AIMING BY HALVES - A Fractional Technique

[SpiderWebComm]

The CTE Rabid Response Team - ever vigilant.

LOL.

pj <- Halve Not jersey sales up
chgo

The reason why I said it was utterly unusable in practice is because each time someone has to switch brackets, he/she would/should technically have to stand up, resight another half and then reset (and repeat over and over).

Like I said, it's a cute concept to use a binary search to find a contact point and many on here might think "WOW I never thought of that;" however, if I played someone who used that I'd quit them after their second shot. Nice on paper, horrific on the table and gives no better chance of finding the spot than to sight the ghostball from the gitgo.

My reasoning has nothing to do with being part of the "CTE crowd" - c'mon, Pat--- even you know it's ridiculous to play with what you suggested in this thread. Believe me--- you've had good ideas before, it's just that this isn't one of them.

 

[whitewolf]

Ghost Ball is for players who can visualize the OB contact point.

pj
chgo

NO NO NO NO NOT NOT NOT NOT. I can visualize the contact point as I have been shooting for years and I use the ghost ball method because I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE EFFORT VISUALIZING THE CONTACT POINT.

Early on I used to shoot by picking out the contact point and going for it. Then at the end of year 2, I switched to the ghost ball method and my game went up 50%.

IMO, trying to shoot aiming at the contact point throws your game off. Like riding a motorcycle - if you look at the tree you will become the tree (do I really have to explain this anymore?). Now, you may chirp in here and say that geeze, you must have had trouble seeing the contact point. IF YOU IGNORE THE TREES YOU CAN SEE THE FOREST. Getting a general view of where the cue ball should end up next to the object ball is best accomplished by the SIMPLIST method on earth - ghost ball.

These aiming threads are like a cult practice.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

My reasoning has nothing to do with being part of the "CTE crowd"

LOL. He said reasoning.

pj
chgo

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

you've managed to find a new way of looking at an old problem. I really like the binary approach.

.....but am somewhat disappointed that no pivot is involved. (I guess you can't have everything. )

Jim

I wouldn't really call this a binary approach. The "aiming by halves" system that PJ is advocating is a form of linear interpolation.

Perhaps PJ can tell us if ABH (my acronym for aiming by halves) produces better results than the other commonly used aiming systems?

 

[Neil]

I wouldn't really call this a binary approach. The "aiming by halves" system that PJ is advocating is a form of linear interpolation.

Perhaps PJ can tell us if ABH (my acronym for aiming by halves) produces better results than the other commonly used aiming systems?

It will give you the most bang for the buck on coin operated tables.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

LOL. He said reasoning.

pj
chgo

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=270804

This reasoning can spot your reasoning the 5 ball (and it's not even serious).

So, are you resetting after every bracket/half/half-of-a-half adjustment? You don't think you'd look like a goofball at the table doing that?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Perhaps PJ can tell us if ABH (my acronym for aiming by halves) produces better results than the other commonly used aiming systems?

I think it depends on what "better results" means.

If it means players who use Halves shoot better than players who use other systems; I doubt it - that's probably a function of how well the individual system suits the individual player.

If it means more players will use Halves successfully than some other systems; who knows?

If it means Halves users learn more about how aiming really works than users of some other systems; I think so - because Halves is open, transparent and directly addresses the real skills needed (i.e., "feel") in an organized way without any inflated claims or unnecessary mystery.

If it means Halves is easier to evaluate and learn than some other systems; I'm sure of that.

The important thing is understanding how aiming works in general and how any system works in particular so you can accurately evaluate its usefulness for you.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...are you resetting after every bracket/half/half-of-a-half adjustment?

Even though you and the rest of the CTE Rabid Response Team are (obviously) just trying to be disruptive, this happens (by sheer chance, I'm sure) to be a fair question, so I'll answer it for other readers.

I think the initial "narrowing down" can (and probably should) be done while positioning yourself for and getting down on the shot, using the system to guide your general body alignment - I think this is true for any method. Final fine-tuning is limited to a much smaller range so it can be safely done while already down on the shot without changing your overall stance. If you get down and discover that you're way off (probably while learning the method), then of course you should stand up, re-visualize the initial "halvings" and adjust your general body alignment accordingly.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Zeno's Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise.

That's the one where the tortoise moves halfway to the goal with each move and so never reaches it, right?

Fortunately, you don't have to keep "halving" for infinity in order for Halves to work - you just have to get the Aim Range small enough so you can confidently make the final adjustment by feel. I think most players can do that at first with no more than two or three "halvings" (including the initial one where you decide if the shot is thicker or thinner than half ball). In other words, reducing the Aim Range to 1/4 or 1/8 ball should be enough for most players to be within range to successfully estimate the final aim.

I think of Halves as more of a training aid for your estimating ability than an "aiming system". The purpose should be to grow out of the system and learn to apply your innate aiming ability fluidly and confidently.

pj
chgo

 

[steev]

I think of Halves as more of a training aid for your estimating ability than an "aiming system". The purpose should be to grow out of the system and learn to apply your innate aiming ability fluidly and confidently.

pj
chgo

I think this is the key point some have missed. Defined thusly, ABH could be a big help to some.

Now, just combine this 'bracketing' with some BHE and you can do anything

-s

 

[cookie man]

Is "halving" another word for "fidgeting" ?

 

[JC]

Trust me - there are plenty of them. Cut shots that just look wrong because in the past you wouldn't even consider trying them.

I can't trust you on this one because what you say is utter nonsense. A cut shot that you wouldn't even consider trying? So it's just totally unfamiliar? You're kidding right? Who are these pool players? Did they just pick up a stick for the first time? I understand where you're headed with this though. Being a card carrying member of the CTE evangelical mafia and all but the logic you're trying to use to get there is just plain silly. Just say what you mean, fractional aiming has been rendered obsolete by CTE and you can prove it! Well not really but you do believe it.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Is "halving" another word for "fidgeting" ?

Think of it as organized fidgeting.

Halving is the fastest way to arrive at an answer when all you have available is yes/no input. With 20 questions you can determine an opponent's 6-digit number with just yes/no answers. The technique has been extended to situations where some of the answers are false. In the 20-questions game, your opponent might be allowed two lies. In successive approximation analog-to-digital converters (a kind of electronic circuit that, for example, turns analog video inputs into digital words for your computer), some false answers can be automatically corrected for with what is called redundancy in that context. (The converters in essence work on a series of yes/no answers about the level of the signal.)

 

[JB Cases]

I can't trust you on this one because what you say is utter nonsense. A cut shot that you wouldn't even consider trying? So it's just totally unfamiliar? You're kidding right? Who are these pool players? Did they just pick up a stick for the first time? I understand where you're headed with this though. Being a card carrying member of the CTE evangelical mafia and all but the logic you're trying to use to get there is just plain silly. Just say what you mean, fractional aiming has been rendered obsolete by CTE and you can prove it! Well not really but you do believe it.

What?

So what's the time reference on having tried/practiced all possible shots? You apparently have a number in mind so go ahead and tell us what it is.

So if someone goes from not playing ever to having five years of play under their belt as an amateur player with a job should they have tried/practiced every possible shot by then and be an expert in it?

The FACT is that with an aiming system (and guessing is not a system) that you can approach ANY shot and use the system to aim it and then if your execution is good you can make it.

This applies to APA 2 speeds on up.

I have seen in in action when I taught aiming to helpless APA3s and 4s and watched them pocket balls that they had ZERO CLUE how to pocket before learning the system. My replies aren't only based on my own personal playing experience. They are based on informal experiments done with people who were of a much lower skill level than myself when they first learned the system.

If you took these same players pre-system and set up a bunch of "hard" shots they would butcher them in every direction. Teach them a good aiming system and suddenly - INSTANTLY - they were either making the shots or missing by very small margins.

Now, you can pooh pooh that all day but it's the straight facts. The ONLY variable in this situation is knowledge of the system. Once taught the pocketing percentages went up not only for shots they already were comfortable with but for shots that they were completely clueless about prior to learning the system.

And I am comfortable enough with that to be willing to BET HIGH on the repeat-ability of the results with other subjects.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Is "halving" another word for "fidgeting" ?

Where the hell have you been? The rest of the CTE Rabid Response Team have already been here and hosed the whole scene down. How're you gonna save the world from non-CTE aiming discussions if you can't be trusted to get out of bed when the alarm goes off?

pj
chgo

 

[steev]

As with most threads that become pissing contests, I'd like to remind the negative side/naysayers:

Go read another thread. Let people who have a positive viewpoint and constructive things to say enjoy their discussion.

I know this won't stop anyone, but it makes me feel marginally better.

-s

p.s. a thing is worth what you get from it, and that can differ from person to person. Accept this, and move on.

 

[mohrt]

I took this to the table and gave it a go. I broke and played out 15 balls, all while focusing on using the halving system. My experience was that trying to move the cue tip to each spot was not very convenient. Rolling the tip helped a bit, but in reality it ended up easier to imagine the halving lines and once I narrowed it down to a spot as thin as a hair I put my cue tip there. It works, but here is the reality: if you are able to accurately determine which side of the half to move to, you are already able to find the aim line without using halves, and just move your cue to it. So, this method may have a completely different experience to someone not familiar with finding the aim line. ie. my shot recall is getting in the way of making this effective, and thus my test is not conclusive. I tried at least :thumbup:

 

[cookie man]

Where the hell have you been? The rest of the CTE Rabid Response Team have already been here and hosed the whole scene down. How're you gonna save the world from non-CTE aiming discussions if you can't be trusted to get out of bed when the alarm goes off?

pj
chgo

Some people have actual jobs, but glad you missed me.

P.S. how are we actually going to have a thread last more than 3 days without mentioning CTE.

 

[cookie man]

As with most threads that become pissing contests, I'd like to remind the negative side/naysayers:

Go read another thread. Let people who have a positive viewpoint and constructive things to say enjoy their discussion.

I know this won't stop anyone, but it makes me feel marginally better.

-s

p.s. a thing is worth what you get from it, and that can differ from person to person. Accept this, and move on.

But, naysayers started this thread.

 

[cookie man]

I took this to the table and gave it a go. I broke and played out 15 balls, all while focusing on using the halving system. My experience was that trying to move the cue tip to each spot was not very convenient. Rolling the tip helped a bit, but in reality it ended up easier to imagine the halving lines and once I narrowed it down to a spot as thin as a hair I put my cue tip there. It works, but here is the reality: if you are able to accurately determine which side of the half to move to, you are already able to find the aim line without using halves, and just move your cue to it. So, this method may have a completely different experience to someone not familiar with finding the aim line. ie. my shot recall is getting in the way of making this effective, and thus my test is not conclusive. I tried at least :thumbup:

If you pivot its alot easier.