Proposed TAR - TOI VS NO AIMING SYSTEM

[CJ Wiley]

In 'Two Shot Shoot Out' you can NEVER win on a safety

After reading through CJ's points and thinking about Jay's infinite possibilities comment the question occurs to me that if a player has infinite shots when its their turn in one game and extremely limited choices in another game then the one with less choice seems harder.

Any rotation game forces the shot on the player and dictates what shots out of a very limited number of choices must be executed.

How many times have people said that 8 ball is much easier than 9 ball precisely because of the amount of choices and yet if it is one pocket vs 9 ball the same criteria makes the game harder?

I am not really on one side or the other here since I play all games at a low level. But I do find it interesting that the choices argument goes both ways.

The shots in Two Shot Shoot Out are much tougher than regular 9 Ball on the average because you rarely get "ball in hand" and MUST out-move AND out shoot your opponent to win any game.....it's vastly more strategic and competitive without being able to ever win on a safety.

In 'Two Shot Shoot Out' you can NEVER win on a safety because there's no ball in hand and the opponent can always roll out.....this leads to thousands of variables that "one foul" doesn't have except in isolated instances.

 

[CJ Wiley]

The "right shot" depends on many factors, especially confidence

Like the story in Buddy's book about him and Grady playing one hole and Grady whining that Buddy didn't know how to play one pocket and kept taking the wrong shots and running 8 and out.

The "right shot" depends on many factors, especially confidence....it's better to shoot the "wrong" shot with confidence and control than to shoot the "right" shot with apprehension and poor technique.

'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[seven_7days]

....it's better to shoot the "wrong" shot with confidence and control than to shoot the "right" shot with apprehension and poor technique.

'The Game is the Teacher'

I think you just solved the centuries-old riddle as to why "bangers" are so successful.

"Gentlmen!
There is a time to act and there is a time to think...this is not the time to think." -John Candy

 

[JB Cases]

They may not post a lot, but they are members here: Shannon Daulton, Earl Strickland, Johnny Archer, Shane Van Boening, Charlie Williams. That's just five obvious ones. Push comes to shove, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that there are over 20 on here that can do it. Some names you may not even realize that they can play.

Stretching. The obvious context here is how many non pro members could do it?

And how many of them who love to argue with pros about how to play could match those pro's feats on the table?

I say very very few.

 

[CJ Wiley]

I will give any player in the World 20 tries to do this on my table and bet $2000.

Stretching. The obvious context here is how many non pro members could do it?

And how many of them who love to argue with pros about how to play could match those pro's feats on the table?

I say very very few.

I will give any player in the World 20 tries to do this on my table and bet $2000. if anyone thinks they can do it.......this offer is to anyone that posts on this forum more than once a month for an average of 12 in the last year.

I will open up the offer to ANYONE (no posting history required) can get 12 tries for up to $5000.

Let's see how long the line is for this "easy money".

 

[Gerry Williams]

Why don't you stream yourself doing it?

I am sure we could drum up some action this way.

 

[8pack]

DId he not break and run two racks? The title of the video is 29 balls in one pocket and that's what it shows.

He says he did it consecutively, not that he didn't take a break between racks. So what's the problem?

Far from being legit. Can he do it...heck yes, but like usual we see thing's a little different.I'm sorry John, I would agree with you if you was rite.

Anthony

 

[CJ Wiley]

you can wish it not true, just put both fingers in your ears and.........

Far from being legit. Can he do it...heck yes, but like usual we see thing's a little different.I'm sorry John, I would agree with you if you was rite.

Anthony

Hang in there, you can wish it not true, just put both fingers in your ears and........leave them there.

 

[CJ Wiley]

In Spirit

well if CJ had been here, he could have played Johnny - or Gene - last night.


.

I was there ........

 

[CJ Wiley]

this is encouraging the wrong frame of mind.......playing pool defensively

Ball in Hand is equivalent to a turnover in Football, or a Balk in baseball or a penalty in Hockey. If a player makes a mistake they deserved to be punished.

In the major sports the team that wins is 80-90% of the time the team that makes the least mistakes.

You're in Texas. Just ask Tony Romo.

That's true to an extent, but in football it would be like being allowed to run the ball in with no defense on the field.

In hockey it would be like getting a shot at the goal with no Goalie.

"Ball in hand" is too much of a penalty AND it encourages players to try to get "ball in hand" instead of going for the offensive run out.....this is encouraging the wrong frame of mind.......playing pool defensively is boring, take one pocket for an example. Unless you Bank really, really, well it's tough to make One Pocket exciting. That's why I showed the world the "TIPS BANKING SECRETS" to make one pocket a more offensive game for everyone, not just the Top Champions. 'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[8pack]

Hang in there, you can wish it not true, just put both fingers in your ears and........leave them there.

I think you can do it Cj but that video has "your asking for trouble all over it"


Anthony.

 

[klockdoc]

It's real simple, just put the ruler between the points. I haven't seen Greg's video, and I don't know why he would measure a pocket at somewhere other than the standard spot, which is between the points of the pocket.

He measures it using the balls, not a ruler. I believe he places them half in and half out of the pocket. I couldn't see how far because he doesn't show an overhead view.

The video was posted in one of the earlier 400+ posts!

 

[BeiberLvr]

In 'Two Shot Shoot Out' you can NEVER win on a safety because there's no ball in hand and the opponent can always roll out.....this leads to thousands of variables that "one foul" doesn't have except in isolated instances.

Exactly, and that's why I'm not a big fan. As I mentioned earlier, you aren't completely screwed if you hook yourself or get way out of line on a shot, because you can just roll out. Sure, I understand there's strategy behind it, but having that option is 100% better than being put in a spot where you could potentially give up ball in hand.

Now I don't think one foul rules are the best, but I certainly don't think what you're suggesting is any better. Instead I think we need to focus on the positives of both.

Call safes should be mandatory. If you're opponent misses a shot, and gets lucky to hook you, then you shouldn't be punished by their good roll. Instead, you should have the option to roll out from there. All fouls should result in ball in hand, but in the kitchen, and all balls made on a foul should be spotted.

This would make the game a little tougher than the Texas Express rules we have today, but it wouldn't be as boring as the old roll out rules.

 

[JB Cases]

Far from being legit. Can he do it...heck yes, but like usual we see thing's a little different.I'm sorry John, I would agree with you if you was rite.

Anthony

It's ok, as in most things the tiniest shift in perspective changes things. I see a guy who ran 29 balls in one pocket in two frames. I can turn the sound off and don't have to look for ways to discredit the accomplishment. It's a FREE demonstration not only of prowess but choices and ball control. If you choose to listen then it's also a running commentary of thought process.

But the larger point is here is a champion player who not only shares his thoughts on one pocket vs. nine ball but also backs up those thoughts with a display of one pocket skill that is difficult to match for all but the best players. On top of that he shared stories of playing the top players and either breaking even or winning.

So to me, this shows legitimate qualifications to be the one at the lecturn to discuss/debate this. For yourself and a few others it seems to me, from my perspective, that you are constantly looking for any way to argue and denigrate him.

Maybe this is inevitable. Maybe there is only one way for the professional to exist on a forum such as this an that would be to be ONLY deferential all the time. My forum history shows that I am a huge proponent of everyone having a voice. Some of you though use that voice as a weapon aimed in the wrong direction in my opinion.

On my facebook feeds I see Corey, Rodney, Johnny, Stevie, Jayson, Darren, talking pool and life. They are engaging and answer questions and most of all they don't tolerate disrespect because they can simply cut the critics out. On the internet every person can be a critic and many take it on like it's a part time job or a hobby.

I would NEVER, not once in a million years think to argue or nitpick with any of the top masters in leatherworking on any public forum until such time as I became a top master myself. (which will be never at my going rate of progress). For me it's a blessing that they are willing to give up their time and experience helping others on the public forums. Most of them are selling something alongside their participation but no one has to buy anything to get the free high quality advice and lessons.

In other words let giants debate the sky for they are the only ones who can touch it.

 

[CJ Wiley]

You apparently lack knowledge and/or information.

I think you can do it Cj but that video has "your asking for trouble all over it"


Anthony.

You apparently lack knowledge and/or information.....I, unlike yourself, know what happened and have stated it very clearly, if you are looking for something wrong in your "life perception" you will surely find it.


ignorant  
Use Ignorant in a sentence
ig·no·rant [ig-ner-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2.
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3.
uninformed; unaware.
4.
due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
Origin:
1325–75; Middle English ignora ( u ) nt < Latin ignōrant- (stem of ignōrāns ), present participle of ignōrāre to ignore; see -ant

 

[Neil]

Stretching. The obvious context here is how many non pro members could do it?

And how many of them who love to argue with pros about how to play could match those pro's feats on the table?

I say very very few.

Quit back-pedaling John. You stated any poster on here. You made no stipulations such as "any hack, no real players allowed".

Second, who is arguing with any pros about how to play?? Why do you find it so difficult to read what is actually said and just comment on that without having to add a bunch of stuff that was never stated, and then argue why the stuff you added is wrong? Sheesh, I thought English! was gone. You filling in for him now, or what??

No one, myself included, have argued with him on how to play other than stating that he does not use TOI on 80% of his shots as he has stated many times. This has been proven by several posters. Then yet, it's pretty much a mute point now because there is now TOI version 1,2,and 3. All different from each other on key points.

What HAS been argued, and I feel it should be no matter who the poster is, is some statements he has made about how the balls react. In a few areas, he has since corrected himself, as he should, other areas, still waiting....

Just because someone is good at something, does not give them carteblanche' (sp??) to say any old thing and expect everyone to swallow it hook line and sinker.

 

[CJ Wiley]

I can write an entire book on 'Two Shot Shoot Out

Exactly, and that's why I'm not a big fan. As I mentioned earlier, you aren't completely screwed if you hook yourself or get way out of line on a shot, because you can just roll out. Sure, I understand there's strategy behind it, but having that option is 100% better than being put in a spot where you could potentially give up ball in hand.

Now I don't think one foul rules are the best, but I certainly don't think what you're suggesting is any better. Instead I think we need to focus on the positives of both.

Call safes should be mandatory. If you're opponent misses a shot, and gets lucky to hook you, then you shouldn't be punished by their good roll. Instead, you should have the option to roll out from there. All fouls should result in ball in hand, but in the kitchen, and all balls made on a foul should be spotted.

This would make the game a little tougher than the Texas Express rules we have today, but it wouldn't be as boring as the old roll out rules.

I suggest you not get all caught up in the scenario that "if you hook yourself you can just roll out"......this is not a very big part of the game in reality.

Opening up thousands of strategic scenarios IS a big part of the game, and while you do have an occasional "two way shot" in one foul, in 'Two Shot Shoot Out' is happens regularly. This creates a whole new level of play and skill, not to mention you get to shoot "spot shots," which are a also a big part of the game that was removed.

I can write an entire book on 'Two Shot Shoot Out' and can sum up "one foul" in one sentence, "You try to run out, or you try to play safe, or you try to hit a kick shot".....that's it, there's very little strategy over and beyond that sentence.....in my opinion that's a HUGE injustice to the game.....it dilutes it down to "Lite Pool by Miller"....'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[Neil]

I will give any player in the World 20 tries to do this on my table and bet $2000. if anyone thinks they can do it.......this offer is to anyone that posts on this forum more than once a month for an average of 12 in the last year.

I will open up the offer to ANYONE (no posting history required) can get 12 tries for up to $5000.

Let's see how long the line is for this "easy money".

First things first- try what? Run one rack in one-hole like you showed, or run two racks back to back like you say you did? When it comes to betting on here, you better make sure there is no "just because I said so" involved. Like others said, first you show that you can do it by streaming it uncut.
To the first bet, pretty safe bet. 1. There probably aren't more than a hundred people on the entire forum that post that much in the main forum in a year. 2. $2000, let's see, take time off work to travel to Texas, travel costs, doesn't leave much incentive for anyone, does it? 3. That said, you still might get some takers if they even bother to read this thread, which most won't. I imagine any decent straight-pool player would have a real good chance at it.

To the second part of the bet, you better hope quite a few others don't here about your bet, or you will be out $5 grand.

 

[CJ Wiley]

We are so lucky to have yourself

What HAS been argued, and I feel it should be no matter who the poster is, is some statements he has made about how the balls react. In a few areas, he has since corrected himself, as he should, other areas, still waiting....

Just because someone is good at something, does not give them carteblanche' (sp??) to say any old thing and expect everyone to swallow it hook line and sinker.

We are so lucky to have yourself defending the Truth .....

 

[CJ Wiley]

100 tries to do either one?

First things first- try what? Run one rack in one-hole like you showed, or run two racks back to back like you say you did?

How about I give you 100 tries to do either one? You can bet whatever you can carry down here.