Shot Pictures and Aiming Systems

Well said. A thorough knowledge of where to aim or how to aim means very little if you can't deliver the cue consistently as intended.

On a side note, I read "The Flight of the Cue Ball" and really liked it. Great information/instruction.

Thanks I just recently uploaded updates to the ebooks and am in print also in premium color (frigging costly) and by this time next week (black and white). I'm always open to other techniques but I didn't look at many systems before I did my stuff because I wanted my stuff all original. Ive seen some interesting ways to aim including off the lights on the table. I may actually write something on it and put it out pdf. I knew a guy who was a monster tell me that was his go to system. I recently looked it over some more and hell it worked for me to a greater extent than I expected. I've been busy recovering from an operation and trying to get back in gear. I'll definitely give your stuff a test drive. Thanks. :)
 
Practice like you play and you don't have to worry about falling back.
Is poolology too complicated to use in match situations ?

Easier said than done. I've played near flawless pool for hours, as I'm sure you have also, staying in line and remaining in a comfortable zone, confident with each shot, making it look easy, then get out of line on a long shot, leaving a tough cut or a safety option. This is where (if you decide to go for it) falling back on an aiming system is a smart use of acquired tools.

I use Poolology in this manner, though I could easily use it on every shot if I lacked experience, confidence, or skill and needed the system on every shot. Like I've said before, Poolology is advanced fractional aiming, where instead of relying on experience you rely on the easy comparison of a couple of numbers. It simply gives you a fractional aim point without the guesstimation work of using traditional fractional aiming.
 
Thanks I just recently uploaded updates to the ebooks and am in print also in premium color (frigging costly) and by this time next week (black and white). I'm always open to other techniques but I didn't look at many systems before I did my stuff because I wanted my stuff all original. Ive seen some interesting ways to aim including off the lights on the table. I may actually write something on it and put it out pdf. I knew a guy who was a monster tell me that was his go to system. I recently looked it over some more and hell it worked for me to a greater extent than I expected. I've been busy recovering from an operation and trying to get back in gear. I'll definitely give your stuff a test drive. Thanks. :)

Recover well and best wishes .
 
I'll try to explain myself better:

Let's say that you are using the quarter ball system and you come across a shot that is a slight bit thicker than 3/4 ball. So far you have practised only the major angles like full, 3/4, half ball and quarter ball. So you align yourself to 3/4 every time a shot that is close to that angle comes up. You are now very close to the needed alignment of your body and cue to make the ball. You shoot the ball and it's too thin. Now it is easy to correct this mistake, because it was made from an allready defined and well known aim category, and an amendment to that category or indeed a brand new category could easily be formed. Because it's a near miss, it's a lot easier to see how much to correct the angle etc..Not only that, but because your body's alignment is close to where it needs to be, it's less likely to influence the shot by moving etc, which would "corrupt" the data input to the brain. If you swipe the cue, the brain really didn't learn as much as it would if you were completely still.

If the person was not using such defined aiming points, all the information would be shot specific (not really, but I exaggerate for the purpose of this discussion). So when the balls are here, I should aim here. Now, if we move the balls but keep the angle the same, the shot needs to be learned all over again (to a greater extent than in the previous example). Not only that but you may be too thick on one occation and too thin on the other, and sometimes your alignment will be way off. This is especially true of beginners.

I understand what you are saying. You are saying that a system gets the ball in the vicinity of the pocket and becomes a good starting point to help you learn the correct shot picture by tweaking from there. I just don't know if that helps a player advance more quickly or not. Maybe so. Many years ago I had an instructor set up a longish cut shot down the rail. He recommended to just keep setting the same or similar shot up over and over until you don't miss it any more. Do that with several different shot angles. If that process is done somewhat at random for both shallow and deep cut shots I don't know if that is any worse than using only 1/4, 1/2 etc. defined cut angles for "shot picture" references.

I wonder how many people believe that the purpose of an aiming system is to get you close so that you can do the important part, which is creating a successful shot picture, as opposed to actually putting the cue on the correct aim line as some here have already claimed.
 
Ok, doesn't make any sense at all to me but we can let it rest.

Well it may be that you need to learn Poolology to understand. I don't know how many ways to say it. When you first start to read you put your finger under each word and your lips probably sounded out the words. That was your system for reading. Now your brain has internalized how to read and you don't need your reading system any more. Your reading system "got you there" but now you are going to abandon it? Well, yes, I don't see any point in reading with my finger and sounding out the words. It just gets in the way of reading and uses energy that need not be wasted while you are trying to understand and interpret the reading material (in much the way you need to apply english and strategy in pool).

So if that doesn't sink in then maybe in a few weeks or months you will think twice before asking why Poolology users "don't even use it." Respectfully, if you don't understand the reasons, please don't badger the people who do. This is starting to sound like another argument in reverse! :eek:
 
This makes sense to me

I Once you learn the shot pictures, like once you learn the alphabet or addition and subtraction, it just becomes second nature and going back to the crutch (Poolology) becomes counterproductive. Of course if there are situations you are not confident of then of course it is smart to go back to it.

Hi guys, just a newbie here, but somehow I can relate to this. Once we learn the alphabet , it becomes "second nature" using it to form/read words.

Altho in pool, the learning ( pocketing the balls shot picture) may take a lot of time till it becomes 2nd nature.:)
 
...... Many years ago I had an instructor set up a longish cut shot down the rail. He recommended to just keep setting the same or similar shot up over and over until you don't miss it any more. Do that with several different shot angles. If that process is done somewhat at random for both shallow and deep cut shots I don't know if that is any worse than using only 1/4, 1/2 etc. defined cut angles for "shot picture" references.
...........

That's the major stumbling block for improvement. Most players either don't have the time or simply don't make the time to set up individual shots, shooting each over and over until it becomes ingrained. As effective as it can be for some, monotony is not fun practice. Studies show boredom to be counterproductive for quality learning, regardless of what it is you are trying to learn or whatever skill you are trying to refine.

So a player should turn monotonous drills or shot practice into a challenge game. Tell yourself you have to shoot the shot a certain number of successful times before you move on to another shot. The exact number of times should be just beyond what you can comfortably do, that makes it a challenging goal, but not so challenging that you get fed up or frustrated. Whether it takes 10 minutes or 30 minutes to reach your goal, when you hit it you're done with that shot until next time, and you'll set the goal just a little higher then.

Most people don't practice, or they practice in the most inefficient ways. For shot making practice, simply throwing balls out and shooting them in, regardless of being a good loosening up, is not practice. Shooting random shots for a few hours does not utilize the strong benefits of habit-forming repetition. And shooting the same shot over and over for hours, missing it more than making it, forms a stronger habit of missing rather than making. This is why most pool players never become any better than average.
 
.........

When you first start to read you put your finger under each word and your lips probably sounded out the words. That was your system for reading. Now your brain has internalized how to read and you don't need your reading system any more.
........

There is a handy little tool for readers to use when stumped or tripped up on unfamiliar words: A dictionary.

So even though a reading system can get you reading well, there is always something to fall back on when or if you need it. Aiming systems can work the same way.
 
There is a handy little tool for readers to use when stumped or tripped up on unfamiliar words: A dictionary.

So even though a reading system can get you reading well, there is always something to fall back on when or if you need it. Aiming systems can work the same way.

lol. Yes, that fits the reading analogy for Poolology well. You could also say Poolology is like google for the pool table.
 
Hi guys, just a newbie here, but somehow I can relate to this. Once we learn the alphabet , it becomes "second nature" using it to form/read words.

Altho in pool, the learning ( pocketing the balls shot picture) may take a lot of time till it becomes 2nd nature.:)

If you are a newbie to pool and not just this forum, you really should check out Poolology. It shortcuts that learning process.
 
I've come to realize more recently that I am confused as to what the purpose of an aiming system is. I know that sounds dumb, but hear me out for a minute. First a couple of definitions:

Shot Picture - This seems to be the terminology people use here on AZ. I believe the shot picture is the image you see that contains the shaft, cb, ob and pocket. Those items will form an angle with the ob located at that point where the angle is formed. I have always believed that this shot picture gets processed by the brain and when you shoot, it either becomes a success or a failure. By shooting enough successful shots, your brain automatically knows when a shot picture is correct, meaning the ball will be pocketed. (As a side note, this is why a good, straight stroke/alignment is so important. If your mechanics are not consistent, and you pocket the ball one time and then miss the next with the identical shot picture, your brain gets fuzzy feedback and isn't able to store clear information for recall later.)

Recognizing this shot picture is what people call playing by "feel" or "just knowing" when the shot looks right. It is NOT a guess but a recall of past success. It is no more a guess than saying you guessed your dog's name. You know your dog's name because it is committed to memory. You know the shot will be successful because you have committed it to memory (it looks right).

So my argument (and others here) is that the shot picture is what is really important for pocketing balls.

Aiming Systems - systems involve a set number of steps to be performed in order to allow the shooter to get the cue on the correct shot line. That's the theory, but is this really possible?

Someone the other day mentioned that Nick Varner swears by his own aiming system/method but it left me scratching my head. Let's say Nick is cutting a ball to the left and he's going to first aim the left edge of the ferrule at the right edge of the ob. OK, so now Nick is down on the shot using his system, but here's where the system fails. There is nothing to link that system or procedure to the correct shot picture that the brain is looking for. It seems like you have to know the correct shot picture even before you perform the steps required of your aiming system. In this way, when the cue is on the correct line the shot picture looks correct to your brain and you fire away. If this is the way it works, then isn't the aiming system irrelevant?

There is one system, Poolology, that manages to bridge the gap between an aiming system and the shot picture. In Poolology, the random alignment of the cb and ob are linked to the pocket through some math derived from the table rails. The system makes use of some clever geometry of circles and spits out a fractional hit that pockets the ball. Of course you sometimes have to interpolate between fractions, but that is not difficult if you have a good stroke.

It seems like Joe Tucker's system might do something similar but it does seem a bit cumbersome.

CTE users swear that CTE also is able to link the system steps to the correct shot picture, though for me personally let's just say the jury is still out on that.

So anyway this isn't a sales pitch for Poolology, but it does seem to be the exception to the rule. Now, for those who still don't follow what Poolology is all about, it is a way to speed up the learning process so that your brain starts understanding the shot pictures that are successful. Ultimately you won't need to calculate the fractions because you brain will already have stored the information. It is like a child sounding out words. Eventually they just know the word and don't need the crutch.

So back to Nick Varner. Is it possible that Nick is using his aiming system mostly as a method for focusing his attention and nerves on the task? In tennis I know it is important to keep you mind from wandering between points. Players are taught, for example, to adjust their strings or tie their laces before the next point. It clears the mind and keeps you in the present instead of worrying about the last bad shot. Is that really what Nick is doing or does he believe that his method actually puts the cue on the shot line without the necessity of a good shot picture? I think if we had a good hour to discuss this with him, he's going to say the shot picture is what really matters. It would be very interesting to probe him over that (well, maybe not to him).

Where am I going wrong on this?

I don't know any pros (personally) who use a shot picture that holds "shaft, cb, ob and pocket" in one gaze. Amateurs IMHO would do well to get down and check on alignment to the cb and then move their gaze to the ob-pocket relationship, keeping those things a bit separate. Of course they can return to the cb and back again and so on, but once they start looking too much at the shaft they should have the pocket only in peripheral vision if at all, and then only if it is very close to the shaft.

I don't think it would take an hour for a Nick Varner chat. He has spoken about different mental techniques he uses to play as close as he can to relaxed subconscious aim and shooting. I've talked with him about some of this stuff.
 
Easier said than done. I've played near flawless pool for hours, as I'm sure you have also, staying in line and remaining in a comfortable zone, confident with each shot, making it look easy, then get out of line on a long shot, leaving a tough cut or a safety option. This is where (if you decide to go for it) falling back on an aiming system is a smart use of acquired tools.

Yea i'd rather not "fall back" on an aiming system. I believe it's much better to use it on every shot.
Sounds like you could run into a lot of indecision as to when to use your system.
Indecision is not a good thing when playing.
 
Well it may be that you need to learn Poolology to understand. I don't know how many ways to say it. When you first start to read you put your finger under each word and your lips probably sounded out the words. That was your system for reading. Now your brain has internalized how to read and you don't need your reading system any more. Your reading system "got you there" but now you are going to abandon it? Well, yes, I don't see any point in reading with my finger and sounding out the words. It just gets in the way of reading and uses energy that need not be wasted while you are trying to understand and interpret the reading material (in much the way you need to apply english and strategy in pool).

So if that doesn't sink in then maybe in a few weeks or months you will think twice before asking why Poolology users "don't even use it." Respectfully, if you don't understand the reasons, please don't badger the people who do. This is starting to sound like another argument in reverse! :eek:

I don't really see a need to learn poolology. I'd rather play with a system that i would use all the time. Practice like you play. Use what got you there. These have been around a long time for a reason.
Crazy to only use something that's supposedly this good only in emergencies.
 
Hi guys, just a newbie here, but somehow I can relate to this. Once we learn the alphabet , it becomes "second nature" using it to form/read words.

Altho in pool, the learning ( pocketing the balls shot picture) may take a lot of time till it becomes 2nd nature.:)

When you learn the system to figure out Rubik's cube, you pretty much use that system every time.
You don't practice a system in checkers then abandon it in a tournament do you.
 
I think i've heard it all now lol. " Google for the pool table",lol.

I think people reading these posts can see the arguments made pretty clearly and can decide for themselves. Your argument seems to be little more than "I don't get it" but that's OK.

That's the nice thing about this forum lately. Nobody is going to get shouted down for voicing their opinion.
 
I think people reading these posts can see the arguments made pretty clearly and can decide for themselves. Your argument seems to be little more than "I don't get it" but that's OK.

That's the nice thing about this forum lately. Nobody is going to get shouted down for voicing their opinion.

Yea guess i don't get it. And i politely asked you to let it rest. You seem to have a hard time with that though.

Play like you practice. Use what got you there. You can google them also lol
 
Yea guess i don't get it. And i politely asked you to let it rest. You seem to have a hard time with that though.

Play like you practice. Use what got you there. You can google them also lol

Well you are the one who brought it up in the first place, pretty much ignored the responses and then suggested letting it go to somebody else, actually. Admittedly I've been persistent on this question because it is something you bring up repeatedly and then ignore what people are telling you and then pretty much keep saying the same thing. It's beginning to look like you are trolling.

People can make up their own mind on the question. Feel free to keep saying that you prefer to use what got you there and I will continue to read this forum without my finger under each word. :p
 
Back
Top