Poolology: Zone A missing alignment values

[7stud]

Here's the table setup:

The target pocket for the object balls is the top left corner pocket. First, examine the 8-ball. It has a position value of 40, and an alignment value of 40 (the bottom left corner pocket diamond). So, the overhang is 40/40, which is equivalent to 100/100, which makes the overlap 0/100, but the 8-ball can be cut into the target pocket, as Bob Jewett pointed out below, so what's up with the Poolology numbers for that shot? Next, examine the 1-ball. The position value is 50, and the alignment value is once again 40, so the overhang is 40/50, or 80/100, which makes the overlap 20/100, which is slightly thinner than a 1/4 ball hit = 25/100. Obviously, the CB could be placed so that the 1-ball required a thinner cut than 20/100 to make it in the target pocket.

Therefore, imagine moving the CB upwards towards the top long rail. That would cause the line of centers through the 1-ball and the CB to hit somewhere on the bottom long rail---an area where there are no alignment values specified in the Poolology book. Does that mean a 1/8 ball cut = 12.5/100 is outside the geometry of the Poolology system for such a back cut into the top left corner pocket?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Here's the table setup: ...

The target pocket for the object balls is the top left corner pocket. First, examine the 8-ball. It has a position value of 40, and an alignment value of 40 (the bottom left corner pocket diamond). So, the overhang is 100/100, which makes the overlap 0/100, i.e. you have to try to thin the cut so that the CB barely touches the OB, and even then you probably won't make the shot. ....

This statement is wrong. The cut shot of the 8 ball to the upper left pocket is not even close to 90 degrees. It is possible to shoot the eight ball fairly easily to the first diamond on the long rail to the right of the upper left pocket. It might be possible to send it to the second diamond.

I urge you to start measuring the actual angle in degrees of the shots you are studying.

 

[7stud]

This statement is wrong. The cut shot of the 8 ball to the upper left pocket is not even close to 90 degrees. It is possible to shoot the eight ball fairly easily to the first diamond on the long rail to the right of the upper left pocket. It might be possible to send it to the second diamond.

I urge you to start measuring the actual angle in degrees of the shots you are studying.

That's an interesting observation. I wonder if:

1. The scale of the table is off?
2. I am calculating something wrong?
3. There is a flaw in the Poolology geometry in that area of the table?

 

[bbb]

i think you should discuss this with the author of the system
rather than publicly display his information

 

[bbb]

he responded to your last thread
so you know how to contact him
maybe i am wrong but to me you should not be posting his system in a public forum

 

[Bob Jewett]

That's an interesting observation. I wonder if:

1. The scale of the table is off?
2. I am calculating something wrong?
3. There is a flaw in the Poolology geometry in that area of the table?

The table is more or less to scale. I think the balls are a little large for a 9-foot. That doesn't change the angles much.

I held a post-it up to the screen and it was clear the angle was no where near 90.

If you are dealing with angles, I think it essential to know the actual value in degrees. You can get a protractor in the school supply section or you can print one out from this file on Dr. Dave's template resource page:

https://billiards.colostate.edu/resource_files/angle_template.pdf

 

[Bob Jewett]

... maybe i am wrong but to me you should not be posting his system in a public forum

If you are thinking about copyright issues, those don't apply to discussions. Brian does not ask people to sign non-disclosure agreements so he has placed no restriction on public discussion of his material.

It is completely ethical and legal and appropriate to discuss Poolology here. That is what this forum is for. That includes discussing details of the methods.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I held a post-it up to the screen and it was clear the angle was no where near 90.

A 90-degree cut on the 8, if possible, would hit the rail about 2 1/2 diamonds from the corner pocket.

pj
chgo

 

[bbb]

If you are thinking about copyright issues, those don't apply to discussions. Brian does not ask people to sign non-disclosure agreements so he has placed no restriction on public discussion of his material.

It is completely ethical and legal and appropriate to discuss Poolology here. That is what this forum is for. That includes discussing details of the methods.

i respecfully disagree bob
until brian says he has no problem people showing his numbers and explaining the system
JMHO
ICBW

 

[bbb]

If you are thinking about copyright issues, those don't apply to discussions. Brian does not ask people to sign non-disclosure agreements so he has placed no restriction on public discussion of his material.

It is completely ethical and legal and appropriate to discuss Poolology here. That is what this forum is for. That includes discussing details of the methods.

i did not have to sign a disclosure when i took a lesson with scott lee
would it be the right thing to do for me to post in a public forum the "mother drills"?

 

[Bob Jewett]

i did not have to sign a disclosure when i took a lesson with scott lee
would it be the right thing to do for me to post in a public forum the "mother drills"?

It is fine to discuss what they are, how they have helped you and whether you have continued to use them That is totally ethical.

 

[bbb]

It is fine to discuss what they are, how they have helped you and whether you have continued to use them That is totally ethical.

Would it be right to diagram the mother drills and post it?
Out of respect to the SPF people
Since its “their thing”
I WOULD NOT
This is not a discussion on how poolology has helped 7stud or how he uses it
He is specifically explaining the methodology and asking questions
I think that should be done directly between 7stud and brian

Isnt brian the one to best answer the question since he understands his system and limitations better than anyone else?
Just my opinion
But i feel strongly about it until convinced otherwise

 

[Thresh]

I took lessons with Scott Lee. Sendi

Would it be right to diagram the mother drills and post it?
Out of respect to the SPF people
Since its “their thing”
I WOULD NOT
This is not a discussion on how poolology has helped 7stud or how he uses it
He is specifically explaining the methodology and asking questions
I think that should be done directly between 7stud and brian

Isnt brian the one to best answer the question since he understands his system and limitations better than anyone else?
Just my opinion
But i feel strongly about it until convinced otherwise

I took lessons with Scott Lee. Amazing individual, I believe RIP.

I loved if you posted about that drill.


Also, I've emailed with Brian in the past, great guy, responsive a well.

I agree with Bob, and you! If you have a question about a specific Poolology shot, I'm sure posting the Numbers for that shot is fine. But, people need to realize the real value is in the words in Poolology. @BC21 I'm sure would provide input how he feels about that.

Also, Poolology cost the price of about 2 decent beers at the bar... Come on, put that $600 cue to use!

 

[23DenaliBDE]

If anything, using myself as the 1 man sample size in my highly scientific study, posts on Poolology might cost him business for another reason. Math is easier for me than the majority of the population (I know it’s a low bar, that’s the point). When I see something that looks as complicated as that does, when I have no other info on it, I would never even attempt to learn it because of the impression I have. I looked and immediately said, I’ll stick with contact point. It’s not a fair perception but there’s no way I’m the only one that’s ever thought that

 

[Thresh]

Here's the table setup:

View attachment 706158

The target pocket for the object balls is the top left corner pocket. First, examine the 8-ball. It has a position value of 40, and an alignment value of 40 (the bottom left corner pocket diamond). So, the overhang is 40/40, which is equivalent to 100/100, which makes the overlap 0/100, but the 8-ball can be cut into the target pocket, as Bob Jewett pointed out below, so what's up with the Poolology numbers for that shot? Next, examine the 1-ball. The position value is 50, and the alignment value is once again 40, so the overhang is 40/50, or 80/100, which makes the overlap 20/100, which is slightly thinner than a 1/4 ball hit = 25/100. Obviously, the CB could be placed so that the 1-ball required a thinner cut than a 20/100 to make it in the target pocket.

Therefore, imagine moving the CB upwards towards the top long rail. That would cause the line of centers through the 1-ball and the CB to hit somewhere on the bottom long rail---an area where there are no alignment values specified in the Poolology book. Does that mean a 1/8 ball cut = 12.5/100 is outside the geometry of the Poolology system for such a back cut into the top left corner pocket?

A value of 40/40 or the famous spot shot at 20/20 a lot of times. I just use quarter ball hit for these.

I also believe in Poolology this is discussed in detail by Brian and what adjustment you need.

 

[bbb]

I took lessons with Scott Lee. Sendi


I took lessons with Scott Lee. Amazing individual, I believe RIP.

I loved if you posted about that drill.

Would it be right to diagram the mother drills and post it?
Out of respect to the SPF people
Since its “their thing”
I WOULD NOT

 

[7stud]

A value of 40/40 or the famous spot shot at 20/20 a lot of times. I just use quarter ball hit for these.

I also believe in Poolology this is discussed in detail by Brian and what adjustment you need.

Do you have a page number? If you are referring to the small gray zones where the system breaks down and requires an adjustment to the numbers, the gray rectangle near the side pocket only extends 1 diamond towards the center of the table, so neither the 8-ball or the 1-ball are in that rectangle.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Do you have a page number? If you are referring to the small gray zones where the system breaks down and requires an adjustment to the numbers, the gray rectangle near the side pocket only extends 1 diamond towards the center of the table, so neither the 8-ball or the 1-ball are in that rectangle.

Have you tried using the angle template yet? It will easily tell you the actual angle for each cut shot and then you can see for yourself where adjustment is needed.

 

[7stud]

Have you tried using the angle template yet? It will easily tell you the actual angle for each cut shot and then you can see for yourself where adjustment is needed.

I don't have access to a pool table right now, but the next time I do, I will try Dr. Dave's angle template and compare to some of the Poolology numbers. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[7stud]

If anything, using myself as the 1 man sample size in my highly scientific study, posts on Poolology might cost him business for another reason. Math is easier for me than the majority of the population (I know it’s a low bar, that’s the point). When I see something that looks as complicated as that does, when I have no other info on it, I would never even attempt to learn it because of the impression I have. I looked and immediately said, I’ll stick with contact point. It’s not a fair perception but there’s no way I’m the only one that’s ever thought that

As I mentioned in another thread, when I first started reading Poolology I thought, "I'll never be able to memorize the diagrams for the three zones: A, B, C which blanket the whole table. Way too complicated!". I was still curious enough to keep reading, and then I decided to try a few shots in the main zone, Zone A, while looking at the diagram in the book, to see if the system actually worked. Then I tried a few shots in the other zones while looking at the additional diagrams in the book, and very quickly I had the relevant information memorized. Of course, the next time I play, I'll have to sneak a peak at the book again to refresh my memory, but if you are able to practice every day, that shouldn't be a problem. I still haven't tried any of the side pocket shots, which requires memorizing another diagram, but I will get to them eventually.

I'm curious about all things pool related, and after reading some posts about Poolology my interest was piqued, and for only $11 I thought, "What the heck!", so I bought the ebook. The lure for me was that it is supposed to be a geometric system that uses the diamonds to calculate cut angles. Now, that I know a little bit about the system, I am pretty amazed at what Brian Crist, the author, was able to come up with. In the back of the book, he explains a little bit about how he devised the system, and he is obviously a very smart guy. On the other hand, CTE sounds like complete BS to me, e.g. geometry and physics are not able to explain the system because the system is so advanced/complex--and it requires a bigger investment.

The way Poolology works is there are numbered lines running across the table which you use to determine the object ball's "position value". The diamonds are also numbered, and you determine where the line drawn between the centers of the CB and OB hits the rail to determine your "alignment value". The ratio:

alignment_value / position_value

determines the fractional aim point required to sink the object ball. Then it's a matter of being able to accurately hit 1/8, 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4, 7/8 fractional aim points on the OB. The book provides guidance for using your cue tip to help with those aim points, e.g a 5/8 fractional aim point involves aiming your cue tip so that the whole cue tip is inside the OB and the edge of the cue tip aligns with the edge of the OB; and a 1/2 ball fractional aim point involves aiming your cue tip so the center of the tip points at the edge of the OB; and 3/8 fractional aim point involves aiming your cue tip so that the whole cue tip is outside the OB and the edge of the tip aligns with the edge of the OB. Those aim points assume you are hitting the vertical center line on the CB.