Sort of disagree with this...while I worked on my game a lot with gambling small ball and just shooting/practicing when I was 18-19, I think part of it is hereditary. My dad was good at games and I think I got that from him. Some people I think are just gifted and don't have to necessarily put in the hours...it comes naturally to them. Just an opinion and its not a every case scenario...just think some have it without having to work as hard as others.
Sure some people tend to gravitate towards things they are interested in and show aptitude for.
That some people have better hand/eye coordination than others is a fact. But it's also been shown that skill can be acquired and that whatever natural advantage a person might start out with that head start is quickly erased by hard work.
In other words if you and I start out learning pool at the same and you can run a rack in two weeks and it takes me a month then you probably have better hand/eye coordination but after one month we are almost equals and after a year we are equals and after several years I could be much better.
In education it is often assumed that those who are quicker to grasp the information and solve the problems are the smarted ones. This comes from the one-size-fits all nature of education where all students are presented the same information and expected to process it at the same rate.
However it is being observed that when students are allowed to take the information at their own pace and only advance to more information when they have completed the tasks that some students do race ahead on the "easy" information and hit a wall on the harder lessons while other kids are much slower to grasp the easy lessons but then are later able to work through the harder lessons and eventually surpass the kids who raced ahead.
In traditional settings those who race ahead are considered to be gifted and talented and are rewarded with more challenging material while those who go at a slower pace are deemed to be NOT gifted or talented. That notion is now being thoroughly debunked.
Regarding heredity. You will often find examples of athletes whose parent were not athletic and scholars whose parents were athletes. There is no doubt that some traits in people are hereditary. Children lost at birth have been shown to have grown up with zero influence from their natural birth parents and yet have developed remarkable similarities in character and habits and skills to their natural parents.
All I am saying with all this is that skill comes more from hard work than it does from "talent". When someone says I am a talented case maker I point to our wall of experiments and look at my book of failures and say that developing that level has been very expensive. For me the talent in case making from my perspective is having the desire to solve problems and not stop until a solution is found. Anyone who does this can become a great leather worker. (which I am not by the way).
Most people stop. They put in a certain amount of time, get pretty good and stop for whatever reason. They might think that they are wasting their time, haven't advanced fast enough or aren't being rewarded enough or whatever but they stop.
So they look at people who are better and assume that those people are simply more talented. I tend to think that if one looks deeper one would find that those people just didn't stop trying to get better. Anyway that's my take on it from a no-talent pool hack who really is a never-was on the pool table.
That is evidence of desire. Which a lot of people think is the variable that matters.