UBER is cheaper.
How do you Aim Off to compensate for sidespin
- Thread starter precisepotting
- Start date
UBER is cheaper.
It depends on how you aim. I start to aim while standing to find the contact point on the OB that when impacted by the CB will send the OB to the pocket or a point on the rail when banking.
I use double distance aiming for a center CB hit – no english. If outside english will get me shape on the next ball, I will apply BHE when down. The amount of BHE varies with the shot.
If inside english will get me shape on the next ball, I parallel shift the cue with both the bridge and grip hands to the inside of the CB center when down. The amount of the shift varies with the shot.
Others see the aim and english while standing and just drop down on the shot in the final bridge and grip hand position.
This has never made any sense to me. If you get down on the correct contact point that you picked out. 1 you have to assess if your delivery is on for center ball on that shot, only then can you micro adjust for squirt.I don't think that there are many that know all of that from a standing position after all just one slight mis-judgement is a missed shot. There have been times that my micro adjustment made me feel a bit out of line. Those are the times I stand back up and start over. I don't think I've adjusted for spin while standing that I can remember.
On public dissemination, you're probably correct. However, the subject was known well before then. During my Syracuse days, in 1977 and 1978, Babe Cranfield explained to me how the cueball reacts with english applied. He didn't use the words deflect, or squirt. He said, when you use extreme english (as he did), the cueball will initially go in the opposite direction of your english, so you have to take that into account, in your aim. But, he said the cueball will hook back a bit toward your object ball, if you have a good deal of table to work with.
He would take the typical shot with an object ball in the middle of the short rail, frozen, and make in from the opposite short corner, with a normal bridge, with extreme inside english, routinely. He said you basically have to aim almost at the object ball to compensate for the "hooking" that will occur. Babe, as you know, was also a golfer, so was probably more familiar with that terminology than today's.
So, deflection was known among the great players of the past as well, as there weren't low deflection shafts around then. And it's good that Precisepotting now understands what I was saying. Hope this helps.
All the best,
WW
I think my aiming process is natural.... as in my mind just knows how to compensate from years of practise.
For cuts with outside spin, I just look at the contact point and shot the ball. The minimal squirt one way is negated by the additional throw in the opposite way that is imparted on the object ball because of the side spin.
For inside .... it is totally different in my mind and I have to take much more care to think about hitting the ghost ball contact point exactly, because of the opposite squirt.... very difficult with extreme (usually unneeded) inside.
For cuts with outside spin, I just look at the contact point and shot the ball. The minimal squirt one way is negated by the additional throw in the opposite way that is imparted on the object ball because of the side spin.
For inside .... it is totally different in my mind and I have to take much more care to think about hitting the ghost ball contact point exactly, because of the opposite squirt.... very difficult with extreme (usually unneeded) inside.
Actually, I was just talking about the modern internet discussion. Here is a diagram from the first major work on billiards in English (Kentfield's "Billiards", 1839) that illustrates aim-and-pivot and swerve, although the text doesn't describe it very well:
There is also a book in French from about a hundred years ago that explicitly describes aiming without side spin, then pivoting at the bridge hand for the needed side spin and then shooting. It was not described as "L'Anglais a la main arriere", though.
Good post, and notice the curved lines that are obvious in some of the aiming diagrams. Actually, I've always had a problem with the term "deflect," as it doesn't accurately describe what's going on. "Swerve," or possibly "Hook," describes it better, if it occurs in a long enough space on the table. I would say "Deflect," would be the initial, but not complete reaction of the cue ball, given either of the previous, and obviously, with english, or side spin applied.
All the best,
WW
Yeah, this technique just came very naturally to me. 95% of the aim is done standing....but that last little adjustment comes when getting down on the shot. If it feels weird, stand-up, chalk your cue, and start over. It's kind of automatic for me.
I hope I added to your question's answer then (Post 115). Are you actually keeping a tally of taking notes?
All good and excellent information. As Bob pointed out, BHE was illustrated nearly two centuries ago. The modern discussion beyond that included the "what causes" squirt.
As a Mechani Engineer, it was obvious what "caused" it (it's just another collision), but in terms of how to reduce it was never in my mind since I'm not a cuemaker and never thought of reducing it.
Thomas Wayne's "Rosabelle Believe" was an eye opener for me from a "that's what a cuemaker would do," and The Jacksonvill Experiment gave us the insight as to how to explain in mechanical engineering terms and vibrational wave analysis just how much of the mass (roughly) is in effect. Before Jacksonville, I don't think anyone knew how much, beyond the imperial tests, since that was the first that someone clocked the contact time of cue and ball (The Magical Millisecond).
The millisecond reveealed everything for me. And that's what my extensive discussions were with Royce Bunnell in his early OB Cues years (how much mass in the shaft and why).
Freddie <~~~ adjusts both standing and down
I'm no professional, A player, or certified teacher so just take this as one more opinion among many. I switch back and forth between a few different aiming systems depending on how straight or steep the cut is.
My fallback is lining up for the ghost ball and considering cut-induced-throw on any shot. If no spin, the center of my shaft goes through the center of the cue ball goes through the center of my ghost ball. With spin, Rodney Morris talks about matching up where you hit the cueball with the same spot on the ghost ball. For example if you're hitting one tip of 3 o'clock on the cue ball, then line up your shaft through that to one tip of 3 o'clock on the ghost ball. Compared to BHE or FHE, you're not pivoting but instead aligning your stick on a line parallel to the aiming line you'd have without spin.
As someone else mentioned, there are some cut angles where the edge of your shaft can line up to the contact point and it'll pocket the ball a respectable percentage of the time regardless of spin.
I'm sure there's nuances to when both of those that do or do not work (speed, distance, elevation, etc.) but it isn't a bad starting point for someone coming at it knowing nothing. At least until you can build up some "feel". There's no point guessing randomly when first starting out.
My fallback is lining up for the ghost ball and considering cut-induced-throw on any shot. If no spin, the center of my shaft goes through the center of the cue ball goes through the center of my ghost ball. With spin, Rodney Morris talks about matching up where you hit the cueball with the same spot on the ghost ball. For example if you're hitting one tip of 3 o'clock on the cue ball, then line up your shaft through that to one tip of 3 o'clock on the ghost ball. Compared to BHE or FHE, you're not pivoting but instead aligning your stick on a line parallel to the aiming line you'd have without spin.
As someone else mentioned, there are some cut angles where the edge of your shaft can line up to the contact point and it'll pocket the ball a respectable percentage of the time regardless of spin.
I'm sure there's nuances to when both of those that do or do not work (speed, distance, elevation, etc.) but it isn't a bad starting point for someone coming at it knowing nothing. At least until you can build up some "feel". There's no point guessing randomly when first starting out.
If the OB is down table and appears very small, is the one tip distance across (width) on the CB the same width at the OB or is it proportionately smaller?
Proportionately smaller. He talks about doing that in his Rocket's Science video. That video had a lot of the fundamentals most other DVDs cover. That was the one tidbit I took away and experimented with that I've never really seen many others discuss.
Last edited:
That could compensate for the CB squirting toward the inside if the GB.
It ballparks that with a level cue that the amount of deflection/squirt is compensated relatively evenly with the amount of spin-induced-throw. An expert will know the nuances that can throw it off, but it is a better starting point for a novice than pure guesswork.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Having recently started playing about 1 1/2 years ago, I am learning to improve. I purchased a table, a few cues, and started to learn how to play. I watch videos on line, of pro's, and amateurs. I watched videos on some aiming systems. Tried them, but with not so good results. Then I saw a video about the Ghost Ball. Wow! That one works for me. I came up with my own aiming system prior to the Ghost Ball with mixed results. Just wasn't consistent enough.
As far as how do you tell if you are getting better without instruction. It's obvious. When I started I would pot 2-3 balls if I got lucky with ball position. Now I'm potting 4-5 balls most of the time. Sometimes 6-7. That is improvement. Improvement I can see. Practicing 5-6 days a week, for 2-3 hours a day(minimum), for a year and a half, has improved my CB control and that has made the game much easier for me.
I now try to use as little English as possible. I get the ball to go where I want by speed and natural deflection.
Sorry I know this doesn't answer any of the questions that are in the original post, but I felt that other reply's had gone off topic and I wanted to address some of those thoughts.
Noah Buddy
As far as how do you tell if you are getting better without instruction. It's obvious. When I started I would pot 2-3 balls if I got lucky with ball position. Now I'm potting 4-5 balls most of the time. Sometimes 6-7. That is improvement. Improvement I can see. Practicing 5-6 days a week, for 2-3 hours a day(minimum), for a year and a half, has improved my CB control and that has made the game much easier for me.
I now try to use as little English as possible. I get the ball to go where I want by speed and natural deflection.
Sorry I know this doesn't answer any of the questions that are in the original post, but I felt that other reply's had gone off topic and I wanted to address some of those thoughts.
Noah Buddy
What other aiming methods have you used?
Mostly CTE, and a line system I came up with at first. I also watched some videos on how to find the correct angles for bank shots. A couple videos from JB Cases.
I think the post that said to use the super computer on your shoulders, is correct. After consistently playing for the last 1 1/2, I can now anticipate the deflection(to a degree, of course), naturally. Hitting the CB hard or soft gets it to where I want it for the next shot.
Trial and error. Practice makes perfect(or as close to it as you can get).
I am confident that I will continue to improve. It just takes time and effort.
Noah Buddy
I think the post that said to use the super computer on your shoulders, is correct. After consistently playing for the last 1 1/2, I can now anticipate the deflection(to a degree, of course), naturally. Hitting the CB hard or soft gets it to where I want it for the next shot.
Trial and error. Practice makes perfect(or as close to it as you can get).
I am confident that I will continue to improve. It just takes time and effort.
Noah Buddy