New Aiming System (Partial)

precisepotting

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In most aiming system (if not all), the aiming essentially is where the ghostball lies. In this new aiming system, there are essentially two points to aim at.

Point one: Centre ball to centre ball.
Point two: Aim for complete miss (or near super thin cut).

Especially for Point one, it is easy to aim for most of us. Point two is alittle more difficult.

Why is it partial? That is because the aiming system is at present, very very accurate for 0 degree to 20 degree on either side where 0 degree meant straight-on shot.

For Point two, due to the aiming point being more obscure, the accuracy drops. It is quite accurate from less than 90 degree to about 70 degree.

This aiming system makes use of Precision Potting method. You do not need good cue action and yet you can pot these with ease (regardless of distance). All you need to do is to be able to aim "centre to centre" and also "centre to complete miss (or 90 degree)".

This Precision Potting Aiming System is good only from 0-20 degree and from 70-89 degree. So far, I have not been able to expand the system such that it covers 20-70 degree with any precise accuracy.

For those who have read the Precision Potting, maybe you can help me examine as to how the aiming system can be expanded to all angles. More heads are better than one. I personally felt that half ball aim is itself ambiguous since the distance between the two balls will affect the final path of the object ball.j That is why I ended up with "centre to centre" and "centre to complete miss/90deg"
 
Last edited:

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
So far, I have not been able to expand the system such that it covers 20-70 degree with any precise accuracy.

For those who have read the Precision Potting, maybe you can help me examine as to how the aiming system can be expanded to all angles. More heads are better than one.


Somebody beat you to it long ago. Center to center with PIVOT or OFFSET AND PIVOT.

There's your answer. Figure it out on the table.
 

precisepotting

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In this possibly "New Aiming System", all the shots are played with English (side-spin). No center ball hit.
 

precisepotting

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There are so many factors that contribute to the accuracy of one's shot: True aim, cue action, throw, etc.

If you aim the object ball dead center of the pocket, the margin of tolerable error is one ball's diameter either side (if the pocket is two ball's diameter).

Now, if you aim the object ball right at the edge of the pocket and you force your shot such that it will deviate a little from the edge of the pocket into the pocket, the margin of error has increased dramatically from one ball's diameter to three ball's diameter.

This is the premise of Precision Potting Aiming System (PPAS). It increases your chance of potting a ball dramatically. Precision Potting increases your potting probability if you have a true aim. Without a consistent true line of aim, PPAS might be a good alternative.

Premise: Precision Potting allow you to deviate from the straight line aim in the direction that you want, and in the angle that you want (till 20 degree) with a good accuracy - and it eliminates all error due to cue action. Good for amateur player.
 

BC21

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

If you aim the object ball dead center of the pocket, the margin of tolerable error is one ball's diameter either side (if the pocket is two ball's diameter).

.........

The pockets would have to be 3 balls wide (6.75 inches) for this statement to be true. Maybe you meant to say one ball's radius, not diameter...?
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
May I know where I can find this? As far as I know, there isn't any such thing. Sorry for my ignorance.

Oh there is definitely such a thing! The person to get in contact with is now on the "other side". He was a pool genius. His last name actually rhymes with pool.

See if you can contact a top psychic who might be able to hold a séance to speak directly with him. He might not be willing to give the information because he was always very picky about who he did or didn't share knowledge with.

Once he felt everyone out in his story telling opener and saw how they posted on forums, he'd give out little bits and pieces at a time. If it was accepted with an open mind, actually worked on at the table with or without success but a sincere interest in learning more, he gave in increments. A little at a time until the entire picture was there with balls going in from all over the table.

If he thought the person was a dead beat bonehead loser know it all, he'd toy with them and play with their heads. Never once getting upset or hostile but laughing to himself or laughing with his excellent students as how he jerked "so and so" around to make them think there were really getting something beneficial but never giving them the key to unlock the door.

If that fails, I have given a partial yet quite complete instructional post on how to do it on this forum. It is not CTE.

It would be back somewhere in all of my posts unless it was done before a time when they quit saving it for view.

Seek and yee shall find. I no longer hand out things on silver platters either to have dead beat boneheads scoff at it and say it couldn't possibly work without hitting so much as one ball on the table.

This will be the last I post on the subject. It's there, find it.
 

CueAndMe

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I personally felt that half ball aim is itself ambiguous since the distance between the two balls will affect the final path of the object ball.

I'm not quite understanding this. The distance between the two balls shouldn't have any effect on the angle that the object ball leaves after a half ball collision. The distance between them only effects the direction from which you approach the cue ball to find the half ball aim.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I'm not quite understanding this. The distance between the two balls shouldn't have any effect on the angle that the object ball leaves after a half ball collision. The distance between them only effects the direction from which you approach the cue ball to find the half ball aim.

Exactly. The angle of perception is what changes. Well said.
 

Vorpal Cue

Just galumping back
Silver Member
I personally felt that half ball aim is itself ambiguous since the distance between the two balls will affect the final path of the object ball.

That's a correct statement. Put the cue ball a few inches or less from the object ball and a half ball hit won't give you a 30* angle cut. The separation will affect the cut angle and the shot will need to be made thinner as the balls get closer. The compensation needed becomes small after about 5 diameters and at 10 diameters it can be ignored.

I've been working on the math involving ball separation and the maximum cut angle available. I've found if the distance (or separation) between the balls is expressed in ball diameters the maximum cut angle out can be found with the arcsecant function. I haven't posted anything because I don't think too many folks really care about the geometry or trig behind it.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
That's a correct statement. Put the cue ball a few inches or less from the object ball and a half ball hit won't give you a 30* angle cut. The separation will affect the cut angle and the shot will need to be made thinner as the balls get closer. The compensation needed becomes small after about 5 diameters and at 10 diameters it can be ignored.

I've been working on the math involving ball separation and the maximum cut angle available. I've found if the distance (or separation) between the balls is expressed in ball diameters the maximum cut angle out can be found with the arcsecant function. I haven't posted anything because I don't think too many folks really care about the geometry or trig behind it.

The cut angle itself doesn't change. It shifts based on the changing distance between the balls, if the balls remain on the same center-to-center line. If the CB remains on the CB to ghostball line, distance has no effect on the shot, other than the difficulty level of hitting it accurately
 

Vorpal Cue

Just galumping back
Silver Member
The cut angle itself doesn't change. It shifts based on the changing distance between the balls, if the balls remain on the same center-to-center line. If the CB remains on the CB to ghostball line, distance has no effect on the shot, other than the difficulty level of hitting it accurately

Set up a 30* shot with a two ball separation and a half ball hit will barely work. Move the CB within a diameter of the OB along the center to center line and a half ball hit is too thick.
 

paultex

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
That's a correct statement. Put the cue ball a few inches or less from the object ball and a half ball hit won't give you a 30* angle cut. The separation will affect the cut angle and the shot will need to be made thinner as the balls get closer. The compensation needed becomes small after about 5 diameters and at 10 diameters it can be ignored.

I've been working on the math involving ball separation and the maximum cut angle available. I've found if the distance (or separation) between the balls is expressed in ball diameters the maximum cut angle out can be found with the arcsecant function. I haven't posted anything because I don't think too many folks really care about the geometry or trig behind it.

I am one of the folks who cares. Please state your findings/facts in further detail in this thread or post a link. Thanks.

I would like to contribute to your statement with an important element of physical fact and also address something that I notice so far, is not mentioned enough or stressed enough as a all important consideration to any "system".

First off in contribution to your statement. Distance between delivery and collision, is also an important determination when introducing velocity and English side spin, as well as vertical spin with velocity and how it's truly functioning at moment of collision.

Will your analysis/conclusion be stated in static fact? I assume so. Thanks.

Second and lastly. I think Stan Shuffett, as far as I can see, has done excellent work in producing an objective solution, as well as geometric fact connection to the endeavor of ball pocketing. His analysis on perception is very good and very important. I would say MOST important.

The eyes lead and the body follows.

Then why doesn't CTE work for me personally? I understand his system perfectly enough and here's my point that now comes full circle and should help others who are in the dark.

I personally have well over 2000 hours in the past 5-6 months on alignment and perception, most of it on the table, as well as a good few conversations with Stan and other personal research.

I can make CTE work easily for me if I match my alignment to the required mandate of CTE visuals in conjunction with my stroke/delivery.

I'm not saying I'm a alignment guru but I feel comfortable in debating anyone on this subject, but for the record, my debate in any subject of pool, would not be to "win", but, to LEARN. I am a humble student of the game and as a matter of fact, I am pressed for time and will conclude now because I got 10-12 hours to go put in on the table on a daily basis. So maybe my mouth ultimately can't cash the check I claim, but I think my BACK certainly can......if I may say and I did as a factual statement.

In conclusion, I would like to make a statement that perhaps is revolutionary, but I honestly believe it's nothing revolutionary or conceptually brilliant at all:

ALIGNMENT is the SYSTEM.

Simple statement but obviously a thick book could be written about it and I'm sorry if I'm being vague to some who are in the dark or for those who would justifiably demand more explanation. I simply don't have the time BUT if one is severely interested as i was and still am ALWAYS, I was inspired by a simple, and what I consider "genius" in concept from CJ Wiley:

"I don't know what aiming is".

That statement opened the door to a very dark tunnel that didn't make it brighter, but for me, gave me a productive corridor through this hair pulling maze that I will navigate or die trying/doing.

For the record, CTE is REAL, it's undeniable math in reality and Mr. Shuffett is absolutely diabolical in conception, as well as sincerity. I talked once with Stan over the phone, he is a very nice man and he genuinely cares. He's passionate and sensitive, despite maybe how he comes off in his videos or emails, but I see that as being honest and not trying to sell a scam or novelty. He is the teacher, not the guy at the local fair making you feel good to buy the latest Ginsu knife.

I chose to listen, even though I don't use his method. However, his facts on perception and other considerations pertaining to the subject, are most valuable to me and in a way, I do use CTE.

Thanks Stan.

I just wanted to throw that last 2 cents in because I think it needed to be said about CTE and that's all I'm going to say because I owe it to the man and to CTE itself, because it's not a invention, CTE is a discovery of fact that Stan has pain stakingly pioneered. Very well done.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Set up a 30* shot with a two ball separation and a half ball hit will barely work. Move the CB within a diameter of the OB along the center to center line and a half ball hit is too thick.


Oh yes, if both balls stay on the same center to center line the shot angle (as it relates to a targeted pocket) appears to get hit thicker as the CB gets closer to OB and thinner as the CB gets farther away. But the shot angle itself never changed. It's still a 30° shot. If we're cutting a 1/2 ball shot to the right, targeting center pocket (and CB and OB remain on a center to center line), the 30° shot angle will shift/push left of center pocket as the CB gets closer to OB and shift/pull right of center pocket from a greater distance. This is one of the principles used in my book.
 

Vorpal Cue

Just galumping back
Silver Member
Oh yes, if both balls stay on the same center to center line the shot angle (as it relates to a targeted pocket) appears to get hit thicker as the CB gets closer to OB and thinner as the CB gets farther away. But the shot angle itself never changed. It's still a 30° shot. If we're cutting a 1/2 ball shot to the right, targeting center pocket (and CB and OB remain on a center to center line), the 30° shot angle will shift/push left of center pocket as the CB gets closer to OB and shift/pull right of center pocket from a greater distance. This is one of the principles used in my book.

I think we're discussing 'apples and oranges'. The cut angle to the pocket doesn't change as long as the OB is placed on the same spot. I'm saying that as the balls get closer a half ball hit won't give a 30* cut anymore. Some compensation is needed if you use a fractional system for aiming at close balls.

@ paultex: I'll get some pix of my drawings and post them. The trig and geometry isn't difficult and I'm sure most people will be able to understand the results. It's just that folks find math discussions boring with a capital BORE!. I've got the weekend planned out but I'll put something up early next week.

Rather than let one offhand comment by the OP take over the thread, I'll ask if anymore comments about my post concerning the half ball hit be reserved until I post my results in a separate thread. I'll be happy to discuss the subject there.
 

paultex

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Oh yes, if both balls stay on the same center to center line the shot angle (as it relates to a targeted pocket) appears to get hit thicker as the CB gets closer to OB and thinner as the CB gets farther away. But the shot angle itself never changed. It's still a 30° shot. If we're cutting a 1/2 ball shot to the right, targeting center pocket (and CB and OB remain on a center to center line), the 30° shot angle will shift/push left of center pocket as the CB gets closer to OB and shift/pull right of center pocket from a greater distance. This is one of the principles used in my book.

Yes sir, that is a statement of fact in result but the relative shot line is still the same, thus requires further explanation. I know the reasons why, but I'll let you take the lead because I believe your statement is very important into unlocking a significant portion of this game when it comes to this tricky phenomenon of balls close together. Understanding the physics of collision is extremely important. I put it second to alignment.

I may be wrong though, maybe shotline and distance is "relative"? I really don't think so though.

I'll reply back tomorrow if you care to address my reply. Thanks.
 

paultex

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think we're discussing 'apples and oranges'. The cut angle to the pocket doesn't change as long as the OB is placed on the same spot. I'm saying that as the balls get closer a half ball hit won't give a 30* cut anymore. Some compensation is needed if you use a fractional system for aiming at close balls.

@ paultex: I'll get some pix of my drawings and post them. The trig and geometry isn't difficult and I'm sure most people will be able to understand the results. It's just that folks find math discussions boring with a capital BORE!. I've got the weekend planned out but I'll put something up early next week.

Rather than let one offhand comment by the OP take over the thread, I'll ask if anymore comments about my post concerning the half ball hit be reserved until I post my results in a separate thread. I'll be happy to discuss the subject there.

Yeah cool, please do.

.....and I'm outta here.
 

Bobkitty

I said: "Here kitty, kitty". Got this frown.
Gold Member
Silver Member
YUP, been teaching this for 40 years.

randyg

What is the system called that you have been teaching? How do you know when your student is going to need an aiming system? I'd like to know your potting test to figure this out.
 
Top