Hey Justin.
You may want to stick to CTE and use this video to get you in the ball park.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTLT8QOTloE
John
Comments on Poolology
- Thread starter Dan White
- Start date
- Status
Hey Justin.
You may want to stick to CTE and use this video to get you in the ball park.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTLT8QOTloE
John
I bought the ebook yesterday and absolutely love it. Today, I went through all of the zones and it works! I'm new at fraction ball hits so some training will be required on that but overall, maybe the best $10 I've spent so far. SAMBA makes my eyes roll. Don't understand "pivot" systems, but I love "Poologoly".
Last edited:
Glad to hear! Let me know if anything stumps you, and be sure to check my youtube clips for additional info. And thanks for the purchase!
Stan, I have a good friend that has personal met with you. He told me you were a helluva good instructor. I really don't mean to offend you very time I make a comparison between aspects of Poolology and other aiming systems. Honestly, you could tell people that cte pro1 doesn't use fractions or numbers and I wouldn't consider it offensive or negative toward my book. Like you, I don't wish to wallow in the mud either.
denwhit: at first I thought your screen name was supposed to be a joke against mine! lol
As not ever having been a "system" aimer it also takes me a little practice to visualize where the tip points for 1/4 ball hits. I think Brian said a 1/4 hit puts the edge of the ferrule just off the edge of the ob.
You can have the best system in the world, but if nobody can figure out how to make it work, what good is it? You sometimes hear of mathematicians speak about "elegant" solutions to a problem, or elegant proofs. I'm no mathematician, but part of what makes it "elegant" is simplicity. I look at what Brian has done and it just looks so simple and elegant. As we all know when we watch a great pool player, just because it looks easy, doesn't mean it is. Poolology feels like something we all should have figured out on our own, but it ain't that easy. Major props to Brian.
I know Bob J. and many others will be reviewing Poolology and I'll be very interested to hear what they say. I know 100%, bet the house on one thing... they cannot say it doesn't work beautifully. I mean, Mike Shamos might come along and say that Harry Shlabotnick from Queens came up with this same system just before WWII, or some guy in a British pub has the same system for snooker, but if so, they never shared it with the world.
Based on this discussion I'm going to buy this book. I like fractional aiming and have also recently invented/discovered a pivot system that works great for me and even incorporates English. I think this could be a bridge between the two. My pivot system is based on contact point so any help finding that reliably will be good.
But I think I know what this system is based on the discussion and I'm excited to try it.
But I think I know what this system is based on the discussion and I'm excited to try it.
Report back on your findings, please. I'm real interested to see if you think you need to continue with the pivoting, or whether there is some hybrid method that might also be interesting.
Also, my apologies for acting like I'm an expert on all this stuff. I just bought the look like you guys. By nature I like inventing stuff and tinkering around, and I find it fun to watch where this new method goes. I admit I may be a bit over enthusiastic!
Ditto for me. I can hardly wait for a new day to further delve into Brian's invention. So far, it has proven itself. My few misses have to be chalked up to my inexperience to fraction ball hitting. What a wonderful relief it is to shoot at the ball knowing 100% that it's a half ball or quarter ball hit! I did notice how one could get to 20-20 or 30-30 and not know what to do and how there were two different 30 alignment points for the side pocket but the Youtube videos explained those.
I find this infectious excitement and enthusiasm very entertaining and a reminder of the same reactions by many pool players who were first introduced to Hal's CTE material by Hal himself and the newbies who praise and fall in love with Stan's updated discoveries of CTE.
The only thing missing now are the Lou Figueoras, Pat Johnsons, Ph.D. mathematicians, engineers, Dan Whites, and gang member follower types aligning themselves to rip CTE, Hal and Stan, and users to shreds.
We're also missing the name calling, and belittling phrases thrown out by Lou, PJ, and other gang members. You know, the words like "snake oil salesman", "voodoo", "tin foil hats", "magic decoder rings, "cult members", and much more.
Could the same thing be done here with this poolology system and users? ABSOLUTELY! It would probably take me less than a week to find holes in the system where certain shots or angles don't go as prescribed. It would take me one or two days to start attacking it if I only had enough knowledge to make me "dangerous" to pick it apart as do the CTE naysayers who never fully learn and understand it. It could be twisted, spun, blended, and turned upside down with fallacies.
But wouldn't that be utterly STUPID? Grown men with the same passion and love for pool destroying a system that makes their games better, belittling the creators of the system and it's users, and doing it over a 20 year period?
Maybe some of the main antagonists of CTE, the creator, and new users who are now praising poolology should get a taste of their own medicine from the start and have it done for the next two decades.
What da ya think? That would be fair play, wouldn't it?
Don't worry Mr. Wilson, it's not going to happen because your life would become a nightmare of reported posts and bans. But it would be nice to have the others who continue to attack CTE muzzled just because that would be fair play.
Personally, I'm all for anything old or new that works either for aiming and any other facet of the game. I'm happy for all the enthusiasm. REALLY!
Good luck to all of you and have a blast learning and playing with it, at least until the next new thing comes out.
Me, I'll just stick with CTE.
DISCLAIMER:This post is NOT a knock on poololgy, it's creator, or any names mentioned in my post. I only wish the best and most success for everyone.
(I learned this disclaimer technique from Dan White. Thanks, buddy)
The only thing missing now are the Lou Figueoras, Pat Johnsons, Ph.D. mathematicians, engineers, Dan Whites, and gang member follower types aligning themselves to rip CTE, Hal and Stan, and users to shreds.
We're also missing the name calling, and belittling phrases thrown out by Lou, PJ, and other gang members. You know, the words like "snake oil salesman", "voodoo", "tin foil hats", "magic decoder rings, "cult members", and much more.
Could the same thing be done here with this poolology system and users? ABSOLUTELY! It would probably take me less than a week to find holes in the system where certain shots or angles don't go as prescribed. It would take me one or two days to start attacking it if I only had enough knowledge to make me "dangerous" to pick it apart as do the CTE naysayers who never fully learn and understand it. It could be twisted, spun, blended, and turned upside down with fallacies.
But wouldn't that be utterly STUPID? Grown men with the same passion and love for pool destroying a system that makes their games better, belittling the creators of the system and it's users, and doing it over a 20 year period?
Maybe some of the main antagonists of CTE, the creator, and new users who are now praising poolology should get a taste of their own medicine from the start and have it done for the next two decades.
What da ya think? That would be fair play, wouldn't it?
Don't worry Mr. Wilson, it's not going to happen because your life would become a nightmare of reported posts and bans. But it would be nice to have the others who continue to attack CTE muzzled just because that would be fair play.
Personally, I'm all for anything old or new that works either for aiming and any other facet of the game. I'm happy for all the enthusiasm. REALLY!
Good luck to all of you and have a blast learning and playing with it, at least until the next new thing comes out.
Me, I'll just stick with CTE.
DISCLAIMER:This post is NOT a knock on poololgy, it's creator, or any names mentioned in my post. I only wish the best and most success for everyone.
(I learned this disclaimer technique from Dan White. Thanks, buddy)
Last edited:
I've never reported a post or user, never. Would you feel better if I reported this one to Wilson for name calling so you could get another vacation?
I thought I was clear.
My apologies.
My apologies.
I know you are being serious, but in my mind, when I see your posts, I picture a white volleyball with a bloody handprint. WILSON!!! I'M SORRY!! I'M SORRY, WILSON!
(one of the best movies ever)
I was thinking about this as I also am not used to aiming at fractions. 1/4 hit is the hardest one to estimate. I thought of a good drill. Put the ob at the center of the table and then place the cue ball at the position where Poolology guarantees a 1/4 ball hit. Place hole reinforcers at the ob and cb. Just keep hitting this shot and when you are splitting the pocket consistently take note of the aim point, which it seems should be about 1/8 inch away from the edge of the ob. The only way to miss this shot is if you aren't seeing 1/4 correctly, or if your stroke is wobbly.
I would do it for both left and right cuts as perception can change a little from one side to the other.
Just a suggestion for some newer players (or new to fractions) trying Brian's system out.
Editing error on end rail alignment values, Zone C
Thanks to a few players who informed me that something was wrong with Zone C back cuts. Initially I thought the trouble was due to user error, but as more questions and comments came in concerning this issue, I knew something had to be wrong. After a thorough review of prep material, I found the mistake. The 20, 40, 60 values on the end rail for Zone C alignments are one diamond off. There was quite a bit of cut and paste involved in redoing the diagrams for PDF, and somehow I mistakenly placed these values one diamond too close to the targeted pocket. This was repeated on every Zone C diagram as well as the main diagram. It was overlooked in the editing/proofreading process.
Please amend the values as shown in this pic. The 20, 40, 60 values should move one diamond to the left, then the 1st diamond from the targeted pocket is 10. I apologize for the mishap and any confusion or frustration it may have caused.
Brian Crist
P.S. If the pic doesn't show, see it here: http://forums.azbilliards.com/picture.php?albumid=2260&pictureid=17064
Thanks to a few players who informed me that something was wrong with Zone C back cuts. Initially I thought the trouble was due to user error, but as more questions and comments came in concerning this issue, I knew something had to be wrong. After a thorough review of prep material, I found the mistake. The 20, 40, 60 values on the end rail for Zone C alignments are one diamond off. There was quite a bit of cut and paste involved in redoing the diagrams for PDF, and somehow I mistakenly placed these values one diamond too close to the targeted pocket. This was repeated on every Zone C diagram as well as the main diagram. It was overlooked in the editing/proofreading process.
Please amend the values as shown in this pic. The 20, 40, 60 values should move one diamond to the left, then the 1st diamond from the targeted pocket is 10. I apologize for the mishap and any confusion or frustration it may have caused.
Brian Crist
P.S. If the pic doesn't show, see it here: http://forums.azbilliards.com/picture.php?albumid=2260&pictureid=17064
Attachments
Whaaat?? I DEMAND A REFUND! No wonder I was missing shots all over the place with poolology. Didn't you have a "double your money back guarantee" if it doesn't work as stated and you're unsatisfied?
Please send $20 back into my Paypal account.
And here I thought this system was going to be as simple as pie.
:grin:
Whaaat?? I DEMAND A REFUND! No wonder I was missing shots all over the place with poolology. Didn't you have a "double your money back guarantee" if it doesn't work as stated and you're unsatisfied?
Please send $20 back into my Paypal account.
And here I thought this system was going to be as simple as pie.
Stan Shuffett gave me some great advice back in February. He said to make sure I had all of my ducks in a row before presenting any material. Unfortunately, I could not benefit from this wisdom due to the fact that I'd already published the book. :sorry:
These things happen. Gotta roll with it, just like playing pool...even the pros have an occasional miscue or fail to see an obvious mistake until after the fact.
- Status