Estimating Shot Angles

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Interesting presentation, Brian; thanks.

[It doesn't really matter for applying your estimation technique, but the legs of an isosceles triangle with a 15° vertex angle and a 2.25" base are 8.6" rather than 8.3".]
 

LAMas

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A protractor is useful for accuracy, but not practical.
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Interesting presentation, Brian; thanks.

[It doesn't really matter for applying your estimation technique, but the legs of an isosceles triangle with a 15° vertex angle and a 2.25" base are 8.6" rather than 8.3".]

Yes, I was going off memory. Should've stated that in video.

The true distance is: 1.125°/sin(7.5°) = 8.6"

For a good estimate, 8 to 9 inches works just fine.
 

Vorpal Cue

Just galumping back
Silver Member
Interesting method for fractional shooters, thanks for sharing.

If you're interested in a method that's more accurate and will give the position of the contact point, take a look at (shameless plug) my pivot triangle thread http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?437187&p=5686508#post5686508 . It shows how to make a right triangle using the balls and the pocket positions. By comparing the length of the sides you can get a very good angle approximation. By rotating one line over another, you can 'fix' the contact point to an spot between the quarters.

It goes into the trig behind the method but you don't need to understand the math to use it, you're just comparing line lengths. If you (or anyone) have any questions PM me or ask in the original thread, I don't want to hijack this one.
 

BilliardsAbout

BondFanEvents.com
Silver Member
Thanks for the video, but I can't see a 32nd of a ball or even an eighth of a ball twelve feet from my head. I prefer methods where I have the correct sighting target instead.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Thanks for the video, but I can't see a 32nd of a ball or even an eighth of a ball twelve feet from my head. I prefer methods where I have the correct sighting target instead.

I understand, heard this from others also. I talked to Tom Rossman a few months ago about aiming. He said the same thing, and he strictly teaches ghostball. So I set up a shot and asked him to show me where he would aim for the ghostball center. He pointed his cue tip to a spot on the cloth behind the object ball. I said ok, then I moved the OB about a quarter-inch to the left and asked him to show me the ghostball center for that shot. He did this just as quickly and accurately as he had the first time. I told him he just made about a 32nd aiming adjustment between the first shot and the second shot. He looked at me with a serious face and said, "I teach ghostball."

My point was that the brain can easily recognize such fine tuning with a little work, whether we're using ghostball, CTE, contact points, fractions, etc... Making a fine adjustment to the aim, as fine as a 32nd of a ball or even less, is not difficult. We do it all the time without realizing it.

Let's use a half ball shot for an example. Aiming the center of your tip to the outermost surface/edge of the OB is the 1/2 ball aim -- half of the tip is outside the OB and half is inside/overlapping the OB. Now, if we aim to put 3/4 of our tip outside the edge of the OB and 1/4 overlapping, we are now aiming a 16th thinner than a half ball shot (with a 14mm tip. It's slightly less than a 16th with a 12.75mm or 13mm tip).

Using the cue tip as an aiming tool isn't difficult for those who use fractional aiming. Aiming an eighth of a cue tip thinner or thicker produces an aiming adjustment of a 32nd of a ball or thinner, depending on tip diameter. Eventually this becomes automatic as your brain begins to recognize when a slight adjustment is needed, and you'll find yourself no longer consciously trying to do it because you'll just see the shot and know it.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsAbout

BondFanEvents.com
Silver Member
I understand, heard this from others also. I talked to Tom Rossman a few months ago about aiming. He said the same thing, and he strictly teaches ghostball. So I set up a shot and asked him to show me where he would aim for the ghostball center. He pointed his cue tip to a spot on the cloth behind the object ball. I said ok, then I moved the OB about a quarter-inch to the left and asked him to show me the ghostball center for that shot. He did this just as quickly and accurately as he had the first time. I told him he just made about a 32nd aiming adjustment between the first shot and the second shot. He looked at me with a serious face and said, "I teach ghostball."

My point was that the brain can easily recognize such fine tuning with a little work, whether we're using ghostball, CTE, contact points, fractions, etc... Making a fine adjustment to the aim, as fine as a 32nd of a ball or even less, is not difficult. We do it all the time without realizing it.

Let's use a half ball shot for an example. Aiming the center of your tip to the outermost surface/edge of the OB is the 1/2 ball aim -- half of the tip is outside the OB and half is inside/overlapping the OB. Now, if we aim to put 3/4 of our tip outside the edge of the OB and 1/4 overlapping, we are now aiming a 16th thinner than a half ball shot (with a 14mm tip. It's slightly less than a 16th with a 12.75mm or 13mm tip).

Using the cue tip as an aiming tool isn't difficult for those who use fractional aiming. Aiming an eighth of a cue tip thinner or thicker produces an aiming adjustment of a 32nd of a ball or thinner, depending on tip diameter. Eventually this becomes automatic as your brain begins to recognize when a slight adjustment is needed, and you'll find yourself no longer consciously trying to do it because you'll just see the shot and know it.

My friend Tom has good eyes and even finer glasses!

I personally cannot see glowing, imaginary white things--and most people have enough trouble with real spheres to look at. Nor do I like aiming at blue and green cloth or spots in the air.

Most teachers (the ones who teach aim systems) aren't using ghost ball.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Most teachers (the ones who teach aim systems) aren't using ghost ball.
Well, if you define ghost ball as “not an aiming system”, then by definition you’re not teaching it if you teach an aiming system. So your “statistic” is just the same thing said two different ways (a tautology).

pj
chgo
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
My friend Tom has good eyes and even finer glasses!

I personally cannot see glowing, imaginary white things--and most people have enough trouble with real spheres to look at. Nor do I like aiming at blue and green cloth or spots in the air.

Most teachers (the ones who teach aim systems) aren't using ghost ball.

He is also a great guy with tons of passion and energy. He wasn't teaching invisible spheres, but was focusing on a specific distance behind the OB where the CB should be to hit the contact point. I was suggesting that it would be easier to look beyond that spot, to use the OB as a background reference for determining where to aim. In other words, looking passed the ghostball spot to a more defined fractional aim point on or near the OB. In his polite way, he shot that notion down like it wasn't worth considering. I understood why. He's old school, sticking with traditional learning methods.
 

Player

I'm your huckleberry
Silver Member
Hi Brian. I use Poolology a lot like this. I'm mostly a "feel" or "instinct" shooter after 45 years of playing, but find this a great tool to have when the shot just doesn't look quite right.

I don't use any math. Poolology just makes it easy to see for instance if that is a half ball shot, or a little more or a little less.

Also great for ball in hand shots because you can set up on a perfect 1/4 ball or 1/2 ball or whatever shot.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Hi Brian. I use Poolology a lot like this. I'm mostly a "feel" or "instinct" shooter after 45 years of playing, but find this a great tool to have when the shot just doesn't look quite right.

I don't use any math. Poolology just makes it easy to see for instance if that is a half ball shot, or a little more or a little less.

Also great for ball in hand shots because you can set up on a perfect 1/4 ball or 1/2 ball or whatever shot.

That is the intended goal of the book -- for players to use the system in any manner that benefits their game to help them develop a better feel for cut shots.

This video on estimating the cut angle isn't meant to provide exact angles, as the visualizations are based on center CB to center OB. The actual shot angle is a couple of degrees (or more) thinner because we aim away from center OB in order to cut the ball, but the throw thickens it back up a little. By paying attention to the approximate angle, where you are aiming, and where the ball goes, you can develop an accurate aiming process.

Visually paying attention to angles and where you are aiming is the most important process in any aiming method. It builds a thorough memory bank of shots that eventually become automatic. Knowing the exact angles or numbers is not as important as visually recognizing the shot (the relationship between CB, OB, and pocket) and knowing how to play it. Anyway, thanks a bunch!
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Interesting presentation, Brian; thanks.

[It doesn't really matter for applying your estimation technique, but the legs of an isosceles triangle with a 15° vertex angle and a 2.25" base are 8.6" rather than 8.3".]

Just to clarify what I'm showing in the video, my hand distance is not measuring from center OB to center CB. It's simply the distance measured between the OB and the CB, fitting a whole hand on the table between the balls, about 8 to 9 inches. Measuring from base to base does not allow a large enough space to make the angles work.

The 15° intervals are referenced from the back side of the OB where the ghostball would be to CB center, making the difference between the shots equal to 15° not the physical angle between each CB center and the OB center. The actual angle measured from OB center to CB center is a little over 12°, not 15, but each interval accounts for a quarter fractional aiming difference. The offset or dfifference between aiming center CB to center OB and aiming to the 3/4 aim point brings the cut angle very near 15°. For the half ball aim, the angle is around 25° when looking center to center, then very close to 30 when shifting to the 1/2 ball aim.

Not sure if that made it less or more confusing. :eek:. But I'm sure if you sketched it out you would see what I mean.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Just to clarify what I'm showing in the video, my hand distance is not measuring from center OB to center CB. It's simply the distance measured between the OB and the CB, fitting a whole hand on the table between the balls, about 8 to 9 inches. Measuring from base to base does not allow a large enough space to make the angles work.

The 15° intervals are referenced from the back side of the OB where the ghostball would be to CB center, making the difference between the shots equal to 15° not the physical angle between each CB center and the OB center. The actual angle measured from OB center to CB center is a little over 12°, not 15, but each interval accounts for a quarter fractional aiming difference. The offset or dfifference between aiming center CB to center OB and aiming to the 3/4 aim point brings the cut angle very near 15°. For the half ball aim, the angle is around 25° when looking center to center, then very close to 30 when shifting to the 1/2 ball aim.

Not sure if that made it less or more confusing. :eek:. But I'm sure if you sketched it out you would see what I mean.

Yes, the 8.6" leg dimension in the isosceles triangle I mentioned (with a vertex angle of 15°) is from base of CB to base of ghost ball. So that is also the distance between the opposing faces of the CB and OB for a straight-in shot.
 

BilliardsAbout

BondFanEvents.com
Silver Member
Well, if you define ghost ball as “not an aiming system”, then by definition you’re not teaching it if you teach an aiming system. So your “statistic” is just the same thing said two different ways (a tautology).

pj
chgo

Just saw this post. Ghost ball is an aiming system as you wrote. But many teachers I know are using better systems for their students . . .
 
Top