PDA

View Full Version : Learn all three cuts!



phil in sofla
07-05-2002, 03:45 AM
I was fairly shocked to learn what must be the least understood fact about pool. I have never read this in print. In between a full ball hit and the thinnest glance of the edges, there are only 3 cut angles needed to make any cut. Once you know what they are and how to sight them, you pick the right one, make a straight stroke down that line, and the ball has to go down. No guessing on the aim, an exact specified aimline, that automatically makes the shot.

What are the three cut lines? A half ball hit, and approximately* a 3/4 or 1/4 ball hit (not considering the thin hit). Any cut is one of these. Hard to believe, but based on using it exclusively tonight for 5-1/2 hours, I now believe this is true. Pocketing was outstanding, convincing me this is the real deal, unless my game jumped up a couple of notches just when I happened to try this out.

*I say approximately because I'm not sure, but I assume it is. I don't visualize it that way in aiming. I take the 3/4, 1/2, or 1/4 part of the cue ball (about 1:00, 2:00, and then half the remaining distance), and aim that to the center or edge of the object ball. Each one's about an additional tip over from center. I'm guessing those aim lines generate those exact fractional ball hits.

Working on it tonight, I'd get my line my normal way, decide what fraction of the cue ball was on line to either the edge or center of the object ball, lock that in, and then take the shot. About 90% went, including many shots I am not favored to make, like a close slight cut that has to go a long way.

I've long heard of using ball fractions and cue tip widths for aiming, but no one mentioned how powerful it was. It just seemed complicated, and hey, we all already know how to aim, right?

But this is the master course. Learn three shot reference lines, make any cut on the table. How much better would you play if you had absolute confidence in your aim line pocketing the shot? Think that might open your game up a little?

JohnnyP
07-05-2002, 04:25 AM
Have you been clicking on the alien's site?

The physics guys must be still in bed.

Kato
07-05-2002, 09:14 AM
Johnny, for the record I've known Phil personally (hitting partner, team captain) for about 5 years. He is a physics guy. He's your basic everyday super genius. Please don't ask him to expound, I won't be able to understand it.

Kato~~~will take Phil in a "Battle of Alien Brains" vs Patrick

Tom_In_Cincy
07-05-2002, 09:26 AM
Phil,
Good post. I tried this a long time ago, and it did help me understand or at least gain some insight into cut shots that were giving me trouble. This was about 15 years ago, and it was recommended by an older pool player that believed the same thing about angles for banks.

Bottom line.. everyone ought to give this a try for the experience, if nothing else..

phil in sofla
07-05-2002, 10:27 AM
Hey, I don't blame you for doubting this. It seems ridiculous, and not even possibly true. I was extremely skeptical, and I didn't think it could work.

Now, what I find ridiculous is how simple this is, and how great it works, and how evidently almost no one knows about it, except various great players who keep it to themselves as a trade secret. It makes pocketing a ball trivial, and lets you concentrate on the speed of the shot and the shape you need. It is frankly the most exciting knowledge I've ever run across in pool.

Knuchell's 'How to Win at Pocket Billiards' mentions fractional ball aiming, and has some diagrams, and also mentions others use tip widths to get the same kinds of aim lines, but it doesn't diagram how to sight the ball fractions, use the tips to aim those lines, or how powerful the technique is, and why it has been a preferred technique for many pros forever.

CJ Wiley spills the beans in about a 15 minute segment explaining and demonstrating it in his 'Ultimate Secrets of Pool' series (vol. 3). It took me about 4 times through to get it. The Monk mentioned online that he had recently learned it, calls the tips over 'clicks,' goes over one click thinner or thicker from the standard ball fraction line when he has to adjust for deflection, and says he's hitting 80% of his shots with this technique as he's increasingly getting used to it.

I strongly urge everyone to try this.

Kato
07-05-2002, 10:59 AM
Phil, I'll be at the pool room after a real long nap tonight. Look for me around 11. If you could take a few minutes I'd surely be interested in you showing me this.

Kato~~~your buddy.

07-05-2002, 11:04 AM
Thought I had the only remaining copy of Knuchell"s (1970). He divides players into 3 groups, A, B, C,.. Says that you can practice and improve from a C to a B, but have to be born, into the A group ( inheriting the pool gene, from the gene pool ). I've seen his theory proved a thousand times, while I continue my own struggle to move from C to B.
Wiley's tape is poorly scripted, as he glosses over most of the catagories. But I only bought it for the aiming system, and that has merit. Pretty similiar to Hal Houle's,I think. It helps me on those long cuts, that I missed with regularity before. At least now I have a chance to make one; my 15 seconds of fame.

07-05-2002, 11:06 AM
but... do you know how much follow to use tom?

phil in sofla
07-05-2002, 11:23 AM
Checked my copy, and it is indeed from 1970 as well. Can't remember where I picked it up.

The beauty of this to me is that I don't have to actually aim any differently as I set up the line. I do it the same way, and then merely observe which of the reference lines I'm on, lock that into my mind, and then stroke with absolute confidence.

That's how I'd recommend people try this. Get your normal line however you do it-- ghost ball, tunnel track lines, fractional 'covering' of the object ball face with the object ball's edges, whatever. Once you get the approximate line that way, just confirm it with one of these 3 lines, and then when stroking, sight to make that particular shot line, and see what happens.

I guess it could be argued that I'm fudging that line a little, that it doesn't automatically go, except that I'm making a little fine tune adjustment. Except there wasn't any learning curve, it started working immediately. And if getting my line first was the real key, and I'm just tricking myself that it's locking down on this aimline this way, why didn't it previously give me such a high pocketing percentage, since that was how I got my line before?

As I said, either suddenly something in my mechanics and setup got a WHOLE lot better in one night, OR this aiming method is apparently dead on. The first is marginally possible, I guess, but I rather doubt it.

JimS
07-05-2002, 11:48 AM
This is one of the methods that Hal explained and promoted when I called him. I tried to use it exclusively but didn't fare well. I've found that it is a good method to incorporate into my aiming, especially on some fairly thin table lenght cuts, but I'd rather rely on seeing/feeling the angle combined with the ghost ball methods for most of my shots.

I think that I'm using as many as three or four methods of aiming for most every shot in order to check and recheck my aim for precision. Got to be precise with 4 7/16" pockets.

JohnnyP
07-05-2002, 12:47 PM
I read on one of the forums that the size of the target for an object ball in the center of the table, to make in the corner, is about 0.040 inches.

Must have been one of the physics guys. He explained the margin of error, taking into account the width of the pocket, and the distance involved.

Don't know how that target size changes on a cut shot, though.

Just doesn't seem right that you can do it all with three angles.

phil in sofla
07-05-2002, 03:37 PM
I AGREE that it doesn't seem right at all that all cuts are one of a family of 3.

I'd love for someone to explain to me how this is even remotely possible. I'm sure it is partially due to the fact that the pockets are about twice the ball's width, give or take a bit.

But based on the small number of rattled/hung balls, it appears that these lines are a very close approximation of the execution lines you need to pocket anything, close enough that my pocketing accuracy using the method was up significantly.

JayCee
07-05-2002, 03:54 PM
Phil,

How do you determine when to aim the 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 of the cue ball to the center or edge of the object ball?

stickman
07-05-2002, 05:23 PM
Line up the shot as you normally do and see which it is closest to. With a little practice you will begin to recognize the correct fraction to use. I tried this for a while or at least a similar system, and it did work on a high percentage of shots, but I'm not totally conviced it will pocket all shots. Maybe what I was doing needed some fine tuning?

phil in sofla
07-05-2002, 05:42 PM
Cuts less than the half ball hit cut, you use the center of the object ball to aim the cue ball fractional lines to.

Once you get to the half ball hit cut line, or more of a cut than that, you use the edge of the object ball to aim the cue ball fractional lines to.

The advice here was correct, just do it by guessing if you need to. If you weren't even shown the pockets (draped over), and just guessed when told you have to 'cut it to the right,' you'd still have a 1 in 3 chance for the ball to go, out of pure chance, if you picked one of these lines.

In practice, there will only be two possible of the 3 (one obviously wrong), and it isn't hard to pick one out from the visual evidence.

stickman
07-05-2002, 09:19 PM
This is the same system I tried, Jim. I had very similar results. Although I could pocket a high percentage of shots, I didn't feel I could use the system for all shots.

Troy
07-05-2002, 09:41 PM
This feels like a subject that was hashed over extensively a while ago as "Hal Houle's Aiming System". At that time there was considerable animosity that such a "system" could not possibly work. A few posters even went so far as to suggest it could only work due to hypnosis.

The "Center CB, or 1/4 Left CB, or 1/4 Right CB aimed at either Left or Right Edge of OB" is only of Hal Houle's "Systems". I have had sessions with Hal and can attest to his knowledge although I am not nearly as successful with the systems as he.
Troy

JayCee
07-06-2002, 08:15 AM
Phil,

First, sorry I'm a little slow at understanding this...When using the cue ball fractional lines 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4, do you mean place the cue tip on the vertical axis of the 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 part of the cue ball and aim it to either the object ball's center or edge? If so, wouldn't this be using englisg on the 1/4 and 3/4 shots. Please HELP!

Thanks

Troy
07-06-2002, 09:22 AM
When I learned this aiming technique, the AIM was 1/4 CB Left (or Right)to the edge of the OB, but the shot (the cue tip) was at the CENTER of the CB.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: JayCee:</font><hr> Phil,

First, sorry I'm a little slow at understanding this...When using the cue ball fractional lines 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4, do you mean place the cue tip on the vertical axis of the 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 part of the cue ball and aim it to either the object ball's center or edge? If so, wouldn't this be using englisg on the 1/4 and 3/4 shots. Please HELP!

Thanks <hr></blockquote>

07-07-2002, 04:32 AM
i have always found it difficult to find a fraction on the OB. just where is the center of the OB, or the center of the CB for that matter? i know it's somewhere APPROXIMATELY here or there. or any other fractions? it has been said that one rarely hits centerball even if one tried. the only point i can ACTUALLY SEE on the OB or CB is the edge of either ball. any fractional point is guesswork for me. therefore, i'm wondering if this aiming technique is merely eliminating doubt, or confirming a "feeling" that allows one to execute with confidence. maybe, the subconscious is modifying the aim point.

similiar would be on long shots where the contact and aim points merge in the distance, so that they become the same but the subconscious(the feel) is allowed to differentiate between the two.

cheesemouse
07-07-2002, 05:11 AM
arnie,
Since I've become a regular lurker/poster here on the ccb I take some of the things I read here and try them on my home table. Aiming systems, banking systems, drills and other points of interest like setting up wei shown shots (what great tool, thanks again wei guy). I hope that some of the things I learn sink in and will be useful later without being concious of it in an analitical since. I have to revert to feel when the dance begins. Maybe I'm from the old school but the first aiming system that was shown me was the ghostball and the guy that turned me on to it probably didn't spend 45 seconds showing me the concept and now years later the simpliciter of this system makes all other aiming seem as if they are just sub sets of this basic pool fact: the end result of any aiming system hits the ghost.........I'm not saying other systems aren't usefull but they all end up shooting at the ghost. Isn't this basically true or am I missing something here???

stickman
07-07-2002, 07:39 AM
I think everyone uses the ideas that work for them and discard the ones that don't. What works for me doesn't necessarily work for someone else. I normally focus on a contact point on the object ball for aiming purposes. One of the most useful ideas I've learned was the use of the halfball hit on spot shots. I used to aim at a contact point. When I learned to use the halfball hit my percentage went up dramatically. I am much more confident when shooting spot shots now, but even knowing that I know where to aim doesn't gaurantee that I'll make every spot shot. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif No doubt, confididence is an important ingredient in one's ability to pot balls. Confidence increases the ability to execute without hesitation. I tried this aiming system, and won't say that it is without merit, but personally found it to work no better than my current system "for me." I tried focusing on the cueball last, and eventually reverted back to focusing on the OB last, on at least most shots. I like to try the different ideas I read or am shown and keep the ones that I feel confident with. A lot of what I do is based on how I feel at the time. I switch between open and closed bridge, not based on any concious thought, but by what feels right at the time.

griffith_d
07-07-2002, 09:50 AM
I also learned the half-hit ball on spot shots (which works very well), but to say that there are only 3 cut shots is a little off. That may be a base to start from, but all pool shots are cut shots. So that makes for infinite places to hit the OB on, aside from making up for throw and using English, the OB is always hit on the contact point to pot the ball.

Griff

Troy
07-07-2002, 10:56 AM
But remember - the "ghost ball" is NOT there when you're aiming the real shot.

Yesterday afternoon I set up numerous "ghost ball" shots and carefully observed the resulting CB to OB relationship. In nearly all instances either the CB Center or CB Left 1/4 or CB Right 1/4 were aligned with either Edge of the OB. While lined up to hit the "ghost ball" I asked my pool partner to remove that "ghost ball" prior to shooting. Yup, the OB went in the pocket.

Troy

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: cheesemouse:</font><hr> arnie,
Since I've become a regular lurker/poster here on the ccb I take some of the things I read here and try them on my home table. Aiming systems, banking systems, drills and other points of interest like setting up wei shown shots (what great tool, thanks again wei guy). I hope that some of the things I learn sink in and will be useful later without being concious of it in an analitical since. I have to revert to feel when the dance begins. Maybe I'm from the old school but the first aiming system that was shown me was the ghostball and the guy that turned me on to it probably didn't spend 45 seconds showing me the concept and now years later the simpliciter of this system makes all other aiming seem as if they are just sub sets of this basic pool fact: the end result of any aiming system hits the ghost.........I'm not saying other systems aren't usefull but they all end up shooting at the ghost. Isn't this basically true or am I missing something here??? <hr></blockquote>

07-07-2002, 11:25 AM
I jes want to let you know what I thinks about trying to imprees peoples wit some famous quote. You didn't even mention if'n it was Ernest, or Julio Galileo, dat you was quotin, an proves to me, you is a suedo-inteleckuall, lol jack d

stickman
07-07-2002, 02:01 PM
Phil, this is not meant to be arguementative, but these are my thoughts about the system. I tried it and actually had fairly good success. There were some shots that didn't go. Was it my poor aim or the system? I can't say for sure. Logical thinking, however, would lead me to believe that there are angles between 1/2 and 1/4 that sometimes come into play. Due to the margin for error, shots where the OB is close to the pocket fall irregardless. I'm not convinced that the margin for error is great enough for this to occur when the OB is a great distance from the pocket and the angle is somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2. I could be wrong, but it's something to consider. Either way, I reverted to my old manner of aiming.

TonyM
07-07-2002, 02:35 PM
"and how evidently almost no one knows about it, except various great players who keep it to themselves as a trade secret."

Phil, while I appreciate your enthusiam for this idea, we have, of course, heard it before! It's amazing to me that every time someone hears about this aiming system, they trot out the above (unproven) claim, that the pros use some secret mojo system that they try to keep secret from the rest of us unwashed masses!

I think that this is nonsense! There are many reasons that the pros make more shots than the rest of us, but I can assure you, it is not due to some magic secret system!

Tony
-thinks aiming is way over rated... seriously!

TonyM
07-07-2002, 02:37 PM
"About 90% went, including many shots I am not favored to make, like a close slight cut that has to go a long way."

Not to burst your bubble, but 90% success rate is no way near good enough for an aiming system (for competition purposes).

Tony
-getting the cueball to where you are aimed? Now that's tough....imo of course...

JimS
07-07-2002, 05:37 PM
"the pros use some secret mojo system"

I knew it....I just KNEW it! It's MOJO!!!!!!!!!

Of course....now it all fits! I thought they were all 7th Sons.

Kato
07-07-2002, 05:43 PM
Actually Jack, I'm not an intellectual, psuedo or any other. That quote is in a book I happen to be reading. It struck me and I posted it. Now as to which wine maker is credited? I'm not sure. I'll try and get a hold of Bartles and James later on, maybe on of them know.

Kato

Mike H
07-07-2002, 07:27 PM
Although it's a very effective system, and I definitely believe it has value, I don't think I'd go so far as to call it the nuts. On a table with loose pockets, you will pocket almost anything you aim with this system. On a tight table, I've found you'll narrowly miss more often. I think its best application is for spot shots, and a few other long toughies. The center-to-edge system is more accurate, and contact-to-contact is another equally effective system...the point is, they all have their value, and if you rely on just one and look at it as the Holy Grail of Shotmaking, the honeymoon won't last very long. Learn 'em all, practice them all, and learn their best applications for you.

07-08-2002, 08:26 AM
Actually, I agree, at least in theory. I may already have experienced that myself, although I cannot really be sure yet.

A couple of things are going on. I believe an 'eye jumping' discipline problem, where I sometimes am focusing not on the object ball on the final swing, is getting fixed with this aim method. I already know that when I get my eyes on the object ball last I shoot my best, and maybe, if this is making that a lot easier for me, pocketing should be enhanced. So this is a plus for the system that may not relate to the system itself, exactly.

On the negative side, maybe responsible for some missing, my confidence in the line has led me to stroking the ball harder than I normally do, just because I get a kick out of putting these shots in with some pace. In a related stroke issue, once I get the line, I'm tending now to go 'on 1' once I see the line, feels kind of abruptly, even though I'm practice stroking normally on the line I'm getting in my old normal way. I get the ball fraction line late in the process, and then just immediately take the shot.

Right now, I can't say whether these variations from my normal routine of executing the shot are inteferring with pocketing when that occurs. I'm working on making these things more normal. Then, when I normalize these factors back to hitting softer, and locking in the line for more preliminary strokes, I'll know how and why I may be missing when it comes up. Right now I can't differentiate between system aim flaws and my own execution variations that may instead be causing the misses, and in fact, I know there are times I'm choosing the incorrect ball fraction line, out of simple inexperience using this.

Overall, with two more playing sessions behind me with this now, I remain very impressed with this. My run out chances are up maybe 50% or more, and I'm hearing an awful lot of 'nice shot' comments from my opponents.

Just on an impressionistic basis, it seems that the aim method is valid for the vast majority of shots, if not all of them. I'm open to the possibility that I'll have to take some intermediate lines, eventually, on some shots.

In the meantime, bottom line is that this is giving me a giant step toward the game I want to have, and I am tremendously excited by this discovery.

07-08-2002, 08:44 AM
The difficulty in seeing fractional ball hits on the object ball is why this system either uses a line up to the edge of the object ball, or its center, from fractional lines on the cue ball, which is always the same distance from the shooter.

When I first tried this a year ago, I couldn't understand the aim to the center part, so anything less a cut than a half ball hit was a problem as to lining up. I was trying to still do those with the edge of the object ball, and that didn't work, so I abandoned this until I relearned the system better upon reviewing the tape and finally getting it.

As to a little trick going on subconsciously, CJ mentions this. He actually says once you get that line visually, and are down on the shot, it's about as if you were shooting the center of the cue ball toward that aim line point (but aren't). He says it's an optical illusion that you're using for your benefit. I have yet to figure that out, and I don't think I'm experiencing that.

07-08-2002, 09:23 AM
To me, whether this method is 100% right, theoretically, may not matter much, as to whether it is a useful tool to have in your toolbox.

That is, just as seeing the half ball hit line is extremely useful to pocketing WHEN IT COMES UP, seeing any of these lines, as appropriate to the situation, if they are there, has considerable value, to nail down the aim line very securely.

If there are situations it doesn't apply to, of course, you have to recognize those as well, or else pay a price. But if the method works in most situations, or just helps you see certain lines better that otherwise give you trouble, greatly improving results on even a minority of shots, it is worth considering.

Note, it isn't a universal panacea, even if the method actually works 100% as advertised. You still have to accurately shoot down the line, and variations from deflection and throw still have to be taken into account, adjusting the line somewhat to allow for those effects, if they come into play on a given shot.

07-08-2002, 10:16 AM
90% isn't adequate as a potting percentage for competition purposes? LOL! I suppose it's all relative. If I told you my dog wasn't good at chess, since I beat him 4 out of 5 times, I might be missing part of the story.

In the original Color of Money, Accustats had Earl and Efren at about .923 for Efren and .924 for Earl. While it is true Earl's .924 didn't beat Efren, many might agree that either one's shooting in that match was good enough to beat anyone in the world except possibly their particular opponent in that match.

Obviously, it is possible to not miss any shot in a match and still lose, so any missing at all can be what costs a match. And being a scratch golfer and shooting par all the time won't necessarily win a given golf tournament, certainly not the average pro tour event. But it IS a good start!

Sort of like the two guys being chased by a bear. The one guy drops to put on his running shoes, and the other guy says bears can outrun horses, and changing your shoes isn't going to help you outrun this bear. The first guy says, the way I figure it, I don't have to outrun the bear, just outrun YOU!

Right now, I don't have to be able to win the best non-pro tournament in the area, I just have to beat the guys I play. Doing that consistently would make me more competitive with people better than my normal opponents. If I can attain a strong B/B+ player standing with this, believe me, that will more than satisfy me as an intermediate goal, and it probably would make me very competitive in the handicapped Hollywood Tuesday tournament, which has by far the best field on a regular basis.

The old song says 99-1/2 (%) won't do. Maybe not, at least, not all the time. But often it will be enough. When considering whether to take a shot or play safe, a 90% chance of making the ball is surely high enough to take the shot, everything else being equal. Maybe not if there is a 100% lockup safety that should win you the game, or if that 10% chance of missing would lose the game/set/match, for a given table or match situation.

07-08-2002, 10:23 AM
accustats includes misses, bad safeties, missed kicks, and two others i can't remember.

phil in sofla
07-08-2002, 01:36 PM
Mike, you make some good points there.

Many things in pool have their value in certain situations, and otherwise don't come into play. And even though aiming at balls occurs most of the time, even there, kinds of aims may be better in given situations than in others.

Before I decided to look for these lines, I'd often realize I had a half ball hit line, and I had the same benefits I'm describing now on that sort of hit whenever that would show up. Great confidence in the line, the ability to really concentrate on the stroke and the speed because of how sure I was of the line I was stroking on, etc.

Now I've extended seeing such a line to a couple other reference shots. Even if I decide this method isn't always the best, I'm sure I'll use it as the situations come up.

phil in sofla
07-08-2002, 01:45 PM
Other than CJ's putting it down on video tape, out of some 3 dozen instructional books or other written materials on pool I have, and some 70 plus video tapes, I have never seen this topic given a thorough treatment, just in a rare case or two, a passing mention that is in no way adequate to even give it a try, let alone to suggest that it has some superior aspects that make it worth trying.

So, if it isn't exactly a secret, it is a very little discussed area, and yet one that, I take it, is in fairly widespread use? Seems fairly secretive to me, unless a) authors find it too difficult to lay out, so they don't, or b) authors just don't believe in its value, and therefore leave it unmentioned.

07-08-2002, 01:57 PM

phil in sofla
07-08-2002, 04:22 PM
Sure, but many people already have found that their spot shot making improves greatly when they realize there is a half-ball hit line to pocket that shot.

Not that they haven't already shot it many times with the ghost ball aim line, not that they didn't previously go to 'the feel' of the shot to make it, and not that the half-ball hit line puts the cue ball in contact with the object ball somewhere other than where the ghost ball line aim would (if aimed and struck correctly).

It's just that to SEE that line gets a whole lot simpler (for many of us) when you don't have to conjure up an image that doesn't exist to shoot exactly at the center of. It's just more reliable to sight/stroke down a half-ball hit line on that shot, and even primarily ghost-ball aiming players who learn this fact about spot shots will often use this half-ball hit method to make this particular shot. Why? Because the simplicity of that makes the shot go more often, more reliably.

So, that is what you're missing about this question. Even if you end up in the same place as aiming normally (the hit where the ghost ball would be), at least the claim for this method is that you'll see the line better, find it easier to stroke down that line, and you'll have improved results.

Is that true? It's kind of an individual thing. So is it true for you, if you would try it? Don't know. After all, I'm used to lining up things when I aim, previously using the point to point, or two point, overlapping edges method of aiming. So maybe I'm seeing these lines so much better only because of that past practice, and maybe ghost ball players will have a terrible time trying to get this to work.

I guess I know now how Hal Houle must think, when he thinks he has the next greatest thing to sliced bread, and mainly cannot get people to try it ('too complicated' or 'I don't use any aiming systems, and play by feel'). I guess I understand somewhat, since trying something new surely can screw up what you were doing with success before, and sometimes it takes quite a while to get that back.

EZMark
07-08-2002, 08:00 PM
You folks should have paid attention to Hal Houle you would have saved a lot of time.Just my thoughts on the matter.Thnx EZMark.

Rod
07-08-2002, 09:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: phil in sofla:</font><hr>

But this is the master course. Learn three shot reference lines, make any cut on the table. How much better would you play if you had absolute confidence in your aim line pocketing the shot? Think that might open your game up a little?


<hr></blockquote>

Phil, it is a good reference for those who need help with their aim. If I had complete confidence in my aim line, It might be some time before I missed a shot. Problem is for me I have to be able to see where I am aiming. My reference is mostly to thin cuts, the balls are not as sharp as they once were.

cheesemouse
07-08-2002, 10:08 PM
phil,
I guess in my case I've used the ghostball for so long that it is just hard wired. I do try other systems out of curiousity and in an interest to have the extra knowledge to draw on but when I finally do get to the point where I understand them I see that I'm back to the same point that the ghostball gives me so I just never got off it. I do use some backside of the OB point of aims for bank shots where the OB is close to the rail. I'm not saying other systems aren't useful. After all whatever gets the job done for you is best. For me it's like Whitewolf said "its simple and it works" thats why I stick with it. I'm like Rod in that my eyes aren't what they use to be and on some long shots I may be in need of new system soon. I will give your method another try and see if I can pull that more reliable line back with in range of my failing eyes for those long and strong shots. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Rod
07-08-2002, 10:21 PM
Cheese, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but a system has yet to be invented for poor eye site. Let me know if you discover a magic cure though!

cheesemouse
07-08-2002, 10:24 PM
Rod,
If I find it your in........ /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif LOL...

07-08-2002, 11:09 PM
ball in hand on every shot /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

TonyM
07-09-2002, 08:59 AM
Yes I intended no disrespect Phil! If your previous potting percentage was 50% and you suddenly started potting at 90% then I can see how you would be excited by this discovery.

Have you ever tracked your potting percentage before? Was it just a feeling that you were potting better?

Let us know about your progress.

Tony

phil in sofla
07-09-2002, 12:29 PM
No offense taken, Tony, just surprise at a 90% success at pocketing called not really good enough.

No, I never have clocked my pocketing ratio, except for certain drill routines. Impressionistically, what I found was that shots I knew from experience were ones that gave me trouble, where I'd likely end my inning without running out, were going down, and kept going down when they showed up.

Or, shots that I normally would have to hit a certain way to have a chance of pocketing, say a long cut down the rail, that I'd have to hit medium or less, I could stroke through with a firmer stroke to go somewhere, and that ball would rocket down the rail and disappear in the pocket.

So, between running out more, making longer runouts without missing somewhere in the middle of the run, cleaning up in a ring game, and hammering my Tuesday night captain (who shoots very well, pulling a .936 average in a tough division in our 8-ball league), all in the last couple of days with this system, I'm well convinced of its value.

Further thought about it clarifies one thing that bothered me before. I think it is not true that there are only 3 angles for cuts in pool. However, even though there are more, you can still make any cut using just the 3 lines, because of the allowable error created by pockets twice or more the size of the balls. At least, so it seems, to a very close approximation, anyway.

phil in sofla
07-09-2002, 12:38 PM
What technique did you learn for extreme cuts?

I've learned that stroking with bottom helps, and aiming using the shadow line of the object ball is also helpful.

SpiderMan
07-10-2002, 02:16 PM
This system "works" only because you don't really use it! One of the "three cuts" may get you in the ballpark for 'most any shot, but when it's a little off you compensate without realizing it.

Think about this - if the CB and OB are set up in exactly the same relationship to one another, and you shoot one of the "three cuts" exactly the same several times, the OB must take off at exactly the same angle every time, right? Presumably this angle always leads to a pocket, regardless of where the balls initially rest.

Now, imagine the OB on the foot spot, and the CB about a foot behind it on the centerline of the table. One of the "three cuts" should make the shot in the side pocket, right? Now what happens if the side pocket moves just an inch or two down the rail? The same "cut" now hits the rail where the pocket used to be, and the "next cut" is too much of an adjustment.

But, you say, the pockets don't move! OK, then just move both balls together a couple inches along the table centerline. Now the pocket is in the same place, but the ball misses because it had to travel at the same angle for the same "cut". You can convince yourself that the system still works, by potting the ball, but what really happened was that you made the small adjustment necessary to change the angle (and told yourself that you were hitting it the same).

There are other similar systems (such as the one attributed to Hal Houle) that attempt to overcome this obvious anomaly by further subdividing the discrete shooting angles. But the bottom line is that, because they are not geometrically correct for all cases, they still depend on subconscious compensation.

SpiderMan

Fred Agnir
07-10-2002, 03:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: phil in sofla:</font><hr> Other than CJ's putting it down on video tape, out of some 3 dozen instructional books or other written materials on pool I have, and some 70 plus video tapes, I have never seen this topic given a thorough treatment, just in a rare case or two, a passing mention that is in no way adequate to even give it a try, let alone to suggest that it has some superior aspects that make it worth trying.

So, if it isn't exactly a secret, it is a very little discussed area, and yet one that, I take it, is in fairly widespread use? Seems fairly secretive to me, unless a) authors find it too difficult to lay out, so they don't, or b) authors just don't believe in its value, and therefore leave it unmentioned. <hr></blockquote>

It's not new, it gets brought up and rehashed twice or more a year each on every major pool forum, and as far as I know, is the basis of the snooker player's basic instruction. I'm sure it's in print by Joe Davis or Steve Davis.

I'm glad it's working out for you.

Fred

phil in sofla
07-10-2002, 05:06 PM
Mr. Parker, I believe you are probably correct. I am going to scale down a mock table and the right size pockets and ball sizes on paper and sit down with a protractor and actually look at these angles and see what I can see.

Whatever my experiences, they may not be typical, since I use another of CJ's ideas, which is to aim to the same side of the pocket as the English I may be using, and rely on the full ball width's margin of error to allow for any throw, and make the pocket play bigger. I'm getting a doubled margin of error from someone who is aiming center pocket, since just a 1/2 ball width error and they'd catch the pocket edge.

However, I must say that these lines seem quite exact quite often (although not always), and the results would seem to bear out that it is very close to the exact line. Although, as I mention in the thread somewhere, this locking in is curing my jumpy eye focus location problem, putting me on the contact target visually much longer than I could consistently accomplish before. I've always found that a longer focus on the contact point made for more accurate shooting for me, but couldn't always do it, and this is helping that prior weakness in sighting technique very much.

07-10-2002, 05:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: phil:</font><hr>CJ mentions this. He actually says once you get that line visually, and are down on the shot, it's about as if you were shooting the center of the cue ball toward that aim line point (but aren't). He says it's an optical illusion that you're using for your benefit. I have yet to figure that out, and I don't think I'm experiencing that. <hr></blockquote>

i'm wondering if this might mean that, even though we all know that aiming point and contact point are different, the more distance there is between CB and OB the closer those two point converge. on many shots the shifting of your aim from the "aim point" to the "contact point" on the OB becomes incremental, something you can hardly discern. it then becomes a subconscious shift of aim.