PDA

View Full Version : Support for Fractional Aiming


bluepepper
08-12-2008, 03:00 PM
Dividing the object ball into 1/8 ball increments for aiming gives us 5 distinct aiming points on the object ball to aim the center of the cue ball to cover, at most, the first 27 degrees (from straight in to half ball.) The half ball aim, which is 30 degrees, when comparing it to a straight shot on the same object ball in the same position, is only 27 degrees away from the straight in shot. The reason for this is that the angles compress in comparison to one another when the CB and OB positions don't change. Only the ghost ball moves. In this case, a 4/8 (half ball) aim is about 27 degrees away from 8/8 (full ball) aim.

And the angles further compress as the CB and OB get closer to one another. For example, a 6" distance between CB and OB yields a more compressed array of available angles than a 36" array.

What I wanted to show here is just how many shots are covered by 1/8 ball fractions. Obviously, the further the OB gets from the pocket, the more spread out the 1/8 ball shots become. I'm not suggesting that adjustments are not neccessary, but I am suggesting that very little adjustment is necessary when the OB is within about 3 diamonds from the pocket.
And when the CB is close to the OB, a different kind of adjustment is necessary. Since the angles are more compressed, you have to aim further away from center for successive cuts. An example of this phenomenon is the often undercut below-the-rack straight pool break shot. The CB and OB are often very close to one another, and the seemingly benign angle requires a steeper aim than feels comfortable.

Here are two pages showing 1/8 ball shots from the same object ball and cueball positions. The shots are all on the 15-ball to spots numbered by the 1-9 balls. The second page shows how even from 3 diamonds away from the rail, there are only subtle adjustments needed on the 1/8 ball aims to pocket all shots within the first 49 degrees. Imagine 4.5" pockets behind the 1-9 balls and how much space is covered by these 1/8 ball increments.
The 7-ball marks the 7th aiming point and 45 degrees away from straight in. That shows, at least to me, that fractional aiming can be very useful, since half of all angles and most of all shots we actually need to make are covered by the first 7 aims. And these aims are easy to find either on the OB or just off of it.

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4AcAY4BYGm4CUOo4DQvo4ENdo4FJUo4GEOn3HCSo3IcAR4ON yX2PRRq2kRRq4kcIY2qQtF15-ball_shots_to_positions_1-9_in_degrees&1=0&2=7&3=14&4=22&5=30&6=39&7=49&8=61&9=90_&ZZ@4AcAY4BWSm4CRln4DLxn4EGKm4FAGm3GHAm3HQvm3IbhE4O Gem2PRRq2kRRq4kcIY2qQtF15-ball_shots_to_positions_1-9_in_degrees&1=0&2=7&3=14&4=22&5=30&6=39&7=49&8=61&9=90_&ZZ@

bluepepper
08-13-2008, 06:00 PM
No rebuttals?
By the way, the angles were pretty accurately plotted using the aiming table on cuetable's website.

Bob Jewett
08-13-2008, 07:29 PM
No rebuttals?
...
Here's at least a nit with your approach: for a system to be practical, it has to get you to the center of the pocket, not just somewhere between the jaws. I'll give you the center half. That's roughly 1.5 inches wide, which is 1.5 degrees at five diamonds.

bluepepper
08-13-2008, 09:43 PM
Here's at least a nit with your approach: for a system to be practical, it has to get you to the center of the pocket, not just somewhere between the jaws. I'll give you the center half. That's roughly 1.5 inches wide, which is 1.5 degrees at five diamonds.

I guess practicality is subjective. In this case, it would depend on how effective alternate aiming techniques in the player's arsenal are by comparison.

I don't see why a target of 1.5" would be necessary. If you look at the first page showing shots from 2 diamonds away from potential pockets, you can measure 5 pocket widths to cover the first 7 aims, and about 6 1/2 pockets to cover the first 8 aims. If you get to know the object ball release paths of the different aims, you will likely become aware of when a ball will hit the tip of a pocket which means you'll make a subtle adjustment. But only an occasional subtle adjustment would be necessary in this case.

For the 3 diamond shots on the second page, a tad more than 7 pockets cover the first 7 aims. So there would have to be more adjustment here, but again not much. Splitting the 1/8 ball aims in half as one method of adjustment would take care of any shots in this range, and probably pretty much any shot under 49 degrees nearly anywhere within 5 diamonds. Adding subtle adjustments like side spin and deflection and speed, all shots on the table under 49 degrees would likely be covered.

The thin cuts over 49 degrees might be the realm of another system, but I wouldn't think this means that fractional aiming doesn't have significant value if you can recognize the angles.

Bob Jewett
08-13-2008, 10:15 PM
... I don't see why a target of 1.5" would be necessary. I ...
Shots have lots of sources of error. Your stroke might not be straight. You might have mis-seen the shot. You might have some unintended side on the ball and you are shooting at a speed where that will affect the shot. The table may have a little roll. Your shaft may be a little crooked. You may get a slight kick of a fraction of a degree. As a consequence, even if your aiming system is perfect, the shot will be off some when it gets to the pocket. One side or the other. Sometimes a little to the left. Sometimes a little to the right. Sometimes when most of the minor contributors line up, quite a bit to one side.

Suppose your aiming system for a particular shot lined the ball up exactly to the extreme side of the pocket. Any minor error to that same side would cause a miss. You would miss half your shots, since on average half the time the small errors would add up to that same side.

So, the question becomes: how much slop and inaccuracy will I allow in my aiming system, realizing that I must reduce all the other sources of error in the path of the object ball to compensate for a somewhat inaccurate system?

A system that settles for the extreme edge of the pocket is broken. A system that gives an aim that is exactly centered on the pocket is best. I think that if you are trying to develop an explicit, step-by-step system, it should at least get you to the middle half of the effective pocket. How long a shot should the system cover? I think having an object ball 6 diamonds from a pocket should not make the system useless.

bluepepper
08-14-2008, 08:12 AM
I would agree that if a system forced a person to shoot a shot at the edge of a pocket it may be broken or at least weakened. But the fractional aims are simply guides. If the closest fraction would result in a path towards the edge of a pocket or a half diamond away, the player would simply adjust accordingly using whichever method of adjustment is appropriate.

Also, the fractional aims are simply double-the-distance references from consistent contact points. The contact points for the first 5 aims are only 1/8" away from one another. Being able to split those by splitting the aiming references, and adjusting even further by using spin, speed, and deflection, how much sharper can we expect players to be?

dr_dave
08-14-2008, 08:56 AM
FYI, I have a pertinent analysis and discussion (with other links) here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#fractional

Regards,
Dave

Dividing the object ball into 1/8 ball increments for aiming gives us 5 distinct aiming points on the object ball to aim the center of the cue ball to cover, at most, the first 27 degrees (from straight in to half ball.) The half ball aim, which is 30 degrees, when comparing it to a straight shot on the same object ball in the same position, is only 27 degrees away from the straight in shot. The reason for this is that the angles compress in comparison to one another when the CB and OB positions don't change. Only the ghost ball moves. In this case, a 4/8 (half ball) aim is about 27 degrees away from 8/8 (full ball) aim.

And the angles further compress as the CB and OB get closer to one another. For example, a 6" distance between CB and OB yields a more compressed array of available angles than a 36" array.

What I wanted to show here is just how many shots are covered by 1/8 ball fractions. Obviously, the further the OB gets from the pocket, the more spread out the 1/8 ball shots become. I'm not suggesting that adjustments are not neccessary, but I am suggesting that very little adjustment is necessary when the OB is within about 3 diamonds from the pocket.
And when the CB is close to the OB, a different kind of adjustment is necessary. Since the angles are more compressed, you have to aim further away from center for successive cuts. An example of this phenomenon is the often undercut below-the-rack straight pool break shot. The CB and OB are often very close to one another, and the seemingly benign angle requires a steeper aim than feels comfortable.

Here are two pages showing 1/8 ball shots from the same object ball and cueball positions. The shots are all on the 15-ball to spots numbered by the 1-9 balls. The second page shows how even from 3 diamonds away from the rail, there are only subtle adjustments needed on the 1/8 ball aims to pocket all shots within the first 49 degrees. Imagine 4.5" pockets behind the 1-9 balls and how much space is covered by these 1/8 ball increments.
The 7-ball marks the 7th aiming point and 45 degrees away from straight in. That shows, at least to me, that fractional aiming can be very useful, since half of all angles and most of all shots we actually need to make are covered by the first 7 aims. And these aims are easy to find either on the OB or just off of it.

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4AcAY4BYGm4CUOo4DQvo4ENdo4FJUo4GEOn3HCSo3IcAR4ON yX2PRRq2kRRq4kcIY2qQtF15-ball_shots_to_positions_1-9_in_degrees&1=0&2=7&3=14&4=22&5=30&6=39&7=49&8=61&9=90_&ZZ@4AcAY4BWSm4CRln4DLxn4EGKm4FAGm3GHAm3HQvm3IbhE4O Gem2PRRq2kRRq4kcIY2qQtF15-ball_shots_to_positions_1-9_in_degrees&1=0&2=7&3=14&4=22&5=30&6=39&7=49&8=61&9=90_&ZZ@

BRKNRUN
08-14-2008, 09:09 AM
I have a hard time (at the table) seeing (5) 1/8 axis line increments.

Its not that I can't see them, but they tend to blend together and it also becomes difficult to know is that 1/8th thickness from the next line or 1/9th or 1/7th

bluepepper
08-14-2008, 10:36 AM
I have a hard time (at the table) seeing (5) 1/8 axis line increments.

Its not that I can't see them, but they tend to blend together and it also becomes difficult to know is that 1/8th thickness from the next line or 1/9th or 1/7th

Ken, try using the perimeter of the object ball, either from 6 o'clock to 3(or 9) or from 12 o'clock to 3 (or 9), dividing that particular length of perimeter into 4ths or 3rds to come up with reference aims.

bluepepper
08-14-2008, 10:44 AM
FYI, I have a pertinent analysis and discussion (with other links) here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#fractional

Regards,
Dave

I did read that a while ago. It's one of the things that steered me away from fractional aiming, as well as a few daunting numbers posted on this forum. But I don't think it's wise to dismiss the technique especially when shots 49 degrees and under are almost all of what we actually shoot. With 1/8 ball aims and their adjustments almost all shots are covered.

Patrick Johnson
08-14-2008, 11:16 AM
Aiming "reference" systems are like banking/kicking reference systems: the CB/OB fractions are like the table's diamonds, providing obvious visual references as guides to make estimating nearby shots easier. The more references there are, the closer each nearby shot is to a known reference and the easier it is to estimate.

But there's a tradeoff: if I divide the spaces between diamonds into halves, it's still easy enough to accurately visualize the half-diamond "tracks" for banks/kicks so my ability to accurately estimate actual bank/kick shots is improved. But if I divide the spaces between diamonds into fourths, my ability to accurately visualize that many tracks degrades to the point that it no longer improves my ability to make shots.

I don't use ball aiming systems, so I don't know what the equivalent point of diminishing returns is for adding ball fractions, but my sense is that 7 fractions within 1/4 circumference is getting there. Maybe that's just me.

pj
chgo

dr_dave
08-14-2008, 11:43 AM
I did read that a while ago. It's one of the things that steered me away from fractional aiming, as well as a few daunting numbers posted on this forum. But I don't think it's wise to dismiss the technique especially when shots 49 degrees and under are almost all of what we actually shoot. With 1/8 ball aims and their adjustments almost all shots are covered.I don't discount "fractional ball" or any other aiming system. I think anything that provides useful references and focus is a good thing.

Regards,
Dave

bluepepper
08-14-2008, 05:49 PM
Patrick, here's a way of dividing the object ball pretty easily for the first 5 aims and their subdivisions. Going through a process of splitting the distance from bottom center to edge, then splitting that midpoint and bottom or edge, then splitting one more time gives you 10 findable aims.

Actually, it seems that doing it on the circumference yields slightly different angles than perfect 1/8 ball divisions through the equator, but whichever way you divide you would just learn your particular reference angles. The midway point between aim 2 and aim 3 looks to match what would be an equator 6/8 ball (right quarter) aim.

I know you're not one do discard useful things Dave, and I sincerely appreciate all the information you contribute and the time you spend preparing your videos and lessons.

74656

Bob Jewett
08-14-2008, 08:02 PM
... I don't use ball aiming systems, so I don't know what the equivalent point of diminishing returns is for adding ball fractions, but my sense is that 7 fractions within 1/4 circumference is getting there. Maybe that's just me. ...
I've related this story before.... I got a minor programming job from a friend of mine for his HP calculator back around 1980 or so. He wanted to know the angle of the line joining any two diamonds on adjacent cushions relative to one of those cushions. This is not a trivial formula since it involves how far back from the nose of the cushion the diamonds are.

Anyway, he wanted to know this for his aiming system. He had memorized the cut angles for ball fullnesses down to 64ths. If he saw that the object ball was two balls off the cushion at the third diamond, he knew that the angle of the ball relative to the cushion was 7 degrees. If the line of the cue ball was from the far corner pocket to the third diamond plus a little, he knew that the angle of the cue ball relative to that same cushion was 40 degrees. This makes the cut angle 33 degrees and the required fullness for that cut is 29/64ths. Then all he had to do was hit his usual 29/64th-full shot.

Most people don't have either the attention span or the motivation to go to this amount of effort just to aim. He did. And he played pretty well.

Neil
08-14-2008, 08:26 PM
..............

bluepepper
08-14-2008, 09:43 PM
I just realized something that seems to be a nice bonus when using the periphery rather than the equator. Using equator aiming fractions, angles expand as you move away from center ball up to the edge.
So having a built in way of offsetting this expansion would be advantageous. When you divide the periphery instead, the aims compress into a smaller area as you move away from center. I haven't figured out the resulting angles, but it should even out the shot angles better.

Bob, I do remember your post about your friend. Very interesting. I wonder if he had a special gift such as a photographic memory where he could just call up the 29/64 or 47/64 shot visually when necessary.

Patrick Johnson
08-15-2008, 05:48 AM
whichever way you divide you would just learn your particular reference angles

But "just learning" them gets more difficult the more there are.

The only fraction that has a definite visual alignment is a half ball hit (which itself relies on estimating the center of the CB). 1/4 ball and 3/4 ball hits are estimations from that with no definite visual landmarks, and then 1/8 ball, 3/8 ball, 5/8 ball and 7/8 ball hits are estimations from those estimations - in other words, errors compound as you add fractional divisions.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson
08-15-2008, 06:06 AM
doing it on the circumference yields slightly different angles than perfect 1/8 ball divisions through the equator

Does "doing it on the circumference" mean dividing the ball 2-dimensionally from the CB's perspective (like "fractional aiming" divisions)? Then yes, quite a bit different in fact:

74703

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson
08-15-2008, 06:31 AM
Bob:
I've related this story before...

I remember it - I was flabbergasted then too.

...Then all he had to do was hit his usual 29/64th-full shot.

LOL. Even if I could do that, I'd rather take up bowling.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson
08-15-2008, 06:37 AM
...When you [use equal circumference divisions rather than equal ball fractions], the divisions [remain equal in degrees] as you move away from center.

Well, yes, but there's also no easy way to visualize them - that's the point of using ball fractions instead.

pj
chgo

bluepepper
08-15-2008, 07:19 PM
Patrick, I don't understand the angle numbers you came up with. Here's the same diagram with the angles that I came up with for each point. It's not perfect but probably within a degree using the aiming table.

74753

Here are the resulting shots using all 9 of these aims from 3 diamonds away from a "pocket." The compression of aiming points towards the edge using the circumference divisions offsets the equator division angles perhaps too much.
Page 2 represents the 1/8 circumference divisions only.

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4AcIb4BXAo4CTIo4DPpo4EMnn4FJtn4GIGn4HHIn4IGCn4NH Lm2PQsv2kQsv4kdvt@4AcIb4CTIo4EMnn4GIGn4IGCn4NHLm2P Qsv2kQsv4kdvt@

Patrick Johnson
08-15-2008, 08:26 PM
Patrick, I don't understand the angle numbers you came up with.
Then I guess I don't understand what you meant by this:

Using equator aiming fractions, angles expand as you move away from center ball up to the edge. So having a built in way of offsetting this expansion would be advantageous. When you divide the periphery instead, the aims compress into a smaller area as you move away from center.

What do the phrases in blue mean?

pj
chgo

bluepepper
08-15-2008, 09:01 PM
equator aiming fractions- the divisions that we normally talk about when describing fractional aims, using the center line of the ball and dividing that.

dividing the periphery- using the curved line that is the perimeter of the ball and dividing that curved line instead of the straight line that is the equator

If you look at the original post's diagram and the plotting of the 9 balls, you'll notice an increasing spread between the balls.

But for the angles under 30 degrees, I don't think this expansion/spreading is significant. So I'm wrong in assuming that this expansion of angles needs to be offset. They are pretty evenly spaced as they are.

And using the divisions in my last post(of the perimeter) you can see that the compression of angles that occurs (using fractions of the perimeter) is perhaps not all that helpful.

That said, I think it's easier to visualize the perimeter points. Maybe that's just me though.

Bob Jewett
08-15-2008, 09:03 PM
Then I guess I don't understand what you meant by this: ... What do the phrases in blue mean?
This point is illustrated in http://www.sfbilliards.com/Western_fractions_bw.gif which was drawn about 100 years ago. It's from Western's book on the relationship of fullness of hit to carom angle. It's the finest gradation of fractional aiming I've seen in print, except for a continuous graph, such as that in http://www.sfbilliards.com/fract.pdf

bluepepper
08-15-2008, 09:14 PM
Thanks Bob. I just want to clarify that my image of the perimeter being divided is viewed from table level, not from above.
I'm trying to figure out if this makes a difference for aiming targets.
The 100 year old illustration, if I'm understanding it, is viewed from above, and shows the resulting angles from aiming at the equator divisions?

bluepepper
08-15-2008, 09:18 PM
Revised image showing top and bottom of object ball:

74760

Patrick Johnson
08-15-2008, 09:34 PM
Patrick, I don't understand the angle numbers you came up with. Here's the same diagram with the angles that I came up with for each point. It's not perfect but probably within a degree using the aiming table.

74753

If I understand you now, I think you must have divided the cut angles between a full hit and a half-ball hit into eighths. In that case, here's a table of cut angles measured three different ways.

On the left, circled in black, are the cut angles (measured from the line between CB/OB centers) from dividing 1/4 of the ball's circumference into 8 equal sections (your "dividing the periphery"?). They range from 0 degrees to 45 degrees.

In the middle, circled in red, are the cut angles (measured from the line between CB/GhostBall centers) from dividing the CB/OB overlaps between a full hit and a half-ball hit into eighths (your "equator fractions"?). They range from 0 degrees to 30 degrees. I believe these are the angles your drawing approximates.

On the right, circled in blue, are the same cut angles as those circled in red, except measured from the line between CB/OB centers. The angles circled in blue are for a CB at a distance of 48 inches from the OB (about what your CueTable diagram shows). At that distance this range of cut angles is compressed by a total of about 2/3 of one degree. At a CB/OB distance of 12 inches (the leftmost blue column) this range of cut angles is compressed by a total of about 2-2/3 degrees.

74761

How's that for anal? :eek:

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson
08-15-2008, 10:48 PM
Thanks Bob. I just want to clarify that my image of the perimeter being divided is viewed from table level, not from above.
I'm trying to figure out if this makes a difference for aiming targets.

I don't think so. The targets should transpose identically.

The 100 year old illustration, if I'm understanding it, is viewed from above, and shows the resulting angles from aiming at the equator divisions?

So you're saying aim the CB center at these divisions equally spaced around the circumference? Here's a visual of the actual contact points that would result from this method (blue lines) vs. normal fractional aiming (red lines):

74762

The fractional aiming contact points stay pretty evenly spaced around the circumference up to a half-ball hit, so this (exponential?) alternative isn't as good (I think you came to the same conclusion).

pj
chgo

Dead Crab
08-16-2008, 05:09 AM
That's the system I use (peripheral). Not only can you use the angle from ball center, but also the distance up from the table.

For example, 10 degree cut point is about 2mm off the table, 15 degrees is about 4mm, 20 degrees, 8mm.

I've got about a 1mm nap in my cloth, so a 10 degree cut is just where there is light visible between the cloth and ball.

For the shallow cuts where the cloth and ball are indistinguishable I either reference off the 10-degree aim point (6-9 degree cuts), or off the top-ball-vertical axis (0-5 degree cuts).

With this approach, confidence in the aim point is very high for angles up to 30 degrees.

If you want to get comfortable estimating 4mm or 8mm, get some machine screws with thread diameters this size. Put 'em on rails, on your desk, wherever you can get used to seeing that thickness from a few feet away.

Coupled with an angle estimation method, I think it is possible to select the proper aim point within 1-1.5mm on a consistent basis.

bluepepper
08-16-2008, 05:41 AM
Very clever, Dead Crab.

bluepepper
08-16-2008, 05:56 AM
If I understand you now, I think you must have divided the cut angles between a full hit and a half-ball hit into eighths. In that case, here's a table of cut angles measured three different ways.

On the left, circled in black, are the cut angles (measured from the line between CB/OB centers) from dividing 1/4 of the ball's circumference into 8 equal sections (your "dividing the periphery"?). They range from 0 degrees to 45 degrees.

In the middle, circled in red, are the cut angles (measured from the line between CB/GhostBall centers) from dividing the CB/OB overlaps between a full hit and a half-ball hit into eighths (your "equator fractions"?). They range from 0 degrees to 30 degrees. I believe these are the angles your drawing approximates.

On the right, circled in blue, are the same cut angles as those circled in red, except measured from the line between CB/OB centers. The angles circled in blue are for a CB at a distance of 48 inches from the OB (about what your CueTable diagram shows). At that distance this range of cut angles is compressed by a total of about 2/3 of one degree. At a CB/OB distance of 12 inches (the leftmost blue column) this range of cut angles is compressed by a total of about 2-2/3 degrees.

74761

How's that for anal? :eek:

pj
chgo

I'm trying to figure out how our angles disagree so much. It's true that I'm doing no math, which can account for some error, but I figure that your "red circle" is the one that should come close to matching up with my numbers, but it doesn't seem to.

I used the overlapping balls on the cuetable aiming table to come up with my angles. Not extremely precise, but shouldn't be so far off. I'm stumped.
And yes, I did come to the same conclusion about the angles closing in towards the edge.

Thanks for the images. Here's your picture edited to show the horizontal midpoints which don't match the perimeter midpoints. Maybe this isn't a bad thing. It just means having more possible reference shots.

74769

chefjeff
08-16-2008, 06:43 AM
I don't discount "fractional ball" or any other aiming system. I think anything that provides useful references and focus is a good thing.

Regards,
Dave

To me, the biggest advantage of these aiming systems is using them for going into my stance. My aiming system is a lttle different, but having used it for a few years now, I'd say that the best use of it is for accurately setting up my stance. The details of the aim are then within, the now accurate, tweaking range of my bridge, grip, etc., if that makes sense.

Jeff Livingston

Poolplaya9
08-16-2008, 07:34 AM
I've related this story before.... I got a minor programming job from a friend of mine for his HP calculator back around 1980 or so. He wanted to know the angle of the line joining any two diamonds on adjacent cushions relative to one of those cushions. This is not a trivial formula since it involves how far back from the nose of the cushion the diamonds are.

Anyway, he wanted to know this for his aiming system. He had memorized the cut angles for ball fullnesses down to 64ths. If he saw that the object ball was two balls off the cushion at the third diamond, he knew that the angle of the ball relative to the cushion was 7 degrees. If the line of the cue ball was from the far corner pocket to the third diamond plus a little, he knew that the angle of the cue ball relative to that same cushion was 40 degrees. This makes the cut angle 33 degrees and the required fullness for that cut is 29/64ths. Then all he had to do was hit his usual 29/64th-full shot.

Most people don't have either the attention span or the motivation to go to this amount of effort just to aim. He did. And he played pretty well.
I believe that your friend could fairly accurately determine cut angles on the table. I would have to think though that he would occasionally be off enough with the angle judgement to be outside the margin of error for making longer shots if it could somehow be guarenteed that he would always hit the exact contact point on the object ball that corresponded to the angle as he judged it. In other words, if you were to accurately measure the angle of particular shots that he had judged, you would be able to mathematically demonstrate that the number or degrees he was off on some of them would cause a miss for longer shots.

I do definitely believe that your friend had memorized the corresponding cut angles that went with each 64th of the ball.

I also definitely believe that your friend was a very good player.

What I am having the most trouble with though is believing that he could accurately visualize 64ths of the object ball and then accurately guide the cueball to one of those exact points, say 29/64ths. I'm not sure how you could test that in a fair and accurate way though. My thought would be to give him a 2 1/4 inch perfectly round white piece of paper with some type of flat base at the very edge somewhere to represent the table. Then have him mark where 29/64ths is. I am almost certain that he would be off enough part of the time that you could again mathematically demonstrate that it would cause a miss on a longer shot. I'd have to lose a few bucks letting him prove me wrong in any case.

I'm thinking that although his angle and 64ths judgement were usually close, his mind was actually subconsciously altering his aim based on experience to correct for any errors in his judgements.

I had trouble putting my thoughts into words here, so hopefully you are able to decipher what all I meant. Bob, what are your thoughts about what I suggest in terms of his angle and 64ths judgement errors, and his mind subconsciously adjusting his aim based on experience?

Patrick Johnson
08-16-2008, 08:48 AM
I'm trying to figure out how our angles disagree so much.

I think I was wrong - none of my calculated angles match your "exponentially spaced" aims (the top circle in my drawing). The ones in the red circle are for "normal" ball fractions (the bottom circle in my drawing). I think that's probably the difference - I only realized that's what you were doing after I posted those calculations.

pj
chgo

Note: In case it's confusing - in my table of calculated angles, the ones in blue on the right are not compressed by being exponentially spaced; they're compressed by measuring the "true" cut angle, taking into account the shifting angle of the CB-GhostBall line.

bluepepper
08-16-2008, 09:50 AM
To me, the biggest advantage of these aiming systems is using them for going into my stance. My aiming system is a lttle different, but having used it for a few years now, I'd say that the best use of it is for accurately setting up my stance. The details of the aim are then within, the now accurate, tweaking range of my bridge, grip, etc., if that makes sense.

Jeff Livingston

Can you into your routine in more depth? I'm not fully understanding.
Thanks

bluepepper
08-16-2008, 09:51 AM
Poolplaya9, that makes a lot of sense.
Patrick, okay, I'm with ya' now.
Thanks

chefjeff
08-16-2008, 10:20 AM
Can you into your routine in more depth? I'm not fully understanding.
Thanks

OK. Here's one of my aiming points. If I'm cutting a half-ball aim shot to the left, then I say to myself, center-right, meaning center of the stick to the right edge of the ob. (I have other points of course but I'll leave that for another time)

So, while still standing, I grip normally, put my cuetip where it will be on the back of my backstroke, step my right heel under my grip to begin the proper positioning of my stance.

Then, I let my grip hand/arm extend toward the floor (arm straight)and hold my bridge hand up in the air, about belly-button high. This allows my eyes to see the cuestick, the cb and the ob in relation to each other. I close my non-dominant eye and sight in, for this example, the cuestick so it is going through the center of the cb and the center of the stick is also aligned with the right edge of the ob ball.

Then I tweak my stance to coincide with the above and then I move into my stance, setting bridge and grip etc.

This ensures that my stance is pre-aligned with the aiming point. If off a little, I can easily tweak whatever portion of the whole shebang I need to without getting out of whack.

This shortcut, if you will, makes any aiming system valuable.

Jeff Livingston

bluepepper
08-16-2008, 10:28 AM
Jeff, I like what you're saying here. I need to start paying attention to the details of my preshot routine like you do.
Thanks

Patrick Johnson
08-16-2008, 11:08 AM
OK. Here's one of my aiming points. If I'm cutting a half-ball aim shot to the left, then I say to myself, center-right, meaning center of the stick to the right edge of the ob. (I have other points of course but I'll leave that for another time)

So, while still standing, I grip normally, put my cuetip where it will be on the back of my backstroke, step my right heel under my grip to begin the proper positioning of my stance.

Then, I let my grip hand/arm extend toward the floor (arm straight)and hold my bridge hand up in the air, about belly-button high. This allows my eyes to see the cuestick, the cb and the ob in relation to each other. I close my non-dominant eye and sight in, for this example, the cuestick so it is going through the center of the cb and the center of the stick is also aligned with the right edge of the ob ball.

Then I tweak my stance to coincide with the above and then I move into my stance, setting bridge and grip etc.

This ensures that my stance is pre-aligned with the aiming point. If off a little, I can easily tweak whatever portion of the whole shebang I need to without getting out of whack.

This shortcut, if you will, makes any aiming system valuable.

Jeff Livingston

I think this kind of pre-shot alignment is invaluable. I do almost the same thing, except I actually put my tip on the cloth (right at the cue ball where it will be at the end of my stroke), with my bridge hand completely off the cue. I align my grip hand to aim the stick very carefully through the CB at the OB, including sidespin, then place my back foot under my grip hand and bend (slowly, if I'm doing it right) into my stance, keeping my eyes over the shaft and sliding my bridge hand forward under the shaft.

If I remember (and have the patience) to do all that, and if I remember to be precise about where I hit the cue ball, and if I remember to let gravity work, I usually get into stroke.

pj
chgo

Bob Jewett
08-16-2008, 11:36 AM
... I'm thinking that although his angle and 64ths judgment were usually close, his mind was actually subconsciously altering his aim based on experience to correct for any errors in his judgments. ...
I'm certain he was adjusting, just as all good players adjust for all the factors that aren't accounted for by whatever system/method/framework/routine they use to aim. How can you tell the foolish system player? He thinks he doesn't adjust. How can you tell the inept system player? He doesn't adjust.

As for the number of angles, if you can handle more angles, I think it will help you because there is less to fill in. The hard part, as has been mentioned, is wrapping your mind around all the little details. Some people can, some can't. There are people who can recite thousands of digits of pi and probably many more people could but few are motivated enough to even try.

halhoule
08-17-2008, 08:52 AM
l hope none of you guys got cross eyed trying to separate all the wires, and invisible shots you guys made. Now that you have it all down pat, i guess the next step is to call out EFREN OR BUSTAMANTE OR SOUQUET. GOOD LUCK.

Patrick Johnson
08-17-2008, 11:44 AM
Hal:
i guess the next step is to call out EFREN OR BUSTAMANTE OR SOUQUET.

So when are you going to do that, Hal?

pj
chgo

Nick B
08-17-2008, 12:02 PM
Hal,
Almost ALL the snooker pro's use fractions. They are taught them at very early age. They seem to be able to make a ball on some very tight tolerances. I would call you out but I'm sure at your age it would look insincere.

Nick

cookie man
08-17-2008, 04:04 PM
So when are you going to do that, Hal?

pj
chgo

You need to show some respect.!!!!

Patrick Johnson
08-17-2008, 07:05 PM
You need to show some respect.!!!!

Hal needs to show some respect. You need to show some taste in idols. I need to lose some weight.

pj
chgo