This looks more a like a 60° cut, a little thinner, but not 70°. The overlap is too thick. A 70° cut requires a 1/16th overlap.
Pocket More Thin Cut Shots
- Thread starter BC21
- Start date
This looks more a like a 60° cut, a little thinner, but not 70°. The overlap is too thick. A 70° cut requires a 1/16th overlap.
I remeasured. The cut angle as drawn is 65, so we split the difference. The lens diagram is not to the same scale
HAMB is the experience aiming system.
Whether you use contact points, perception landmarks or fractions, you are learning a resource pool of shots you can dip into.
All systems do is get you to focus on visual landmarks to navigate your situational landscape.
Reference lines, tip contact points, and perceptually salient features become the landmarks you rely on to predict results.
Aiming at a ball means we need to bookmark locations on the ball as relevant on a particular shot, for alignment to create ball paths.
Truthfully, most of the filtering is on the order of caution, ie. opting for higher percentage uh, options.
Here is a diagram of the situation. This makes it pretty clear that if you can visualize the lens-shaped overlap of the two balls (projected onto a flat surface), the contact point will be at the center of the lens and the edge of the cue ball (if you believe in edges on balls) will be as far to one side of the contact point as the edge of the object ball appears on the other side.
![CropperCapture[716].png](https://forums.azbilliards.com/attachments/croppercapture-716-png.601311/ "CropperCapture[716].png")
![CropperCapture[717].png](https://forums.azbilliards.com/attachments/croppercapture-717-png.601312/ "CropperCapture[717].png")
When looking at an actual shot, vertical lines through the points show the desired slice. Other visual aids include visualizing an elipse centered, <center sphere> and based on the visible cue ball equator. (looks like your overlap porn but rotated 45 degrees) This does take spheric curvature into account and shows the "ghost" contact point on the front of the cue ball. Any head elevation will work as long as you start center sphere and visualize in the correct gravitational orientation. Motion graphics of this type should clear up any mystery regarding shot visualization.
Last edited:
Why I distinguish between aiming systems (the measuring) and shooting systems. (the calibrated shooting)
Trying to separate them is a “sticking heads in the sand” scenario, so to speak.
Both are judgement criteria.
Measuring puts those defined units as the most important for evaluating decisions and outcomes.
What measurement scale is being used?
Calibration is the documented comparison of the measurement to be calibrated against a tangible reference, like a scale.
What scale is being used as a reference for comparison?
It seems to me adjusting to the scale uses feedback (annotated calibration), but first, a scale needs to be set for reference.
The scale without ongoing performance data to compare it to, has no meaning.
Using the scale to affect performance, a calibration, gives it meaning.
The two give meaning to their intended function, performance.
Last edited:
Not contact geometry. It merely connects the dots. No angles, fractions, or factions. The shooting system is the actual method.
Do you ever make anything wrong? I get feeling you can handle anything with ease.. Can i see your play from somewhere? Youtube or something..
Yes, connecting the dots (contact points) 100% sends the ball into the pocket. But one of the dots is on the opposite side of the cb, unseen, and the other is on the fat circumference of the ob, unmarked. So this method, though 100% accurate when the dots are connected, isn't quite the easiest to implement.
I know there is no way to prove or test this, but I believe every aiming method or system relies on visual input concerning cb-ob relationships (overlaps).
When a player is trying to keep visual focus on an estimated contact point, then using a parallel shift or doubling the distance to arrive on the aim line, the mind is also indirectly receiving visual input about the cb-ob relationship as it pertains to pocketing the ball. When a player is looking at where he estimates the ghostball to be, his mind is also seeing the cb-ob relationship created from that specific visual perspective.
Regardless of whatever aiming references we use, regardless of system or method, the mind is always receiving visual inputs concerning the exact cb-ob relationship we're working with. In other words, we're always receiving shot pictures. And the more shots we see the more accurately we begin to associate and recognize most shots.
I believe you're right about this - and I fight the tendency to slip comfortably into "all feel" mode. Whenever (in practice) I notice myself freewheeling it, I remind myself to consciously see the OB contact point and where my stick points in relation to it. I don't want to lose that "objective" reference, even though I often don't need it after a bazillion hours of using it.
pj
chgo
That's a good habit to get into -- always using your best known references -- because the associations our mind makes on a continuous basis are not always dead on with what we're currently seeing. By utilizing known references we can avoid pulling the trigger on a shot that our subconscious may've jumped the gun on.
Even when we find ourselves playing in the zone, we are still utilizing known references.
The actual performance of stroke, alignment, speed, feel, etc...is subconscious action, but it's still being orchestrated by concious visual inputs.
Dropping vertical lines through the points renders the alignment 2 dimensional. If you need the point on the front of the C ball, the equatorial elipse will show you the where it is. Getting parallel to this lineup is just part of learning to shoot. Once you're down to pull the trigger, you should consider the shot forgone and your mental energy should now be on cue ball speed and direction.
I've often wondered why I don't do well with contact points. But I think this diagram shows exactly why. The lines shown are 1/8 ball angle differences. The yellow shows how much visual reference we have for shooting cut shots thinner than a 1/8 ball hit.
Notice the amount of yellow using fractional references and center ghostball references when compared to using contact point references. These yellow spaces contain about 30 degrees worth of cut angles, every shot between 60 and 90 degrees.
Last edited:
Regarding parallel aiming, a version of contact point:I've often wondered why I don't do well with contact points. But I think this diagram shows exactly why. The lines shown are 1/8 ball angle differences. The yellow shows how much visual reference we have for shooting cut shots thinner than a 1/8 ball hit.
Notice the amount of yellow using fractional references and center ghostball references when compared to using contact point references. These yellow spaces contain about 30 degrees worth of cut angles, every shot between 60 and 90 degrees.
The Florian video points to the difference that makes a difference making the parallel shift from the pocket line to the cue ball center.
That line locates the cb contact point on the front of the cue ball.
The diagram fails to show the cb role in the process.
The parallel shift from the contact point to contact point line to the cb center ball line gives two perceptual positions on the same plane onto a parallel plane through the cb center, creating a third perceptual position.
That position now has an internal library of shot pictures against which to compare.
That becomes the reference from which to decide how to set the balls in motion on paths serving the purposes set by intentions for
2 balls, not one.
The amount from one point to the next on the object ball is mirrored by an equal equatorial shift on the cb.
The combined distance shifted is double that represented by the two dimensional diagramming.
Last edited:
The diagram simply shows the aiming references on the ob end. Referencing the exact contact point on the ob requires twice the visual precision as referencing the ghostball or the fractional overlap using spatial skills.
The cb end does not matter. Whether you're using a parallel shift referencing the pocket or using the double the distance method, you are still required to pinpoint the contact point on the ob.
Let's say I have a 34° shot.
I find it much easier to aim 1/16 of a ball thinner than halfball (half of one the 1/8 gaps shown in the diagram) than to pinpoint the exact contact point on the ob from behind the cb. If it's a 70° shot, aiming the edge of the cue ball to split that 1/8 space between the ob edge and a 5/8 aim point is much easy than aiming the cb contact point (which is estimated because it's unseen) down the center of that thin strip of yellow shown in the diagram for contact points.
I guess it depends on a player's spatial skills, their ability to visualize ob portions and overlaps, versus their ability to focus on a single point located on the unmarked fat portion of the ob. For me, the spatial method provides more solid visual references.
On super thin cuts the difference between the actual contact point and the overlapping edge is just a couple of degrees, so both methods more or less merge, meaning the accuracy needed to pinpoint the contact point is about the same as the accuracy needed to visualize the super thin overlap.
Last edited:
The original post here was about pocketing thin cuts by specific techniques.
I think the cuts using center ball and needing to adjust differently for each based on numbers of diamonds won’t find a place in my arsenal.
My solutions are two fold.
The first is picking a slight undercut center ball reference line then adjusting in equal parts, the end contact points using inside english and a crossover of the reference at the midpoint, in keeping with the real life needed equal adjustments.
The main point is that when you make a contact point change on the ob, there is a corresponding and equidistant equatorial contact point change on the cb.
The second chooses to start from a slight overcut center ball reference and then a pivot again from the midpoint of that line to create a cue line with a touch of outside english.
On ultra thin cuts the outside english starts with an edge to edge line and a midpoint pivot based on the slight variances between balls nearly on the rail and those far enough off that a ball path parallel to the rail will jaw.
The thinner the cut the less pivot from the midpoint is needed.
A very small amount of side generates negligible deflection and in the case of outside a positive throw effect on thin cuts.
These techniques need not adjust for throw based on distance to pocket or speed.
These are the tools I pull from my box of tricks.
Thanks for sharing yours.
Last edited:
In this circumstance I generally aim either thick or thin and use the appropriate CB squirt to make the cut.
Since making an effort to hold strong focus on OB last. I find I can make these ultra thin cuts without the aid of squirt.
Trying to understand this. Do you mean because the overlap is twice as wide as the edge-to-contact point distance?
pj
chgo
Cool diagram. On the contact diagram, any point on the equator will supply a tangent that is very easy to dupe on the cueball. Further the points locate lines that extend through the center of the ball into infinity. That, in and of itself, is plenty to see a shot with but there's more relevant info just for the seeing.I've often wondered why I don't do well with contact points. But I think this diagram shows exactly why. The lines shown are 1/8 ball angle differences. The yellow shows how much visual reference we have for shooting cut shots thinner than a 1/8 ball hit.
Notice the amount of yellow using fractional references and center ghostball references when compared to using contact point references. These yellow spaces contain about 30 degrees worth of cut angles, every shot between 60 and 90 degrees.