:35 AM
After reading the three pages of posts in this thread I am left feeling that the whole world is dumber for them. I mean no disrespect to Hal or the other bright people here but a system is a system and any system has boundaries (except for the elusive "Grand Unified Theory" that Dave mentioned or the "Theory of Everything" which I like better because it acronyms to TOE which makes me laugh thinking of feet and universal enlightenment.

If you have a full 4-5 inch pocket to work with and can shoot at the center of it then I'm sure there are many systems that will work for most shots especially if the object ball is near the pocket. Unfortunately that is rarely the case in the real world. Often there is only half of a pocket, or there is only a ball width gap to shoot through, or squirt, collision induced throw, and english induced throw have to be factored into a shot and if you are working from some system that only gives you three or five aiming points you are never going to get the job done.

Sorry for rambling, and I do love systems, but my point is that a system should be specific to a recognized set of circumstances and not some magical solution to all situations. Also, where does this system take into account that you often need to get both the object ball and the cue ball to specific spots? What about cloth characteristics, pocket characteristics, rail conditions, object ball condition, cue ball type? Surely some allowances must be made for these.

I just reread this and would like to write a lot more and rewrite what is already here but I have no more time so if you have found something that works then "use the force" and if not then weigh all of the factors you are aware of in your shot into the greatest machine known and try to aim at an exact spot that will produce your desired results. Good luck.

catscradle
06-24-2005, 03:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> ...
By the way, I very much enjoyed my conversation with Hal. He is a great man with a wealth of pool experience, knowledge, and stories. Also, obviously, he has had a big effect on the thinking of many people. I have tremendous respect for him, even if I disagree with the magic of his method.

Respectfully,
Dr. Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I agree the man is enjoyable to talk to, but I sure am glad I don't pay his phone bill, the man can TALK. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I also agree with you that there is no such thing as a magic bullet, but I think Hal's method can be helpful at times.

eg8r
06-24-2005, 03:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Also, obviously, he has had a big effect on the thinking of many people. I have tremendous respect for him, even if I disagree with the magic of his method.
<hr /></blockquote> Why are you stopping at the basic level and calling it magic. I would think you would continue to learn the rest of what he teaches so that you will see what happens with the inbetween shots you mention.

Sounds like you are taking the lazy route to dispel something that is proven to work and labeling it "magic".

eg8r

Fred Agnir
06-24-2005, 06:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> We humans aren't acurate enough to discern and execute more than the few. <font color="blue"> I dont think thats true. </font color><hr /></blockquote>

Then we're done with discussing this, aren't we?

[ QUOTE ]
How does that compare to your current method? <font color="blue">If you are a pro it would be a step down. </font color><hr /></blockquote> Silly. How about if we limit the discussion to those that need help aiming and executing?

[ QUOTE ]
People use the Ghost Ball all the time, but if it worked, we'd all be pros. But we're not. <font color="blue"> LOL. So what are you saying, that we are not all pros because we use the wrong aiming system/method! </font color> <hr /></blockquote> No, that's not what I said. Don't muddy up the waters. Read the whole post, including below. If you don't understand the words, just ask. I'll try to make it more simple.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote me:</font><hr> There's a flaw in that we humans have a difficult time visualizing a point in 3D space somewhere down the table. It's optics. Our eyes are tricky and play tricks on us. If you can get a system that uses aim points that are real and readily available (edges and centers), then that's the strength of all of Hal's systems. <hr /></blockquote>


Fred

dr_dave
06-24-2005, 07:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>If by your diagram the 1/2 ball hit doesn't work and the 1/4 ball doesn't work, then hit it in the middle.<hr /></blockquote>
Fred,

Thank you. This clears up everything for me (but it might not for others). Again, the whole point of the example in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf) was to show that three aim points are not enough to make every shot. I talked to Hal again yesterday, and we looked at my diagrams together while on the phone, and he still thought I should be able to make the shot with one of his three aims, provided I shift my head. I tried every possible combination of shifting, tilting, raising, and lowering my head and I also tried aligning the cue stick along different lines between my line of aim and a center-ball hit, and I still missed the shot. I think you have provided the answer why: three points of aim are not enough. I think some people in this thread (and maybe even Hal?) still think three points of aim are enough for a cut shot, without needing compensation in between the aims. I'm glad you are not one of them.

Now, I still think the three fractional aiming references (1/4, 1/2, and 3/4) are very useful because they are very easy to visualize. And having easy to identify references is always useful (e.g., as with the tangent line and the 30 degree direction for predicting CB motion), so I agree 100% that the aim points (Hal's or fractional aiming or any other system) provide a good framework from within to work, especially for people that have difficulty aiming accurately and consistently.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-24-2005, 08:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote catscradle:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> ...
By the way, I very much enjoyed my conversation with Hal. He is a great man with a wealth of pool experience, knowledge, and stories. Also, obviously, he has had a big effect on the thinking of many people. I have tremendous respect for him, even if I disagree with the magic of his method.

Respectfully,
Dr. Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I agree the man is enjoyable to talk to, but I sure am glad I don't pay his phone bill, the man can TALK. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I also agree with you that there is no such thing as a magic bullet, but I think Hal's method can be helpful at times. <hr /></blockquote>
You are right about his ability to TALK. Last night, while on the phone with him, over a 15 minute period I said "I really need to go" at least three times because I had an appointment. It didn't slow him down one bit. I was late to my appointment, but I don't regret it at all. He is great to talk to, and I really appreciate his time.

Dave

dr_dave
06-24-2005, 08:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Also, obviously, he has had a big effect on the thinking of many people. I have tremendous respect for him, even if I disagree with the magic of his method.
<hr /></blockquote> Why are you stopping at the basic level and calling it magic. I would think you would continue to learn the rest of what he teaches so that you will see what happens with the inbetween shots you mention.

Sounds like you are taking the lazy route to dispel something that is proven to work and labeling it "magic".

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
I would be happy to learn the next step to make the shot in my example with one of the three points of aim, but nobody has shared it with me yet. I know about back-hand English, and I don't think thats the answer. Please share.

See also: my reply to Fred about three points of aim (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=198793&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=1&amp;PHPSESSID=)

Dave

SpiderMan
06-24-2005, 08:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>
If by your diagram the 1/2 ball hit doesn't work and the 1/4 ball doesn't work, then hit it in the middle. There, you have one more point, not an infinite amount of points.

Maybe I'm not being clear enough. Find out where and why it works. As an analytical person, you will find that (as I said previously), at the very least, you'll find that there are only a few finite spots on the ball necessary to aim, and not an infinite amount. We humans aren't acurate enough to discern and execute more than the few.
Fred <hr /></blockquote>
Fred, I'm sorry, but that is just wrong.

First of all, any decent player can EASILY discern and execute shots that differ by only two or three degrees. I certainly can, and if you can't you'll seldom make a long shot into the corner pocket.

Second, the balls may be arranged such that the required shot is anywhere between zero and ninety degrees. If I limited myself to a minimum number of discrete "hits", I would need thirty or so in order to make the ball from any setup, and this assumes I'm restricting the problem to only cuts to one side. And doesn't allow me to cheat pockets, which would further double the number of discrete outcomes.

Finally, IF I DESIRED TO SIMPLIFY THE EXPLANATION, I could certainly group several of these similar-but-different shots and call them "the same", whether it be half-ball-hit, edge-to-center, or any other contrived description. But the fact remains that they are not the same, and the contact point or other nuances are subtly different because I recognize, consciously or subconsciously, what it takes to make the shot, and I execute accordingly.

I could tell you I aimed the same on five similar shots which differ in outcome by only a degree or two. If you watched me shoot all five, you could also agree that I must be aiming the same. Furthermore, you might aim according to my description and make any of them. But this fact remains - if several shots exit at slightly different angles, as they must if you are to deal with all possible setups, then you shot them differently whether you realize it or not.

SpiderMan

Qtec
06-24-2005, 08:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I still think the three fractional aiming references (1/4, 1/2, and 3/4) are very useful because they are very easy to visualize <hr /></blockquote>

Dave, to be honest, this is nothing new! If fact, I will go so far to say that in snooker, its one of the first things you learn!
Hal starts of by saying that you can pot all balls by only hitting 3 points on the OB and you and I know thats not possible, whatever anyone says. Its just a physical impossibility.
Mention this to the followers and they get 'the hump'. Typical respose, "how dare you question H,s system. Dont you know that there are another 26 systems? You know nothing!"

How do you explain the 'fact', that Cane can make a ball at 30 and 39 dgrees by hitting the same spot, as he claims?

Qtec

SpiderMan
06-24-2005, 08:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> I think most people could hit at least 2 different points in the first 15 degrees alone
Qtec <hr /></blockquote>

You are correct, and also being extremely conservative (not politically, of course /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif). For myself, I believe the number would be between five and ten. The mind, trained by repetition, is a marvelous thing. I'd have a hard time visually discerning that many different points, but I can choose and execute them anyway.

SpiderMan

Qtec
06-24-2005, 08:53 AM
Tap, Tap ,Tap.


Qtec

Troy
06-24-2005, 08:53 AM
Instead of trying to prove Hal wrong via diagrams, why don't you simply perform the shots on a table to demonstrate to yourself that they {B}DO WORK[/b].
Example --- OB on the spot. CB on the head string approximately 3" from the long rail. Aim center of CB to edge of OB for a cut to the far corner pocket.
Now move the CB approximately 6" from the long rail. SAME AIM.
Now move the CB approximately 12" from the long rail. SAME AIM.
Maybe now you'll get it, but I doubt it... /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I would be happy to learn the next step to make the shot in my example with one of the three points of aim, but nobody has shared it with me yet. I know about back-hand English, and I don't think thats the answer. Please share.

See also: my reply to Fred about three points of aim (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=198793&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=1&amp;PHPSESSID=)

Dave <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-24-2005, 08:56 AM
I already know the system works for many shots. It just doesn't work for ALL shots.

Respectfully,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> Instead of trying to prove Hal wrong via diagrams, why don't you simply perform the shots on a table to demonstrate to yourself that they {B}DO WORK[/b].
Example --- OB on the spot. CB on the head string approximately 3" from the long rail. Aim center of CB to edge of OB for a cut to the far corner pocket.
Now move the CB approximately 6" from the long rail. SAME AIM.
Now move the CB approximately 12" from the long rail. SAME AIM.
Maybe now you'll get it, but I doubt it... /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I would be happy to learn the next step to make the shot in my example with one of the three points of aim, but nobody has shared it with me yet. I know about back-hand English, and I don't think thats the answer. Please share.

See also: my reply to Fred about three points of aim (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=198793&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=1&amp;PHPSESSID=)

Dave <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-24-2005, 09:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>
If by your diagram the 1/2 ball hit doesn't work and the 1/4 ball doesn't work, then hit it in the middle. There, you have one more point, not an infinite amount of points.

Maybe I'm not being clear enough. Find out where and why it works. As an analytical person, you will find that (as I said previously), at the very least, you'll find that there are only a few finite spots on the ball necessary to aim, and not an infinite amount. We humans aren't acurate enough to discern and execute more than the few.
Fred <hr /></blockquote>
Fred, I'm sorry, but that is just wrong.

First of all, any decent player can EASILY discern and execute shots that differ by only two or three degrees. I certainly can, and if you can't you'll seldom make a long shot into the corner pocket.

Second, the balls may be arranged such that the required shot is anywhere between zero and ninety degrees. If I limited myself to a minimum number of discrete "hits", I would need thirty or so in order to make the ball from any setup, and this assumes I'm restricting the problem to only cuts to one side. And doesn't allow me to cheat pockets, which would further double the number of discrete outcomes.

Finally, IF I DESIRED TO SIMPLIFY THE EXPLANATION, I could certainly group several of these similar-but-different shots and call them "the same", whether it be half-ball-hit, edge-to-center, or any other contrived description. But the fact remains that they are not the same, and the contact point or other nuances are subtly different because I recognize, consciously or subconsciously, what it takes to make the shot, and I execute accordingly.

I could tell you I aimed the same on five similar shots which differ in outcome by only a degree or two. If you watched me shoot all five, you could also agree that I must be aiming the same. Furthermore, you might aim according to my description and make any of them. But this fact remains - if several shots exit at slightly different angles, as they must if you are to deal with all possible setups, then you shot them differently whether you realize it or not.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

Tap, Tap, Tap, Tap, Tap, Tap!

Dave

Qtec
06-24-2005, 10:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> We humans aren't acurate enough to discern and execute more than the few. <font color="blue"> I dont think thats true. </font color><hr /></blockquote>

Then we're done with discussing this, aren't we? <font color="blue"> Why?
Do you think that your own statement offers any room for discussion? It sounds pretty FINAL to me!
You could ask me " Qtec, why do you think that"


Why are you getting so touchy? </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
How does that compare to your current method? <font color="blue">If you are a pro it would be a step down. </font color><hr /></blockquote> Silly. How about if we limit the discussion to those that need help aiming and executing? <font color="blue">I thought[ and Hal gave the impression! and you provided the link.] that this was a sure-fire method to pot every ball on the table, not a guide for beginners.
I can only go on the info provided!</font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
People use the Ghost Ball all the time, but if it worked, we'd all be pros. But we're not. <font color="blue"> LOL. So what are you saying, that we are not all pros because we use the wrong aiming system/method! </font color> <hr /></blockquote> No, that's not what I said. <font color="blue"> Thats exactly what you said! Thats why its a 'quote'! </font color> Don't muddy up the waters. Read the whole post, <font color="blue">Believe me, I did. </font color> including below. If you don't understand the words, just ask. I'll try to make it more simple.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote me:</font><hr> There's a flaw in that we humans have a difficult time visualizing a point in 3D space somewhere down the table. <font color="blue"> Is that a fact ? Did you ever see Agassi against Ivanisovich t Wimbledon? [ tennis]. Ivan serves, the ball travels from a point 10ft above the level of the court. It hits the service line 18ft from Agassi travelling at 140mph. Ag has a millisecond to decide where the ball will be, AT A POINT IN SPACE, in order to hit the ball back. Not only does he hit the ball out the center of the racket but he also directs the ball away from the opponent!
The really shouldt be possible, but he does it, time after time.
Take Basketball. Some of those players can throw baskets from anywhere, even with their back to to target! Hows that possible? Could it have something to do with 'FEEL'or practice?
The tennis ball and the basket are both 3d points in space, or not?
</font color> Our eyes are tricky and play tricks on us. If you can get a system that uses aim points that are real and readily available (edges and centers), then that's the strength of all of Hal's systems. <hr /></blockquote>

According your logic, chess would also be a 3Dgame.
Its also a game played on a 2D surface but the pieces are 3 D.
If you think that the aiming point in the GB method is a point in space, then you dont know what the GB method is all about.






Fred <hr /></blockquote>


Qtec...........BTW.............when Dave first came on the board trying to 're-invent the wheel', [ sorry Dave /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif], you gave him a hard time because he couldnt prove his conclusions.
Now you are giving Hal a free ride because we are all really too stupid to understand.
You may not have noticed but you DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED CANE.
Who cares, right!

IMO, so far based on the evidence, most people who visit Hal dont know what they are aiming at. ie, they have never done any practice ONLY on aiming.

Justlike any other aiming method, [the GB/contact point/1/4,1/2b, ball etc] method has to be practiced.
Most pool players dont seem to know that. I think thats because making balls on a pool table is relativly easy.
Snooker player have to practice long and hard to make 3 balls on a regular basis and they need a system that is accurate.

Qtec............

wolfdancer
06-24-2005, 11:01 AM
Here are some excerpts from the phone conversation between Dave &amp; Hal ...unfortunately, due to equipment malfunction, most of Dave's responses were inaudible.:


link (http://www.dailywav.com/1103/justamoment.wav)

link (http://www.dailywav.com/0904/personalquestion.wav)



link (http://www.dailywav.com/0704/improvedagreatdeal.wav)
link (http://www.dailywav.com/1003/knowproblem.wav) link (http://www.dailywav.com/1299/hmnerror.wav)
link (http://www.dailywav.com/0100/sucks.wav)

link (http://www.dailywav.com/0399/hal_bye.wav)

wolfdancer
06-24-2005, 11:21 AM
On a seven foot table, SAM is the best thing I’ve ever seen.

On a 7 ft'r....it's deadly.

Qtec
06-24-2005, 11:34 AM
I,m starting to think that you actually DO have a sense of humour! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

wolfdancer
06-24-2005, 12:04 PM
Q, i'll kid about most things....except politics
I'm very serious about that subject
politics (http://www.dailywav.com/0104/richgayguys.wav)

wolfdancer
06-24-2005, 12:20 PM
Tap, Tap ,Tap.

Q, one of your better posts...it's clear, it's concise, and gets right down to the heart of the matter.
Now about them antiquated Dutch laws, that are holding up the investigation in Aruba.....

Qtec
06-24-2005, 12:31 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Are you now trying to convice me that you have a sense of humour.?
It wont work. Youre much too deep for me! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

wolfdancer
06-24-2005, 12:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
he still thought I should be able to make the shot with one of his three aims, provided I shift my head. I tried every possible combination of shifting, tilting, raising, and lowering my head and I also tried aligning the cue stick along different lines between my line of aim and a center-ball hit, and I still missed the shot. <hr /></blockquote>

Aha !! the old parallel head-shift theory....combined with a lowering of the body's center of gravity....and as a last resort....rose-colored glasses
I was able to follow the thread...until this...now my brain is getting the same message I get on a pinball machine
TILT !
Hey, maybe this is what Joe Davis meant, when he said he had to train his eyes to see the shot differently...after he made the switch from billiards to snooker???????

wolfdancer
06-24-2005, 12:40 PM
excellent graphics!!!!!!!
I'm neutral here in this discussion. I use the system, yet see that it can be proven not to work...

SpiderMan
06-24-2005, 01:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> excellent graphics!!!!!!!
I'm neutral here in this discussion. I use the system, yet see that it can be proven not to work... <hr /></blockquote>

I am not saying it doesn't work - indeed, I believe it does. So do many other inexact or discretized "systems" of aiming.

The main difference of opinion seems to be "how" it works.

I maintain that it works for the same reason as other similar systems - compensation by the shooter. Others maintain that no compensation is needed because this discretized system is also exact. Here's the argument:

<font color="red">Fred, Cane, et al: </font color> The system works because it is exact, or sufficiently so, such that no compensation is required.

<font color="red">SpiderMan, Dave, Qtec, et al: </font color> The system works because, despite not being sufficiently exact for all shots, the player compensates as necessary to pocket balls.

Those of us in the "compensation" camp are NOT trying to prove it doesn't work, only that it is geometrically incorrect for many shots. Demonstrating this validates the compensation argument for shots which are made despite the aimpoint being "wrong".

SpiderMan

dr_dave
06-24-2005, 01:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>he still thought I should be able to make the shot with one of his three aims, provided I shift my head. I tried every possible combination of shifting, tilting, raising, and lowering my head and I also tried aligning the cue stick along different lines between my line of aim and a center-ball hit, and I still missed the shot. <hr /></blockquote>

Aha !! the old parallel head-shift theory....combined with a lowering of the body's center of gravity....and as a last resort....rose-colored glasses
I was able to follow the thread...until this...now my brain is getting the same message I get on a pinball machine
TILT !
Hey, maybe this is what Joe Davis meant, when he said he had to train his eyes to see the shot differently...after he made the switch from billiards to snooker??????? <hr /></blockquote>
wolfdancer,

Don't worry ... I don't usually fool around with my head and stick like that. I was just trying everything I could to make the Hal system work, without "compensating" or "adjusting" between the three aiming references. I wanted to be sure it didn't have something to do with 3D perspective, dominant eye effects, parallax, or even para-psychological effects involved with moving one's head through the Lines of Force of the universe. I even tried telling myself: Feel the Force, David ... just make the ball. It still didn't go in. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Your friend,
Dave

dr_dave
06-24-2005, 02:09 PM
I noticed somebody posted an audio clip from the HAL computer from 2001, A Space Odyssey. I think it was wolfdancer. I tried to find it in THE THREAD, but I gave up after a while.

Do you guys know where the name "HAL" came from?

It is the collection of each of the letters preceding "I", "B," and "M." Back then, IBM was Big Blue (Big Brother), the company that everyone both envied and feared, kind of like Microsoft and Walmart of today.

Food for thought,
Dave

dr_dave
06-24-2005, 02:15 PM
Here's the link to the audio file (http://www.dailywav.com/1299/hmnerror.wav). I just found it.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> I noticed somebody posted an audio clip from the HAL computer from 2001, A Space Odyssey. I think it was wolfdancer. I tried to find it in THE THREAD, but I gave up after a while.

Do you guys know where the name "HAL" came from?

It is the collection of each of the letters preceding "I", "B," and "M." Back then, IBM was Big Blue (Big Brother), the company that everyone both envied and feared, kind of like Microsoft and Walmart of today.

Food for thought,
Dave
<hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-24-2005, 02:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> On a seven foot table, SAM is the best thing I’ve ever seen.

On a 7 ft'r....it's deadly. <hr /></blockquote>
I would put my money on "continuous Spiderman" vs. "SAM without compensation or adjusting" any day (even though I still don't know what SAM is, because Randy didn't have time to cover it).

Dave

wolfdancer
06-24-2005, 03:31 PM
I'll stand by my statement though Dr Dave. The small tabel, with it's big pockets, is very receptive for this system.
After playing for so many years...I've never ran so many tables, won so many (small) bar tournaments, nor had so much confidence....and that's on an 8'ft'r.
There are so many shots that come up, that are "on" using a ref point....
On the other hand...when I tried to show a couple of new players how I aimed....they thought I was certified...or certifiable...I forget which.
Getting used to aiming a little different takes some work...it just doesn't look right to your eye at first.
However, it works much better then my old method, which required drinking the blood of freshly killed chickens, lots of candles, and long periods of sitting inside a pyramid shaped tent.
SAM, I believe is just a neat name for a refined version of Hal's systems...and from some pm's I've received....players love it.
I used to have my own meaning for that acronym:
" S**t, another miss"

mybreak
06-24-2005, 04:21 PM
This is my first post on this forum, I finally figured out how to do it, but it's definitely not my first post on forums in general.
Maybe Hal has been more generous with me than some others, or maybe I've just known him for a while longer but he's taught me a whole bunch of his systems. I've had battles about this on the other sites with all the naysayers, know-it-alls and beginners that are clueless yet say that Hal's methods are erroneous until I'm blue in the face. My feelings are SCREW 'EM.
Hal taught me 9 systems, many of which aren't even on here.
However, this entire thread is very refreshing for the positive aspects of it. You're pretty much beating one sytem to death and trying to figure it out with as comprehensive an analysis as can be given. But Fred Agnir said it right...forget the drawings on paper and angles ad infinitum. Although this one might be the best to do it with. The two that I use over 95% of the time is Shishkebob (which can have NO scientific explanation) and center to edge or edge to center. I don't know that they can either due to the pivot factor along with the initial alignment. THEY JUST WORK. Dr. Dave, you can try to dispel this from now until the day you die, or explain it, and I don't know that you can. It JUST WORKS. I've been playing at a very high level for 44 years and that's all I can add to this discussion. (I am the real and original Drivermaker and Billy for all the boneheads and naysayers)

wolfdancer
06-24-2005, 04:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
SCREW 'EM. <hr /></blockquote>
Screw 'em....on your first post???? took me at least 10
As with most discussions on this board, in the end,
nobody's going to change their belief system. I still find value in the discussions though, because I may have to do
some research, or even rethink about why I have a certain
opinion about a topic.
Scott told me once that SAM was useful for players that don't see the angle too well ( I'm guilty) I also never imagined ghost balls, rr tracks, tubes, or tunnels (what are those people smoking?)...it's been said though, that I have no *** imagination.
Odd thing though...using Hal's system...I now also see the angle much better....
I guess it won't work for everybody, but it sure jumps your game up a couple of notches, when it works for you

dr_dave
06-24-2005, 06:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> This is my first post on this forum, I finally figured out how to do it, but it's definitely not my first post on forums in general.
Maybe Hal has been more generous with me than some others, or maybe I've just known him for a while longer but he's taught me a whole bunch of his systems. I've had battles about this on the other sites with all the naysayers, know-it-alls and beginners that are clueless yet say that Hal's methods are erroneous until I'm blue in the face. My feelings are SCREW 'EM.
Hal taught me 9 systems, many of which aren't even on here.
However, this entire thread is very refreshing for the positive aspects of it. You're pretty much beating one sytem to death and trying to figure it out with as comprehensive an analysis as can be given. But Fred Agnir said it right...forget the drawings on paper and angles ad infinitum. Although this one might be the best to do it with. The two that I use over 95% of the time is Shishkebob (which can have NO scientific explanation) and center to edge or edge to center. I don't know that they can either due to the pivot factor along with the initial alignment. THEY JUST WORK. Dr. Dave, you can try to dispel this from now until the day you die, or explain it, and I don't know that you can. It JUST WORKS. I've been playing at a very high level for 44 years and that's all I can add to this discussion. (I am the real and original Drivermaker and Billy for all the boneheads and naysayers) <hr /></blockquote>
Welcome to the CCB! And thank you for your perspectives. That's what this board is all about ... sharing perspectives. We don't always agree, but we always learn something in the process.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-24-2005, 06:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>I guess it won't work for everybody, but it sure jumps your game up a couple of notches, when it works for you<hr /></blockquote>
I guess that's all that really matters. If something works for somebody, it doesn't matter whether or not somebody disagrees with it. I think its great that Hal's systems work for so many people.

However, I still like to know why things work (or don't for some people). That's what my book, articles, and website are all about, developing understanding of principles so they can be applied in various situations (even situations you haven't seen before), easily remembered (without having to memorize stuff), combined with other ideas, accepted by doubters, etc. To me, it's also fun being able to understand and explain something. I guess that's due to the engineer and teacher hats I wear at times.

I'm sorry if I am tiresome to some.

Regards,
Dave

Fred Agnir
06-24-2005, 07:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I still think the three fractional aiming references (1/4, 1/2, and 3/4) are very useful because they are very easy to visualize <hr /></blockquote>

Dave, to be honest, this is nothing new! If fact, I will go so far to say that in snooker, its one of the first things you learn! <hr /></blockquote>And fortunately, this is not what Hal teaches. Nothing new. He doesn't teach fractional aiming. He teaches ball-to-ball relationships in a method that, IMO, is superior to the 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 method.

I know I'm repeating myself, but the ongoing misrepresentation of Hal's systems is just annoying. He doesn't teach fractional aiming. THere's enough other people who do (the snooker world.)

Fred

Fred Agnir
06-24-2005, 07:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>
If by your diagram the 1/2 ball hit doesn't work and the 1/4 ball doesn't work, then hit it in the middle. There, you have one more point, not an infinite amount of points.

Maybe I'm not being clear enough. Find out where and why it works. As an analytical person, you will find that (as I said previously), at the very least, you'll find that there are only a few finite spots on the ball necessary to aim, and not an infinite amount. We humans aren't acurate enough to discern and execute more than the few.
Fred <hr /></blockquote>
Fred, I'm sorry, but that is just wrong.

First of all, any decent player can EASILY discern and execute shots that differ by only two or three degrees. I certainly can, and if you can't you'll seldom make a long shot into the corner pocket.
<hr /></blockquote>Then again, this discussion is over. The whole basis of the ball-to-ball relationship systems is that it breaks the shots down into a finite number, rather than to try to have an infinite continuous system. I firmly believe that a human cannot discern and execute an infinite amount of aim points. How could you prove it? You'd have to show pinpoint accuracy. Pinpoint. I don't think you want to attempt that challenge.

Fred

Fred Agnir
06-24-2005, 07:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>If by your diagram the 1/2 ball hit doesn't work and the 1/4 ball doesn't work, then hit it in the middle.<hr /></blockquote>
Fred,

Thank you. This clears up everything for me (but it might not for others). Again, the whole point of the example in TP A.11 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-11.pdf) was to show that three aim points are not enough to make every shot. I talked to Hal again yesterday, and we looked at my diagrams together while on the phone, and he still thought I should be able to make the shot with one of his three aims, <hr /></blockquote>And I 100% agree with Hal, in case you missed it.

Fred

Fred Agnir
06-24-2005, 07:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred:</font><hr>
People use the Ghost Ball all the time, but if it worked, we'd all be pros. But we're not. <font color="blue"> LOL. So what are you saying, that we are not all pros because we use the wrong aiming system/method! </font color> <hr /></blockquote> No, that's not what I said. <font color="blue"> Thats exactly what you said! Thats why its a 'quote'! </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
I thought you were just playing dense, but apparently not. How in the world do you expect to communicate, when you can't even see that what I wrote does not equal what you wrote?

Go back under the freakin' rock and learn to read. I know it's a lost cause, but everytime with you it's always your inability to grasp my words, your assumptions of things I didn't write, and your continued responses to what tends to be every debate fallacy there is.

Fred

Fred Agnir
06-24-2005, 07:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Qtec...........BTW.............when Dave first came on the board trying to 're-invent the wheel', [ sorry Dave /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif], you gave him a hard time because he couldnt prove his conclusions.
Now you are giving Hal a free ride because we are all really too stupid to understand.<hr /></blockquote> You can take your strawman lies and shove them up your ass. I will not be lied about.

I gave Dave a hard time because he was trying to prove things that have already been proven, and was explaining by video an effect that I've said over and over isn't as big as people think, and in the end he couldn't ever demonstrate it. Remember? Probably not, cuz you're blind.

It's not my place to disprove Hal's systems, because I've found the use in them and incorporate several parts of his system in my game. I've never said any different. Don't you dare put words in my mouth. Or do you want to continue lying?

Fred

nhp
06-24-2005, 08:57 PM
Qtec, I haven't bothered to read the whole thread because it's too long but I'm just curious if you have tried Hal's systems. If not I don't think you should bash something you haven't tried. His systems do work.

recoveryjones
06-24-2005, 11:46 PM
I believe in Hal's systems so much that they've led me to do two things:

1. Teach all my CLOSE(out of town) internet friends what I know, because I want them to shoot good.

2. Teach absolutley no-one in my hometown, because I don't want them to shoot good.

I'm not saying his systems are infallable(even though they may be), however, they've helped me a lot.My potting on routine 0-45 degree cuts has improved by at least 20-25% and for tough cuts 50-75%.

Are these 0-45 degree cuts automatic. Somedays yes,however a headlift, a bridge hand movement or shoulder lunge(for me) can still ruin the shot.

The difference with hal's systems is this:

Assuming you know what angle zone you are in(eg. 0-15,16-30,31-45 degrees etc)you will know EXACTLY where to aim the cue ball to the object ball.

If you don't use a system (aim by feel)you THINK you are aiming the right way.

That's the difference. KNOWING exactly where to aim or THINKING that you know exactly where to aim.


In summary, I agree with Fred.Why try to prove something wrong and instead phone Hal, get to a pool table and give the system a try.When I say try I don't mean 5 minutes....let the medicine work.Some might see an immediate change within 5 minutes ,for others it might take 6 minutes...LOL. Give it a try.RJ

ps. Now if I could just learn speed control

Thunderduck
06-25-2005, 12:33 AM
I find the ghostball system to be awful... you imagine a fake ball and try to hit through it... this is 100 times harder because youre aiming at a fake target...why not just focus on what you can see? does anyone agree?

charlieb
06-25-2005, 12:42 AM
Does Hal's system work for the majority of shots? Of the millions of possibilities on the table how many don't work with his systems? So far it sems that everyone is talking about one. I'll take those odds. I've just started with his system (1 apparently of 26)Maybe I do make subconscious adjustments, can anyone tell me how I can confirm that? In the meantime the balls are going into the pockets with a consistency I haven't known before.

recoveryjones
06-25-2005, 01:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote charlieb:</font><hr> Does Hal's system work for the majority of shots? Of the millions of possibilities on the table how many don't work with his systems? <hr /></blockquote>

When it comes to potting, that's just it.....there aren't millions of different possibilitys.I'm not talking about multiple ball combinations, kiss off shots etc.I'm talking about potting a single object ball with the cue ball.

I used to think that there were millions of possible cuts and we do find shots from 0-90 degrees that we encounter. All of those shots from 0-90 degrees can be accomplished with a mere 8(or less) different aims and if you become adept at banking those thinner cuts you only need four aims for any shot in pool, included in those aims is the straight in shot.

Pool in an aiming sense is really that simple.Why do you think the pro's make so many shots without missing.Yes they have cue ball control and play great shape, but they certainly have'nt memeorized millions of angles and on a smaller scale (those contained with in 0-90 degrees)they haven't memorized 90 different shots either.

No they realize pool isn't that complicated and they make ALL shots using at the max eight(could be less) different cue ball to object ball lineups. They find these lineups with an aiming system. RJ

Qtec
06-25-2005, 02:19 AM
Quote Qtec:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote Fred:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People use the Ghost Ball all the time, but if it worked, we'd all be pros. But we're not. <font color="blue"> LOL. So what are you saying, that we are not all pros because we use the wrong aiming system/method!</font color>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, that's not what I said. <font color="blue"> Thats exactly what you said! Thats why its a 'quote'! </font color>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I thought you were just playing dense, but apparently not. How in the world do you expect to communicate, when you can't even see that what I wrote does not equal what you wrote?




<font color="blue"> Whatever. At the very least you are saying that the GB method doesnt work. Right? </font color>

Q

Qtec
06-25-2005, 02:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Qtec...........BTW.............when Dave first came on the board trying to 're-invent the wheel', [ sorry Dave /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif], you gave him a hard time because he couldnt prove his conclusions.
Now you are giving Hal a free ride because we are all really too stupid to understand.<hr /></blockquote> You can take your strawman lies and shove them up your ass. I will not be lied about. <font color="blue">If you didnt give Dave a hard time, I take it back. </font color>

I gave Dave a hard time <font color="blue"> So you DID give D a hard time, so this isnt a lie!. </font color> because he was trying to prove things that have already been proven, <font color="blue"> like I said, re-inventing the wheel! </font color> and was explaining by video an effect that I've said over and over isn't as big as people think, and in the end he couldn't ever demonstrate it. Remember? Probably not, cuz you're blind. <font color="blue">Ha. If you check that post I think you will find that I actually agreed with YOU on that subject! </font color>

It's not my place to disprove Hal's systems, <font color="blue"> I never said it was! </font color> because I've found the use in them and incorporate several parts of his system in my game. I've never said any different. <font color="blue"> I never said you did! </font color> Don't you dare put words in my mouth. Or do you want to continue lying?

Fred <hr /></blockquote>


"Now you are giving Hal a free ride because we are all really too stupid to understand".

I never put any words into your mouth. I didnt say that you had said this. Its an impression, a statement of opinion, based on your previous posts.
I might be wrong, but its not a lie.


Q
"a lie is only a lie if you knew it was a lie when you said it" GW Bush /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

mybreak
06-25-2005, 05:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;

<hr /></blockquote>And fortunately, this is not what Hal teaches. Nothing new. He doesn't teach fractional aiming. He teaches ball-to-ball relationships in a method that, IMO, is superior to the 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 method.

I know I'm repeating myself, but the ongoing misrepresentation of Hal's systems is just annoying. He doesn't teach fractional aiming.

Fred

<hr /></blockquote>


What you said here, is the entire essence of what Hal teaches as well as the annoying misrepresentations which are ongoing.

In the past, I must have been under the wrong impression that you were a naysayer, but you've done a GREAT job on this particular thread in telling it like it is. I'm certainly glad to see someone else besides myself that has an understanding of the systems as well as working to acquire the skills to actually perfect them on the table.
It's also somewhat of a relief not to be the only one to fend off all the negativity, especially from guys that can't even play to begin with.

onepocketchump
06-25-2005, 07:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> excellent graphics!!!!!!!
I'm neutral here in this discussion. I use the system, yet see that it can be proven not to work... <hr /></blockquote>

I am not saying it doesn't work - indeed, I believe it does. So do many other inexact or discretized "systems" of aiming.

The main difference of opinion seems to be "how" it works.

I maintain that it works for the same reason as other similar systems - compensation by the shooter. Others maintain that no compensation is needed because this discretized system is also exact. Here's the argument:

<font color="red">Fred, Cane, et al: </font color> The system works because it is exact, or sufficiently so, such that no compensation is required.

<font color="red">SpiderMan, Dave, Qtec, et al: </font color> The system works because, despite not being sufficiently exact for all shots, the player compensates as necessary to pocket balls.

Those of us in the "compensation" camp are NOT trying to prove it doesn't work, only that it is geometrically incorrect for many shots. Demonstrating this validates the compensation argument for shots which are made despite the aimpoint being "wrong".

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>


All I know is that I played for 18 years before learning Hal's systems and I was very inconsistent in pocketing balls and there were some shots that were nearly impossible for me no matter how much I practiced them. After learning his systems I can routinely make shots that were out of my grasp before. I routinely take shots that I would not have attempted before because I now know that the angle DOES NOT MATTER.

The other night I went to the pool room and I started shooting some shots into the corner pocket off the spot with the cue ball directly in line with the second diamond. A 45 degree cut, i think. Anyway, after shooting this a few times to make sure I wasn't steering it or doing any compensation I moved both balls towards the rail ON THE SAME LINE so that the cueball was on the spot and the object ball was about four inches from the rail. Looking at this setup it appeared to be a nearly impossible shot and I had never tried it before.

Not only was I making it, I was OVERCUTTING it. One of my friends on the next table stopped playing to watch me shoot the shot. There was just NO WAY for me to compensate or adjust as I had zero previous experience with this shot.

So, I don't care if the paper diagram crowd believes in these "alternative" methods or not. I will consistently outplay any player who relys on "ghostball/deflection compensation" methods of aiming. The really, really good players have all outgrown and abandonded ghost ball in my opinion. And the REALLY GOOD players were never handicapped by it in the first place. They learned methods and systems akin to Hal's from REALLY GOOD players who came before them.

There are only two things that are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to playing top level pool. 1. Rock Solid fundamentals. 2. Proper aiming. Everything else comes from these two things.

It is my opinion that the Aiming Portion has been neglected in favor of the EASY WAY out in print during the last 30 years. Finally, there are some books and tapes that are trying to explain them.

By the way, Hal's aiming systems work in Virtual Pool as well. :-)

So, to the naysayers, please don't bother to attempt to learn any of Hal's or similar systems. I would much rather play you when you are not as well armed as I am.

John

wolfdancer
06-25-2005, 08:49 AM
DISCLAIMER: while participating in the lively (lately, turning confrontational) dicussion, on this thread....I may have given the impression that I believed:
A) the 1/2 ball hit works for all cut shots ?
B) I actually understood Hal's systems, enough to comment on them.
But in actuality I know (http://www.dailywav.com/0601/nothing.wav)
Dumb as I am though...even I know that you can't use one aiming point to make all the cuts
I trust Mr. Houle..that that assuages your outrage, for my outrageous misstatements ?
"Mea culpa"
since the 1/2 ball hit produces a rather dependable 30' angle....and it's the only damn angle I can visualise...if that doesn't lead to the pocket....I consult my Cliff's Notes...and then either under or over cut that ref. angle
I'll excuse myself from any more commentary on the "system"

HALHOULE
06-25-2005, 12:38 PM
I have not posted for years. All posters on any forum need never worry about me dropping a line in the water to catch pond scum fish and or bigoted opnions.

Have a nice day,

Hal

1Time
06-25-2005, 06:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr> I find the ghostball system to be awful... you imagine a fake ball and try to hit through it... this is 100 times harder because youre aiming at a fake target...why not just focus on what you can see? does anyone agree?
<hr /></blockquote>

T-Duck,

You asked me about different aiming systems in your last thread here (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=197749&amp;page=1&amp;v iew=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1), after admitting you only knew about the "ghost ball" aiming technique. Well, here's your chance to read up on a better aiming system than "looking for ghosts".

Of course if you're finding this discussion too difficult to follow, you could post your questions about the aiming system being discussed. I'm sure someone here would be glad to help you understand.

Or, if learning a new aiming system on line is a bit too much for you (as I'm sure it is for many), perhaps you could take in a pool lesson or two. You never know, you may find something new you like! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

HALHOULE
06-25-2005, 09:09 PM
qtec, I let everybody ramble on, I listenrd to them, I talked to them, then I sat back and saw how close they could come as to the how and why my systems work. The naysayers were light years away. Time now to go into hibernation, until the next coterie of naysayers appear. Until then............

Hal

Fred Agnir
06-26-2005, 05:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

<font color="blue"> Whatever. At the very least you are saying that the GB method doesnt work. Right? </font color>

Q
<hr /></blockquote>Correct. That is, there's a flaw in the ghostball system. Where (and why I suppose) do you aim situate the ghostball considering you have contact-induced throw? All of these wonderful angles that we're drawing up havn't added in CIT, right? So, most on this board will either hit it thick and miss or pocket to the thick side, aim to overcut slightly (random aim by rote), or use a touch of outside (random blend by rote). Is this what people mean by being able to discern and execute an infinite amount of angles?

What do you do when you're aiming for squirt compensation? What do you base your new ghost ball? Again, take a look at the Power of Houle Systems thread.

Where would you normally aim your ghost ball? What part of the cueball is going to hit what part of the ghost ball? If you're shooting with english, are you trying to aim the center of your cueball to the center of the ghost ball? Or are you trying to aim the english with the same point on the ghost ball? What do you do when aiming with english on a ghost ball?

Fred

Fred Agnir
06-26-2005, 05:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr>

In the past, I must have been under the wrong impression that you were a naysayer, but you've done a GREAT job on this particular thread in telling it like it is. <hr /></blockquote>I questioned Hal and his followers many times. I also drew up many diagrams trying to see where and why it didn't work on paper. But, I also spent hours on the phone with Hal, and I saw the good very quickly. What's better is I saw the improvement with league players just by showing one thing, and for me, it's always the same thing that separated decent player from good amateur players: firm inside english. I've not had an easy time telling any teammates and other league players how to routinely shoot with inside english until I showed them some tidbits from Hal's systems.

BTW, I must know you ... and I must have had plenty of arguments with you?

Fred &lt;~~~ no surprise, I'm sure

Leviathan
06-26-2005, 07:32 AM
Hi, Fred. I like your dialog between Dr. Dave and the Houle-igan. One can argue that Dr. Dave is being too analytical for his own good, but it's equally fair to say that the Houle-igan isn't presenting Hal Houle's method in a reasonable way. Dr. Dave wants logical explanations; the Houle-igan is offering faith-based education.

I accept that Mr. Houle's system--whatever the hell it is--gives you good results. Why would you, and other good players, lie about that? However, I wish Mr. Houle would quit screwing around and publish an accurate, coherent, comprehensive written explanation of his system. I'd buy the book!

AS

jason
06-26-2005, 07:46 AM
If any of you read Joe Davis' book "How I Play Snooker" he also says that the ghost ball method doesn't work.

Dr. Dave or Fred- I live in the U.K and would appreciate any info on Hal's Systems as i've heard so much about them over the years- My address is jasondevanney1975@yahoo.co.uk

Thanks /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

GStrong
06-26-2005, 08:54 AM
One more thing... I set the shot up on TP A 11, several times, using hals method, split the center of the pocket every time. Aim the left quarter of your cue ball with the right edge of the object ball... Money!!! Notice I didn't say, shoot a 45 degree cut. just line it up and knock it down, works every time!!!

Troy
06-26-2005, 09:04 AM
Hal has tried, but the ideas do not translate well to the written word or simple drawings. There are many Hal concepts. Some work for some people, others work for other people.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Leviathan:</font><hr>.....I wish Mr. Houle would quit screwing around and publish an accurate, coherent, comprehensive written explanation of his system. I'd buy the book!

AS <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
06-26-2005, 10:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Correct. That is, there's a flaw in the ghostball system. Where (and why I suppose) do you aim situate the ghostball considering you have contact-induced throw? All of these wonderful angles that we're drawing up havn't added in CIT, right? <font color="blue"> Fred, you know that throw is a variable. If one was to introduce all possibilities into a diagram , it wouldnt make sense. All diagrams on the net do not include throw.[ almost] </font color> So, most on this board will either hit it thick and miss or pocket to the thick side, aim to overcut slightly (random aim by rote), or use a touch of outside (random blend by rote). Is this what people mean by being able to discern and execute an infinite amount of angles?
<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> As far as this thread goes, you are the only one talking about an 'infinite number of angles'. Its not really even an issue.</font color>


What do you do when you're aiming for squirt compensation? What do you base your new ghost ball? Again, take a look at the Power of Houle Systems thread. <font color="blue"> Fred, I cant say it any better than Spiderman. We [ the 'sceptics'] actually do see the benefit in the system!
There would have been absolutely no problem if Hal had said,"I have an aiming system that will allow you to pot any ball on the table. WE START with a 3 point system........."
Then again, if he had been less contraversial, this thread wouldnt have had 2,000 hits! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
</font color>

Where would you normally aim your ghost ball? What part of the cueball is going to hit what part of the ghost ball? If you're shooting with english, are you trying to aim the center of your cueball to the center of the ghost ball? Or are you trying to aim the english with the same point on the ghost ball? What do you do when aiming with english on a ghost ball?

Fred <font color="blue"> Thats a lot of questions Fred. If you are going to be fair, <font color="blue"> I know you dont want to! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color> I can only base my resposnes on the one method that Dave described, and that doesnt invole E.
I will reply but not now.[ would take too long]
Anyway,its pretty obvious- you cant aim to the center of the GB when you play with E.
Like I said before- the GB is really a combination of contact points, GB and 1/4B etc.
I would bet that that at least 75% of the top snooker players , in the world, couldnt tell how many degrees a 1/2 ball hit is. Somehow, they dont need to know!.
It would be interesting to see [ Alison against an American player] who would be the most accurate in judging where a 1/2 ball hit would hit the rail and not a pocket. </font color>

Qtec

Qtec
06-26-2005, 11:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Qtec, I haven't bothered to read the whole thread <font color="blue"> Maybe you should. </font color> because it's too long <font color="blue"> I will PM all the other posters to keep their posts short. We dont want to tire you out. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color> but I'm just curious <font color="blue"> Why doesnt that surprise me! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color> if you have tried Hal's systems. <font color="blue">Have you? Could you explain them to me? </font color> If not I don't think you should bash something you haven't tried. His systems do work. <font color="blue"> Well, thats clears everything up.
Next thread! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color> <hr /></blockquote>


[ QUOTE ]
Qtec, I haven't bothered to read the whole thread because it's too long <hr /></blockquote>
Can I use this? I just love this sentence.
I,m serious!
Qtec

wolfdancer
06-26-2005, 12:25 PM
Rather then label everyone that questions the system(s) as a naysayer, consider this conundrum:
The system can't be put down on paper, and explained....but apparently can be disproved on paper. Then, there's the folks that use it, and try to explain it here...and they're wrong?
Someone interested in finding out, if and how, it works...
might then believe it's some form of Kabbalistic system, that can only be taught by a "Druid Master", to an enlightened few.
Obviously it's much too involved for my primate brain, to grasp the myriad concepts of this panoptic system.
And, after being redressed form you about the 1/2 ball system...I now advise against using any half-ball hit in pool..however it continues to work nicely in billiards

1Time
06-26-2005, 12:48 PM
Just say NO to nay. And when that doesn't work, rack 'em up.

wolfdancer says... a Druid Master... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Thanks for the laugh.

Thunderduck
06-26-2005, 03:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote recoveryjones:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote charlieb:</font><hr> Does Hal's system work for the majority of shots? Of the millions of possibilities on the table how many don't work with his systems? <hr /></blockquote>

When it comes to potting, that's just it.....there aren't millions of different possibilitys.I'm not talking about multiple ball combinations, kiss off shots etc.I'm talking about potting a single object ball with the cue ball.

I used to think that there were millions of possible cuts and we do find shots from 0-90 degrees that we encounter. All of those shots from 0-90 degrees can be accomplished with a mere 8(or less) different aims and if you become adept at banking those thinner cuts you only need four aims for any shot in pool, included in those aims is the straight in shot.

Pool in an aiming sense is really that simple.Why do you think the pro's make so many shots without missing.Yes they have cue ball control and play great shape, but they certainly have'nt memeorized millions of angles and on a smaller scale (those contained with in 0-90 degrees)they haven't memorized 90 different shots either.

No they realize pool isn't that complicated and they make ALL shots using at the max eight(could be less) different cue ball to object ball lineups. They find these lineups with an aiming system. RJ

<hr /></blockquote>

OK, can you post a cut shot drill with wei table graphics that teaches the 8 different aims?

BoroNut
06-26-2005, 06:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Leviathan:</font><hr> I accept that Mr. Houle's system--whatever the hell it is--gives you good results. Why would you, and other good players, lie about that? However, I wish Mr. Houle would quit screwing around and publish an accurate, coherent, comprehensive written explanation of his system. I'd buy the book!

AS <hr /></blockquote>

Here it is.

Full ball, 3/4 ball, 1/2 ball and fine edge are billiards aiming techniques that will give 4 very predictable and reliable angles for both cue ball and object ball. However, any slight error will change the object ball path without having any noticable difference on the natural angle of the cue ball at 1/2 ball in particular. If you want the object ball to travel at angles other than these 4 you have to frig the system, like billiards players used to, (for instance by splitting the difference or by offsetting the tip on the cue ball but maintaining the original aim line and sighting point). This will allow you to become as useless at potting as billiards players were, but on pool equipment you wont notice the difference.

Alternatively you can learn to pot any ball at any angle over any distance like snooker players do by not bothering to learn the systems they don't use.

PS - in all instances it is more accurate to use centre of cue/cue ball to aim at the object ball, not the edges of the cue ball, but you wont notice this on pool equipment either.

Boro Nut

recoveryjones
06-26-2005, 09:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote recoveryjones:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote charlieb:</font><hr> Does Hal's system work for the majority of shots? Of the millions of possibilities on the table how many don't work with his systems? <hr /></blockquote>

When it comes to potting, that's just it.....there aren't millions of different possibilitys.I'm not talking about multiple ball combinations, kiss off shots etc.I'm talking about potting a single object ball with the cue ball.

I used to think that there were millions of possible cuts and we do find shots from 0-90 degrees that we encounter. All of those shots from 0-90 degrees can be accomplished with a mere 8(or less) different aims and if you become adept at banking those thinner cuts you only need four aims for any shot in pool, included in those aims is the straight in shot.

Pool in an aiming sense is really that simple.Why do you think the pro's make so many shots without missing.Yes they have cue ball control and play great shape, but they certainly have'nt memeorized millions of angles and on a smaller scale (those contained with in 0-90 degrees)they haven't memorized 90 different shots either.

No they realize pool isn't that complicated and they make ALL shots using at the max eight(could be less) different cue ball to object ball lineups. They find these lineups with an aiming system. RJ

<hr /></blockquote>

OK, can you post a cut shot drill with wei table graphics that teaches the 8 different aims? <hr /></blockquote>


Sorry,his system cannot be illustrated on a wei table.Also including a dead straight in shot, there are only seven aims(not 8) for all shots in pool.I STAND CORRECTED.At least there are only seven aims that I use anyways.

One of those seven aims is a dead straight in, so basically I only implement 6 different(for cut shots) cue ball to object ball alignments to accomplish these aims.Two of these aims are rarely used because even with an aiming system they are difficult razor thins one of which is a 90 degree cut.
Having said that I'm making these razor thins 50-75% more often than I used to and also because I'm not very good(yet) at banks. A good banker wouldn't think twice about banking some of the shots I cut.As a matter of fact Hal's systems can be used for banks and banking those razor thin cuts probably has a much higher success rate if you know what you are doing, rather than choosing the razor cut.

Basically for cut shots under 66.5 degrees all I use is 4 cue ball to object ball alignments to make anyone of those shots.Aiming isn't that difficult,potting balls is not at all complicated.

Also I shouldn't say that it is Hal's system that I am explaining because when (sincerely,honestly) trying to explain HIS system, I'm most likely FU#%ing up.My sincerest apologies to Hal Houle.The way I aim today is based on Hal's teaching. Maybe I've modified things to work for me.All I know is that I'm potting balls better than any time ever in my life.

The system I use is not the one Dave tried to illustrate.That one works great too,however, the one I use works better FOR ME.Hal has so many excellent systems and one of them is taylor made for you.

In summary:

Many of us who have posted in this thread are very enthusastic and utterly thrilled to know Hal's systems.In our enthusasium we are probably Fu*#*ng up when trying to explain it.

In all sincereity I would like to see every pool player learn his systems. Every pool player with exception of those in my home town that is.....LOL.The best way to learn his system is to get to a pool table and give him a call. RJ

wolfdancer
06-26-2005, 10:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Many of us who have posted in this thread are very enthusastic and utterly thrilled to know Hal's systems.In our enthusasium we are probably Fu*#*ng up when trying to explain it. <hr /></blockquote>

Seems to be the whole problem "what we have here is a failure...."
There are qualified instructors, both endorsing and teaching the system,and many posters using it... but it's a hands-on thing, that doesn't lend itself readily to paper and pen.

nhp
06-27-2005, 05:11 AM
Qtec please don't start your nitpicking bullshit with me. You didn't answer my question, why even reply to my [censored] post if you are going to nitpick with your stupid ass comments that nobody thinks are funny? My question was have you tried Hal's systems? I didn't feel like searching through the entire thread to see if you have.

Quit acting like Hal is a conman, you [censored] prick. Do you see him trying to sell his systems? No you dont. How is he a conman if he's not selling anything? I have a great idea, as soon as you realize that being a C player your whole life is pathetic, and you decide that you want to become an A player like most of us who use his systems, THEN YOU MIGHT QUIT BEING A JERK AND BECOME OPEN MINDED ABOUT THE GAME. What the hell are you, a liberal in politics and a conservative in pool discussions? Talk about clooooose minded....

eg8r
06-27-2005, 05:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I would be happy to learn the next step to make the shot in my example with one of the three points of aim, but nobody has shared it with me yet. <hr /></blockquote> When you were talking with him on the phone, did he label his lesson as "basic" or did you add that description? If it was him who said it, then wouldn't you guess there was more? Following along this same line of thought, don't you think you would need to call him and ask him to share it? He is not going to track you down until you have learned everything.

Why would you wait for someone to explain it to you? Have you sat back and waited for all the rest of your education? Give the guy another call and ask him. However, if I were you, I would make sure I have a real good understanding of everything he has already told you, and that includes practicing it on the table and working through it instead of looking at it on paper, trying to identify where it fails.

Just some friendly advice,

eg8r

eg8r
06-27-2005, 05:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I already know the system works for many shots. It just doesn't work for ALL shots. <hr /></blockquote> How do you KNOW this if you have only received one lesson on the phone, and that that lesson has been described to you as "basic". Respectfully, I don't think you "know" any of it. All that you think you know, is the basic lesson Hal gave you over a phone conversation.


eg8r

HALHOULE
06-27-2005, 05:32 AM
Posting diagrams on the forum has no relationship to why my systems work. There are a few on this forum who do know why they work, but that is because they were my students, and I taught them. I deal with players who have no axe to grind, and are willing to go in with a totally open mind. When players carry baggage about what they think they know about pool, I reject them. It is not for them. I have nothing further to say on the matter at this time.

HAL

HALHOULE
06-27-2005, 05:51 AM
No one can see contact points, ever.

eg8r
06-27-2005, 06:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Fred, you know that throw is a variable. If one was to introduce all possibilities into a diagram , it wouldnt make sense. All diagrams on the net do not include throw.[ almost] <hr /></blockquote> This is possibly one of the reasons why Fred has tirelessly asked Dave, and others to quit using diagrams to explain why Hal's system didn't work.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as this thread goes, you are the only one talking about an 'infinite number of angles'. Its not really even an issue.
<hr /></blockquote> I believe that was Spiderman (or I could be misinterpreting what he is saying). Fred states there are a finite number, much different than infinite.

[ QUOTE ]
Then again, if he had been less contraversial, this thread wouldnt have had 2,000 hits! <hr /></blockquote> LOL, no doubt.

eg8r

Fred Agnir
06-27-2005, 06:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Leviathan:</font><hr> Hi, Fred. I like your dialog between Dr. Dave and the Houle-igan. One can argue that Dr. Dave is being too analytical for his own good, but it's equally fair to say that the Houle-igan isn't presenting Hal Houle's method in a reasonable way. <hr /></blockquote>I guess this is why I only presented one shot... so that peple could see the power in just one shot, a shot that players in general have difficulty. There are too many systems to explain. I could explain one, but they're not my systems to explain. A phone call is the best answer, IMO, and not these forums and diagrams.

Fred

Qtec
06-27-2005, 07:15 AM
Spiderman put it best,

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying it doesn't work - indeed, I believe it does. So do many other inexact or discretized "systems" of aiming.

The main difference of opinion seems to be "how" it works.

I maintain that it works for the same reason as other similar systems - compensation by the shooter. Others maintain that no compensation is needed because this discretized system is also exact. Here's the argument:

Fred, Cane, et al: The system works because it is exact, or sufficiently so, such that no compensation is required.

SpiderMan, Dave, Qtec, et al: The system works because, despite not being sufficiently exact for all shots, the player compensates as necessary to pocket balls.

Those of us in the "compensation" camp are NOT trying to prove it doesn't work, only that it is geometrically incorrect for many shots. Demonstrating this validates the compensation argument for shots which are made despite the aimpoint being "wrong".

SpiderMan
<hr /></blockquote>

Ok!

[ QUOTE ]
Quit acting like Hal is a conman, you [censored] prick. Do you see him trying to sell his systems? No you dont. How is he a conman if he's not selling anything? <hr /></blockquote>

Either you are on drugs or you forgot to take your medication! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Where did you ever get the idea that H is a conman???????? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif If you would just read the FRIGGIN thread, you might understand.
Yeah, I know, you cant be bothered! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
FYI, Hal PM,d me offering to tell me everything he knew- FREE OF CHARGE! NO COST. GRATIS.

[ QUOTE ]
I have a great idea, as soon as you realize that being a C player your whole life is pathetic, <font color="blue"> Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color> and you decide that you want to become an A player like most of us who use his systems, <hr /></blockquote>


Qtec........dont see the connection between politics and Aiming Systems??????????????

Fred Agnir
06-27-2005, 07:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> and you decide that you want to become an A player like most of us who use his systems, <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> "us A players." Haaaaaaaaaaa /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color><hr /></blockquote>You really do have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you? Why do you continue to quote something that wasn't written? He didn't say he was an A player. He said that he wants to be an A player. Your continued misreading and misrepresentation get people pissed off at your posts.

Fred

SpiderMan
06-27-2005, 07:52 AM
You've chosen to respond to only one small point, but that's OK.

You don't need pinpoint accuracy to hit a pocket, but you should be able to get within a two- or three-degree window out of the continuous spectrum.

I can do that, so can you, whether you realize it or not. But three, five, or nine discretes can't do it, without compensation.

You continue to mention variations of the same theme; "if your two closest aimpoints are not enough, use one in between". Isn't that compensation? "In between" is a continuum, not discrete. Or would you like to furnish a number? How many discrete aimpoints do you think you need, to cover all options without compensation?

SpiderMan

Fred Agnir
06-27-2005, 08:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>You've chosen to respond to only one small point, but that's OK. <hr /></blockquote> Yup, I chose one shot that I would guess over 90% of this board has problems with, but can be solved with just one little tidbit gleaned from Hal's systems. And knowing that one tidbit can open a whole lot of closed doors. It was simply to illustrate the power of the systems.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>
You continue to mention variations of the same theme; "if your two closest aimpoints are not enough, use one in between". <hr /></blockquote> I only mentioned this to Dr. Dave because in the first place, he wasn't using a Houle method.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't that compensation? "In between" is a continuum, not discrete. Or would you like to furnish a number? How many discrete aimpoints do you think you need, to cover all options without compensation?

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote> 9

Fred

HALHOULE
06-27-2005, 08:19 AM
I WANT TO TELL YOU A REAL SHOCKER. FRED AGNIR AND I CAN ACCURATELY USE TWO ANGLES FOR EVERY AND ALL MANNER OF SHOTS POSSIBLE ON A TABLE. SO YOU THINK THERE ARE MILLIONS OF ANGLES? NOW HERE IS A CUD FOR EACH OF YOU TO CHEW ON TILL THE COWS COME HOME, AND YOU SOLVE THE PUZZLE. HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE THEM, FRED?

HAL

SpiderMan
06-27-2005, 08:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote recoveryjones:</font><hr>In summary, I agree with Fred.Why try to prove something wrong and instead phone Hal, get to a pool table and give the system a try.When I say try I don't mean 5 minutes....let the medicine work.Some might see an immediate change within 5 minutes ,for others it might take 6 minutes...LOL. Give it a try.RJ
<hr /></blockquote>


I haven't seen anyone in this thread who has said this particular aiming system does not work. I'm certainly not trying to prove it doesn’t – in fact, I agree it does:

http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=198828&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1

http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=198799&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1

Several of us have proposed a theory of HOW it works, ie compensation by the shooter. Many, mostly proponents of this system, rabidly disagree yet offer no theories of their own (other than the anecdotal).

By saying I am trying to "prove everthing wrong", Fred is diverting your attention, changing the subject. I'm not trying to prove it doesn't work, nor is Dr Dave. We're offering an explanation of why it does work.

I'm beginning to think that many folks would rather just think it's "magic", as opposed to trying to understand.

Yes, I worked with Hal three years ago, several times, for several hours.

SpiderMan

Qtec
06-27-2005, 08:31 AM
You are correct. I should have cut and pasted. The misquote has been deleted.
If I was being flippant its because the claim was nonsensical.
ie, why would I not want to be an A player ?


Have I tried Dave,s shot? Of course I have! I,ve tried the same shot into the middle with the OB 1/2 way between the spot and the end rail, ie much sharper.

I got the same result as Dave.

I really think the only way to understand this concept [ that cant be put down on paper] is to get on a real table and have Hal demonstate.

Qtec

Fred Agnir
06-27-2005, 08:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr>

In the past, I must have been under the wrong impression that you were a naysayer, but you've done a GREAT job on this particular thread in telling it like it is. <hr /></blockquote>BTW, I must know you ... and I must have had plenty of arguments with you?

Fred &lt;~~~ no surprise, I'm sure <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry, Drivermaker/Billy (the adminstrator needs to allow you to take your UserID back from whomever). I didn't see your first post. Yes, you and I have had heated discussions on Predator technology and also whether or not some of the science guys can play. But, that's not today's discussion.

Today, you and I can play nice. Don't get used to it /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Fred

SpiderMan
06-27-2005, 08:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Rather then label everyone that questions the system(s) as a naysayer, consider this conundrum:
The system can't be put down on paper, and explained....but apparently can be disproved on paper. Then, there's the folks that use it, and try to explain it here...and they're wrong?
Someone interested in finding out, if and how, it works...
might then believe it's some form of Kabbalistic system, that can only be taught by a "Druid Master", to an enlightened few.
Obviously it's much too involved for my primate brain, to grasp the myriad concepts of this panoptic system.
And, after being redressed form you about the 1/2 ball system...I now advise against using any half-ball hit in pool..however it continues to work nicely in billiards <hr /></blockquote>

I don't believe I have tried to "disprove" anything.

Several have accused me of trying to prove this system doesn't work, but that is not true. I have been offering a theory of how it can work, but many seem to prefer considering it "magic" /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=198828&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1

http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=198799&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1

SpiderMan

dr_dave
06-27-2005, 11:04 AM
FYI, I've added another analysis (TP A.13 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-13.pdf)) to my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/pool/) concerning lines of aim and coverage percentages. The results are very pertinent to much of the discussion in this thread.

For a given shot, with N different lines of aim, assuming you can hit where you are aiming, the object ball can go only in N different directions. Depending on where a pocket is and how far it is from the object ball, the cut shot may or may not be makable with one of the selected aiming lines.

Even with English effects (squirt, curve, and throw) and cling (collision-induced throw), the object ball can still go only in N different directions for N lines of aim for a given cue stick elevation and shot speed, and for given ball and table conditions.

Now for some of the results of the analysis (see TP A.13 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-13.pdf) for the details):
<ul type="square"> To be able to pocket an object ball into a pocket about 3 feet away, with an average angle to the pocket, and for any cut angle, the required number of aiming lines is about 19!

If you consider cut shots only within a typical range (e.g., 7.5 to 52.5 degrees), and use only three equally spaced lines of aim (e.g., the Hal 15, 30, and 45 degree aims):

- If the object ball is less than a foot from the pocket, every shot can be pocketed with the three lines of aim.

- If the object ball is more than two feet from the pocket, less than 50% of all cut shots in the limited range can be pocketed with only three lines of aim.
[/list]
See TP A.13 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-13.pdf) for more background and other results.

Regards,
Dr. Dave

dr_dave
06-27-2005, 11:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote charlieb:</font><hr> Does Hal's system work for the majority of shots? Of the millions of possibilities on the table how many don't work with his systems?<hr /></blockquote>
The answers to these questions can be found in my new posting (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=199023&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=&amp;PHPSESSID=).

Regards,
Dave

recoveryjones
06-27-2005, 11:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote recoveryjones:</font><hr>In summary, I agree with Fred.Why try to prove something wrong and instead phone Hal, get to a pool table and give the system a try.When I say try I don't mean 5 minutes....let the medicine work.Some might see an immediate change within 5 minutes ,for others it might take 6 minutes...LOL. Give it a try.RJ
<hr /></blockquote>


I haven't seen anyone in this thread who has said this particular aiming system does not work. I'm certainly not trying to prove it doesn’t – in fact, I agree it does:

http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=198828&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1

http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=198799&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1

Several of us have proposed a theory of HOW it works, ie compensation by the shooter. Many, mostly proponents of this system, rabidly disagree yet offer no theories of their own (other than the anecdotal).

By saying I am trying to "prove everthing wrong", Fred is diverting your attention, changing the subject. I'm not trying to prove it doesn't work, nor is Dr Dave. We're offering an explanation of why it does work.

I'm beginning to think that many folks would rather just think it's "magic", as opposed to trying to understand.

Yes, I worked with Hal three years ago, several times, for several hours.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

Hi Spiderman, My quote was not directed at you personally, it was just a general quote for those who are sceptical,however,haven't tried any HH systems. RJ

dr_dave
06-27-2005, 11:33 AM
I have talked to Hal for a few hours, before and after I posted my analyses. The last time I talked to him, he asked me to try a few different things to make the shot in my example. I have tried everything he has suggested with an open mind, but I still have not made the shot once. This is not because I suck; because when trying a certain aim (per Hal's instructions), the object ball misses the pocket in about the same spot every time.

BTW, I added the word "basic," because I was told he has so many systems. Hal still claimed the "basic" system, as described, should work for my example, without compensation or adjustment (aiming line tweaking, head shifting, back-hand English, squirt, or anything else).

A I have said before, I still think Hal's visual references are very useful, because it is very easy to see lines through quarters, edges, and centers of balls. So I agree that his "basic" system is a great framework from which to start. However, to make all shots, compensation and adjustment away from the three lines of aim are required.

For more info, see:
- required lines of aim, and coverage percentages (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=199023&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=&amp;PHPSESSID=)
- three lines of aim are not enough (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=198793&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I would be happy to learn the next step to make the shot in my example with one of the three points of aim, but nobody has shared it with me yet. <hr /></blockquote> When you were talking with him on the phone, did he label his lesson as "basic" or did you add that description? If it was him who said it, then wouldn't you guess there was more? Following along this same line of thought, don't you think you would need to call him and ask him to share it? He is not going to track you down until you have learned everything.

Why would you wait for someone to explain it to you? Have you sat back and waited for all the rest of your education? Give the guy another call and ask him. However, if I were you, I would make sure I have a real good understanding of everything he has already told you, and that includes practicing it on the table and working through it instead of looking at it on paper, trying to identify where it fails.

Just some friendly advice,

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-27-2005, 11:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I already know the system works for many shots. It just doesn't work for ALL shots. <hr /></blockquote> How do you KNOW this if you have only received one lesson on the phone, and that that lesson has been described to you as "basic". Respectfully, I don't think you "know" any of it. All that you think you know, is the basic lesson Hal gave you over a phone conversation.<hr /></blockquote>
I know Hal's "framework" (maybe that's a better word than "basic") works for many shots, because when I use his system to pocket shots that are lined up better than the shot in my example, IT DOES WORK. For more details, see the posting concerning my latest analysis (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=199023&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=&amp;PHPSESSID=).

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-27-2005, 11:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote HALHOULE:</font><hr> Posting diagrams on the forum has no relationship to why my systems work. There are a few on this forum who do know why they work, but that is because they were my students, and I taught them. I deal with players who have no axe to grind, and are willing to go in with a totally open mind. When players carry baggage about what they think they know about pool, I reject them. It is not for them. I have nothing further to say on the matter at this time.<hr /></blockquote>
Hal,

I have ABSOLUTELY no "axe to grind." I hope you don't think that about me. I have tremendous respect for you and I hope you will still consider joining our discussion. I would much rather hear the straight dope from the creator of the system rather than various versions from other. I hope I haven't misrepresented anything you have taught me. If I have, please let me know.

Also, if you have any further insight into why I can't make the shot in my example using your system, please share it with me (and others). I would like nothing better than to know why your system works.

I would also like to hear you thoughts on the posting concerning my latest analysis (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=199023&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=&amp;PHPSESSID=). I hope you continue to contribute to this forum. You have lots of great knowledge and experience to share with others. It would be a shame if it you share it only with people who contact you by phone. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

With all due respect,
Dave

Cane
06-27-2005, 12:32 PM
Dave, I see the point of your proof, and I've been sitting here with a calculator and running back and forth from computer to pool table with it and a laser pointer and a digital caliper and a cue doing some things of my own. First, I think your pocket size is WAY to conservative. Not the pocket size per se, but the calculation you use to derive "effective" pocket opening for an object ball. I know you based it on a standardized measurement, but if your drawing is representative of that size, then keep in mind that we're putting spheres into that pocket and not square objects. Square objects would have to be restricted to p/2, but not spheres. Although I rarely shoot to the facings, I believe you can increase the pocket size from p/2 to p/1.375 and, while that will not be exact and will depend on facing angles to the cushions and some other factors, will give you a much more accurate final figure in your proof. Actually, I think the p/1.375 is still a bit conservative for a shot into a pocket from a direct approach, but it's a lot closer, IMO than p/2. In any case, this figure that I think is conservative, gives you a final opening of 2.85 available to pocket the ball as opposed to the initial opening of 2, an increase of 42.5%. One certain shots and certain angles, it would be either more than that or less than that. A frozen rail shot all the way up the table, actually leaves a MUCH smaller opening, while a shot going straight to a pocket with 110 facing angle would allow you a much wider effective opening to pocket a ball (p/1.375 assuming a 5" pocket). My figures may not be, and are probably not exact, but they're damn close, and considering your tech proof, then on some shots there can be a tolerance of zero error in aim to make the shot. Well, in the real world, we know that just isn't true. If it were, then making a frozen ball down the rail would be somewhere next to impossible. It wouldn't be a common shot that even a beginner could make, it would be one of those shots that you see only on Trick Shot Magic!

Now, that being said, I'm an avid user of 2 of Hal's aiming systems. To me, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. I go to the table and pocket balls on an EXTREMELY high percentage using 2 of Hal's systems. As an engineer, I did my level best to prove that these systems either worked or didn't work. ON PAPER, I could never prove that they did. On the table, I can definitively prove that they do. You or anyone else can show me diagrams or calculations until the cows come home and I'll never be convinced that they don't. I keep hearing "compensation", yet I can shoot shots on any table, blind from behind a curtain where it's impossible for me to see the pockets and make the shots. If I'm compensating, then how, when the cue ball and object ball are placed randomly on the table, do I know how much to compensate? I can't! I'd have to have a memory well beyond "photographic" to memorize the compensations needed to accomplish this shooting blind? If compensation were the answer, then I'd literally have to have memorized millions of shots in order to do this! I may be grossly underestimating my brain power, but I don't think I'm smart enough of a cookie to do that!

The only thing I know for sure is that this debate will never be resolved. Those that are experienced with Hal's systems use them and know they work. Those not experienced with them either don't believe they'll work or believe that they work because of compensation on the shooters part. My personal experience with the systems that I use is that they work and they work well, no matter what the drawings and calculations say. I'll never be convinced otherwise, nor will the more than 30 players that I've taught these systems to who have used them to elevate their games.

Bob (aka 5BallBob)

dr_dave
06-27-2005, 01:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr>I think your pocket size is WAY to conservative. Not the pocket size per se, but the calculation you use to derive "effective" pocket opening for an object ball. I know you based it on a standardized measurement, but if your drawing is representative of that size, then keep in mind that we're putting spheres into that pocket and not square objects. Square objects would have to be restricted to p/2, but not spheres. Although I rarely shoot to the facings, I believe you can increase the pocket size from p/2 to p/1.375 and, while that will not be exact and will depend on facing angles to the cushions and some other factors, will give you a much more accurate final figure in your proof.<hr /></blockquote>

The "p" in TP A.13 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-13.pdf) is based on the very involved analysis in TP 3.5 and TP 3.6 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/index.html). I don't suggest you look at those, unless you have a few weeks to kill. My November '04 through January '05 instructional articles (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/bd_articles/index.html) do a fairly good job of summarizing and explaining the results with many illustrations. Please do check those out. My analysis does treat the balls like spheres (not cubes) ... that's one reason the analysis was so tough.

I think you might be misinterpreting my "p." Please see the articles for more information. Also, I am not using "p/2," I am using the full "p" in my analysis. A "p/2" appears in the "atan" calculation (because the math deals with half the triangle), but the "2" in front of the "atan" accounts for the entire allowable angle. If you have further questions about the math, please send me PMs because I doubt very many people (if any at all) on the board are interested in the math details. Honestly, I don't like the math either ... I just like the results and what they mean in the real world.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr>considering your tech proof, then on some shots there can be a tolerance of zero error in aim to make the shot. Well, in the real world, we know that just isn't true. If it were, then making a frozen ball down the rail would be somewhere next to impossible.<hr /></blockquote>
Again, I think you are misinterpreting my results. Nowhere do my plots or equations show a zero target size (i.e., zero margin for error) for rail cut shots into a corner pocket. Now, for side pockets, the effective target size IS zero for very large angles to the pocket (for BCA regulation pockets).

Regards,
Dave

PS: There was a bunch of discussion concerning my "effective pocket size" results in the past. As with many other topics, I have links to many of the important posts on the Online Discussion Threads area (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html) of my website. For the pocket size stuff, see the links under "shot difficulty as a function of distance."

dr_dave
06-27-2005, 01:30 PM
FYI to all, some discussion concerning these results has been started at a different location (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=199036&amp;page =&amp;view=&amp;sb=&amp;o=&amp;vc=1).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> FYI, I've added another analysis (TP A.13 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-13.pdf)) to my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/pool/) concerning lines of aim and coverage percentages. The results are very pertinent to much of the discussion in this thread.

For a given shot, with N different lines of aim, assuming you can hit where you are aiming, the object ball can go only in N different directions. Depending on where a pocket is and how far it is from the object ball, the cut shot may or may not be makable with one of the selected aiming lines.

Even with English effects (squirt, curve, and throw) and cling (collision-induced throw), the object ball can still go only in N different directions for N lines of aim for a given cue stick elevation and shot speed, and for given ball and table conditions.

Now for some of the results of the analysis (see TP A.13 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-13.pdf) for the details):
<ul type="square"> To be able to pocket an object ball into a pocket about 3 feet away, with an average angle to the pocket, and for any cut angle, the required number of aiming lines is about 19!

If you consider cut shots only within a typical range (e.g., 7.5 to 52.5 degrees), and use only three equally spaced lines of aim (e.g., the Hal 15, 30, and 45 degree aims):

- If the object ball is less than a foot from the pocket, every shot can be pocketed with the three lines of aim.

- If the object ball is more than two feet from the pocket, less than 50% of all cut shots in the limited range can be pocketed with only three lines of aim.
[/list]
See TP A.13 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-13.pdf) for more background and other results.

Regards,
Dr. Dave <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-27-2005, 01:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jason:</font><hr>Dr. Dave or Fred- I live in the U.K and would appreciate any info on Hal's Systems as i've heard so much about them over the years<hr /></blockquote>
The only thorough, written description I've see is posted online (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/msg/9d491b6392cbd7de?dmode=source&amp;hl=en). Some other links to related, interesting discussion can be found under "aiming" in my online threads link summary (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html).

Happy reading.
Dave

wolfdancer
06-27-2005, 01:38 PM
after almost 3000 views, and nearing 200 replies...nothing has been resolved; nobody's views have been changed.
I think you neither tried to prove, nor disprove the system, rather attempted to verify it through graphical,and geometric analysis.Perhaps, if you had considered using Forme's equation??
Oddly enough,[ it can't be done because the balls are round, and your graphs are flat ]
Very odd, since aircraft design begins on a flat piece of paper....and if they can then eventually get the plane into the air; why can't we get the system to fly?
The earth is round, maps are flat, and we can use them to get from point A to point B, several thousand miles apart...but can't get the damn ball into a hole 9 ft away by aiming ENE (again, on paper)
I respectfully submit that the answer, lies in the question asked at link (http://www.johnnyarcher.net/ask.html)

I think the system(s)defy, defies analysis, but works, if you respect it's limits.
Somehow, without much thought....the balls seem to find a receptive abyss, using just a relatively few aiming angles.
If there is a mystery to pool, it is how the cueball manages to find the side pocket opening while rebounding from an end rail, at an impossible angle relative to a track line into that pocket

dr_dave
06-27-2005, 01:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr> I find the ghostball system to be awful... you imagine a fake ball and try to hit through it... this is 100 times harder because youre aiming at a fake target...why not just focus on what you can see? does anyone agree?<hr /></blockquote>

The ghost-ball aiming method might be awful for you, but some people might find it useful. There are things you can do in practice and during play to help with visualization (e.g., see video demonstrations NV 3.1 and NV 3.2 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/normal_videos/index.html)). Also, you might check out the article dealing with how pros aim (http://www.sfbilliards.com/PnB_aiming.pdf). Apparently, some of the pros find ghost-ball visualization useful.

Regards,
Dave

SpiderMan
06-27-2005, 01:48 PM
Bob,

When you are calculating the effective pocket sizes to find the range of allowable "departure angles" of the OB from it's initial rest, be sure to consider that these angles must represent the centerline of the OB, not it's outside edges.

SpiderMan

Popcorn
06-27-2005, 01:53 PM
I am just curious, is this a system he believes he has developed himself? It seems not that unlike things I have seen before and been told about in the past. As a researcher you know that given a particular problem, people will often arrive independently at the same conclusion thinking they have discovered something unique only to learn it is already out there and in some cases may actually be common knowledge.

I was shown aiming systems, if I am understanding it correctly, identical to this years ago by a player named Doc Hazard. He had all kinds of systems for everything, pocketing balls, playing position and so on. He was no fraud or nut case by the way, I would watch him run hundreds of balls on a daily basis, he was a well known player. But even though he was always preaching his systems to me, I found them only useful as training devices and not practical to be occupying your mind with when actually playing. Gene Skinner was another one with systems as well and also a great player. He had tricks with cue grips and strokes that he used on different shots depending on what he was trying to do.

I think the thing here with what I have been reading may be there is so much more to the game then just a method of chinching balls. There is such a combination of feel and nuance required in the game to play at a high level, it can't be done on a conscious mechanical level, it has to become part of the player. I don't know if someone becomes obsessed with a system based type of play employing it every time they address a ball it won't hold them back from overall development in their game in the long run. They may see a small short term improvement but may give up something as well. The least of which may be the confidence required in their own abilities independent of tricks or gimmicks they may think work, that if on a given night break down for some reason, they panic and you hear the phrase, "I can't make a ball", as they break down their cue and quit. This is just an observation not a criticism of this system or any system for that matter. Just they have to be kept in perspective as to their actual value in the real world.

wolfdancer
06-27-2005, 01:55 PM
Bob, sorry to say that your attempts are bound to fail, because you do not have enough equipment. In addition to your calculater, laser pointer, and calipers....you will neeed
lodestone, a divining rod,a builder's transit, and an abacus.
Rose petals, and some ancient incantations are not necessary, but a nice addition....helps make the mind more receptive

Cueless Joey
06-27-2005, 01:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr> I find the ghostball system to be awful... you imagine a fake ball and try to hit through it... this is 100 times harder because youre aiming at a fake target...why not just focus on what you can see? does anyone agree?<hr /></blockquote>

The ghost-ball aiming method might be awful for you, but some people might find it useful. There are things you can do in practice and during play to help with visualization (e.g., see video demonstrations NV 3.1 and NV 3.2 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/normal_videos/index.html)). Also, you might check out the article dealing with how pros aim (http://www.sfbilliards.com/PnB_aiming.pdf). Apparently, some of the pros find ghost-ball visualization useful.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>
After tinkering with other systems, I'm back to the ghost ball method. The other systems just require way too much thinking and ruins my thought process.
With the ghost ball, I line to it ( my right chest, bride and grip hand ) and shoot through. By knowing the ghostball, one has a very good idea where the cueball goes as well.

wolfdancer
06-27-2005, 02:01 PM
a nice, different perspective...thanks

SpiderMan
06-27-2005, 02:06 PM
Dave,

I cut and pasted from your link to the 1997 RSB posting. This poster signed himself as "Pool Hal", though he did not give a last name. It does sound like the same information you recently received over the telephone:

&gt; "There are only 3 angles for any shot, on any size table. This includes;
&gt; caroms, single rail banks, double rail banks, 1, 2, 3, and 4 rail banks,
&gt; and double kiss banks. Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4 1ˇ2
&gt; x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is wide. The table
&gt; corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to
&gt; the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45 degrees. When you lay a
&gt; cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond on the same end rail, you
&gt; are forming an angle of 30 degrees. When you lay a cue from the side
&gt; pocket to the first diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle
&gt; of 15 degrees. When you add up these 3 angles, they total 90 degrees, which
&gt; is the same angle formed by the table corners. The cue ball relation to
&gt; object ball relation shot angle is always 15, 30, or 45 degrees. The
&gt; solution is very simple. There are only 2 edges on the cue ball to aim
&gt; with, and they are always exactly in the same place on the cue ball. There
&gt; are only 3 exact spots on the object ball to aim to, and they are always
&gt; exactly in the same place on the object ball. So, 2 edges on the cue ball,
&gt; and 3 spots on the object ball; 2 x 3 = 6 which is the total number of
&gt; table pockets. This means that, depending upon how the cue ball and object
&gt; ball lie in relation to one another, you may either pocket the object ball
&gt; directly into a pocket or bank it into any one of the remaining 5 pockets.
&gt; Of course, the reverse is true. If the relationship of cue ball to object
&gt; ball can only be a bank, so be it. There is never a need to look at a
&gt; pocket or cushion while lining up the edge on the cue ball to the spot on
&gt; the object ball. You have only those 3 angles Your only requirement is to
&gt; recognize whether your shot is a 15, 30, or 45 degree angle. Recognizing
&gt; those 3 angles can be accomplished in an instant by aiming the edge of the
&gt; cue ball to one of the spots on the object ball. It will be obvious which
&gt; object ball spot is correct. There will be no doubt. Any time either one of
&gt; the 2 edges on the cue ball is aimed at any one of the 3 spots on the
&gt; object ball, that object ball must go to a pocket. Choose the correct spot
&gt; and the object ball will most certainly go to the chosen pocket. The top
&gt; professional players in the game have always known about this professional
&gt; aiming system, but they are a closed fraternity, and you are the enemy.
&gt; Interested in where those spots are located?
&gt; The 2 places on the cue
&gt; ball are the left edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball
&gt; to the left; and the right edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the
&gt; object ball to the right. The 3 spots on the object ball are the quarters,
&gt; and the center. The quarters and center of the object ball face straight at
&gt; the edges of your cue ball, not facing toward the pocket. In other words,
&gt; if you were on a work-bench at home, there would be no pocket, so you would
&gt; just line up the edge of the cue ball straight to your target on the object
&gt; ball. When you cut to the left for 15 degrees, aim the left cue ball edge
&gt; at the object ball left quarter. When you cut to the left for 30 degrees,
&gt; aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball center. When you cut to the
&gt; left for 45 degrees, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball right
&gt; quarter. When you cut to the right for 15 degrees, you aim the cue ball
&gt; right edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for
&gt; 30 degrees, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object center. When you
&gt; cut to the right for 45 degrees, you aim the right cue ball edge to the
&gt; object ball left quarter. If you'll just get down and aim your old way,
&gt; you'll be close to where you should be aiming. Look to see (without
&gt; changing your head or eye position) just where the cue ball edge is aiming
&gt; at the object ball. You'll see that on every shot that the cue ball edge is
&gt; always aiming at the same targets on the object ball. Remember, this system
&gt; is for any shot on the table; banks, caroms, combinations, and so forth.
&gt; The only shot remaining is the extreme cut for any shot over 45 degrees.
&gt; Aim the cue ball edge to the eighth of the object ball (which is half of
&gt; the quarter). Don't let the pocket influence you. Have a friend hold the
&gt; ball tray between the object ball and the pocket, so you cannot see the
&gt; pocket, and you'll see that those 3 angles will handle just about anything.
&gt; Of course, you would have chosen the 15, 30, or 45 degree angle before your
&gt; friend put the ball tray in place. It also makes it much more interesting
&gt; if you don't tell your friend how you are pocketing the ball without seeing
&gt; the pocket. Have some fun. For any questions, call me. Regards, POOL HAL"
&gt;

SpiderMan

dr_dave
06-27-2005, 02:18 PM
Popcorn,

Great post!

I will let Hal or the "Hal followers" respond to the first part.

Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> I am just curious, is this a system he believes he has developed himself? It seems not that unlike things I have seen before and been told about in the past. As a researcher you know that given a particular problem, people will often arrive independently at the same conclusion thinking they have discovered something unique only to learn it is already out there and in some cases may actually be common knowledge.

I was shown aiming systems, if I am understanding it correctly, identical to this years ago by a player named Doc Hazard. He had all kinds of systems for everything, pocketing balls, playing position and so on. He was no fraud or nut case by the way, I would watch him run hundreds of balls on a daily basis, he was a well known player. But even though he was always preaching his systems to me, I found them only useful as training devices and not practical to be occupying your mind with when actually playing. Gene Skinner was another one with systems as well and also a great player. He had tricks with cue grips and strokes that he used on different shots depending on what he was trying to do.

I think the thing here with what I have been reading may be there is so much more to the game then just a method of chinching balls. There is such a combination of feel and nuance required in the game to play at a high level, it can't be done on a conscious mechanical level, it has to become part of the player. I don't know if someone becomes obsessed with a system based type of play employing it every time they address a ball it won't hold them back from overall development in their game in the long run. They may see a small short term improvement but may give up something as well. The least of which may be the confidence required in their own abilities independent of tricks or gimmicks they may think work, that if on a given night break down for some reason, they panic and you hear the phrase, "I can't make a ball", as they break down their cue and quit. This is just an observation not a criticism of this system or any system for that matter. Just they have to be kept in perspective as to their actual value in the real world. <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
06-27-2005, 02:21 PM
Good idea to repost it. Hal taught me several varieties of the same basic theme. But they all involved aiming quarters, the center, or edges of one ball at quarters, the center, or edges of the other ball.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> Dave,

I cut and pasted from your link to the 1997 RSB posting. This poster signed himself as "Pool Hal", though he did not give a last name. It does sound like the same information you recently received over the telephone:

&gt; "There are only 3 angles for any shot, on any size table. This includes;
&gt; caroms, single rail banks, double rail banks, 1, 2, 3, and 4 rail banks,
&gt; and double kiss banks. Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4 1ˇ2
&gt; x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is wide. The table
&gt; corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to
&gt; the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45 degrees. When you lay a
&gt; cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond on the same end rail, you
&gt; are forming an angle of 30 degrees. When you lay a cue from the side
&gt; pocket to the first diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle
&gt; of 15 degrees. When you add up these 3 angles, they total 90 degrees, which
&gt; is the same angle formed by the table corners. The cue ball relation to
&gt; object ball relation shot angle is always 15, 30, or 45 degrees. The
&gt; solution is very simple. There are only 2 edges on the cue ball to aim
&gt; with, and they are always exactly in the same place on the cue ball. There
&gt; are only 3 exact spots on the object ball to aim to, and they are always
&gt; exactly in the same place on the object ball. So, 2 edges on the cue ball,
&gt; and 3 spots on the object ball; 2 x 3 = 6 which is the total number of
&gt; table pockets. This means that, depending upon how the cue ball and object
&gt; ball lie in relation to one another, you may either pocket the object ball
&gt; directly into a pocket or bank it into any one of the remaining 5 pockets.
&gt; Of course, the reverse is true. If the relationship of cue ball to object
&gt; ball can only be a bank, so be it. There is never a need to look at a
&gt; pocket or cushion while lining up the edge on the cue ball to the spot on
&gt; the object ball. You have only those 3 angles Your only requirement is to
&gt; recognize whether your shot is a 15, 30, or 45 degree angle. Recognizing
&gt; those 3 angles can be accomplished in an instant by aiming the edge of the
&gt; cue ball to one of the spots on the object ball. It will be obvious which
&gt; object ball spot is correct. There will be no doubt. Any time either one of
&gt; the 2 edges on the cue ball is aimed at any one of the 3 spots on the
&gt; object ball, that object ball must go to a pocket. Choose the correct spot
&gt; and the object ball will most certainly go to the chosen pocket. The top
&gt; professional players in the game have always known about this professional
&gt; aiming system, but they are a closed fraternity, and you are the enemy.
&gt; Interested in where those spots are located?
&gt; The 2 places on the cue
&gt; ball are the left edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball
&gt; to the left; and the right edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the
&gt; object ball to the right. The 3 spots on the object ball are the quarters,
&gt; and the center. The quarters and center of the object ball face straight at
&gt; the edges of your cue ball, not facing toward the pocket. In other words,
&gt; if you were on a work-bench at home, there would be no pocket, so you would
&gt; just line up the edge of the cue ball straight to your target on the object
&gt; ball. When you cut to the left for 15 degrees, aim the left cue ball edge
&gt; at the object ball left quarter. When you cut to the left for 30 degrees,
&gt; aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball center. When you cut to the
&gt; left for 45 degrees, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball right
&gt; quarter. When you cut to the right for 15 degrees, you aim the cue ball
&gt; right edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for
&gt; 30 degrees, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object center. When you
&gt; cut to the right for 45 degrees, you aim the right cue ball edge to the
&gt; object ball left quarter. If you'll just get down and aim your old way,
&gt; you'll be close to where you should be aiming. Look to see (without
&gt; changing your head or eye position) just where the cue ball edge is aiming
&gt; at the object ball. You'll see that on every shot that the cue ball edge is
&gt; always aiming at the same targets on the object ball. Remember, this system
&gt; is for any shot on the table; banks, caroms, combinations, and so forth.
&gt; The only shot remaining is the extreme cut for any shot over 45 degrees.
&gt; Aim the cue ball edge to the eighth of the object ball (which is half of
&gt; the quarter). Don't let the pocket influence you. Have a friend hold the
&gt; ball tray between the object ball and the pocket, so you cannot see the
&gt; pocket, and you'll see that those 3 angles will handle just about anything.
&gt; Of course, you would have chosen the 15, 30, or 45 degree angle before your
&gt; friend put the ball tray in place. It also makes it much more interesting
&gt; if you don't tell your friend how you are pocketing the ball without seeing
&gt; the pocket. Have some fun. For any questions, call me. Regards, POOL HAL"
&gt;

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

Fred Agnir
06-27-2005, 03:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> I am just curious, is this a system he believes he has developed himself? <hr /></blockquote>If you're talking about the diagram that Dr. Dave drew, as I said, this is NOT a representation of any of the systems Hal discusses.

I knew it would just muddy up the waters.

Fred

nhp
06-27-2005, 04:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Where did you ever get the idea that H is a conman???????? If you would just read the FRIGGIN thread, you might understand.
Yeah, I know, you cant be bothered!
FYI, Hal PM,d me offering to tell me everything he knew- FREE OF CHARGE! NO COST. GRATIS.

<hr /></blockquote>

Did you forget what you said about him? Maybe this will help you understand why I think you're a prick:

[ QUOTE ]

Dave, Hal is obviously a very clever guy. He used to teach tennis so he probably has a good grounding in psychology.
IMO, Hal likes to fish, internet forums are the pond, his posts are the bait and I dont have to tell you who the fish are!

Qtec

<hr /></blockquote>

If that doesn't sound like you calling him a conman I don't know what does...

By the way, I am an "A" player, if you have any questions on how to become one, feel free to ask. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

recoveryjones
06-27-2005, 06:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr>
The only thing I know for sure is that this debate will never be resolved. Those that are experienced with Hal's systems use them and know they work. Those not experienced with them either don't believe they'll work or believe that they work because of compensation on the shooters part. My personal experience with the systems that I use is that they work and they work well, no matter what the drawings and calculations say. I'll never be convinced otherwise, nor will the more than 30 players that I've taught these systems to who have used them to elevate their games.

Bob (aka 5BallBob) <hr /></blockquote>

Excellent summary Cane. Your last paragraph says it all.Throw all the math,calculations and analogys in the FU#@ing garbage can.The proof is what happens on the table.

I need work on speed control and shape routes, however, potting balls for me is no longer a problem.

Other than the higher end pro's, I think I can now pot balls(I didn't say play pool,I said pot balls) as good as anyone and wouldn't shy away from a potting contest with any A or A+ player.

Is it because I see the balls better,have a better stroke or have some rare talent.NO!! It because Hal's system does all the work for me. All I have to do is recognize the right angle zone I'm in,pick one of ONLY 6 cue stick to cue ball to object ball lineups,pivot my cue back to the middle and pull the trigger.That's right for me there are only 6 lineups for every cut shot in pool and one more for a straight in shot. That's it,potting balls is that simple!

It's freakin' unbelievable how it works once you catch on.RJ

IMPORTANT FOOTNOTE:The above info is according to me and I need to clarify that, because I don't want to misrepresent Hal in any way.

HALHOULE
06-27-2005, 06:42 PM
I WILL REPEAT AGAIN, I ONLY USE TWO ANGLES TO DO ANYTHING POSSIBLE ON A TABLE. NOT THREE, NOT FOUR, NOT FIVE, NOT SIX, NOT SEVEN, NOT EIGHT. JUST TWO, JUST TWO. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RESORT TO WRITING EQUATIONS. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE HAWKING OR EINSTEIN TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. IT IS ELEMENTAL.

HAL

recoveryjones
06-27-2005, 06:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> I am just curious, is this a system he believes he has developed himself? It seems not that unlike things I have seen before and been told about in the past. As a researcher you know that given a particular problem, people will often arrive independently at the same conclusion thinking they have discovered something unique only to learn it is already out there and in some cases may actually be common knowledge.

I was shown aiming systems, if I am understanding it correctly, identical to this years ago by a player named Doc Hazard. He had all kinds of systems for everything, pocketing balls, playing position and so on. He was no fraud or nut case by the way, I would watch him run hundreds of balls on a daily basis, he was a well known player. But even though he was always preaching his systems to me, I found them only useful as training devices and not practical to be occupying your mind with when actually playing. Gene Skinner was another one with systems as well and also a great player. He had tricks with cue grips and strokes that he used on different shots depending on what he was trying to do.

I think the thing here with what I have been reading may be there is so much more to the game then just a method of chinching balls. There is such a combination of feel and nuance required in the game to play at a high level, it can't be done on a conscious mechanical level, it has to become part of the player. I don't know if someone becomes obsessed with a system based type of play employing it every time they address a ball it won't hold them back from overall development in their game in the long run. They may see a small short term improvement but may give up something as well. The least of which may be the confidence required in their own abilities independent of tricks or gimmicks they may think work, that if on a given night break down for some reason, they panic and you hear the phrase, "I can't make a ball", as they break down their cue and quit. This is just an observation not a criticism of this system or any system for that matter. Just they have to be kept in perspective as to their actual value in the real world. <hr /></blockquote>

I've talked to Hal before and he said he knew and hung around with the legendary Ralph Greenleaf. I'm pretty sure he said that Ralph taught him some systems,so for sure some of these systems have been around for a long time.The fact is that, those who knew them were very secretive about telling anyone about them.

I've also heard that Hal's developed a lot of systems himself.I'm not sure how many he knows,however, I've heard something like 15 or so.A lot of the systems are interrelated for sure and definitly related in the fact that they simplify the game down to a small number of aims for every cut shot you'll ever have to make in pool.Aiming is nowhere near as complicated as people think.Hal Houle is a genius. RJ

ps. The calculations used to implement these systems doesn't in anyway stiffle the mind or over complicate things in the heat of the battle.Actually it simplify's things.As a matter of fact it's very setteling to know that the pot is almost automatic and it frees you to concentrate on other things like speed control and posistion.

The more you use the system, the more natural it becomes and rythmn and tempo are definitly no problem.JMO, RJ

Troy
06-27-2005, 07:04 PM
Unfortunately, I think this has become Paralysis from Analysis.

Troy
06-27-2005, 07:06 PM
But it appears to be more fun to have Paralysis from Analysis... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote HALHOULE:</font><hr> I WANT TO TELL YOU A REAL SHOCKER. FRED AGNIR AND I CAN ACCURATELY USE TWO ANGLES FOR EVERY AND ALL MANNER OF SHOTS POSSIBLE ON A TABLE. SO YOU THINK THERE ARE MILLIONS OF ANGLES? NOW HERE IS A CUD FOR EACH OF YOU TO CHEW ON TILL THE COWS COME HOME, AND YOU SOLVE THE PUZZLE. HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE THEM, FRED?

HAL <hr /></blockquote>

Popcorn
06-27-2005, 07:21 PM
I don't know how you play but I assume you play a good speed. Before you knew the system and after you learned the system, what measurable change have you seen in your game? Did you go from a good local player to a tournament winner? Do you bust all the road agents that come through now? Have you had to begin spotting players you used to lose to? Honestly what real value would you say the system has been to you? I am not trying to be silly I am really curious? If you say your game has gone through the roof and you expect to win this years US Open I'll take your word for it, but be honest I would like to know because you sound like you do know the system.

HALHOULE
06-27-2005, 07:56 PM
ANY PLAYER THAT CAN DISCERN ONE DEGREE OF ANGLE COMES FROM ANOTHER PLANET. BUT IF HE HAS MY TWO ANGLE AIMING SYSTEM, THEN THE SHOT WILL BE MADE ANYWAY, NO MATTER THE ANGLE, WIDE OR NARROW. IT ALSO DOES NOT MATTER IF THE SHOT LOOKS DEAD STRAIGHT OR NOT, OR IS AT ANY ANGLE, I APPLY THE TWO ANGLE SYSTEM AND IN SHE GOES. wHY? I AM AN IDIOT SAVANT IN POOL, THAT'S WHY. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH EXPLANATION? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT OR DO NOT WANT TO HEAR? HOW ABOUT, THE ANSWERS COME THROUGH MEDITATION, SAUNAS, MOON PHASES, COLONIC FLUSHES, AND HEAVY DOSES OF DOCTOR PEPPER.

HAL

tateuts
06-27-2005, 08:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote HALHOULE:</font><hr> ANY PLAYER THAT CAN DISCERN ONE DEGREE OF ANGLE COMES FROM ANOTHER PLANET. BUT IF HE HAS MY TWO ANGLE AIMING SYSTEM, THEN THE SHOT WILL BE MADE ANYWAY, NO MATTER THE ANGLE, WIDE OR NARROW. IT ALSO DOES NOT MATTER IF THE SHOT LOOKS DEAD STRAIGHT OR NOT, OR IS AT ANY ANGLE, I APPLY THE TWO ANGLE SYSTEM AND IN SHE GOES. wHY? I AM AN IDIOT SAVANT IN POOL, THAT'S WHY. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH EXPLANATION? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT OR DO NOT WANT TO HEAR? HOW ABOUT, THE ANSWERS COME THROUGH MEDITATION, SAUNAS, MOON PHASES, COLONIC FLUSHES, AND HEAVY DOSES OF DOCTOR PEPPER.

HAL <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry Hal, but now you're sounding like the crack pots out here. Yes, they aim that way and squirt the cueball over to the correct contact point. Just a parlor trick as far as I'm concerned.

Chris

Thunderduck
06-27-2005, 08:57 PM
Well if there are 6 basic aiming angles on the object ball, it would be very easy to create a drill to practice them... you'd set up 6 different shots for each angle. What good is a system if there is no way to practice it?

Can someone post the "best" cut shot drill that currently exists?

recoveryjones
06-27-2005, 09:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> I don't know how you play but I assume you play a good speed. Before you knew the system and after you learned the system, what measurable change have you seen in your game? Did you go from a good local player to a tournament winner? Do you bust all the road agents that come through now? Have you had to begin spotting players you used to lose to? Honestly what real value would you say the system has been to you? I am not trying to be silly I am really curious? If you say your game has gone through the roof and you expect to win this years US Open I'll take your word for it, but be honest I would like to know because you sound like you do know the system. <hr /></blockquote>

Hi Popcorn, I'm not going to lie to you or anyone else and claim to be a great player.I'm 49 years old and have only started playing what I call serious pool for the last two years. Sure I played for many years but I've taken a quantumn leap in the knowledge aspect of the game very late in life.

My peers rate me A level in my town. I've only won two Sunday tournaments(In 3 years) and about 3 or 4 bar table tournaments in my entire life and finished second(choked) 4 or 5 times.I was also part of a Championship VNEA 8 ball team.

For me the ongoing theme is I'm a guy who shoots lights out in practice and I shoot my best pool when God (only) is watching.My play under pressure is the biggest thing I need to overcome and unfortnuatly there is no system that teaches that.

Having said all of this my potting (after the system) has improved dramatically and a quantumn leap (with the system) has just occured in the last month.I can honestly look anyone in the eyes and say my potting on 45 degree cuts or less has improved
20-25 %and my potting on those 66.5 degree to 90 degree cuts has improved at least 50 to perhaps a whopping 75%.As a matter of fact potting 45 degree cuts or less is now almost automatic.
Having said this, pool is much more than a game of making pots.I definitly need improvement in speed control and shape route desicions.All that's really improved for me so far is my ability to pot balls.

Having said that, as potting balls beconmes much more automatic,I do forsee speed control and shape starting to improve because I really don't need to put so much energy into making balls anymore.

I've had very limited experience using this system under pressure,however,I've pulled out some matches and kept some runs going by making incredible pots.

In Summary:

I can't say that I'm a better player yet, because what one does in practice MEANS NOTHING. I must bring the goods when it really counts.In my mind I feel I'm a way better player after learning an aiming sytem,no question.Having said that I need to prove it all under pressure,because that's what it's all about.Until then,I still suck,however, I say that with optimism of better things to come.

Has my potting ability improved dramatically with the system?

Yes,absolutley with out a doubt.

Am I beating everyone winning more money and tourneys?

NO....not yet...LOL
RJ

ps.I'm off for holidays till July 7th.I got a feeling this thread will still be going when I get back.

BCgirl
06-28-2005, 01:26 AM
I'm not sure if I want to jump into this thread, since it seems a little heated (and maybe because I find myself agreeing with Dr.Dave /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif), but isn't all of this about that good old battle between margin of error and human error.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I've never really understood why pro's talk about half-ball hits, and quarter-ball hits, when many shots are dominated by squirt, and they're spinning the ball in, and not telling me about throw. So it's no surprise that I'm really very sceptical about simplistic aiming systems. I'm quite ready to accept that I just don't get it. I'm not in the dark, inner circle yet ... but they won't give me the 8-ball /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I think that, if you have a system whose margin of error is acceptable (and I won't try to quantify that as a function of CB angle), it's a very useful tool, because it gives you a central starting point from which to apply corrections. I'm sure that some people will insist that no correction is required, but my own theory is that, where such systems do work, people are unconsciously applying their own corrections to the basic aiming points.

In that regard, I agree with Fred. Does it matter whether a system can not survive rigorous technical analysis, if it can be shown to radically improve some people's ability to aim a shot?

BCgirl

Popcorn
06-28-2005, 01:29 AM
Thank you very much for that answer. Are you consciously using the system when you play, or using it to train your instincts in practice and then trying to just play when your are playing? The fear I would have with systematic play beyond just as a training tool would be 1, becoming dependent on it and not trusting your own instincts and 2, it exists too much on the surface of the consciousness and could lead to dogging it under pressure. In other words, as it corrects one problem it may cause two, even if the system works and your winning percentages don't go up as would be expected.

eg8r
06-28-2005, 06:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I have tried everything he has suggested with an open mind, but I still have not made the shot once. This is not because I suck; because when trying a certain aim (per Hal's instructions), the object ball misses the pocket in about the same spot every time.
<hr /></blockquote> Just to lighten the atmosphere, lol, maybe you just consistently suck. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Just kidding, I am not the person to label another person's quality of play.

eg8r

Fran Crimi
06-28-2005, 07:15 AM
Dr. Dave,

I read through the thread and it reminds me in a lot of ways of a guy I used to go out with. He was a professional actor and I used to watch him rehearse for plays and films. He always had everybody worried during rehearsals. It seemed like he didn't know his lines; he'd say one thing when he was supposed to say another, or move one way on stage when the script said to move another, or do something that wasn't even in the script. I'd start getting concerned too, and eventually ask him about it. He'd always say not to worry, "It's just the process I go through." His process seemed so unorthodox to the other actors and they clearly didn't relate to it.

Yet on opening night, or when the cameras were rolling, he was amazing. Through his process he learned every angle, every side, every possibility and he had it all down cold. I'd venture to guess that none of the other actors had the understanding of the script as he did. (I'm not proposing here that you'll wind up knowing more than the others, just relaying what happened in this case.)

Your process of understanding something reminds me kind of like that. You look at things upside down, inside out and every which way, which at times may seem unorthodox and the wrong approach to some, but in the end, I believe you will reach a conclusion that you will feel is accurate and that satisfies you.

And in the end, that's really all that counts.

Fran

Cane
06-28-2005, 07:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>And in the end, that's really all that counts.
Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Fran, You are absolutely correct. I'm a strong advocate of Hal's many systems, because they work for me and because they make precise aiming easy for those who can't pocket balls. I wouldn't even think about trying to sway someone from a method that works for them. If someone can pocket 95% of what they shoot at, then they've already got it going on, no matter what method they use. Why mess with success? My interpretation of what has been posted and discussed here is that we're looking at a basic framework of an aiming method, and nothing like the particular one I use that Hal taught me. BUT, it works for me, because I can visualize it well. Many cannot. I can't visualize Ghost Ball! I'll overcut every shot using the GB method. I can't visualize paralell lines. I might make 75% that way. I can't visualize double the distance well. again, maybe 75%, but probably most players have learned with one of those or any of a number of other methods and if they can visualize them and pocket balls on a very high percentage, then that's what they should use. Me, I'll stick with the methods that brought my ball pocketing to a premium and run with it.

Popcorn. Regarding your post about dependency on these systems. Well, I guess that could happen, but I conciously practice these systems every day and teach them quite a lot. What I find happens is the same thing that happens with every other system or method or shot that I practice. I conciously and intentionally focus on the mechanics of it during practice, but when I go to the table I just shoot pool. I think this, or ANY OTHER SYSTEM one practices, if they practice it well, does just that. I think it becomes so ingrained in their brain that the subconcious can perform it without the concious mind having to get involved. It's that "left brain/right brain" thing and allowing yourself to trust what you've learned and practiced and just shoot pool. Really, that's the beauty of whatever system anyone chooses to use. If you practice it well and master it, then it just becomes automatic. Personally, the simpler a method, the more readily it becomes automatic, but what is simple to me may not be to someone else. What is difficult for me (ie; contact patch to contact patch... hell, I can't see one of them!!!) may not be for someone else.

I guess what it boils down to is this: If a player is comfortable and proficient with their current method of pocketing balls, then they should stick with it. If they're not, then they should seek something else... but if they choose Hal as their "something else" don't stop at one phone call. He will get them started, then as time and learning progresses, he'll reveal methods of aiming that will work like nothing I've ever seen... at least for me...

Later,
Bob

Eric.
06-28-2005, 08:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BCgirl:</font><hr> ... but they won't give me the 8-ball /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
BCgirl <hr /></blockquote>

You got the 8 ball. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif


Eric &gt;always the accomadating one

Fran Crimi
06-28-2005, 08:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>And in the end, that's really all that counts.
Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Fran, You are absolutely correct. I'm a strong advocate of Hal's many systems, because they work for me and because they make precise aiming easy for those who can't pocket balls. I wouldn't even think about trying to sway someone from a method that works for them. If someone can pocket 95% of what they shoot at, then they've already got it going on, no matter what method they use. Why mess with success? My interpretation of what has been posted and discussed here is that we're looking at a basic framework of an aiming method, and nothing like the particular one I use that Hal taught me. BUT, it works for me, because I can visualize it well. Many cannot. I can't visualize Ghost Ball! I'll overcut every shot using the GB method. I can't visualize paralell lines. I might make 75% that way. I can't visualize double the distance well. again, maybe 75%, but probably most players have learned with one of those or any of a number of other methods and if they can visualize them and pocket balls on a very high percentage, then that's what they should use. Me, I'll stick with the methods that brought my ball pocketing to a premium and run with it.

<hr /></blockquote>

I agree, Bob. When we pocket a ball, then we all just came to basically the same conclusion, regardless of how we got there. If we do it consistently, then whatever way we're doing it, obviously works for us. I use point of contact, coupled with visualization and a little bit of ghost ball thrown in for good measure. When I miss a shot, I review a check list and the answer is always one of my check list items. It provides me with a means to correct myself and that's what's important.

Fran

dr_dave
06-28-2005, 08:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I have tried everything he has suggested with an open mind, but I still have not made the shot once. This is not because I suck; because when trying a certain aim (per Hal's instructions), the object ball misses the pocket in about the same spot every time.
<hr /></blockquote> Just to lighten the atmosphere, lol, maybe you just consistently suck. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif<hr /></blockquote>
I hope I learn to suck even better as time goes by ... I like consistency. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Dave

dr_dave
06-28-2005, 09:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Dr. Dave,

I read through the thread and it reminds me in a lot of ways of a guy I used to go out with.<hr /></blockquote>
Fran,

Are you hitting on me? /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Sorry, but I'm seeing someone right now. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Dave

PS: I'm just kidding around. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

dr_dave
06-28-2005, 09:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>I use point of contact, coupled with visualization and a little bit of ghost ball thrown in for good measure.<hr /></blockquote>
I do the exact same thing (in addition to just trying to "see the angle"); therefore, I hereby officially declare myself as a "Fran follower." I hope we someday grow large enough in numbers to one day rival the masses of "Hal followers" out there. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-28-2005, 09:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BCgirl:</font><hr> I'm not sure if I want to jump into this thread, since it seems a little heated (and maybe because I find myself agreeing with Dr.Dave /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif)<hr /></blockquote>
Wow! You just made my day, week, and month. I think I will have a smile on my face for at least the rest of this day. Now, if Fred ever agreed with me, I think I would be so happy I would be in a state of unrecoverable shock.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BCgirl:</font><hr>but isn't all of this about that good old battle between margin of error and human error.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I've never really understood why pro's talk about half-ball hits, and quarter-ball hits, when many shots are dominated by squirt, and they're spinning the ball in, and not telling me about throw. So it's no surprise that I'm really very sceptical about simplistic aiming systems. I'm quite ready to accept that I just don't get it. I'm not in the dark, inner circle yet ... but they won't give me the 8-ball /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I think that, if you have a system whose margin of error is acceptable (and I won't try to quantify that as a function of CB angle), it's a very useful tool, because it gives you a central starting point from which to apply corrections. I'm sure that some people will insist that no correction is required, but my own theory is that, where such systems do work, people are unconsciously applying their own corrections to the basic aiming points.

In that regard, I agree with Fred. Does it matter whether a system can not survive rigorous technical analysis, if it can be shown to radically improve some people's ability to aim a shot?<hr /></blockquote>

BCgirl, that is very generous of you to agree with both Fred and me in the same message. Impressive!

I think I agree with everything you wrote. If a system works for somebody, that's all that really matters for them (although I still like to try to understand why it works). I think Hal's system is so good for so many people because it provides easy visualization references. Also, I bet it helps some people concentrate on their aim more because they are focusing (mentally and/or visually) on certain things (1/4's, edges, centers).

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
06-28-2005, 09:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote HALHOULE:</font><hr>I APPLY THE TWO ANGLE SYSTEM AND IN SHE GOES. wHY? I AM AN IDIOT SAVANT IN POOL, THAT'S WHY. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH EXPLANATION? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT OR DO NOT WANT TO HEAR? HOW ABOUT, THE ANSWERS COME THROUGH MEDITATION, SAUNAS, MOON PHASES, COLONIC FLUSHES, AND HEAVY DOSES OF DOCTOR PEPPER.<hr /></blockquote>
Hal,

Thank you for finally sharing the secrets of your system. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

But seriously, please try to explain to us more how your two-angle system works. I don't think you shared this system with me over the phone. We seemed to talk only about your three-angle system. Also, if the description of your three-angle system (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/msg/9d491b6392cbd7de?dmode=source&amp;hl=en) posted online is not accurate, please let us know what is missing.

Regards,
Dave

Fred Agnir
06-28-2005, 09:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> But seriously, please try to explain to us more how your two-angle system works. <hr /></blockquote>Only if you promise not to draw up little diagrams.

Again, here is a post on one of Hal's two-angle systems. Two points of aim, one for narrow shots, one for sharper cuts. Learn these two, and you are on your way. I think he's pretty clear and doesn't mince/mix his words in this post:

Small Ball Aiming (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sport.pool/msg/1f0cac4e3c0a2f8a?dmode=source&amp;hl=en)

Fred

Fran Crimi
06-28-2005, 09:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>I use point of contact, coupled with visualization and a little bit of ghost ball thrown in for good measure.<hr /></blockquote>
I do the exact same thing (in addition to just trying to "see the angle"); therefore, I hereby officially declare myself as a "Fran follower." I hope we someday grow large enough in numbers to one day rival the masses of "Hal followers" out there. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Goodness, no, don't do that, Dave. LOL! I didn't mean to start anything here. I was just noting the way I aim. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

For me, it all comes down to being able to correct oneself and to be able to reference that correction for future use. If you can do that, then the system works. I'm sure Hal's system works too. I'm just happy where I'm at.

Fran

Fran Crimi
06-28-2005, 09:53 AM
LOL! You're too logical for me, Dave. I go for men who don't make sense. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Don't ask me why.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Fran

dr_dave
06-28-2005, 09:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> But seriously, please try to explain to us more how your two-angle system works. <hr /></blockquote>Only if you promise not to draw up little diagrams.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>
Ok Fred. In the interest of diplomacy, I agree to not draw any diagrams or present any sort of analysis or post any regular or high-speed video footage for the two-angle system. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Am I allowed to at least try it out at the table and report whether or not it works for me? If so, you have a deal.

Regards,
Dave

mybreak
06-28-2005, 10:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> I am just curious, is this a system he believes he has developed himself? It seems not that unlike things I have seen before and been told about in the past.

I was shown aiming systems, if I am understanding it correctly, identical to this years ago by a player named Doc Hazard.
<hr /></blockquote>


Well Einstein...since pocket billiards only started coming into vogue around 1911, and Hal was born in either 1924 or 1925 and started playing the game at a fairly young age, who do you THINK it might have been? Who was before Hal? Maybe "Doc Holliday" was before Hal, but are you sure about "Doc Hazard"? And also, how about YOU?

Fred Agnir
06-28-2005, 10:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> But seriously, please try to explain to us more how your two-angle system works. <hr /></blockquote>Only if you promise not to draw up little diagrams.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>
Ok Fred. In the interest of diplomacy, I agree to not draw any diagrams or present any sort of analysis or post any regular or high-speed video footage for the two-angle system. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Am I allowed to at least try it out at the table and report whether or not it works for me? If so, you have a deal.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>
I added the link in case you didn't see it to Small Ball Aiming (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sport.pool/msg/1f0cac4e3c0a2f8a), a post and e-mail that Hal sent previously. In its most basic form, it is a two point aiming system. There is continued verbage in Hal's post intimating that there is a continued study for those that gel with the the two points.

Fred

Popcorn
06-28-2005, 11:00 AM
The point is the systems are not such that different people would not discover them even if they never knew of each others existence. That is why you do patent searches and in most cases you find your original idea was thought of before and although new to you is not new. Doc Hazard by the way may sound like a goofy named guy who you never heard of but was a highly regarded player in his time considered very smart even a little eccentric. He used to get me nuts, I played straight pool with him every afternoon and he would be telling me how you divided up the pocket into 6 sections and all kinds of cue ball things like Hal's. You gave it credibility based on Doc,' own play, I saw him run over 200 numerous times, but I doubt his systems had that much to do with his exceptional ability, they were just something that interested him. I would say if Doc was alive today he would be well over a hundred now, so he would have predated Hal. Systems also may have a "Chicken or the egg" aspect. In other words, can a system bring a weak player to a higher level of play? Or does it require a certain level of play to employ the system. I play in a room where billiards is very popular. I'm one of the best players in the room and least knowledgeable at the game. they come in with all their books and spend hours discussing angles and systems but can't really play. Without the skills to employ them they are useless and they get beat by a schmo like me. That is why I would put systems far down the list, even those that work, of things a player should be concentrating, on although they can be interesting as evidenced by the threads on here. To be honest, before these Internet boards I never heard of Hal and neither has anyone else I have spoken to. He seems to have become a legend of his own creation on these boards.

BoroNut
06-28-2005, 12:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>Ok Fred. In the interest of diplomacy, I agree to not draw any diagrams or present any sort of analysis or post any regular or high-speed video footage for the two-angle system.

Am I allowed to at least try it out at the table and report whether or not it works for me? If so, you have a deal. <hr /></blockquote>

At least he's given up trying to convince you that Euclid was wrong Dave. Just as predicted it turns out to be a rehash of old billiards tricks to make pots after all. There aren't only 3 or 4 or 5 angles at all. That's how many aim points there are, and you have to frig the cue ball to make all the other angles. Old, old news, consigned to the dustbin of history on this side of the water. Playing side on the ball when you don't want it just because they cant play the right angle in the first place. Thought so. That's the old billiards players for you. Useless at potting, and these systems were the reason why. You don't have to settle for 2nd best just because you are playing on silly tables you know.

Boro Nut

PS - Amazing facts that dont' amaze me:
1 - The three angles making up a quarter of the object ball magically add up to 90°. Isn't a quarter of a ball always 90° however you divide it up? Unless you are playing with a square ball of course, in which case it's 90° as well.

2 - The magic table ratio of 2:1 fits exactly to scale inside the cue ball. Doesn't any ratio? All regular polygons, triangles, squares and rectangles have a circumscribing circle, including a snooker table, which isn't even 2:1 ratio, and neither are pool tables come to think of it.

3 - There are 6 possible angles, the exact same number as the pockets on the table. Aren't there 6 cushions as well? Aren't they a damn sight bigger than the pockets?

PPS - Snooker players pot much more accurately than pool players, using only a single angle. Can you guess what it is?

BigRigTom
06-28-2005, 12:30 PM
Fred,
It sounds like you feel you have a good understanding of this 2 Angle or 2 Point aiming system so maybe you can clarify something for me.....

This is an excerpt from the link you provided:
[ QUOTE ]
Consider it done, Hal.


WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS THE SPACE BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE CUE STICK
FERRULE AND THE EDGE OF THE CUE BALL.


WHEN CUTTING TO THE LEFT, THE SPOT EXACTLY HALF-WAY BETWEEN THE LEFT
EDGE OF THE CUE STICK FERRULE, AND THE LEFT EDGE OF THE CUE BALL, MUST BE
AIMED AT THE OBJECT BALL CENTER OR EDGE FOR POCKETING MOST SHOTS.
<hr /></blockquote>
Must be aimed at the object ball center or edge????
Which is it?
Am I missing something?
Then.....
How do you determine the "center" or "edge" of the object ball?
Is that as it applys to the direction of the pocket or what?
The center of the ball (a ball being a sphere) is relative to the position from which you are viewing the ball...doesn't it?

Seriously,
I am confused. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

BoroNut
06-28-2005, 12:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr>Well Einstein...since pocket billiards only started coming into vogue around 1911, and Hal was born in either 1924 or 1925 and started playing the game at a fairly young age, who do you THINK it might have been? Who was before Hal? Maybe "Doc Holliday" was before Hal, but are you sure about "Doc Hazard"? And also, how about YOU? <hr /></blockquote>

Erm...there have always been pockets on an English billiards table.

Boro Nut

mybreak
06-28-2005, 01:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BoroNut:</font><hr>
Erm...there have always been pockets on an English billiards table.
Boro Nut <hr /></blockquote>


And some people are still fighting the Revolutionary War.
We're talking about here in the States, not England...not playing snooker...not aiming at tiny little pink balls.
How many states would you like us to donate back to you?
I'll give you West Virginia, Wyoming, and Nebraska for Kate Beckinsale.

BoroNut
06-28-2005, 01:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BigRigTom:</font><hr> Then.....
How do you determine the "center" or "edge" of the object ball?
Is that as it applys to the direction of the pocket or what?
The center of the ball (a ball being a sphere) is relative to the position from which you are viewing the ball...doesn't it?

Seriously,
I am confused. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

The centre of the ball is as you see it from behind the cue ball, regardless of where the pocket is. Maybe some people have difficulty centring on a sphere. I’d never thought about it before. It just seemed obvious. If you are having difficulty visualising it you might try thinking of it as a vertical line from where it touches the cloth to it’s highest point, or the point where it touches the cloth.

The half ball contact is actually the easiest and most reliable aim in billiards, as you have a specific identifiable and unvarying point to lock your focus on and aim for. It is the extreme outside edge of the ball at it’s widest point as viewed from behind the cue ball. That is, the point where a set square would touch if laid against the ball, and is ½ a ball diameter above the bed of the table. It provides you with unerring angles for both cue ball and object ball, and is a must to learn. Many beginners actually play this naturally about 1/16th of an inch thicker than half ball, as their eyes are unconsciously drawn slightly to the solidity of the ball, not to it’s extreme edge. To avoid this, think of it as the interface between where the felt first becomes visible at the extreme edge, not just the ball itself.

Boro Nut

BoroNut
06-28-2005, 01:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> I'll give you West Virginia, Wyoming, and Nebraska for Kate Beckinsale. <hr /></blockquote>

Kate Beckinsale is not a state. More a way of life. I could swap you West Virginia, Wyoming, and Nebraska for a copy of a film where she gets her kit off though, as long as you promise to return it. I know you won't have seen it on telly over there. We even get to see the money shot over here, as long as it's after 9pm and done in the best possible taste obviously.

Boro Nut

mybreak
06-28-2005, 02:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BoroNut:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> I'll give you West Virginia, Wyoming, and Nebraska for Kate Beckinsale. <hr /></blockquote>

Kate Beckinsale is not a state. More a way of life. I could swap you West Virginia, Wyoming, and Nebraska for a copy of a film where she gets her kit off though, as long as you promise to return it.
Boro Nut <hr /></blockquote>


OK...anything, anything you say. I'll even throw in Montana.

dr_dave
06-28-2005, 02:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BoroNut:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>Ok Fred. In the interest of diplomacy, I agree to not draw any diagrams or present any sort of analysis or post any regular or high-speed video footage for the two-angle system.

Am I allowed to at least try it out at the table and report whether or not it works for me? If so, you have a deal. <hr /></blockquote>

At least he's given up trying to convince you that Euclid was wrong Dave. Just as predicted it turns out to be a rehash of old billiards tricks to make pots after all. There aren't only 3 or 4 or 5 angles at all. That's how many aim points there are, and you have to frig the cue ball to make all the other angles. Old, old news, consigned to the dustbin of history on this side of the water. Playing side on the ball when you don't want it just because they cant play the right angle in the first place. Thought so. That's the old billiards players for you. Useless at potting, and these systems were the reason why. You don't have to settle for 2nd best just because you are playing on silly tables you know.

Boro Nut

PS - Amazing facts that dont' amaze me:
1 - The three angles making up a quarter of the object ball magically add up to 90°. Isn't a quarter of a ball always 90° however you divide it up? Unless you are playing with a square ball of course, in which case it's 90° as well.

2 - The magic table ratio of 2:1 fits exactly to scale inside the cue ball. Doesn't any ratio? All regular polygons, triangles, squares and rectangles have a circumscribing circle, including a snooker table, which isn't even 2:1 ratio, and neither are pool tables come to think of it.

3 - There are 6 possible angles, the exact same number as the pockets on the table. Aren't there 6 cushions as well? Aren't they a damn sight bigger than the pockets?

PPS - Snooker players pot much more accurately than pool players, using only a single angle. Can you guess what it is? <hr /></blockquote>
BoroNut,

Thank you for your perspectives. I have tremendous respect for you guys that play on those huge tables with little balls, and even smaller pockets. I've tried snooker a few times and was certainly humbled by the experiences. I certainly didn't dare put English (side) on the ball (back-hand or otherwise).

Regards from this side of the pond,
Dave

PS: I bet the answer to your question is: Snooker players use the proper angle for each shot. Am I correct?

BoroNut
06-28-2005, 03:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I bet the answer to your question is: Snooker players use the proper angle for each shot. Am I correct? <hr /></blockquote>

Bingo Dave! Or as we say up North, Bingo!

Boro Nut

HALHOULE
06-28-2005, 08:39 PM
I NEVER TOLD YOU, OR ANYONE, TO AIM THE EDGE OF A CUE BALL AT ANYTHING. YOU, DR. DAVE, SHOW A LINE FROM THE CUE BALL EDGE TO THE CENTER OF THE OBJECT BALL, AND AS EVERY BELL RINGER IN THE TOWER KNOWS, THAT IS A HALF-BALL SHOT. DID YOU MEAN TO SHOW OTHER ANGLES AS WELL, WITH A HALF- BALL SHOT, THAT MAY OR NOT UNCOVER A MULTITUDE OF OTHER ANGLES, THAT I MAY OR NOT BE AWARE OF. ???? I AM NOT AN ENGINEER BY AMY MEANS, BUT I AM AWARE OF WHAT A THIRTY DEGREE ANGLE IS, AND IT SURE AIN'T WHAT YOU DREW ON YOUR DIAGRAM.

HAL

HALHOULE
06-28-2005, 08:56 PM
I ONLY USE 2 POINTS.
HAL

Sid_Vicious
06-29-2005, 02:00 AM
Dave...Try the aiming system on those misses with your eyes closed. Just a thought but I sense that success by others(and I've witnessed Cane's ability to do and teach the Hal method at SPettys using a towel to hide the pocket)comes from being able to NOT subconsciously readjust at the last instant of stroke. I would be interested to hear your results after closing the eyes for your last swing at those missed attempts...sid~~~isn't condoning blind playing, just presenting an idea to eliminate the "natural" self correcting aspect which may skew the results

HALHOULE
06-29-2005, 03:21 AM
SID_VICIOUS, YOU ARE ASKING THE DOCTOR TO USE AN AIMING SYSTEM? WHAT AIMING SYSTEM? HE SAYS HE HAS NONE. LIKE THE CAT SAID, THIS ALL GETS CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER. HERE IS A SYSTEM THAT IS 200 YEARS OLD, NOW, I CANNOT CLAIM THAT ONE, CAN I.
CUTTING TO THE RIGHT: AIM THE CENTER OF THE CUE BALL AT THE CENTER OF THE LEFT HALF OF THE OBJECT BALL. AIM THE CENTER OF THE CUE BALL AT THE LEFT EDGE OF THE OBJECT BALL. AIM THE CENTER OF THE RIGHT HALF OF THE CUE BALL AT THE LEFT EDGE OF THE OBJECT BALL.

CUTTING TO THE LEFT, REVERSE THE PROCESS.

CAVEAT. WHEN YOU AIM THE CUE BALL CENTER AT THE LEFT HALF OF THE OBJECT BALL, YOUR HEAD MUST BE ALIGNED FROM CUE BALL CENTER TO OBJECT BALL LEFT HALF. THAT GOES FOR EVERY SHOT OF THE SYSTEM. YOU MUST BE BEHIND WHATEVER YOU ARE AIMING WITH, TO WHAT YOU ARE AIMING AT. OTHERWISE, IF YOU KEEP YOUR HEAD BEHIND THE CENTER OF THE CUE BALL ON EVERY SHOT, WHEN YOU MUST BE AIMING THE CENTER OF THE RIGHT HALF OF THE CUE BALL AT THE LEFT EDGE OF THE OBJECT BALL, YOU WOULD NOT NOT BE ABLE TO LINE UP THE CENTER OF THE RIGHT HALF OF THE CUE BALL AT THE LEFT EDGE OF THE OBJECT BALL. PARALLAX VIEW. EVERY AMATEUR PLAYER IN THE POOL ROOM MAKES THIS MISTAKE. IF THEY KEEP THEIR HEAD IN THE CENTER OF THE CUE BALL, THEY WILL HAVE TO IMAGUNE A LINE COMING FROM OUTSIDE IN TO THEIR TARGET. IT IS LITTLE WONDER THAT THEY FAIL TO REACH THEIR FULL POTENTIAL IN THIS GAME, WITH THAT KIND OF A HANDICAP.

HAL

Sid_Vicious
06-29-2005, 04:08 AM
SID_VICIOUS, YOU ARE ASKING THE DOCTOR TO USE AN AIMING SYSTEM

Hal,

He's already admitted to trying your system, I'm just suggesting what I've had a couple of students do when they keep missing shots that I KNOW they can make, and I've always gotten a surprised response from each after the closed eyes routine puts the ball in first or second time. The human "steer sydrome", especially in the analytical types, F's up their delivery, even with a good aim point. That's my point in general...sid

"SID_VICIOUS, YOU ARE ASKING THE DOCTOR TO USE AN AIMING SYSTEM?"

Fred Agnir
06-29-2005, 05:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BigRigTom:</font><hr>

Must be aimed at the object ball center or edge????
Which is it?
Am I missing something?<hr /></blockquote> Two angles (or two aim points). For the Small Ball Aiming Theory, Center is one. Edge is the other. Center for narrow shots. Edge for steeper angles.

[ QUOTE ]

Then.....
How do you determine the "center" or "edge" of the object ball?<hr /></blockquote> Hmmm... The center is the center core of the object ball. The edge is the outside edge as you see it from the cueball. These are two simplest aiming points on any ball.


[ QUOTE ]

The center of the ball (a ball being a sphere) is relative to the position from which you are viewing the ball...doesn't it?<hr /></blockquote> The center? No, it doesn't change. It's the dead center core.

Fred

cheesemouse
06-29-2005, 05:26 AM
I would like to thank each and every poster who has contribruted to this thread as you have provided me with my morning entertainment for weeks now. It is hard to find good cheap recreation these days, this thread is a great deal for the money...I haven't learned a thing and that is just fine...funny stuff...keep up the good work....I couldn't resist saying something positive... /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

HALHOULE
06-29-2005, 05:33 AM
THE HALF BALL IS VERY USEFUL IN BILLIARDS, BUT THAT IS ABOUT IT. WE ARE TALKING POOL. YOU WILL PLAY HELL TRYING TO RUN A RACK OF NINE BALL, EIGHT BALL, OR SNOOKER, WITH ONLY A HALF BALL HIT EVERY TIME.I WOULD PAY GOOD MONEY TO SEE THAT EXHIBITION.

HAL

Fred Agnir
06-29-2005, 05:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote HALHOULE:</font><hr> HERE IS A SYSTEM THAT IS 200 YEARS OLD, NOW, I CANNOT CLAIM THAT ONE, CAN I.
CUTTING TO THE RIGHT: AIM THE CENTER OF THE CUE BALL AT THE CENTER OF THE LEFT HALF OF THE OBJECT BALL. AIM THE CENTER OF THE CUE BALL AT THE LEFT EDGE OF THE OBJECT BALL. AIM THE CENTER OF THE RIGHT HALF OF THE CUE BALL AT THE LEFT EDGE OF THE OBJECT BALL. <hr /></blockquote> I have to clarify for those that aren't going to understand. The above quote is base on the old quarter ball fractional aiming. This isn't really part of the Hal Systems, nor does he claim them to be.



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Hal Houle:</font><hr>CAVEAT. ... WHEN YOU MUST BE AIMING THE CENTER OF THE RIGHT HALF OF THE CUE BALL AT THE LEFT EDGE OF THE OBJECT BALL, YOU WOULD NOT NOT BE ABLE TO LINE UP THE CENTER OF THE RIGHT HALF OF THE CUE BALL AT THE LEFT EDGE OF THE OBJECT BALL. PARALLAX VIEW. EVERY AMATEUR PLAYER IN THE POOL ROOM MAKES THIS MISTAKE. IF THEY KEEP THEIR HEAD IN THE CENTER OF THE CUE BALL, THEY WILL HAVE TO IMAGUNE A LINE COMING FROM OUTSIDE IN TO THEIR TARGET. IT IS LITTLE WONDER THAT THEY FAIL TO REACH THEIR FULL POTENTIAL IN THIS GAME, WITH THAT KIND OF A HANDICAP.
<hr /></blockquote>This one is part of the Houle Systems. A keen eye will see the difference, especially if one has communicated with Hal

Fred &lt;~~~ thinks people should print these out and read them over and over.

silverbullet
06-29-2005, 05:41 AM
I had nothing to lose since I am a 'weak' player. I state my stengths and weaknesses to demonstrate where Hal came into the picture. Hal not only told me a few aiming systems (not all),and I sure do not do those to perfection, but he also, out of the goodness of his heart, gave me strategic tips and positional drills to practice on.

My defense is ok, lag decent, hit with various speeds (very soft to hard) thanks to Scott, Randy G; I can see 'patterns' and do easy shapes. What I lacked more than anything is that I needed better pocketing skills, including bank shots.

Hal has not shown me all of his systems, but the ones he did show me have helped my shooting. Of course there is a catch, and that is that it is not enough to just know them, you do have to do them properly, which Hal explains when a person is not getting the desired results. I will let Hal explain that kind of stuff, to anyone interested, since he has not been working with me for very long.

I play in a league on 9 foot tables with tight pockets. This seems to be a 'stronger' league than the previous one I played in since the 2-3sls can often 'run balls', etc. In my last match between 2 sl3 rated players, the innings were as follows: 4-3-1 with one safety (mine) =7 total innings for the 3 game match. Perhaps the innings were lower because the other player is new with the handicap not yet settled, but could easily pocket 3-4 balls in a row vs. a 'typical' 2-3sl.

So make your own judgment thereof, since I know only by apa sl, have no clue about anything else, except that it is nothing to 'write mom home about'.

Laura

Sid_Vicious
06-29-2005, 05:47 AM
I'm dissappointed in the public way you stated what you did concerning the extended phone call. I personally will invite anyone's time they wish to talk and try and help, so I hope Hal does not take it the wrong way and begin limiting his extended hand to others. It just hit me as tasteless(IMO) in the way you said what you did in "open public" Dave. Just my opinion but I'll stick to it...sid

HALHOULE
06-29-2005, 06:02 AM
IT IS NOT THE "HOW" OF THINGS THAT INTRIGUES ME, IT IS THE "WHY" OF THINGS. "HOW" IS A LINEAR PROCESS, AND EVENTUALLY PLODS AHEAD AD INFINITUM TO FINALLY EXHAUST ALL POSSIBILITIES. TO ME THAT CAN BE A BORING TASK. "WHY" CAN BE A MYSTERY AT THE BEGINNING, THE MIDDLE AND THE CONCLUSION. WHAT COULD BE MORE EXCITING. LIGHT YEARS AWAY FROM BORING, I SAY.

HAL

silverbullet
06-29-2005, 06:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> I'm dissappointed in the public way you stated what you did concerning the extended phone call. I personally will invite anyone's time they wish to talk and try and help, so I hope Hal does not take it the wrong way and begin limiting his extended hand to others. It just hit me as tasteless(IMO) in the way you said what you did in "open public" Dave. Just my opinion but I'll stick to it...sid <hr /></blockquote>

I think 'Dave' is too left brained to understand anything simple.

Laura

HALHOULE
06-29-2005, 07:14 AM
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT OTHER AIMING SYSTEMS OR AIMING METHODS COULD BE SIMILAR TO MINE? YOU HAVE NO INKLING WHAT MINE ARE! IT IS A CERTAINTY THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW I POCKET AND BANK BALLS. ARE YOU A SEER? CAN YOU DEVINE THESE THINGS? YOU SAY THAT OTHER SYSTEMS COULD BE IDENTICAL TO MINE. HOW COULD YOU PROVE THAT? YOU DO NOT KNOW MINE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO LOCATE A SYSTEM THAT IS THE EXACT SYSTEM I HAVE. AND, YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT MY SYSTEM IS. YOU HAVE ANOTHER HURDLE TO OVERCOME. I HAVE MANY, MANY. SYSTEMS. I THINK YOUR QUEST WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO TILTING AT WINDMILLS, AND PURSUING EXCERCISES IN FUTILITY. A HERCULEAN TASK.
I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO FOLK LIKE DOC HAZARD AND JIM SKINNER. HERE, TWO OLD COOTS RUN HUNDREDS OF BALLS DAILY, AND YOU JUST WALK AWAY AND NEVER ASK HOW AND WHY, THEY CAN DO THAT. YOU SAID THE TWO OLD COOTS TRIED TO TELL YOU THEN, BUT YOU WOULD NOT LISTEN THEN, AND YOU WILL NOT LISTEN NOW.

I HAVE ALWAYS MADE IT A POINT TO LISTEN TO ANYONE WHO OFFERS ANY KIND OF POOL ADVICE. BUT, ESPECIALLY OLD COOTS THAT RUN HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF BALLS, DAILY. DO THEY KNOW SOMETHING? YOU BET YOUR SWEET BIPPY, THEY DO!

HAL





HAL

HAL

HALHOULE
06-29-2005, 07:19 AM
SEANCES EVERY OTHER SATURDAY HELP IMMENSELY.

HAL

Popcorn
06-29-2005, 08:05 AM
Two three or ten systems do not necessarily have to be exactly identical but if based on the same principles may accomplish the same things. I was not making fun of Doc and I did in fact learn from him. I'm not closed minded, Doc would not have wasted his time with me if I was a dunce, we played every day and I have cracked the 200 mark a few times myself so I must have learned something. I'm just not a system player or at least I don't think I am, I may in fact be. What you do when you play can become so natural you may be using a method and not really be conscious of it any more. One of the most common things a player hears from beginning players is "How do you make it look so easy." The answer may be you employ what you have learned over the years on some subconscious level and it is automatic. If someone stopped you and said "What are you looking at" and you analyzed what you are doing, you will probably find you are using a method of some kind beyond educated guessing. I doubt when I aim at a long tough cut I am just making a guess. It can't be because 1. my confidence is very high I will make the ball and 2. I make the balls such a high percent of the times it can't be just chance or an educated guess.

So here is where I am at on this subject. If a researcher studied a group of very strong players he may find consistencies in what they do that could be defined as systems even though each players may say they don't use any systems. After analyzing what they are doing and he may be able to determine why what they do works and possibly it could be compiled into a teachable system that could help other players. So you and I are more on the same page then you may think. I don't discount systems but when you encounter someone who says they don't use a system the true answer may be they do, but just don't realize it and are not lying. By the way, did you know Doc Hazard or Skinner? If you played at Johnston city you would I am sure have known Doc. Skinner was more a behind the scenes player but well known to other top players.

mybreak
06-29-2005, 09:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> I'm just not a system player or at least I don't think I am, I may in fact be. What you do when you play can become so natural you may be using a method and not really be conscious of it any more.
I don't discount systems but when you encounter someone who says they don't use a system the true answer may be they do, but just don't realize it <hr /></blockquote>


BINGO!! The coins are falling out of the slot machine now, WE HAVE A WINNER!

Stevie Ray Vaughan didn't know how to read or write music.
However, everything that he composed and played followed the known structure of music which was EASILY identifiable to a trained musician. They could take his songs which came out the same way everytime from his memory and use "THE SYSTEM FOR WRITING MUSIC" to identify what he was doing and to duplicate and teach others. Although Stevie was actually using a "SYSTEM" he didn't know what it was or how to explain it.

Stevie was also limited to Blues or Rock. Due to his lack of knowledge in the "SYSTEM FOR WRITING OR READING MUSIC" he definitely didn't have any understanding of what Beethoven or Chopin were producing. In his own world, it's like they didn't even exist or mattered, they were beyond his reach.

It's like what is going on at the table with ANY poolplayer.
THEY might not know what they're doing or be able to explain it, or realize that they're even using something, but a trained instructor can tell them exactly what "SYSTEM" is involved as long as they have some command of the language to describe certain thoughts, feelings, or perceptions. It's all been invented and already part of a known structure.

And then you have guys like Hal that have gone outside and beyond what the norm and accepted is. (It's just a more advanced system) I wan't around at the time, but didn't they jump on the guy who said the world was round instead of flat?

BoroNut
06-29-2005, 11:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr>Stevie Ray Vaughan didn't know how to read or write music. However, everything that he composed and played followed the known structure of music which was EASILY identifiable to a trained musician.<hr /></blockquote>

Fair enough. I've just had a win on the dogs so I'm prepared to be generous. Let's just say analogies are not your strong point and leave it at that.

Boro Nut

mybreak
06-29-2005, 11:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BoroNut:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr>Stevie Ray Vaughan didn't know how to read or write music. However, everything that he composed and played followed the known structure of music which was EASILY identifiable to a trained musician.<hr /></blockquote>

Fair enough. I've just had a win on the dogs so I'm prepared to be generous. Let's just say analogies are not your strong point and leave it at that.

Boro Nut <hr /></blockquote>


And when you can provide a whole bunch or verifiable tournament wins in POOL on a bona fide "pool table" with 2 1/4 inch balls, I won't send all of your posts "to the dogs", and we'll just leave it at that.

wolfdancer
06-29-2005, 12:23 PM
lmao!!!!

Mavis
06-29-2005, 12:53 PM
The system creates "the zone".

wolfdancer
06-29-2005, 01:59 PM
Dr. Hal, while you are taking credit for devising these systems.....I now believe they actually go back to
Francis Mingaud....how else could he have made this shot, save for a 1/2 ball hit?

link (http://www.metropoolleague.ca/tricks/bank_carom.htm)

and while you have been accused of some black magic...
[ QUOTE ]
The
spectators were incredulous, and, in reply to their entreaties, Mingaud
attempted another stroke, but with the same result. The balls were seized,
and condemned as "tormented by a devil," <hr /></blockquote>

black magic (http://www.snookergames.co.uk/history3.html)
So I believe you should give some credit, at least, to your contemporary.