How to Use Pivot Point Knowlege To Increase Error Margins

[Patrick Johnson]

What does this mean?

Identify and adjust to stroking and aiming challenges? How exactly do you suggest someone use your knowledge to decrease these stroking and aiming challenges? You want them to figure and adjust their bridge length depending on the shots?

Of course they're already adjusting something depending on the shots, or they're not making them. I think just learning how these adjustments work in theory can add helpful perspective to your current technique without trying to change anything.

pj
chgo

 

[jburkm002]

How do we know pros don't apply these techniques?

 

[midnightpulp]

hmmm... I'll set up a fake account and discredit myself pronto

But seriously, I don't think it's a quick fix for most players, who tend to align poorly and swipe and bridge shift during delivery. Following my directions here could drive them nuts unless they happen upon accurate pre-alignment of the bridge V.

I've long held the view that 90+ percent of potting errors are mainly a result of poor pre-alignment, and not stroking. Unfortunatly, I've little to offer in regard to an easy means of accurate pre-alignment, but I think it can help if a player reduces the effects of stroking errors and hence start focusing on better pre-alignment via better bridge V placement.

Cheers,
Colin

Indeed!

Not sure if you caught my post in another thread, but I'm currently rebuilding my game from the ground up after a long layoff, and am convinced (for my game, anyway) that a great majority of issues in shotmaking are caused by poor alignment and sighting issues not stroke and "aiming" (as in needing to know where to hit the ball to make it) issues.

I convinced myself my aiming (again, as in my perception of where to hit the object ball to make it) is solid by double checking my aiming by playing a lot of Virtual Pool 4, where you always have perfect stroke and alignment. Perceiving the aim point isn't an issue for me, and I think for most players, we all know where to aim.

As for stroke, I beat my head against the table a few weeks ago trying to "straighten it out" with the famous drill where you hit the cueball up table and bring it back straight into your tip. I was off left or right, but I saw no spin on the ball, so I was unsure what the problem was.

Ah, sighting! I really focused on my sighting and found I was aligning just hair off of my intended target (piece of chalk sitting on the table) which would bring the cue ball back askew. I was perceiving and hitting centerball cleanly but not hitting the cue ball straight into my target. Some players have the opposite problem. They can hit the cue ball straight into the target, but they can't sight the center of the cue ball and apply unwanted English.

I don't want to speak absolutely, since every player is different, but I think many players have a very straight stroke and think otherwise because their sighting and alignment is off.

If you're relatively coordinated, I think stroking straight is easier than it's made out to be. Seeing straight is the harder action, imo.

 

[midnightpulp]

The current popular games don't benefit so much from this type of info. Though it may help a few improve significantly on 3% of shots, or something along those lines.

Push games into stroke mode, where players need to make 2 or 3 rail position off every shot, and they'll get far more interested in learning how pivot knowledge can improve their percentages.

I just watched 2 hours of the famed Ko Pin Yi v Wu Jia Qing and it was an absolute snooze fest. The better they get, the more they dribble balls around the table, getting perfect shape onto shots Swipey McPullacross can make 9 out of 10.

Here's the video if you can stand to watch it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teGixHdNyKo

I know you're a snooker appreciator, but even that game, imho, doesn't test the type of skills that I think are more dynamic. It's become a game of long potting robots who happen to be good at peeling off 70+ breaks moving from black to reds, rarely with more than a 1/2 tip of english.

They are brilliant at it, but it's a tad mundane imho. The game is far more interesting when they get in positions where they have to travel around the table.

Just food for thought, because essentially, I agree with you!

Colin

Agreed. I appreciate the game, but it just isn't very interesting (sorry Ron) and very mechanical. It's a game that prioritizes accuracy above all else and gameplay is very "by the numbers." There's some imaginative safety escapes at times, but shotmaking in snooker is dull. The precision is impressive but the imagination is not, since those rounded pockets don't facilitate risk taking and thinking outside the box. Like you said. Robotic. Stun, screw, stun, screw, stun, screw while keeping everything on 1/3rd of the table 80% of the time. Get out line, play into baulk for a sure safety.

It's why I think Phelan's innovation of flattening the pocket faces was the greatest innovation in pocket billiards history. It literally increased the amount of possible shots ten fold and made defensive play more exacting. You are never, ever safe on a pool table unless you freeze the cue ball to an object ball.

Why I'm also against the too tight pocket movement. I don't want pool to start looking like Chinese 8 ball, which I think is an awful game, with players tentatively rolling everything in. The game isn't even that difficult for good players, as the break and run stats show. Harder to run out on IPT conditions.

I'm with you. For rotation games at least, we need to create a game or change table conditions that reward the players who have the combined most powerful and accurate strokes and who have the most imagination. 9/10 ball was once this game on older conditions, but has turned into a dink and dunk game with modern conditions and the magic rack.

I like a 10 foot table (any bigger, and safety play becomes too cheap. You can just play distance rather than try to lock up), 4.5" pockets, and cloth speed in between old nap and Simonis 860.

I also like your hitting multiple rails idea, but I fear it could come off looking something like gimmick game to pool fans, like Cowboy or Honolulu. But hell, 9 ball was also once thought a gimmick game and is now the biggest pool game on Earth.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Indeed!

Not sure if you caught my post in another thread, but I'm currently rebuilding my game from the ground up after a long layoff, and am convinced (for my game, anyway) that a great majority of issues in shotmaking are caused by poor alignment and sighting issues not stroke and "aiming" (as in needing to know where to hit the ball to make it) issues.

I convinced myself my aiming (again, as in my perception of where to hit the object ball to make it) is solid by double checking my aiming by playing a lot of Virtual Pool 4, where you always have perfect stroke and alignment. Perceiving the aim point isn't an issue for me, and I think for most players, we all know where to aim.

As for stroke, I beat my head against the table a few weeks ago trying to "straighten it out" with the famous drill where you hit the cueball up table and bring it back straight into your tip. I was off left or right, but I saw no spin on the ball, so I was unsure what the problem was.

Ah, sighting! I really focused on my sighting and found I was aligning just hair off of my intended target (piece of chalk sitting on the table) which would bring the cue ball back askew. I was perceiving and hitting centerball cleanly but not hitting the cue ball straight into my target. Some players have the opposite problem. They can hit the cue ball straight into the target, but they can't sight the center of the cue ball and apply unwanted English.

I don't want to speak absolutely, since every player is different, but I think many players have a very straight stroke and think otherwise because their sighting and alignment is off.

If you're relatively coordinated, I think stroking straight is easier than it's made out to be. Seeing straight is the harder action, imo.

I hope Colin does not mind me jumping in.

I don't know if virtual pool would be an aid to for what you're looking. I'm not that familiar with it. I had the first version given to me by one of mt children but hardly ever played it. I don't know if it has collision induced throw & spin induced throw built into the programming or not.

As to 'Seeing Straight' I have a couple of posts in this thread about Gene Albreght's Perfect Aim which is about just that & it is not an aiming system or method. I think he should change the name.

Anyway. Good Luck with you rebuild.
Rick

 

[midnightpulp]

I hope Colin does not mind me jumping in.

I don't know if virtual pool would be an aid to for what you're looking. I'm not that familiar with it. I had the first version given to me by one of mt children but hardly ever played it. I don't know if it has collision induced throw & spin induced throw built into the programming or not.

As to 'Seeing Straight' I have a couple of posts in this thread about Gene Albreght's Perfect Aim which is about just that & it is not an aiming system or method. I think he should change the name.

Anyway. Good Luck with you rebuild.
Rick

I've found the latest version of Virtual Pool 4 to be very, very faithful to the real life game. Sure, it can't model for climate, clean or dirty balls, cushion compression and such, but generally, the aim points there are consistent with the aim points in real life for vertical axis hits.

Throw, deflection, and swerve are of course different, since Virtual Pool's "stroke" is different than mine. It's actually too good of stroke in the game, and you can throw a ball two diamonds with outside where in real life you might be only to throw it half a diamond using the same amount of English. But again, for center axis, pretty damn accurate.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Indeed!

Not sure if you caught my post in another thread, but I'm currently rebuilding my game from the ground up after a long layoff, and am convinced (for my game, anyway) that a great majority of issues in shotmaking are caused by poor alignment and sighting issues not stroke and "aiming" (as in needing to know where to hit the ball to make it) issues.

I convinced myself my aiming (again, as in my perception of where to hit the object ball to make it) is solid by double checking my aiming by playing a lot of Virtual Pool 4, where you always have perfect stroke and alignment. Perceiving the aim point isn't an issue for me, and I think for most players, we all know where to aim.

As for stroke, I beat my head against the table a few weeks ago trying to "straighten it out" with the famous drill where you hit the cueball up table and bring it back straight into your tip. I was off left or right, but I saw no spin on the ball, so I was unsure what the problem was.

Ah, sighting! I really focused on my sighting and found I was aligning just hair off of my intended target (piece of chalk sitting on the table) which would bring the cue ball back askew. I was perceiving and hitting centerball cleanly but not hitting the cue ball straight into my target. Some players have the opposite problem. They can hit the cue ball straight into the target, but they can't sight the center of the cue ball and apply unwanted English.

I don't want to speak absolutely, since every player is different, but I think many players have a very straight stroke and think otherwise because their sighting and alignment is off.

If you're relatively coordinated, I think stroking straight is easier than it's made out to be. Seeing straight is the harder action, imo.

All games feel pretty easy when one's sighting kicks in. You can begin to focus almost 100% on shape and shot choice, rather than worry about shots we might miss.

Virtual Pool is an interesting way to train visualization, but keep in mind the relative sizes. I'm pretty sure jumping back and forth from UK pool to snooker to US pool, all different sized balls, tends to make my angle visualization fuzzier than it could be. That said, even long straight ins are a challenge until my sighting kicks into the zone.

Good luck on the rebuild

Colin

 

[midnightpulp]

All games feel pretty easy when one's sighting kicks in. You can begin to focus almost 100% on shape and shot choice, rather than worry about shots we might miss.

Virtual Pool is an interesting way to train visualization, but keep in mind the relative sizes. I'm pretty sure jumping back and forth from UK pool to snooker to US pool, all different sized balls, tends to make my angle visualization fuzzier than it could be. That said, even long straight ins are a challenge until my sighting kicks into the zone.

Good luck on the rebuild

Colin

Thanks. Virtual Pool is also a good tool for practicing pattern play. As for shifting from the game to the real game, I found it to pretty seamless, actually, but of course nothing beats real table time. I just found it interesting, considering the big deal everyone makes about aiming and this quest for a Holy Grail "system," that I had little trouble finding the aim points when sighting and alignment are perfect, as they are in the game.

This brought me to your conclusion: Most of the time, our strokes are probably straight. And most of the time, we know where to hit the object ball (1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, etc, etc). So what causes us to miss? Likely misalignment to where you intend to the hit the ball and/or lining up askew of your aim point, causing you to sight the shot wrong. You think you're hitting 1/4th, but you're probably hitting 3/8th.

And then there's the issue of our subconscious pulling us off line. On some shots, my muscle memory seems programmed to address the cue ball with outside English. I re-correct and align to the vertical axis again, look at the object ball, and then when I look back, I find that I've drifted a half tip outside...again.

How about trouble getting into alignment on certain parts on the table? Have you had that issue?

 

[Colin Colenso]

Thanks. Virtual Pool is also a good tool for practicing pattern play. As for shifting from the game to the real game, I found it to pretty seamless, actually, but of course nothing beats real table time. I just found it interesting, considering the big deal everyone makes about aiming and this quest for a Holy Grail "system," that I had little trouble finding the aim points when sighting and alignment are perfect, as they are in the game.

This brought me to your conclusion: Most of the time, our strokes are probably straight. And most of the time, we know where to hit the object ball (1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, etc, etc). So what causes us to miss? Likely misalignment to where you intend to the hit the ball and/or lining up askew of your aim point, causing you to sight the shot wrong. You think you're hitting 1/4th, but you're probably hitting 3/8th.

And then there's the issue of our subconscious pulling us off line. On some shots, my muscle memory seems programmed to address the cue ball with outside English. I re-correct and align to the vertical axis again, look at the object ball, and then when I look back, I find that I've drifted a half tip outside...again.

How about trouble getting into alignment on certain parts on the table? Have you had that issue?

Re-alignment on certain parts: Sure have, particularly when cueing over a side rail at 45+ degrees, where stance can be slightly hampered and one tends to elevate a little more so than is preferable. I know I've got my sighting, stance, head positioning etc working well when these shots are going center pocket and feeling natural.

Your VP experience got me thinking how whatever sized balls we use, their apparent size differs considerably, depending on their distance away. So the brain sure is a wonderful thing when it indicates to us when we are on the right line.

That said, when I transfer from bigger to smaller balls, I tend to over-cut, and vice versa. Not always enough to miss, but enough to notice and attempt adjustments until the angles feel more natural.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Of course they're already adjusting something depending on the shots, or they're not making them. I think just learning how these adjustments work in theory can add helpful perspective to your current technique without trying to change anything.

pj
chgo

How has this helped you?

There isn't even a precise formula to figure out the bridge length needed for each shot, where the CB deflection is perfectly cancelled out by the unintended spin induced throw for each shot, not when you include the curve which is a factor that is left out of Colins example.

How does knowing that there is a length somewhere help you? This is a real question I want to know.


Colin says "While it's difficult to determine the exact bridge length to achieve this, we can get close enough to significantly increase our margin for stroking error on these shots."

but... when I asked him if he really adjusts his bridge length for different shots to achieve this he said no... so really what is the use?

 

[ENGLISH!]

I've found the latest version of Virtual Pool 4 to be very, very faithful to the real life game. Sure, it can't model for climate, clean or dirty balls, cushion compression and such, but generally, the aim points there are consistent with the aim points in real life for vertical axis hits.

Throw, deflection, and swerve are of course different, since Virtual Pool's "stroke" is different than mine. It's actually too good of stroke in the game, and you can throw a ball two diamonds with outside where in real life you might be only to throw it half a diamond using the same amount of English. But again, for center axis, pretty damn accurate.

When you say 'throw a ball' are you talking about an object ball or a cue ball off of a rail?

The reason I ask is that my stroke in rather good & I can draw the hell of a cue ball & pull it more than 3 diamond with english off a short rail but I've never been able to throw an object ball 2 diamonds & I've been playing with outside english for nearly 50 years.

That is why I said playing virtual pool may not be a good thing or as a reference for Real Pool.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

 

[Colin Colenso]

Having mentioned aiming difference with different sized balls, I thought I'd make a diagram to show what I mean.

It's not geometrically perfect, but I think it shows pretty clearly how larger balls require significantly wider aiming than smaller ones, and this increases with cut angle.

 

[(((Satori)))]

How has this helped you?

There isn't even a precise formula to figure out the bridge length needed for each shot, where the CB deflection is perfectly cancelled out by the unintended spin induced throw for each shot, not when you include the curve which is a factor that is left out of Colins example.

How does knowing that there is a length somewhere help you? This is a real question I want to know.


Colin says "While it's difficult to determine the exact bridge length to achieve this, we can get close enough to significantly increase our margin for stroking error on these shots."

but... when I asked him if he really adjusts his bridge length for different shots to achieve this he said no... so really what is the use?

This question is not just for Patrick, Colin if you can answer how it helps knowing this I'd like to know.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Thanks. Virtual Pool is also a good tool for practicing pattern play. As for shifting from the game to the real game, I found it to pretty seamless, actually, but of course nothing beats real table time. I just found it interesting, considering the big deal everyone makes about aiming and this quest for a Holy Grail "system," that I had little trouble finding the aim points when sighting and alignment are perfect, as they are in the game.

This brought me to your conclusion: Most of the time, our strokes are probably straight. And most of the time, we know where to hit the object ball (1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, etc, etc). So what causes us to miss? Likely misalignment to where you intend to the hit the ball and/or lining up askew of your aim point, causing you to sight the shot wrong. You think you're hitting 1/4th, but you're probably hitting 3/8th.

And then there's the issue of our subconscious pulling us off line. On some shots, my muscle memory seems programmed to address the cue ball with outside English. I re-correct and align to the vertical axis again, look at the object ball, and then when I look back, I find that I've drifted a half tip outside...again.

How about trouble getting into alignment on certain parts on the table? Have you had that issue?

It sounds to me like you might have a stance issue that is naturally 'pushing' your cue to the outside. Just a guess. Everyone's arm hangs at their side a bit differently due their own individual angle. That is partly why cookie cutter approaches don't always work. There is a video on you tube with the Mike Massey & believe Mika that shows how to determine the angle that one's stance should be relative to their hand angle & how the cue in the hand hangs. If I find it, I'll post it here for you.

As to different table situations, that is what makes some better than other. The ability to still stroke precisely straight I an odd different stance situation than their norm. It's about separating the cuing mechanism from it's foundation.

Again, Good Luck on the re-build.
Rick

PS Here's the video: https://youtu.be/BPn3Wzp4NT8

 

[(((Satori)))]

It sounds to me like you might have a stance issue that is naturally 'pushing' your cue to the outside. Just a guess. Everyone's arm hangs at their side a bit differently due their own individual angle. That is partly why cookie cutter approaches don't always work. There is a video on you tube with the Mike Massey & believe Mika that shows how to determine the angle that one's stance should be relative to their hand angle & how the cue in the hand hangs. If I find it, I'll post it here for you.

As to different table situations, that is what makes some better than other. The ability to still stroke precisely straight I an odd different stance situation than their norm. It's about separating the cuing mechanism from it's foundation.

Again, Good Luck on the re-build.
Rick

I think it is Thorston who teaches that.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Here you go English
https://youtu.be/BPn3Wzp4NT8


Here they discuss bridge length
https://youtu.be/1Nly7g_NEKM

 

[ENGLISH!]

Having mentioned aiming difference with different sized balls, I thought I'd make a diagram to show what I mean.

It's not geometrically perfect, but I think it shows pretty clearly how larger balls require significantly wider aiming than smaller ones, and this increases with cut angle.

Goodey Colin,

Here in the states the issue is more commonly the cue ball. I hate the red circle CB. This past Monday I was at Buffalos just hitting some balls before my one pocket match latter that night & I was really having issues pocketing the 2 ball. I even reset some shots & still missed them a couple of times & it was upsetting me. I first attributed it to it being the blue on blue & my bad eyesight. Then when I was loading the tray to leave, I noticed that the 2 ball did not match the set. It was the older Centennial Ball.

My normal hall had changed out the old red circle ball & got new Arimith Logo balls which I like much better with the Centennial sets that they have than the red circle with them. Anyway we start our match & after I hit my 2nd shot & it, the cue ball, did not do as I had intended, I took a look at it & it was the red circle ball.

So, I can imagine what you must go through changing ball sizes as you do if just the small difference between an Arimith & an old Centennial makes a difference & it does.

Cheers.

 

[Colin Colenso]

This question is not just for Patrick, Colin if you can answer how it helps knowing this I'd like to know.

Well, I use it on longer tougher straightish shots and sometimes on closer to OB shots when working the CB significantly, but it doesn't cinch the shot, because my margin for error on aiming is of more concern to me than what any stroking errors produce.

The main advantage of using this method is that it can help one's degree of certainty that their misses are almost entirely aim related, and hence they can focus on that aspect, without worrying too much about their stroking variations.

If bridging far from this stroke error cancellation point, it's hard to discern the cause of missed shots.

The original question referred also to swerve. This is part of establishing the appropriate stroke error cancellation point / bridge length. There's a little guessing , based on speed of shot and cloth condition, but with a few tests and some experience, one can narrow down the stroke error cancellation bridge length to within a couple of inches, and this greatly reduces any effects from stroking errors.

Hope that helps to clarify,
Colin

[Edit] Note: I thought it worth adding that for very Low Deflection cues, the required bridge lengths on some shots, which are impractically long, could possibly lead to increased stroking errors, kind of reducing potential advantages. A bit of a pro for medium and traditional higher deflection shafts for a change.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Here you go English
https://youtu.be/BPn3Wzp4NT8


Here they discuss bridge length
https://youtu.be/1Nly7g_NEKM

Thanks, I found the one I had in mind. It makes a difference just as it does in golf, tennis, baseball, etc. It is one reason why cookie cutter stuff does not always work for many individuals.

Best 2 Ya.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Well, I use it on longer tougher straightish shots, but it doesn't cinch the shot, because my margin for error on aiming is of more concern to me than what any stroking errors produce.

The main advantage of using this method is that it can help one's degree of certainty that their misses are almost entirely aim related, and hence they can focus on that aspect, without worrying too much about their stroking variations.

If bridging far from this stroke error cancellation point, it's hard to discern the cause of missed shots.

The original question referred also to swerve. This is part of establishing the appropriate stroke error cancellation point / bridge length. There's a little guessing , based on speed of shot and cloth condition, but with a few tests and some experience, one can narrow down the stroke error cancellation bridge length to within a couple of inches, and this greatly reduces any effects from stroking errors.

Hope that helps to clarify,
Colin

That is what I was wanting to know?

So... you calibrate your cues pivot point.

then what adjustments do you make for

nevermind... I figured them out.




Thanks Colin.