How Fractional Aiming Systems Help
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
The Hal system Fractional method shown in the OP is also known as the hand system and may be one of the oldest aiming systems to use fractions......
If you splay out your hand as far as you can most people will have close to a 90 degree angle formed by the pinkie so the pinky is a full ball the ring finger falls close to 3/4 and the mid 1/2 with the pointer coming up short of 1/4.... by pointing the pinkie along the a straight line between the cueball and object ball you can have a handy reference or where to begin before making adjustments...
Another cool thing is that since we all usually have 2 hands the system starting points will work for cuts in either direction... you do have to switch hands tho so if you are a righty shooting balls to the right it requires using the left hand for the system so it may feel like someone else is aiming for ya /snicker
If you splay out your hand as far as you can most people will have close to a 90 degree angle formed by the pinkie so the pinky is a full ball the ring finger falls close to 3/4 and the mid 1/2 with the pointer coming up short of 1/4.... by pointing the pinkie along the a straight line between the cueball and object ball you can have a handy reference or where to begin before making adjustments...
Another cool thing is that since we all usually have 2 hands the system starting points will work for cuts in either direction... you do have to switch hands tho so if you are a righty shooting balls to the right it requires using the left hand for the system so it may feel like someone else is aiming for ya /snicker
The Hal system is something I would have loved to learn. Heard good thing about it. But was always unsuccessful finding any supporting documentation.
Sent from handheld iOS Device.
Sent from handheld iOS Device.
The original post makes a lot of sense to me on how the brain recognizes what to do. You learn something exact and then when something is slightly different than what you learned, your brain makes an adjustment one way or another.
The rest of the thread is the same aiming system wars
Anyway, a story from me regarding the first post in my own personal play...
I have always been a feel player. I never even knew what half ball hit meant until joining AZ, which was 10 years after I started playing. So one day I was gambling shooting spot shots with someone. I had no system for them, I literally just aimed each one individually. Cue ball in a different spot each time. Maybe even different spin each time. My percentage was decent (for my C player abilities at the time), maybe I made 6 out of 10. The guy I did it with came from the generation where the spot shot was huge in 9 ball, and he knew exactly where to put the cue ball and aimed for a half ball hit. He was a much stronger player than me anyway and beat me. (he used to give me the 6 ball). Afterwards, he showed me where to put the cue ball and to aim exactly half ball.
So the relevant part of the story to the discussion: Half ball was completely foreign to me. I had never in my life said to myself to hit a half ball hit up to that point. So I shot a bunch of spot shots that way, and my make percentage was I think worse (it was a long time ago). When I was aiming half ball, I just didn't feel locked in. I think I was seeing a different shot picture, because my eyes were looking somewhere they never used to before.
To this day I couldn't tell you how I aim. I think I just see the entire shot picture at once, and it just "looks" right. So while I agree that some people's brains work like the original post, I don't think mine does, as I still don't ever shoot a half ball shot (or use it as a reference for similar angle shots).
I'd kind of like to know what my aiming method is.
The rest of the thread is the same aiming system wars
Anyway, a story from me regarding the first post in my own personal play...
I have always been a feel player. I never even knew what half ball hit meant until joining AZ, which was 10 years after I started playing. So one day I was gambling shooting spot shots with someone. I had no system for them, I literally just aimed each one individually. Cue ball in a different spot each time. Maybe even different spin each time. My percentage was decent (for my C player abilities at the time), maybe I made 6 out of 10. The guy I did it with came from the generation where the spot shot was huge in 9 ball, and he knew exactly where to put the cue ball and aimed for a half ball hit. He was a much stronger player than me anyway and beat me. (he used to give me the 6 ball). Afterwards, he showed me where to put the cue ball and to aim exactly half ball.
So the relevant part of the story to the discussion: Half ball was completely foreign to me. I had never in my life said to myself to hit a half ball hit up to that point. So I shot a bunch of spot shots that way, and my make percentage was I think worse (it was a long time ago). When I was aiming half ball, I just didn't feel locked in. I think I was seeing a different shot picture, because my eyes were looking somewhere they never used to before.
To this day I couldn't tell you how I aim. I think I just see the entire shot picture at once, and it just "looks" right. So while I agree that some people's brains work like the original post, I don't think mine does, as I still don't ever shoot a half ball shot (or use it as a reference for similar angle shots).
I'd kind of like to know what my aiming method is.
Last edited:
CTE is not a fractional aiming system. If I were to find a similarity, it would be that fractional aiming uses fractions of the OB for aiming alignment, and CTE uses fractions of the OB for pre-pivot alignment. However, these are entirely different things. With CTE they are only used for initial eye/body/head alignment. You still have to slide into the shot and pivot to center CB. Only then are you on the shot line, and this is in no way a fractional alignment "guess."
I'm not ascending anything; you're condescending. Aiming system threads would be more positive if system users were more open to real discussion and less defensive about terminology.
I'm not looking for an "answer". There's no mystery about fractional aiming systems except why their users are allergic to certain words and concepts.
This thread isn't about the so-called "debate"; it's about the simple and obvious fact that fractional systems work by using "reference cuts" to help estimate actual cuts and are similar in this way to other common estimating methods used by pool players.
pj
chgo
When a CTE user can describe the "mystery move" more precisely than "slide into the shot and pivot to center CB" I might consider the possibility that CTE adds something more than implausible denial to other fractional systems.
The thing is, the use of estimation with fractional systems doesn't need to be denied. There's nothing wrong with it. Every player does it.
But this is beside the point of this thread.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
AZB is a strong supporter of recycling.
The only mystery about the pivot is that we don't have a mathematical formula or solid diagrammable proof for it. But it does work, and you don't have to sweat all the details. Just slide in and pivot to center. (There are more details to "slide in and pivot" on my blog or on Stans DVD, it's all there.) With practice this becomes consistent, repeatable and automatic. It doesn't take HAMB, it takes maybe hundreds to a few thousand shots to get in the zone.
I agree that there are things we don't completely understand, or are not able to draw on paper. IMHO this is a red herring, what matters is the result. The result is that works and it is a very strong system. For me (and many others I'm sure will agree) it is far easier and more repeatable to use edges and centers with a pivot than it is just eyeballing fractional aiming lines or ghost-balls.
I'm not trying to claim CTE is the be-all end-all aiming system. It is just one that does work well, and may help those that struggle with other methods of aiming.
[edit] sorry this a bit OT, the thread is about fractional aiming. I just wanted to address some comments about CTE. We can take the discussion to another thread if we want to further discuss. thanks. And welcome back PJ.
Last edited:
The "pipe" aiming method for beginners
LAMas:
Have you invented a little screen to attach to the cue (e.g. a little iPad) that runs AutoCAD -- sort of a "shot GPS" system along the same lines as the "Bank Shot Calculator"?
Just kidding widya.
Seriously, I want to share a little visualization technique that, to be honest, was inspired by a post from John Barton. Do you folks remember that video that John did, where he was demonstrating CTE, and used a piece of PVC pipe to extend the pocket out towards some arbitrary place on the table, to prove that CTE wasn't reliant upon fixed pocket locations?
I was out shooting with my lady a couple weeks back (just after getting back from SBE). She was having some difficulty with a particular shot, where she couldn't quite "feel" the angle.
Remembering John's video -- and just going on a whim -- I told her to just visualize a length of pipe extending from the pocket to the object ball, with the object ball inside the mouth of the pipe and its outer edge completely flush with the end of the pipe. I told her to forget about aiming at the object ball, and just shoot the cue ball "into the mouth of the pipe." (I figured that the edge of the object ball itself [the edge furthest away from the pocket] is a good tangible "physical marker" for the "end of the pipe," and that she shouldn't have any issues for visualizing the aperture of that invisible pipe to shoot the cue ball into.)
Holy cow, I wasn't prepared for what I saw next. She not only made that formerly-problematic shot the first try (and every time after that), but it was almost like no matter what shot we picked out on the table, that she made it on the first try. Needless to say, she was a very happy camper!
Obviously, new things like this need some time-testing to be sure they're not a placebo (e.g. "new-cue-itis"), so I'll let everyone know if this falls apart at some point.
-Sean
LAMas:
Have you invented a little screen to attach to the cue (e.g. a little iPad) that runs AutoCAD -- sort of a "shot GPS" system along the same lines as the "Bank Shot Calculator"?
Just kidding widya.
Seriously, I want to share a little visualization technique that, to be honest, was inspired by a post from John Barton. Do you folks remember that video that John did, where he was demonstrating CTE, and used a piece of PVC pipe to extend the pocket out towards some arbitrary place on the table, to prove that CTE wasn't reliant upon fixed pocket locations?
I was out shooting with my lady a couple weeks back (just after getting back from SBE). She was having some difficulty with a particular shot, where she couldn't quite "feel" the angle.
Remembering John's video -- and just going on a whim -- I told her to just visualize a length of pipe extending from the pocket to the object ball, with the object ball inside the mouth of the pipe and its outer edge completely flush with the end of the pipe. I told her to forget about aiming at the object ball, and just shoot the cue ball "into the mouth of the pipe." (I figured that the edge of the object ball itself [the edge furthest away from the pocket] is a good tangible "physical marker" for the "end of the pipe," and that she shouldn't have any issues for visualizing the aperture of that invisible pipe to shoot the cue ball into.)
Holy cow, I wasn't prepared for what I saw next. She not only made that formerly-problematic shot the first try (and every time after that), but it was almost like no matter what shot we picked out on the table, that she made it on the first try. Needless to say, she was a very happy camper!
Obviously, new things like this need some time-testing to be sure they're not a placebo (e.g. "new-cue-itis"), so I'll let everyone know if this falls apart at some point.
-Sean
Sean, I'll be lookin' for your "lady" to take down the U.S. Open this year and probably make the Mosconi Cup team. Watch out Shane!!! :thumbup:
You need to call this aiming system the "MOP aiming system" (mouth of pipe), put out a DVD, AND do personal instruction. You MAY make some money with it but you will DEFINITELY get ripped a new a$$hole on here for trying to market it :embarrassed2:.
Maniac (finds these threads amusing)
LAMas:
Have you invented a little screen to attach to the cue (e.g. a little iPad) that runs AutoCAD -- sort of a "shot GPS" system along the same lines as the "Bank Shot Calculator"?
Just kidding widya.
Seriously, I want to share a little visualization technique that, to be honest, was inspired by a post from John Barton. Do you folks remember that video that John did, where he was demonstrating CTE, and used a piece of PVC pipe to extend the pocket out towards some arbitrary place on the table, to prove that CTE wasn't reliant upon fixed pocket locations?
I was out shooting with my lady a couple weeks back (just after getting back from SBE). She was having some difficulty with a particular shot, where she couldn't quite "feel" the angle.
Remembering John's video -- and just going on a whim -- I told her to just visualize a length of pipe extending from the pocket to the object ball, with the object ball inside the mouth of the pipe and its outer edge completely flush with the end of the pipe. I told her to forget about aiming at the object ball, and just shoot the cue ball "into the mouth of the pipe." (I figured that the edge of the object ball itself [the edge furthest away from the pocket] is a good tangible "physical marker" for the "end of the pipe," and that she shouldn't have any issues for visualizing the aperture of that invisible pipe to shoot the cue ball into.)
Holy cow, I wasn't prepared for what I saw next. She not only made that formerly-problematic shot the first try (and every time after that), but it was almost like no matter what shot we picked out on the table, that she made it on the first try. Needless to say, she was a very happy camper!
Obviously, new things like this need some time-testing to be sure they're not a placebo (e.g. "new-cue-itis"), so I'll let everyone know if this falls apart at some point.
-Sean
Interesting idea, but I didn't see that John Barton video so I can only imagine this mouth of the pipe method.
I imagine that if the mouth of the pipe extended 1.125" past the contact point on the OB, then one can aim for the center of that mouth which would be a circle for a straight in shot and narrowing ellipses where you would aim for the center of that ellipse until for a 90 degree cut the mouth would be a verticle line that you would aim at it's center.
I don't think that I have enough imagination for that. :smile:
Well, with your penchant for fractions of an inch exactness, AutoCAD drawings applied to pool principles, etc., I'm not surprised.
Just kidding! Just ribbin' ya.
Obviously, this visualization technique would be for beginners, that get lost in trying to visualize ghostball, contact points, etc. (the tendency is to hit those too fat). It seems -- again, only preliminarily -- that this technique redirects the attention away from the "mass" of the object ball itself, and instead focus on where the cue ball needs to be. Pure conjecture on my part, but hey, it seemed to work. We'll see if it lasts the test of time.-Sean
Yes, I've seen the details on your blog and on Stan's DVD, and they add nothing definitive to this step. Your description of it here is almost the same as how I'd describe making any aiming adjustment "by feel".
I agree that the outcome is the same whether you think the aiming process is entirely "mechanical" or not, but our understanding of the technique is not the same either way and I think understanding it is worth trying to do.
CTE is obviously a fractional aiming system which obviously relies heavily on "feel", even though its users (for some unknown reason) don't seem to like those facts. So in that respect this is on-topic for this thread.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Sorry Champ, as the serenity prayer goes, you need to have the serenity to accept the things you cannot change.
Ah... back to the central thread topic.
I don't think it's important for a "reference grid aimer" to be able to hit these fractional alignments perfectly (so they produce 14, 30 and 48-degree cuts). If the shooter consistently produces 12, 25 and 40-degree cuts (for example), then those alignments/cut angles will work just as well for references. The important thing is that the reference cut angles are always the same so they're reliable guides for that shooter.
pj
chgo
Last edited: