Aiming System Testimonials

Best,
Mike

Year 2003?
H system?

The RSB system by PJ.

This will be fun!

Hal Houle all the way.

Dont ya just love aiming systems that dont care where the pocket is?

mikepage said:

Below are portions of testimonials about an aiming system from one particular poster.

Guess the year.

Guess the system.

So far I have shown beginners and advanced players alike this system and
they are all pocketing balls in the center of the pocket almost every time.
[…]

After learning [xxxxx] I now
firmly believe that no one around here that I know has to like playing me
one pocket. I estimate that my game jumped three balls. […]
[…]

[…] after I aimed using what I have been taught I split the
pocket almost every time without lining the object ball up with the pocket!
Three balls is just right now. I might be five balls better in a month!

[…] I am not saying that this system turns people into champions but I
know that in my case if I had this information ten years ago then I would be
in the top ten right now.
[…]

I don't know the geometry or necromancy involved well enough to comment
scientifically, mathmaticlly or magically. What I do know is that for six
days I am making shots split the pocket no matter where they lay. For five
days I have been showing this to anyone who will listen and they have been
splitting the pockets, beginners and advanced players alike.
[…]

These are simple ways to aim that achieve exact results. I
thought that this might be something that only good players could benefit
from until I started showing it to relative beginners. Watching them
suddenly develop the ability to make shots that they were previously unable
to make no matter how often they tried was proof enough for me[…]

Now there is no shot that I
have trouble with. There is no bank that I am not 100% sure of.
[…]

I use the
reference points exactly as taught to me and my object balls split the
pocket. They split the pocket, not rail first, they don't wobble, they
split the pocket down the middle. I have at least a dozen witnesses who can
report that this is true.

Click to expand...

Not me but this sounds like someone who is very happy with what they were taught. Someone who is enjoying the game more than ever.

No downside that I can see.

Not sure what the point of the post is Mike but if you want we can do this a bit differently and simply copy paste everyone's testimonials to this thread with attribution and links.

Edit: Was me after all. Still consistent after all these years!

JB Cases said:

Not me but this sounds like someone who is very happy with what they were taught. Someone who is enjoying the game more than ever.

No downside that I can see.

Not sure what the point of the post is Mike but if you want we can do this a bit differently and simply copy paste everyone's testimonials to this thread with attribution and links.

Click to expand...

John, it was you, circa 2000 in a rec.sport.billiard discussion of Hal Houle.

I wish I could say it was my great memory but it's not. I used google because the word combination guaranteed a unique find - how many internet pages have combined the words "necromancy" and "splitting the pockets"? Exactly two - this discussion and the original on RSB.

Rich93 said:

John, it was you, circa 2000 in a rec.sport.billiard discussion of Hal Houle.

I wish I could say it was my great memory but it's not. I used google because the word combination guaranteed a unique find - how many internet pages have combined the words "necromancy" and "splitting the pockets"? Exactly two - this discussion and the original on RSB.

Click to expand...

I thought some of it sounded like me but then I thought Mike said on AZB.

Anyway as I said the sentiment was expressed then that I loved it and was having a blast playing.

The funny part is that this had to be around 2001/2002ish I think and the Hal Houle discussions had been raging for years already. I had not paid ANY attention to them. NONE.

I honestly swear on the Babe Crandfield Book, had only opened a Hal Houle aiming thread once in all the years prior and quickly went out of it. I thought Hal was a kook or something and though I had aiming all figured out.

Then one day I get a call from Bob Johnson who wants me to come to Denver to meet Hal. I think I might have actually said Hal who?

I told him I didn't really want to go but he insisted. So I figured what the hell at least I can get out of the shop and have an excuse to go to Denver and look for action. So I went down and Hal pulls out a piece of paper where he had printed out something I said on RSB about aiming.

I had responded to a newbie question about aiming by repeating something I read by Johnny Archer in a magazine. That Johnny would put his tip in about the GB position and then aim at that. Hal said I was wrong that Johnny didn't aim that way and proceeded to tell me about a bunch of methods that he claimed were used by the pros.

I thought this guy is full of crap and I might have looked at Bob Johnson with a what-did-you-call-me-for-this look. I was desparate to find anyone to play way and get away from Hal. But early afternoon at Paradise and no action. So I settled down to listen and try some of what he was teaching. Only one method stuck but when it did I hit the shots up the rail as clean as you could ever want.

The balls made such a clean sound as they entered the pocket. And then I found myself hitting them in from everywhere. I was in a trance for a couple hours working with Hal and by early evening it was over and his legs were giving out and we said our goodbyes.

I stopped in at a local tournament on the way out of town and got second in that and got in a little action and snapped that off. Got home and spent probably another hour on the bar table trying it out and still couldn't believe it.

Then I made the mistake of going to RSB and telling the group about the experience. And guess who was waiting for me like sharks after a baby seal?

Lou, Pat and Deno Andrews.

The rest as they say is history. I should have thought of googling the passages. I knew that some of the words sounded like mine but not what I have said on AZB. I still don't understand Mike's point though. But as far as it goes we could go back and pick out dozens of testimonials of others who tried Hal's systems, found them to work AND who use them today.

Fred Agnir - Engineer
Eric Hu - The next Warren Buffet

Are just two examples of smart and educated players who have found them to be all that Hal said they are.

And me....you can see that I clearly have not changed my stance on them. Now I just understand more about how they work whereas back then it really felt like some forbidden magic....

I guess it was 2000, strange as it seems like it was later. Anyway, hello, my name is John Barton and I have been Houlite since 2000.

"My 1 and 1/2 cents:

This is truly half baked (particularly after a cabernet or two), but I've
got to confess that I've been playing around with the Hal Houle Aiming
System (five cut angles) the last couple of days and have found:

that it works.

But, IMO, it works because: I'm human.

I'm not Iron Willie whom you can set up to execute exactly 15, 30, 45, 60,
and 75 degree hits. If you could do that, the system would fail and all you
geometers could continue in celebration.

But "it works" because, though I shoot at what I *perceive* to be those
angles, I automatically adjust/allow for the pocket location, cloth, balls,
the characteristics of my stick, etc. Tiny variances. In other words,

there's enough "slop" inherent in the system -- because we're not
achines -- to allow for all the conscious and subconscious allowances we
all make on every shot (if we've been playing for any time at all) to make
the system appear to *work.*

100% precise geometry: No.

Useful: Yes.

Lou Figueroa" - here

And yet, now 12 years later when Stan THE MAN Shuffet says he has studied and refined the system to a precise level Lou brands him a charlatan.

I think that one of the things that comes to mind is that some of us can't
really explain what is happening or why. We are told aim at these points
and this will happen. We do it and it happens. We say but what about if I
set the shot up this way? We are told aim at the same points and the ball
will fall and it does. We are not particularly amazed that balls are going
in even though our instinct screams that some of the shots will not go, but
we are amazed at the ease with which the balls go in. I for one do not
understand the geometry involved. I know that throughout this debate I have
learned a lot about what is happening when I aim the old way. I seem to
remember an story a few years ago wherin a great old time player was
interviewed and was asked what advice he would give about how to play and he
said that he didn't know what he does he just did it. I think this thing
boils down to what works. Obviously if you are in dead punch then whatever
you are doing works. I am sorry guys but Hal teaches something that is
intoxicating and something that works. If his stuff isn't new then so what.
The saying goes that those who fail to heed history are doomed to repeat it.
Our whole society could do with a healthy dose of values and lessons from
the past. Yesterday I read a sentence that has relevance for this argument.
It went something like this, it is not always neccessary to know why somethi
ng works as long as you know it does. If the formula is right then success
is guaranteed as long as you use the formula. As far as I can see Hal has
published a really good explanation of one of his systems. You asked for
explanation from him and you got it. I honestly don't know why I can aim
ball to ball and make the shots from almost anywhere on an open table. I
don't know why it doesn't matter whether shot A is at position X and shot B
is at position Y. I follow a simple formula that works. Hal explained it
in this forum better than I ever could. I am sorry I stirred the nest. I
am just glad I had a witness ) And I am glad I met Hal. Anyone who is
76 has a lot to teach me about life. - said way back then

Lou was consistent as well and branded Hal Houle to be a snake oil salesman.

My response back then:

Well I shudder to think of all the scientifically proven cures and
treatments that were later found to be more harmful than the original
affliction. Also many doctors are embracing alternative forms of treatment.
Just because we don't understand something does not mean it is not true,
does not work or does not exist. Hal Houle has never come out and said that
his systems are a cure all. Only a few people who post here have had the
experience of spending extensive time with him, I am not one of them. Hal
credits Joe Davis with publishing concepts which are similar to what he
teaches. Bill Stroud, whom not many people really want to tangle with on a
pool table for the jellybeans, says that he learned aiming from Joe's books.
Bill is as close to a top notcher that I have seen here so his word carries
weight. Mine does not. Sure the euphoria expressed by the Houleites is
akin to a drug trip but then so is being in a state of truth. Who are we to
say what is possible and what is not. We have all seen the Chinese monks
who bend iron spears pressed against their necks. Should be physiologically
impossible, is biologically easy to prove that such a feat is impossible,
human membranes simply cannot withstand that kind of pressure. But it is
done. Some snake oil actually worked for some people. (My information is
based on the History of Packaging.) Anyway it wouldn't hurt for you to be
nice to Hal if for no other reason than respect for his age. Instead of
bashing him it would be really cool to hear him tell his stories about the
old days. Even if you feel insulted it doesn't always pay to respond in
kind. I mean all of us know deep down inside that the Karma Police exist,
right? 8->

What an absolute gold mine this is:

Here is Deno Andrews, one of the principal critics back then...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.billiard/P8uTqI1CldM/sS6EMhdNIZYJ

> And yes Lou and Deno both went off. They both have every right to express
> themselve and they defend themselves very well but, oh whatever....

I went off? I didn't even use any bad language! I didn't mean to go
off. I am just getting sick of hearing this cure for cancer with no
results or data to cite.

Deno

-------------------------------------------------

Can anyone spot the irony here?

In 2005 Deno took a job as the Tour Director of the International Pool Tour. His direct boss? Kevin Trudeau, author of Natural Cures They Don't Want You To Know About. You remember that book right? The one that claimed to have many cures for cancer in it which were not scientifically proven and peer reviewed????

Promoting an alternative aiming system is harmful but promoting alternative cures to cancer is not?

From Ken Bour: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rec.sport.billiard/eLK0SgEO7aI/discussion

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.

Hal was also quite specific in advising me that the aiming system he taught
to John Collins IS NOT the same fractional ball system that has received all
of the attention in at least one thread (that got me fired up). He taught
John a different "professional" aiming system that he does not use with
beginning players. We did not have enough time to get into those concepts
on this telephone call. Hal has invited me to contact him any time that I
am at my table with a portable phone and he will explain this other system
to me. I plan on accepting his generous offer and will likely do it during
this week.

I sure hope that this report corrects some serious errors that have been
promulgated by a few and helps to assure others that Mr. Houle is a
reasonable guy who DOES understand and accepts the physical principles
involved in billiards.

--
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA

Where it all began for me with aiming systems and Hal.

Hal Houle is for real!

Last night I had the wonderful oppurtunity to work eight hours with Hal
Houle. As far as I am concerned this man is preaching pool truth. I
learned more last night than in eighteen years of playing. If anyone has
the chance to meet him and work with him I highly reccomend it. If you
believe that you know how to play pool you will learn otherwise. I promise
to go into more detail when I have practiced the techniques and systems I
have learned. Until then I am done giving advice because I know now that
most of the advice I have given is faulty. I never read any of the Hal
Houle posts before or got into the discussions about whether he is right or
wrong but I can testify that what he taught me last night was as close to
understanding how to pocket balls consistently as I have ever been until
now. Hal is now 78 years old and he is saying that this will be the last of
his cross country road trips. He has selected a number of RSB/ASP
participants to meet with him during his trip. Whether you believe his
systems or not it is a wonderful experience to meet this man. He has been
involved with pool players since Greenleaf's time.

What I learned from Hal - ????? You'll just have to find out when you play
me 8->

John

>From: Anthony DeAngelo

Its funny, right after i first talked with Hal, I went back and did a Deja
search on the Great Houle War. I discovered that he gave a pretty straight
forward explanation to his basic system. Then everyone started jumping in and
saying "Why & What about this & this goes against physics etc" If I remember,
JW and (I think) Ron/Johnson (sorry guys sometimes you seem like the same
person) and Tom Simpson ( one post that I remember) where utterly unconvinced.


Anyway, maybe its magic, maybe its religion. I don't care. I tried some of
the things Hal taught me over the phone, but I think its a hands on type of
thing. You can't learn skiing from a book ( I know I tried to my utter
humiliation). Its easy to describe, but to put into practice you need an Adept
or preferably His Holiness Himself Hal Houle.

I can't wait


Bert M <-- C=

And now - AFTER meeting with and studying under Hal. http://www.poolclinics.com/

I dont know who it was... but I see JB Cases thinks it's Hal Houle!!!

Ralph Kramden said:

I dont know who it was... but I see JB Cases thinks it's Hal Houle!!!

Click to expand...

No JB Cases does not think that. And the mystery has been solved, it was JB Cases....back then known as John Collins.

StrokeAnalyzer said:

Hal Houle all the way.

Dont ya just love aiming systems that dont care where the pocket is?

Click to expand...

How did you guess that?