Simple aiming system
- Thread starter Mensabum
- Start date
Correct, in that using the line from the pocket to the cue ball means that the overlap (or "slices") are not equal, and so using the contact point on the cue ball to strike the contact point on the target ball--using the OP's system--shouldn't be correct. However, even without correction, I think there may be enough (again) "margin for error" to make many shots.
...I should maybe use, "margin of deviation" instead of error, as I am employing the term to describe how far off the "perfect" line the shot would be. A half-ball at the end is probably acceptable, so the error in selecting the cue ball contact point via the system may be acceptable on SOME shots.
All that said, however, I would more believe that the OP's system gets him in the ball park, and he corrects for it.
From a straight in shot to about 30 degrees, depending on the forigiveness of the table, you might be close enough to make a majority of shots, anything over that, you're going to miss massively.
Jaden
What Mensabum described is accurately diagrammed by @slide13 in post #4:
It doesn't work as described/diagrammed there.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I always use the aiming system an uncle on the Italian side of the family taught me. We call it poka and hopa! Worked pretty well to win matches, especially if cousin Vito was on the rail.
Hu
Hu
When the angle is great enough to where you can’t treat a shot as straight in there is a relationship between the cue ball and the object ball.
Depending on the severity of the angle that relationship will change. When done correctly, aiming with this relationship will create much success
Depending on the severity of the angle that relationship will change. When done correctly, aiming with this relationship will create much success
dquarasr
Registered
Exactly. It appears the contact point on the OB is 10:30 but that on the CB is about 9:30.
I am but a lowly C, maybe a C+ player, but I’ve played enough to use a very simple “see it, shoot it” aiming system, initially based on ghost ball. After a certain number of reps, where to direct the CB becomes obvious without giving it any systematic thought.
I call the whole thing Contact Geometry. You know like suspension geometry.
"I need more camber."
"More?"
"Yeah and it understeers coming outta 6."
"Which one's the hypotenuse?"
There are many ways to identify the contact points. It's like carpentry.
"I need more camber."
"More?"
"Yeah and it understeers coming outta 6."
"Which one's the hypotenuse?"
There are many ways to identify the contact points. It's like carpentry.
Meaning?
So far as I can see, this post has zero information.
You know what Bob the above works for me & everyone I help aim.
Last edited:
Very good, I use this off and on and it works. Thanks for sharing. I thought I was crazy when I first figured it outLet me preface this by saying I've just recently started playing again after a 30 year hiatus. Relatively new member here. Many things have come out since I stopped playing, some I haven't even heard about. When I read posts about aiming systems, ghost balls, % of cue ball cuts, etc, it's like Chinese arithmetic. No wonder new players are confused!!
I post this system in the hopes that it gives new players a sound footing to start with. Works w older players as well, but most have their own way of aiming and won't change horses. Whatever works for you.
If this system has been posted elsewhere, I haven't seen nor heard about it yet, which I thot odd. I apologize if it has been and I'm simply regurgitating something. I started using this system in 1975, So, without further adieu...
Draw a line thru the object ball to the pocket.
Draw another line to the face of the cue ball from the pocket. This is where mine differs. The point on the cue ball where the line hits must contact the point on the object ball where the line comes thru. Those two points are the contact points you need to connect to pocket the ball. You can use your cuestick to draw the lines if necessary.
Once you get a feel for how this is done, and it's simple and easy to visualize, you won't need the lines anymore. You'll just know where to hit the shot by putting the spots made by the lines together. Mathematically precise and works w English as well.
As previously mentioned, I've seen many systems utilizing a line method, but never the 2nd line. That's the only reason I posted my system. It's worked very well for me over the years and I've never heard of a system that was easier, more accurate and as simple to learn as mine.
If I haven't explained this well enuf for some to visualize, I can try to upload a drawing or something, if that would help. It's pretty self explanatory though.
Forgive my explanation if it came across muddied. Not the systems fault, but my own.
My only intention here is to help people play better pool. Simple as that. Thanks for reading my post.
Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.
Not strictly as described, but the real aim solutions are close enough to the miscalculated ones that it can seem like it's working as advertised.
pj
chgo
Think parallelogram.
Funny thing. We know Mosconi’s parallel lines system is accurate. We know aiming the cueball directly at the contact point is inaccurate. This is halfway between accurate and inaccurate. On a bar box with easy pockets, this probably does work most of the time until it doesn’t. Switching the reference to parallel lines will work more of the time. But we might be talking about a margin that’s shrugged off by a player with stroke inconsistencies dwarfing those margins. So it might seem like it really works to someone on the verge of improvement.
What may not work for some is the convergence of lines. This can be addressed by instruction in anything involving illustration. I find rudimentary mechanical drawing sufficient. The value in using the contact points is it identifies the ideal shot.