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

BC21 · May 24, 2017

In response to AtLarge: without quoting your entire assessment of the Poolology book, I'll quickly reply to a few of the issues.

First off, you provided a very good, honest, and accurate assessment of the system's limiting factors and benefits.

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.

This info was added to the book about a week ago. My apologies for not including it before then. I wanted to make the material as simple as possible do I excluded some of the finer details.

Thanks for the review. It's pretty much spot on. Oh...the reason the cover shows a 1/2 ball shot with a non-1/2 ball angle is simple: I made the image in windows "Paint" and the 30° line was jagged. Lol. So I moved it to where it looked nice. You are the only one to notice it, or comment on it! And I thought I had gotten away with it! Lol

Bobkitty · May 24, 2017

Mirza said:
Here you go: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/svb

Wow!, thanks for the post. I'm going to save my $15.

stan shuffett · May 24, 2017

BC21 said:
In response to AtLarge: without quoting your entire assessment of the Poolology book, I'll quickly reply to a few of the issues.

First off, you provided a very good, honest, and accurate assessment of the system's limiting factors and benefits.

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.

This info was added to the book about a week ago. My apologies for not including it before then. I wanted to make the material as simple as possible do I excluded some of the finer details.

Thanks for the review. It's pretty much spot on. Oh...the reason the cover shows a 1/2 ball shot with a non-1/2 ball angle is simple: I made the image in windows "Paint" and the 30° line was jagged. Lol. So I moved it to where it looked nice. You are the only one to notice it, or comment on it! And I thought I had gotten away with it! Lol

What I don't get is that when I say your system is guesswork, slop pocket and approximation......you say NO......but for the ATLARGE review when hecclearly says those same things you say SPOT ON.

Stan Shuffett

BC21 · May 24, 2017

stan shuffett said:
What I don't get is that when I say your system is guesswork, slop pocket and approximation......you say NO......but for the ATLARGE review when hecclearly says those same things you say SPOT ON.

Stan Shuffett

It's called honesty. There are certain limitations, and they are easily compensated for when it comes to determining an aim point. When AtLarge used the word "slop" he used it in the proper context of meaning allowable percentage error to pocket a ball. This is based on his experience, not on assumption. When you say "slop" you are making an attempt to discredit the accuracy of the system. Like I've said time and time again......even the pros use the whole pocket, and not on purpose most of the time. If the ball hits the pocket, there is no point in discussing if it hit center or left/right of center. AtLarge is giving an honest review. You, for your own reasons I feel, are being condescending when you say it's a "slop system", or an "unprofessional" system (whatever that's supposed to mean).

That's the difference. One opinion deserves respect, the other does not. That doesn't mean I have no respect for your skills and your teaching ability, Stan. I just have have no respect for blatantly biased comments. It's like arguing over who's pretty daughter is the prettiest.....each parent thinks their daughter is, and the argument is meaningless.

stan shuffett · May 24, 2017

BC21 said:
It's called honesty. There are certain limitations, and they are easily compensated for when it comes to determining an aim point. When AtLarge used the word "slop" he used it in the proper context of meaning allowable percentage error to pocket a ball. This is based on his experience, not on assumption. When you say "slop" you are making an attempt to discredit the accuracy of the system. Like I've said time and time again......even the pros use the whole pocket, and not on purpose most of the time. If the ball hits the pocket, there is no point in discussing if it hit center or left/right of center. AtLarge is giving an honest review. You, for your own reasons I feel, are being condescending when you say it's a "slop system", or an "unprofessional" system (whatever that's supposed to mean).

That's the difference. One opinion deserves respect, the other does not. That doesn't mean I have no respect for your skills and your teaching ability, Stan. I just have have no respect for blatantly based comments. It's like arguing over who's pretty daughter is the prettiest.....each parent thinks their daughter is, and the argument is meaningless.

I was honest and respectful at the get go! I had no reason to ever join into threads concerning poolology. On the other hand...your negativity toward CTE was obvious and I responded appropriately and still will. You have continued it to this day. You should just be quiet about CTE until you know it. I don't mind standing up to someone that is constantly backhandedly taking swipes at my work. Please leave me and CTE out of your discussions. I have no desire to discuss you or poolology.

Stan Shuffett

lfigueroa · May 24, 2017

Renegade_56 said:
nothing tricky about it. I've done it at my home on my table, and it'll work on the tables you play on as well.

So you've done it. I can shoot wing shots. They are trick shots.

As Ray Martin told me about any particular pocket: "“It hasn’t moved -- it’s in the same spot it’s been for the last 100 years.”

Even when it's behind a curtain.

Lou Figueroa

Mirza · May 24, 2017

BC21 said:
In response to AtLarge: without quoting your entire assessment of the Poolology book, I'll quickly reply to a few of the issues.

First off, you provided a very good, honest, and accurate assessment of the system's limiting factors and benefits.

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.

This info was added to the book about a week ago. My apologies for not including it before then. I wanted to make the material as simple as possible do I excluded some of the finer details.

Thanks for the review. It's pretty much spot on. Oh...the reason the cover shows a 1/2 ball shot with a non-1/2 ball angle is simple: I made the image in windows "Paint" and the 30° line was jagged. Lol. So I moved it to where it looked nice. You are the only one to notice it, or comment on it! And I thought I had gotten away with it! Lol

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?

BC21 · May 24, 2017

stan shuffett said:
I was honest and respectful at the get go! I had no reason to ever join into threads concerning poolology. On the other hand...your negativity toward CTE was obvious and I responded appropriately and still will. You have continued it to this day. You should just be quiet about CTE until you know it. I don't mind standing up to someone that is constantly backhandedly taking swipes at my work. Please leave me and CTE out of your discussions. I have no desire to discuss you or poolology.

Stan Shuffett

I apologise for any comments that could've been viewed as stabs toward CTE. But the reality of the situation is, when players try and use various aiming systems, there will ALWAYS be comparisons made. That's the nature of learning and discussing with others what you are learning. Commenting on the difficulty of sweeping or pivoting accurately to an exact CCB solution is not being negative toward CTE, it's being honest and factual. I've never said it doesn't work, only that it seems difficult to make it work.

And asking someone to never mention CTE is asking a bit much, considering that it's being advertised as the best system available. And many players might find, for themselves, that it is the best. But to be the best it must be COMPARED to other systems, which means there will be remarks made here and there to show obvious differences between various systems, along with obvious drawbacks or benefits, CTE included.

I would prefer to leave CTE out of all my threads. So when a post mentions "pivot", please, please, all cte users, don't chime in with unwarranted comments. No one is baiting you. You are fishing for bait. There is a difference.

stan shuffett · May 24, 2017

BC21 said:
I apologise for any comments that could've been viewed as stabs toward CTE. But the reality of the situation is, when players try and use various aiming systems, there will ALWAYS be comparisons made. That's the nature of learning and discussing with others what you are learning. Commenting on the difficulty of sweeping or pivoting accurately to an exact CCB solution is not being negative toward CTE, it's being honest and factual. I've never said it doesn't work, only that it seems difficult to make it work.

And asking someone to never mention CTE is asking a bit much, considering that it's being advertised as the best system available. And many players might find, for themselves, that it is the best. But to be the best it must be COMPARED to other systems, which means there will be remarks made here and there to show obvious differences between various systems, along with obvious drawbacks or benefits, CTE included.

I would prefer to leave CTE out of all my threads. So when a post mentions "pivot", please, please, all cte users, don't chime in with unwarranted comments. No one is baiting you. You are fishing for bait. There is a difference.

Here is how simple CTE is.....
It is just like seeing center to center for a straight in shot in conventional aiming and aligning to center.

CTE is the same thing over and over plus the the alignment results in an overcut. Nothing could be further from the truth that it is hard.......

The idea of CTE being special has been tossed around for at least a couple of decades. No one has figured it out because it's odd st first and represents a different plane for aiming.
I have kept my nose to the grind and have totally figured it out.

CTE and CTE alone solves the problem of aiming with spheres.

Stan Shuffett

BC21 · May 24, 2017

Mirza said:
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?

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.

The system is geared to give you a feel for cutting balls. If a player pays attention to each fractional shot, visualizing the entire shot, the natural position of the balls on the table, the rails, the pocket, the entire shot, etc.... eventually he or she will be type of player that can just "see the shot", and not the type of player that'll always need a systematic aiming approach for every single shot, other than a typical shot routine of course.

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.

BC21 · May 24, 2017

stan shuffett said:
Here is how simple CTE is.....
It is just like seeing center to center for a straight in shot in conventional aiming and aligning to center.

CTE is the same thing over and over plus the the alignment results in an overcut. Nothing could be further from the truth that it is hard.......

The idea of CTE being special has been tossed around for at least a couple of decades. No one has figured it out because it's odd st first and represents a different plane for aiming.
I have kept my nose to the grind and have totally figured it out.

CTE and CTE alone solves the problem of aiming with spheres.

Stan Shuffett

I am very confident that for those who get it, whether it takes one hour or 10 years, it ends up being simple. But that doesn't make it any less challenging.

Back when I was in college I had a computer programming professor that had it out for me, and rightly so. I seldom did my homework assignments, skipped class quite often, yet still managed to get an A on every test. He thought I was cheating. I remember one particular assignment that I chose to do because it involved chess. Write a Fortran program that would provide positions for 8 Queens on a chess board, where no queen challenged another. I placed my finshed program, a single sheet of hand-written lines along with a floppy disk, on the stack with everyone else's. After this professor went through and reviewed and tested and graded our work, he called me out. He asked if I could explain to the rest of the class why my program consisted of less than 20 lines on a single sheet of paper, when everyone else's contained multiple pages.

He put my paper under the projector and there it was in big scribbly letters on the board for all to see. Reluctantly, I got up and explained why I did this and that, why I used one particular loop instead of another as outlined in the book, etc.. I did my best to explain my thought process, and when I finished he said I could sit down. After class he motioned for me to stay. After the room cleared out he walked up to my desk and handed my paper to me, saying I did a good job and was excused. I got an A.

The kicker is this: The program didn't work. None of them worked because the program solution was too complicated for any of us to get at our experience level. We were graded on how we approached the problem. Sure, a super genius programmer (probably the professor) could have made it look easy, but that wouldn't have made it any easier for the rest of us.

Mirza · May 24, 2017

BC21 said:
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.

The system is geared to give you a feel for cutting balls. If a player pays attention to each fractional shot, visualizing the entire shot, the natural position of the balls on the table, the rails, the pocket, the entire shot, etc.... eventually he or she will be type of player that can just "see the shot", and not the type of player that'll always need a systematic aiming approach for every single shot, other than a typical shot routine of course.

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.

So you don't agree with AtLarge?

Because he says that, for the example he has given, your system gives you 3/8 aimpoint and then he says that aimpoint isn't gonna work on 4 diamonds of distance and beyond, and now you say that for greater distance no compensation is needed, so I can only conlude that you think AtLarge is wrong with this statement?

stan shuffett · May 24, 2017

BC21 said:
I am very confident that for those who get it, whether it takes one hour or 10 years, it ends up being simple. But that doesn't make it any less challenging.

Back when I was in college I had a computer programming professor that had it out for me, and rightly so. I seldom did my homework assignments, skipped class quite often, yet still managed to get an A on every test. He thought I was cheating. I remember one particular assignment that I chose to do because it involved chess. Write a Fortran program that would provide positions for 8 Queens on a chess board, where no queen challenged another. I placed my finshed program, a single sheet of hand-written lines along with a floppy disk, on the stack with everyone else's. After this professor went through and reviewed and tested and graded our work, he called me out. He asked if I could explain to the rest of the class why my program consisted of less than 20 lines on a single sheet of paper, when everyone else's contained multiple pages.

He put my paper under the projector and there it was in big scribbly letters on the board for all to see. Reluctantly, I got up and explained why I did this and that, why I used one particular loop instead of another as outlined in the book, etc.. I did my best to explain my thought process, and when I finished he said I could sit down. After class he motioned for me to stay. After the room cleared out he walked up to my desk and handed my paper to me, saying I did a good job and was excused. I got an A.

The kicker is this: The program didn't work. None of them worked because the program solution was too complicated for any of us to get at our experience level. We were graded on how we approached the problem. Sure, a super genius programmer (probably the professor) could have made it look easy, but that wouldn't have made it any easier for the rest of us.

It's challenging to line up and shoot long center to center shots when the solution is known. Pool ain't easy.
Pros make it look easy but they still do not like a long straight in shot on the 9.

What CTE does is reduce all shots to a known center cue ball. My goal has been to figure out the seemingly inexplicable. THAT has been extremely challenging but my final layer work will make it much much less challenging for those that want to learn how to REALLY line up and see the cue ball.
CTE is aiming that occurs on a completely different plane than what people are used to.
It's going to clear up BIGTIME!

Stan Shuffett

BC21 · May 24, 2017

Mirza said:
So you don't agree with AtLarge?

Because he says that, for the example he has given, your system gives you 3/8 aimpoint and then he says that aimpoint isn't gonna work on 4 diamonds of distance and beyond, and now you say that for greater distance no compensation is needed, so I can only conlude that you think AtLarge is wrong with this statement?

I don't think he is wrong, based on the math and the angle estimations. It's very close. However, as AtLarge says, this excludes throw. The reality of friction and collision-induced throw makes the shot work just fine, except when the distance between balls is too close.

The example he gave is slightly thicker than a 1/4 aim and slightly thinner than a 3/8 aim. It's closer to a 3/8 than a quarter, so the simplest thing to do is aim for the 3/8. Nothing says a player can't fine tune that even more if they have the accuracy for it. Remember, the system is meant to develop a feel for cut shots, which means the player should make an effort to see everything that is going on in order to gain the experience needed for any fine tuning. Very few shots will require fine tuning, mainly on the tighter, bigger tables.

BC21 · May 24, 2017

stan shuffett said:
It's challenging to line up and shoot long center to center shots when the solution is known. Pool ain't easy.
Pros make it look easy but they still do not like a long straight in shot on the 9.

What CTE does is reduce all shots to a known center cue ball. My goal has been to figure out the seemingly inexplicable. THAT has been extremely challenging but my final layer work will make it much much less challenging for those that want to learn how to REALLY line up and see the cue ball.
CTE is aiming that occurs on a completely different plane than what people are used to.
It's going to clear up BIGTIME!

Stan Shuffett

Most of the time pool seems easy, and other times it feels like there is nothing more complicated and intricate. Compared to golf, I think pool is easy. But it's two different skill types, so that's not a fair assessment.

Anyway, I think your book will be very interesting, and it'll make a nice addition to my library.

Mirza · May 24, 2017

BC21 said:
I don't think he is wrong, based on the math and the angle estimations. It's very close. However, as AtLarge says, this excludes throw. The reality of friction and collision-induced throw makes the shot work just fine, except when the distance between balls is too close.

The example he gave is slightly thicker than a 1/4 aim and slightly thinner than a 3/8 aim. It's closer to a 3/8 than a quarter, so the simplest thing to do is aim for the 3/8. Nothing says a player can't fine tune that even more if they have the accuracy for it. Remember, the system is meant to develop a feel for cut shots, which means the player should make an effort to see everything that is going on in order to gain the experience needed for any fine tuning. Very few shots will require fine tuning, mainly on the tighter, bigger tables.

Actually he did include throw, maybe you didn't read his post quite well, here you go:

"But let's consider both 3/8 and 1/3. As mentioned above, the geometric cut angles with those two hits are 38.7° and 41.8°, respectively. Cut-induced throw will reduce the actual cut angle a bit, and the amount depends upon a number of factors. But let's assume it takes 2° off the cut and that the resulting cut angles we'll end up with are about 37° with the 3/8 hit and 40° with the 1/3 hit."

And he also continues to account for the pocket slop too and then continues to conclude that 4/6 of those shots wouldn't work with the 3/8 aimpoint that Poolology recommends, taking into accout the throw with the 3/8 aimpoint, and adding the pocket slop to the angle of each of those 6 shots:

"With a 4½" pocket, and the OB located as specified, we have a margin of error (pocket slop) of about 1½° to each side of center pocket. With the CB on the long string at various distances from the 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."

BC21 · May 24, 2017

Mirza said:
Actually he did include throw, maybe you didn't read his post quite well, here you go:

"But let's consider both 3/8 and 1/3. As mentioned above, the geometric cut angles with those two hits are 38.7° and 41.8°, respectively. Cut-induced throw will reduce the actual cut angle a bit, and the amount depends upon a number of factors. But let's assume it takes 2° off the cut and that the resulting cut angles we'll end up with are about 37° with the 3/8 hit and 40° with the 1/3 hit."

And he also continues to account for the pocket slop too and then continues to conclude that 4/6 of those shots wouldn't work with the 3/8 aimpoint that Poolology recommends, taking into accout the throw with the 3/8 aimpoint, and adding the pocket slop to the angle of each of those 6 shots:

"With a 4½" pocket, and the OB located as specified, we have a margin of error (pocket slop) of about 1½° to each side of center pocket. With the CB on the long string at various distances from the 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."

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.

cookie man · May 24, 2017

BC21 said:
. I've never said it doesn't work, only that it seems difficult to make it work.

.

This seems to describe poolology also. Fractions,zones,diamonds, guesswork. And by the developers admission it also doesn't work for all shots and most shots seem to need a last minute adjustment

cookie man · May 24, 2017

BC21 said:
I would prefer to leave CTE out of all my threads. So when a post mentions "pivot", please, please, all cte users, don't chime in with unwarranted comments. No one is baiting you. You are fishing for bait. There is a difference.

But poolology is not a pivot system correct. So when your followers mention pivot, or compare it to something totally different such as a pivot system, they certainly are putting the bait out.

PS i think most would prefer CTE stayed out of all your threads and vice versa.

Low500 · May 24, 2017

stan shuffett said:
It's challenging to line up and shoot long center to center shots when the solution is known. Pool ain't easy.
Pros make it look easy but they still do not like a long straight in shot on the 9.
What CTE does is reduce all shots to a known center cue ball. My goal has been to figure out the seemingly inexplicable. THAT has been extremely challenging but my final layer work will make it much much less challenging for those that want to learn how to REALLY line up and see the cue ball.
CTE is aiming that occurs on a completely different plane than what people are used to.
It's going to clear up BIGTIME!
Stan Shuffett

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.

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

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

I said: "Here kitty, kitty". Got this frown.

AzB Silver Member

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

AzB Silver Member

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

AzB Silver Member

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member