An "objective aiming system" I was working on a few years ago

[Straightpool_99]

A few years ago I was working on an aiming system of my own design (as far as I know this is my own design, I may have been inspired by something I've seen, but I don't think so). I don't have the numbers anymore, as they were in a notebook I can no longer find. I discarded the system as not practical and flawed, but maybe you guys will find it interesting nevertheless. There are some problems with it, I wonder if you guys will realize what they are? The idea was that the system could be objective (at least on a particular brand of table). I certainly do not claim it as such today.

The system itself is a pivot system, with a built in measurement to determine tip offset.

The idea is quite simple. You start by determining the distance between the cueball and the object ball. That will determine the length of your bridge. The closer the two balls are, the shorter the bridge becomes. Which means the system becomes less useful for very close shots (as the pivot length approaches zero). I used diamonds as the unit for my measurement.

You then draw imaginary lines from the center of each ball through a point in the exact center between the two cushion points, extending through that point and to the back pocket. If the balls are not aligned straight in, the two lines will be some distance apart in the back of the pocket. That distance will determine your starting tip offset, pre pivot.

My original system had only one starting alignment: Center to center.

So with a certain shot, maybe a 12 inch bridge would be indicated by the distance between the balls. The distance between the lines in the back pocket might indicate a starting tip offset (with cue paralell to center to center line) of 1.5 tips. From that starting alignment you would then pivot back to cueball center and shoot. The pivot would be a strict pivot around the bridge (as the pivot point). Please excuse the crudeness of the illustration. I cannot draw, and only had "paint" to boot!
What do you guys think?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

First of all I applaud you for thinking outside the box and willing to experiment with a pivot method.

Was your tip offset always starting from the outside back to center or inside back to center or did you do either one at different times?

I think starting off your aim process of center to center is a valid way to do it up to a point and by that I mean the cut angle. Once the cut angle becomes more acute you have to change from center of the CB now aimed at a point halfway between center and edge on the OB with a pivot.

When the cut angle becomes even more acute it won't work and you'll be undercutting shots. That's when you need to aim the center of the CB to the edge of the OB with pivot. Just in case I haven't made myself clear THE PIVOT is integral in each and every shot as you have probably determined when you were working with it yourself.

When the cut angle becomes very acute this won't work because you'll be undercutting shots again. That's when it's like most other aiming systems and you aim the CB edge to the OB edge to get those super thin cuts to go in.

What I just posted is the premise behind Hal Houle's 3 line aiming system which he used as a basis for over 20 different aiming systems...and THEY WORK!!

You were on the right track with your thinking but just needed to refine certain parts of it. Try what I said above and see if you get better results. I'm quite sure you're one of the guys who WILL get on the table to work on it as opposed to the keyboard cowboy know it alls who will immediately jump on this like the stink on sh*t and cry blasphemy without ever shooting one ball.

 

[336Robin]

Very Inventive!

Nice Post! Very inventive. I like it.

I was never into pivot systems all that much but I still found ways to create systems that would work over a large range of shots. Most of them I found a flaw in them I couldn't work out and left them behind me. This one looks really unique and interesting. Nice Post.

I even used one once that involved you drawing a parallelogram or square on the table with the cue ball at the edge of one long end of the shape. Then you would draw a line from the outside of the cue ball to the pocket point and then estimate how much area you drew off of the parallelogram as a percentage and that is how much cue ball you tried to address with the object ball. It worked for a lot of shots, more than you might think. There are a lot of ways to reason out shots.

 

[JB Cases]

My thought is that there are probably many ways to objectively get to the shot line. When each shot is treated as an individual problem to be solved I am positive that many methods can be developed which work to solve individual shots.

I like it when people are fired up to explore and develop their ideas on the table. There is no reason why we should be stuck in 1972 on how to play pool.

As to this method I will try it later today inasmuch as I understand it.

 

[Straightpool_99]

First of all I applaud you for thinking outside the box and willing to experiment with a pivot method.

Was your tip offset always starting from the outside back to center or inside back to center or did you do either one at different times?

Always from the outside back to center. Or I'm not entirely sure what the correct nomenclature would be? Your cue always start from the direction towards which you are cutting the ball, then pivot back to center.
I think starting off your aim process of center to center is a valid way to do it up to a point and by that I mean the cut angle. Once the cut angle becomes more acute you have to change from center of the CB now aimed at a point halfway between center and edge on the OB with a pivot.
Well, since the tip offset varies you can cut the paint off most balls with only center to center on all long shots and up to about 1.5 diamonds distance between the balls, if I remember correctly.
When the cut angle becomes even more acute it won't work and you'll be undercutting shots. That's when you need to aim the center of the CB to the edge of the OB with pivot.
Yes, and this was the downfall of the system. I wanted an exact and objective distance/cut angle when you should switch to the edge perception (which is probably all you'll ever need combined with center). I just couldn't make a clear rule. I could sort of eyeball it, but I wanted an "if-then" sort of rule.
Just in case I haven't made myself clear THE PIVOT is integral in each and every shot as you have probably determined when you were working with it yourself.
The pivot is the basis of the system. It is a bit different from most Hal Houle systems I've seen, since the distance of the pivot is not just "one distance" or a fixed number of distances.
When the cut angle becomes very acute this won't work because you'll be undercutting shots again. That's when it's like most other aiming systems and you aim the CB edge to the OB edge to get those super thin cuts to go in.
For this particular system this only applies to the close shots (short cueball/object ball distances)

What I just posted is the premise behind Hal Houle's 3 line aiming system which he used as a basis for over 20 different aiming systems...and THEY WORK!!
This system also works. It is somewhat different from the Hal Houle systems. I don't think it's better (for shorter distances I think it's worse) but for the long shots I like this one a lot. I made specifically to cope with two shots I used to have problems with, both long shots with some angle to them. Those kinds of shots you can nail all day with this system.

You were on the right track with your thinking but just needed to refine certain parts of it. Try what I said above and see if you get better results. I'm quite sure you're one of the guys who WILL get on the table to work on it as opposed to the keyboard cowboy know it alls who will immediately jump on this like the stink on sh*t and cry blasphemy without ever shooting one ball.

I'd like to thank you for your nice reply. I did work on this system on and off for a while. Quite a lot of that time was spent on the table, testing out various theories and also on "trial and error" type experimenting.I actually was going to ask a mathematician I know to help me with it, but due to difficulties with scheduling etc it never came to pass. Also I became increasingly disillusioned with my ability to accurately place my cue an exact paralell distance from the center line etc. There is also some kind of optical illusion caused by the curvature of the pocket I think. That was what I wanted my mathematician friend to look at, besides the transition distance between alignments and "tip offset values". Also there are some shots where the measurement seems to be off. Specifically near paralell cueball and object ball (almost equidistant from the pocket, but high degree of cut. I could never make the numbers work for those shots. Since the notebook appears to be lost forever (I spent a couple of hours looking for it today) I don't think I'll revisit this system again. I just posted it because I always liked the idea behind it, at the time I thought it was pretty clever. Overall I think there are better and more complete systems out there.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Nice Post! Very inventive. I like it.

I was never into pivot systems all that much but I still found ways to create systems that would work over a large range of shots. Most of them I found a flaw in them I couldn't work out and left them behind me. This one looks really unique and interesting. Nice Post.

I even used one once that involved you drawing a parallelogram or square on the table with the cue ball at the edge of one long end of the shape. Then you would draw a line from the outside of the cue ball to the pocket point and then estimate how much area you drew off of the parallelogram as a percentage and that is how much cue ball you tried to address with the object ball. It worked for a lot of shots, more than you might think. There are a lot of ways to reason out shots.

Thank you for your nice reply. Your idea sounds pretty neat. I've tried many ways to work out the exact angle, but like you said, there are always some kind of flaw to them. This system I think was my best effort. I remember gaining a lot of respect for creators of aiming systems in general in the course of working this one out. There is a lot of hard work to make any system, even a flawed one.

 

[Straightpool_99]

My thought is that there are probably many ways to objectively get to the shot line. When each shot is treated as an individual problem to be solved I am positive that many methods can be developed which work to solve individual shots.

I like it when people are fired up to explore and develop their ideas on the table. There is no reason why we should be stuck in 1972 on how to play pool.

As to this method I will try it later today inasmuch as I understand it.

Thank you for your reply. I appriciate you trying the system, but I wouldn't spend too much time on it, if I were you. It takes a bit of time just to work out the numbers (tip offset/bridge lengths etc). If I ever find that damned notebook I might post them up, if there is any interest. All in all though, I don't think this is the be all and end all of aiming system. It is just a fun idea, or so I thought.

I agree with you on the contiued development of the sport. If people keep experimenting someone might come up with something clever that can help us all. Whatever is said about CTE etc (and I dont want to start a debate here) it is a very clever idea, that undoubtedly has helped at the very least some people play better. The same goes for most aiming systems available today. SEE, CTE, 90/90 and Aiming by the numbers are all quality efforts by inventive people. That should not be forgotten, even if some may disagree with some aspects of these systems. I don't think my system is as good as these, and it certainly is less complete (in as much as I never worked out the transition) and harder to execute.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I'd like to thank you for your nice reply. I did work on this system on and off for a while. Quite a lot of that time was spent on the table, testing out various theories and also on "trial and error" type experimenting.I actually was going to ask a mathematician I know to help me with it, but due to difficulties with scheduling etc it never came to pass. Also I became increasingly disillusioned with my ability to accurately place my cue an exact paralell distance from the center line etc. There is also some kind of optical illusion caused by the curvature of the pocket I think. That was what I wanted my mathematician friend to look at, besides the transition distance between alignments and "tip offset values". Also there are some shots where the measurement seems to be off. Specifically near paralell cueball and object ball (almost equidistant from the pocket, but high degree of cut. I could never make the numbers work for those shots. Since the notebook appears to be lost forever (I spent a couple of hours looking for it today) I don't think I'll revisit this system again. I just posted it because I always liked the idea behind it, at the time I thought it was pretty clever. Overall I think there are better and more complete systems out there.

When I tried responding to your entire post that was "inside the box" of my post where you addressed various sentences, it doesn't show up here so I'll reply to what I can remember.

Outside is to the left of center for cuts to the right. Inside is right of center for cuts to the right. Outside is right of center for cuts to the left. Inside is left of center for cuts to the left.

Hal's method always started with either 1/2 tip to 1 tip of INSIDE and then pivoting back to the center of the CB. I'm referring to his other aiming systems and not CTE.

Question for you: How many tips from center did you move out for severe cuts when you aimed center to center?

Whatever it was beyond one tip is where your method differed from Hal's because it never went beyond one tip before the pivot. The other difference was the 3 lines which allowed for LESS tip offset than what you may have been using for increasingly acute cut angles. It always stayed within the 1/2 to 1 tip offset regardless of the severity.

I don't think a math whiz could figure anything out.

If you get back on the table in the near future from the operation, I can lead you through it quite easily and you'll see how his method vs. yours works. You can be the judge based on results.

One last thing and it may be just me. For whatever reason, I don't shoot as accurately with a LD shaft when offsetting and then pivot.

I've also experimented with a pivot different from above and it starts out by aiming the center of the CB to the center of the OB along with the tip of the cue at center and then pivoting anywhere from 1/4 up to 1 tip to the OUTSIDE.

At sharper angles you'll undercut the shot which then requires aiming the center of the CB and tip to half way between center of the OB and edge and then pivoting to the OUTSIDE.

Once again with even sharper angles you'll undercut the shot which then requires aiming the center of the CB and tip to the edge of the OB and then pivoting to the OUTSIDE.