"Poolology", Maybe the best $10 ever spent!

Bobkitty

I said: "Here kitty, kitty". Got this frown.
Gold Member
Silver Member
I am new here so I will be very careful what I say. This aiming section title does say "argue to your heart's content". So I will...in a polite way. This poolology is the most complicated stuff...with all these arithmetic formulas. Why in the world would anyone want to get involved with this over CTE? In CTE he shows that you just have four shots to mess with...15-30-45-60 degree shots and that's it. Get perception (that's the easy part), aim cue stick one half tip from perception target, pivot to center cueball, and make the shot on the center verticle axis somewhere..the ball goes in the hole. I've never had a formal lesson, just watched youtube of Mr. Shuffett. And have only been doing it for about four weeks. CTE doesn't seem complicated at all to me and appears to be a better, simplified, method. I'm moving into the application of english next. I actually ran 56 balls in a straight pool game using it. I don't know who was more amazed, me or my opponent. I won $18.00 and that pleased me a lot.

Well, there you go. Aim cue stick 1/2 tip away from perception target. Took a guy that's only been doing CTE 4 weeks to tell me what to aim at. So.... let me see if I can go to the pool table and do this: On a slight cut to the right, I perceive a line going from right edge of CB to C on OB. CCB to left edge of OB. Once I have my eyes at the exact spot where I can imagine both of these non parallel lines, I don't move and come down into shooting stance with my cue stick 1/2 tip to the right of CCB aimed at the perception point, then pivot 1/2 tip to the left. Stroke the ball into the hole. How did I do?
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
For AtLarge:

Here is the example you dissected. Though your theory is correct, your figures are not. My cue is directly on the aim line for a 3/8 fractional aim.

picture.php


Here is the view from behind the ghostball, sending the OB to a 4-3/8 inch pocket. (slight over-cut, which is easily corrected when the inevitable CIT of about 1.5 to 3 degrees occurs, depending on shot speed of course.

picture.php



And here is the aim with the ghostball removed.

picture.php


Here is a close up of an obvious 3/8 aim.

picture.php


It's a 9ft table with 2.25" balls. Shooting this shot from the end rail is tough because distance makes it hard to accurately put the CB where you need it. But yes, a 3/8 aim works anywhere along the alignment line except when CB gets with 6 to 8 inches from the OB. And that's​ when a thinner hit is needed.
 

SkinnyPete

Registered
I am new here so I will be very careful what I say. This aiming section title does say "argue to your heart's content". So I will...in a polite way. This poolology is the most complicated stuff...with all these arithmetic formulas. Why in the world would anyone want to get involved with this over CTE? In CTE he shows that you just have four shots to mess with...15-30-45-60 degree shots and that's it. Get perception (that's the easy part), aim cue stick one half tip from perception target, pivot to center cueball, and make the shot on the center verticle axis somewhere..the ball goes in the hole. I've never had a formal lesson, just watched youtube of Mr. Shuffett. And have only been doing it for about four weeks. CTE doesn't seem complicated at all to me and appears to be a better, simplified, method. I'm moving into the application of english next. I actually ran 56 balls in a straight pool game using it. I don't know who was more amazed, me or my opponent. I won $18.00 and that pleased me a lot.

As long as we noobies are allowed to comment, and argue :thumbup: I'll have to disagree with it being the most complicated. I've just read the poolology book myself thanks to this thread, since he is asking money for the book I don't know how appropriate it would be for me to discuss specifics but suffice it to say the arithmetic formulas for each shot is just one fraction. That's it! Just x/y. No geometry or trigonometry calculations going on here. One could have the *concept* figured out after about 5 minutes with the book!

I do recognize that many non-math brained types are still put off by a fraction, and that's okay.
 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well, there you go. Aim cue stick 1/2 tip away from perception target. Took a guy that's only been doing CTE 4 weeks to tell me what to aim at. So.... let me see if I can go to the pool table and do this: On a slight cut to the right, I perceive a line going from right edge of CB to C on OB. CCB to left edge of OB. Once I have my eyes at the exact spot where I can imagine both of these non parallel lines, I don't move and come down into shooting stance with my cue stick 1/2 tip to the right of CCB aimed at the perception point, then pivot 1/2 tip to the left. Stroke the ball into the hole. How did I do?
I'm sorry, but I learned an important lesson long ago in the Masonic Lodge...."never place yourself or allow yourself to be placed in any position in life that you're not fully qualified to fill". In this case, I am totally unqualified to offer any help with your question. I just posted my remarks about how the CTE is working for me...others may not have the same results. I hope it turns out good for you
My best to you.
 

Bobkitty

I said: "Here kitty, kitty". Got this frown.
Gold Member
Silver Member
I'm sorry, but I learned an important lesson long ago in the Masonic Lodge...."never place yourself or allow yourself to be placed in any position in life that you're not fully qualified to fill". In this case, I am totally unqualified to offer any help with your question. I just posted my remarks about how the CTE is working for me...others may not have the same results. I hope it turns out good for you
My best to you.

I know what you mean. Let's see if we get yelled at. :p
 

Bobkitty

I said: "Here kitty, kitty". Got this frown.
Gold Member
Silver Member
But yes, a 3/8 aim works anywhere along the alignment line except when CB gets with 6 to 8 inches from the OB. And that's​ when a thinner hit is needed.

Sooo, for those of us that have read and studied your book, I'm guessing the OB is sitting on the 32 line in Zone A, and I can see the alignment value of 20. That gives us 20/32. Reduced that becomes 5/8 and subtract that from 1 to get the 3/8 hit into the corner. Easy peasy. BUT, if we understood CTE, we would see (perceive a line that runs )CCB to left edge of OB, and a line that goes from Right edge of CB to "B" (middle of OB), come down on that line aimed at the perception point (saw that from LOW500), come in from the left (outside) and set the cue tip 1/2 tip on the left side of C CB. Pivot the cue to the right 1/2 tip worth to CCB and pocket the ball. Not so easy but no math involved.
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Sooo, for those of us that have read and studied your book, I'm guessing the OB is sitting on the 32 line in Zone A, and I can see the alignment value of 20. That gives us 20/32. Reduced that becomes 5/8 and subtract that from 1 to get the 3/8 hit into the corner. Easy peasy. BUT, if we understood CTE, we would see (perceive a line that runs )CCB to left edge of OB, and a line that goes from Right edge of CB to "B" (middle of OB), come down on that line aimed at the perception point (saw that from LOW500), come in from the left (outside) and set the cue tip 1/2 tip on the left side of C CB. Pivot the cue to the right 1/2 tip worth to CCB and pocket the ball. Not so easy but no math involved.

For the example pictured, the object ball is 3 diamonds off the end rail, not on 32.
 

Bobkitty

I said: "Here kitty, kitty". Got this frown.
Gold Member
Silver Member
For the example pictured, the object ball is 3 diamonds off the end rail, not on 32.

Oops, missed it. Hard to tell from the pictures, but I guessed by doing the math in reverse.
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well, there you go. Aim cue stick 1/2 tip away from perception target. Took a guy that's only been doing CTE 4 weeks to tell me what to aim at. So.... let me see if I can go to the pool table and do this: On a slight cut to the right, I perceive a line going from right edge of CB to C on OB. CCB to left edge of OB. Once I have my eyes at the exact spot where I can imagine both of these non parallel lines, I don't move and come down into shooting stance with my cue stick 1/2 tip to the right of CCB aimed at the perception point, then pivot 1/2 tip to the left. Stroke the ball into the hole. How did I do?

Just STOP, you cannot do CTE and certainly not the Pro One version of it. Give it a rest and try to figure out how to aim at 3/8ths of a object ball 4 feet away, repeatedly. I bet that don't happen either.
 

Bobkitty

I said: "Here kitty, kitty". Got this frown.
Gold Member
Silver Member
Just STOP, you cannot do CTE and certainly not the Pro One version of it. Give it a rest and try to figure out how to aim at 3/8ths of a object ball 4 feet away, repeatedly. I bet that don't happen either.

Oh, I thought I had it. What did I do wrong? I would like to learn CTE. Please tell me how to go about it. I've purchased the DVDs and have watched DVD #1 three times. What did I miss?
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Sooo, for those of us that have read and studied your book, I'm guessing the OB is sitting on the 32 line in Zone A, and I can see the alignment value of 20. That gives us 20/32. Reduced that becomes 5/8 and subtract that from 1 to get the 3/8 hit into the corner. Easy peasy. BUT, if we understood CTE, we would see (perceive a line that runs )CCB to left edge of OB, and a line that goes from Right edge of CB to "B" (middle of OB), come down on that line aimed at the perception point (saw that from LOW500), come in from the left (outside) and set the cue tip 1/2 tip on the left side of C CB. Pivot the cue to the right 1/2 tip worth to CCB and pocket the ball. Not so easy but no math involved.

Since you keep bringing it up, and i really think you have zero interest in CTE. CTE is so easy because we look at the same thing on every shot, no fractions and no math to figure out, just pick up our same two lines virtually every time.
 

Bobkitty

I said: "Here kitty, kitty". Got this frown.
Gold Member
Silver Member
Since you keep bringing it up, and i really think you have zero interest in CTE. CTE is so easy because we look at the same thing on every shot, no fractions and no math to figure out, just pick up our same two lines virtually every time.

I would like to learn it. Just don't know how to go about it. I'll keep watching the DVDs.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... The actual aim point difference between a 3/8 and a 1/3 aim is 0.09" at the OB. The offset angle (angle between the alignment line and the aim line) is close to 1° from full table distance on a 9' table, and around 5° when the CB is within a foot of the OB. This offset changes the actual cut angle of the shot by half of the offset.(a 30° cut from one foot away ends up being a 28° cut, while from 7 feet away it's a 29.5° cut). This offset angle climbs significantly faster as the CB gets closer to the OB. So when the balls are closer than about 8", the offset is already bordering approximately 10°, which means the a 30° cut angle will come off at 25°, too thick unless you're shooting into 5.5" bucket pockets. A thinner aim must be used at close distance. ...

Do you mean these statements about offset angles to apply just to half-ball aims or as generalizations? I certainly don't think they are accurate as generalizations. Offset angles vary not only with the distance between OB and CB (decreasing with increasing separation) but also with the basic thickness of cut (decreasing as the cut angle decreases). So for a given distance between CB and OB, the offset angle will be smaller for a 3/4-ball hit than for a 1/2-ball hit, and smaller for a 1/2-ball hit than for a 1/4-ball hit.

In the example he gave it says that for that example your system recommends 3/8 aimpoint and that for varying distance it would miss the pocket in 4/6 CB-OB distances, first two could be considered the ones at close distance which you are saying that need to be aimed thinner, what about the last two which are at 4 diamonds away and against the head rail?\
Do your recommended aim points work only for greater then 1 and less then 4 diamonds distance between CB and OB without any adjustments to pocket the ball anywhere in the pocket?

Mirza -- I believe my numbers are accurate given the precise assumptions I made. I calculated the numbers just as an example of how the necessary cut angle changes as the distance between the balls changes. Note how close the last two shots in that example are to working with the 3/8 hit. If the throw was slightly more than I assumed, or the pocket a bit larger than I assumed, the shots are pocketed.

You only need to aim thinner when the CB and OB are closer together. One aim point thinner when the distance is about 5 to 8", and as close as 3" you'd need two aim points thinner. The amount of angle offset from a greater distance is very minimal, so no aiming compensation is needed. ...

Brian, this post makes me think that when you talk about distances between balls you must mean edge to edge rather than base of ball to base of ball. Is that so? What I have posted uses base to base.

As for your last sentence, even when the separation between balls is large, I think some adjustment is needed sometimes. Here is another example of it
• OB -- one diamond straight out from a side pocket;
• CB -- against the end cushion, also one diamond out on the same side of the table;
• Target -- the far diagonal corner pocket.

Poolology's arithmetic says it's a 1/4-ball aim. That will produce a cut angle of 48.6° ignoring throw, or something in the range of maybe 45° - 48° accounting for throw. But the cut angle actually needed to pocket that shot is 38.5° to center pocket With a 4½" pocket accepting another 1.1° either way from that distance, let's say the OB must travel at an angle between 37° and 40°. An accurate 1/4-ball hit will overcut the shot.

I just plotted the shot on paper, cutting it to the right, then used a computer to check line accuracy and my angles. From one diamond distance out, a 3/8 hit provides a 38° shot to center pocket, not accounting for throw. Subtract a 1 to 2° throw and the ball goes thick, just left of center pocket, but clean in the hole. At 3 diamonds out a 3/8 aim provides 40° shot, slightly over-cutting to the right pocket edge...subtract for throw and the ball hits very close to center pocket.

So he's close, but not exact. The best test is to shoot the shot and rely on the results.

Brian, a 3/8-ball hit is a 38.7° cut regardless of the distance between the balls (ignoring throw). In my original post, I used 37° as the constant cut angle for all distances after allowing for throw. I agree that a 3/8 aim works on that shot from 3 diamonds. See my original post, or my next response here, for comments on the 1-diamond separation.

For AtLarge:

Here is the example you dissected. Though your theory is correct, your figures are not. ...

It's a 9ft table with 2.25" balls. Shooting this shot from the end rail is tough because distance makes it hard to accurately put the CB where you need it. But yes, a 3/8 aim works anywhere along the alignment line except when CB gets with 6 to 8 inches from the OB. And that's​ when a thinner hit is needed.

Yes, your pictures are for one of the shots I mentioned, but they really don't help determine or analyze fine differences in cut angles.

I believe my figures are correct given the precise assumptions I made. All the angles I mentioned were calculated by me. If you are so inclined, you could re-read my original post carefully, calculate some of the angles I used yourself, and let me know (perhaps by PM) of any discrepancies you find.

As for your last sentence, I think the 3/8 aim might not work from one diamond away. As I said in the original post, the OB must travel on a cut angle of about 40° ± 1½° with a 4½" pocket, whereas the 3/8-ball hit will cut it at 38.7° less throw (so maybe something like 37°). So it's close for sure. But I think it is a "thin" 3/8 (like a 1/3).

This stuff is fun, n'est-ce pas?
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
AtLarge,

Yes the offset varies with different cut angles, and from the same angle it varies (decreases) as distance between the balls increases. There are some fine aim differences with the variations. When I first developed the system I thought this would be a troubling issue. But then, when I actually started testing the system, I found that it works quite well for 99% of table surface. That's why I decided to keep the exact angles and offsets and variances out of the book, so the player would focus more on sighting the shots rather than over-thinking exact angles.

There are several shots where exact calculations appear questionable on paper, as far as whether or not the OB will hit the pocket, but then when you hit the shot on the table, not on paper or on a computer, it goes into the pocket regardless. The system applies to reasonable shots that a player would be required to shoot in a typical game. On some shots, where the difficulty factor in pocketing the ball is very high (a low-percentage shot), good players would/should not attempt the shot unless it's got an automatic safety built into it, you know....a "case shot", in case of a miss.

The reason why the first example you gave actually works from any distance (unless the space between balls (edge to edge) is less than about 8") is because the throw (CIT) is twice as high as you've stated, much closer to 3 or 4° instead of 1.5 to 2. That's using a medium speed. A softer hit would raise the CIT even more, as you know. You'd get close 2° throw only if you slammed the ball, a very firm speed. Keeping an aim point of 3/8 for each distance you provide, the angle can't remain fixed (I believe you said you used 37° for each distance calculation). This only works if the CB stays on the ghostball line. We're not concerned with the gb line. We're coming from the alignment line, which causes the shot angle to increase (ref the OB approach to the pocket) as the CB gets further away from the OB. It's really a shift in the shot angle from left to right. As the distance between balls changes, the OB goes from left to right going into the pocket. From 1 diamond it goes left of center, from 5 diamonds it goes right of center. Somewhere in middle, the sweet spot, it goes center hole. It works like this on all cut angles.

I wanted the book to be more user-friendly and easy to follow, not super technical with exact variations and fine aiming discrepancies. I believe the fine tuning here and there is something a player gets an individual feel for doing, which provides more confidence and greater accuracy than any system can provide alone.

The only way to make the system 100% accurate would be to use crescent shaped position value lines, which would be near impossible to visualize accurately. The system is based on these crescent arcs, but I linearized the values to make it more user-friendly. Unfortunately, this also added a small percentage of miscalculated shots. A player could shoot a hundred shots, normal shots that wouldn't be considered high risk or low percentage, and maybe come across one shot that doesn't quite work in accordance with the system. It's not a magical system that allows players to make low percentage shots from all over the table like they were straight-in shots. I surely haven't pitched it as such, and think most people realize this.
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Referring to OB on center table line (from head to foot) and 3 diamonds from the end rail. CB on same line at various distances from OB......

..... here is the cut angle we actually need to pocket each shot.

• CB ½ diamond away from the OB -- the cut angle needed is about 50° (±1½° with slop). Neither 3/8 nor 1/3 will work; a 1/4 hit (48.6° less an allowance for throw) might even be a bit too thick.

• CB 1 diamond away -- somewhat over 40° ± 1½°. The 3/8 hit (37°) will not work, but the 1/3 (40°) will.

• CB 2 diamonds away -- about 37° ± 1½°. The 3/8 hit works, the 1/3 does not.

• CB 3 diamonds away -- about 36° ± 1½°. The 3/8 hit works, the 1/3 does not.

• CB 4 diamonds away -- a bit over 35° ± 1½°. Neither 3/8 nor 1/3 works.

• CB against the head rail -- a bit under 35° ± 1½°. Neither 3/8 nor 1/3 works.

........

It looks like you're using the same physical aim point for each of these calculations. The aim point moves in accordance with the offset angle because the shot perspective changes. In other words, when the CB is 4 diamonds out there is an offset (from alignment line to aim line) of about 1°. From 1/2 a diamond out the offset is closer to 10°, which is why a thinner aim point is needed when the balls are that close. These same offset angles occur between the center of the OB and the designated aim point from the perspective of the individual CB distances. Dang.....confusing myself....lol. That's why none of this was included in the book.

What I'm saying is the aim point moves around the OB outer surface at a 90° angle between center CB and center OB. It moves at the same angle as the offset angle between alignment line and aim line.

I subtitled the book "Mastering the ART of aiming", not "Mastering the MATHEMATICS of aiming". Being an old-school feel/instinct player, I think aiming should be more artistic than systematic. I believe this method, though systematic for the purpose of functionality, can help players achieve a more instinctual level of pocketing balls.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... The system applies to reasonable shots that a player would be required to shoot in a typical game. On some shots, where the difficulty factor in pocketing the ball is very high (a low-percentage shot), good players would/should not attempt the shot unless it's got an automatic safety built into it, you know....a "case shot", in case of a miss.

Yes, a safety or a 2-way shot is often a good choice when the shot is difficult (like the ones on the cushion in my examples).

The reason why the first example you gave actually works from any distance (unless the space between balls (edge to edge) is less than about 8") is because the throw (CIT) is twice as high as you've stated, much closer to 4° instead of 1.5 to 2. That's using a medium speed. A softer hit would raise the CIT even more, as you know. You'd get close 2° throw only if you slammed the ball, a very firm speed.

Yes, as I have noted a couple of times, more throw would make the long shots in my post #36 example work. But more throw would make the 3/8-hit miss by even more on the shot from 1 diamond distance. And more throw would still not make the 1/4-ball aim example in post #73 work.

Keeping an aim point of 3/8 for each distance you provide, the angle can't remain fixed (I believe you said you used 37° for each distance calculation). This only works if the CB stays on the ghostball line. We're not concerned with the gb line. We're coming from the alignment line, which causes the shot angle to increase as the CB gets further away from the OB. As the distance between balls changes, the OB goes moves from left to right going into the pocket. From 1 diamond it goes left of center, from 5 diamonds it goes right of center. Somewhere in middle, the sweet spot, it goes center hole. It works like this on all cut angles.

We still aren't on the same wavelength here. I'll repeat -- a 3/8-ball hit is a 38.7° cut regardless of the distance between the balls (ignoring throw). In my original post, I used 37° as the constant cut angle for all distances after allowing for throw. I could have used 35° (as you suggested) to allow for more throw. But that actual cut angle is a constant assuming the CB arrives at the OB with the same speed and spin for each shot. In post #36 I used shots from 6 different distances and then compared that actual, constant, cut angle (for a 3/8 overlap) with the cut angle actually needed for each shot. That's what I also did in post #73 for a long shot with a 1/4-ball hit -- compared the actual cut angle that the hit will create (after throw) with the cut angle needed.

I wanted the book to be more user-friendly and easy to follow, not super technical with exact variations and fine aiming discrepancies. I believe the fine tuning here and there is something a player gets an individual feel for doing, which provides more confidence and greater accuracy than any system can provide alone.

The only way to make the system 100% accurate would be to use crescent shaped position value lines, which would be near impossible to visualize accurately. The system is based on these crescent arcs, but I linearized the values to make it more user-friendly. Unfortunately, this also added a small percentage of miscalculated shots. A player could shoot a hundred shots, normal shots that wouldn't be considered high risk or low percentage, and maybe come across one shot that doesn't quite work in accordance with the system. It's not a magical system that allows players to make low percentage shots from all over the table like they were straight-in shots. I surely haven't pitched it as such, and think most people realize this.

I agree with all this. And I like what you said earlier in this thread: "The goal with Poolology is to become a FEEL player. For some, the system can always be used, but the more you use it the more you'll find it becoming natural."

And we need not continue discussing fine differences in cut angles for certain shots. I am impressed with what you have done in mapping the table for a fairly simple calculation of overhangs and overlaps. It's a real contribution to fractional aiming.

[I just wish I were better at actually putting the stick on the prescribed shot line (and keeping it there through the stroke)!]
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Poolology - Mastering the Art of Aiming

There is no easy way to say this....

I messed up.

A few years ago, after thinking I had finished designing an accurate aiming system, I tested it by simply throwing balls out on the table and shooting them into the pockets, picking and choosing shots to get a variety of various cut angles. I did this every day for about a week, maybe 2 or 3 hundred shots per day. I tweaked some alignment values here and there during the process to account for CIT. Satisfied with the results, I told myself I'd put it all together into a book someday. I gathered all my notes and scribbled drawings and put them away until I could write the book. A new home and a couple of years later I started that project.

I wanted the book to be simple and to the point with very little fluff and no distracting technical data to take away from the main focus of the book - aiming. Unfortunately, in my attempt to make it as user-friendly as possible, I watered it down too much -- moving an alignment line a little this way or that so it could be remembered easier. I thought since my table was tougher than average (a 1.14 TDF), I could get away with loosening the system up a bit.

I was wrong. Sure, it works very accurately for most shots, but there are a few shots that get over cut. I assumed most players would get a feel for it and the discrepancies would pan out on their own. However, before sales get too high, I have decided to revamp the book. I am adding info that I had originally excluded, which includes the known trouble spots (about 1% of the table surface), more alignment values for Zone C back cuts (on the long rail opposite the targeted pocket), and info on how the system works with regards to a shifting shot angle as the CB to OB distance changes.

Between Lulu, Amazon, and other outlets, 270 copies have sold in the last 3 months. I can't thank everyone enough!! But what I'd like to do is send the 2nd edition to each person that bought a copy of my book. I'm not sure how I will do this for eBook copies, other than give a $10 refund or credit toward the new edition. It will be available May 29th.

What I need you AZers to do is send me a pm to let me know if you'd prefer the ebook or a printed copy, at no cost to you. Please provide proof of purchase, like an order number from Amazon or Lulu or Apple so I can verify it all. Of course, many of you I have dealt with personally, and for you no proof of purchase is necessary.

I figure if I'm going to revamp the book, I best get it done while the book is still a pup.

Thanks,

Brian Crist
 

Bobkitty

I said: "Here kitty, kitty". Got this frown.
Gold Member
Silver Member
There is no easy way to say this....

I messed up.

A few years ago, after thinking I had finished designing an accurate aiming system, I tested it by simply throwing balls out on the table and shooting them into the pockets, picking and choosing shots to get a variety of various cut angles. I did this every day for about a week, maybe 2 or 3 hundred shots per day. I tweaked some alignment values here and there during the process to account for CIT. Satisfied with the results, I told myself I'd put it all together into a book someday. I gathered all my notes and scribbled drawings and put them away until I could write the book. A new home and a couple of years later I started that project.

I wanted the book to be simple and to the point with very little fluff and no distracting technical data to take away from the main focus of the book - aiming. Unfortunately, in my attempt to make it as user-friendly as possible, I watered it down too much -- moving an alignment line a little this way or that so it could be remembered easier. I thought since my table was tougher than average (a 1.14 TDF), I could get away with loosening the system up a bit.

I was wrong. Sure, it works very accurately for most shots, but there are a few shots that get over cut. I assumed most players would get a feel for it and the discrepancies would pan out on their own. However, before sales get too high, I have decided to revamp the book. I am adding info that I had originally excluded, which includes the known trouble spots (about 1% of the table surface), more alignment values for Zone C back cuts (on the long rail opposite the targeted pocket), and info on how the system works with regards to a shifting shot angle as the CB to OB distance changes.

Between Lulu, Amazon, and other outlets, 270 copies have sold in the last 3 months. I can't thank everyone enough!! But what I'd like to do is send the 2nd edition to each person that bought a copy of my book. I'm not sure how I will do this for eBook copies, other than give a $10 refund or credit toward the new edition. It will be available May 29th.

What I need you AZers to do is send me a pm to let me know if you'd prefer the ebook or a printed copy, at no cost to you. Please provide proof of purchase, like an order number from Amazon or Lulu or Apple so I can verify it all. Of course, many of you I have dealt with personally, and for you no proof of purchase is necessary.

I figure if I'm going to revamp the book, I best get it done while the book is still a pup.

Thanks,

Brian Crist

Good for you Brian, I think all first edition books have many errors. I'll bet yours is 99.0% correct as it stands and that's pretty good. Striving to make it even better is fantastic.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There is no easy way to say this....

I messed up.

A few years ago, after thinking I had finished designing an accurate aiming system, I tested it by simply throwing balls out on the table and shooting them into the pockets, picking and choosing shots to get a variety of various cut angles. I did this every day for about a week, maybe 2 or 3 hundred shots per day. I tweaked some alignment values here and there during the process to account for CIT. Satisfied with the results, I told myself I'd put it all together into a book someday. I gathered all my notes and scribbled drawings and put them away until I could write the book. A new home and a couple of years later I started that project.

I wanted the book to be simple and to the point with very little fluff and no distracting technical data to take away from the main focus of the book - aiming. Unfortunately, in my attempt to make it as user-friendly as possible, I watered it down too much -- moving an alignment line a little this way or that so it could be remembered easier. I thought since my table was tougher than average (a 1.14 TDF), I could get away with loosening the system up a bit.

I was wrong. Sure, it works very accurately for most shots, but there are a few shots that get over cut. I assumed most players would get a feel for it and the discrepancies would pan out on their own. However, before sales get too high, I have decided to revamp the book. I am adding info that I had originally excluded, which includes the known trouble spots (about 1% of the table surface), more alignment values for Zone C back cuts (on the long rail opposite the targeted pocket), and info on how the system works with regards to a shifting shot angle as the CB to OB distance changes.

Between Lulu, Amazon, and other outlets, 270 copies have sold in the last 3 months. I can't thank everyone enough!! But what I'd like to do is send the 2nd edition to each person that bought a copy of my book. I'm not sure how I will do this for eBook copies, other than give a $10 refund or credit toward the new edition. It will be available May 29th.

What I need you AZers to do is send me a pm to let me know if you'd prefer the ebook or a printed copy, at no cost to you. Please provide proof of purchase, like an order number from Amazon or Lulu or Apple so I can verify it all. Of course, many of you I have dealt with personally, and for you no proof of purchase is necessary.

I figure if I'm going to revamp the book, I best get it done while the book is still a pup.

Thanks,

Brian Crist


Classy move, Brian.

I'd be happy to pay for a 2nd edition.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:

sixpack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Brian - I've gotten way more than $10 worth from this book. I bought it on amazon. When the next edition comes out I would prefer to buy it as well.

I've noticed some of the discrepancies but, as you said, after using it for a few hours I was able to adjust for them. Plus I already have great systems for making shots that poolology doesn't work as well for (for me) - such as almost straight in shots and very thin cuts.

It's a critical piece of aiming information for me.
 
Top