Digicue Blue. Guys are Afraid to Know?

[tomker]

Classics or Sams. Take your pick. Ill play you for free, I dont care. Hell, Ill even buy you a beer and pay for the table time.

There was another student of your instructor on this very forum some time back.

https://forums.azbilliards.com/member.php?u=91462

The local retailer sold him $2000+ worth of equipment, and he had lessons for almost 2 years IIRC. He also had a complete lack of fundamentals, and a chicken wing that would make Colonel Sanders jealous. AFTER LOTS OF LESSONS. 'Banks' another member from this forum and myself tried to help the kid in person, but he felt he knew better too, because his instructor filled his head full of horseshit.
...

I've met a dozen beginner/intermediate players who refuse to take any feedback or instruction at all because they're convinced they know better. And it's not all because they took lessons from a particular instructor.

This device seems perfect for people like that. It's easy to disagree with somebody (an instructor, a more experienced player, etc.) because you think you know better.

How are they going to argue with a mechanical/electronic device that's measuring their stroke objectively?

So, rather than this device being a thing that bilks them out of more money, it seems to me like the only viable option for improving their game.

 

[tomker]

...
It is not proof of superior play. So I ask again: where is the proof that making the device give you particular feedback translates to improved play?
...

It's not clear to me what you're arguing here.

Do you think the device can help a person hit the ball better? Straighter or whatever? It seems like you agree that it can, or at least you don't seem to be arguing otherwise.

So are you trying to claim that hitting the ball better doesn't lead to better play?

That's a super weird thing to claim.

 

[johnnysd]

I've met a dozen beginner/intermediate players who refuse to take any feedback or instruction at all because they're convinced they know better. And it's not all because they took lessons from a particular instructor.

This device seems perfect for people like that. It's easy to disagree with somebody (an instructor, a more experienced player, etc.) because you think you know better.

How are they going to argue with a mechanical/electronic device that's measuring their stroke objectively?

So, rather than this device being a thing that bilks them out of more money, it seems to me like the only viable option for improving their game.

There is a player on my APA that for the last year has been a very poor 2 or 3. His friend gave him a Digicue Blue and he has been using that to practice and over the last month he has been making balls like a solid 4 or 5. It is pretty impressive. I can't say for sure if it is the device or just the fact that he is practicing itself for the improvement but the improvement is fairly spectacular.

 

[Black-Balled]

I know my stroke sucks. Does anyone have a use one I can buy? I’ll pass it on to another player after straighting out my stroke.

I found a used one on eBay. I’ll give it a test

Careful what you wish for.

 

[Black-Balled]

It's not clear to me what you're arguing here.

Do you think the device can help a person hit the ball better? Straighter or whatever? It seems like you agree that it can, or at least you don't seem to be arguing otherwise.

So are you trying to claim that hitting the ball better doesn't lead to better play?

That's a super weird thing to claim.

It isn't that complicated.

Allegations of improvement and a question if how how that (improvement) is measured.

 

[tomker]

It isn't that complicated.

Allegations of improvement and a question if how how that (improvement) is measured.

It's complicated because there are two things being discussed here.

One: how well a player is hitting the cue ball. How is that being measured? With the electronic device in question.

Two: how well the player is playing pool. I haven't read all the messages in this thread but so far I haven't seen an improvement being claimed or substantiated.

The point of contention on this thread seems to be the idea that maybe a person is hitting the cue ball better, but that doesn't necessarily lead to an improvement in gameplay.

Which, again, is a pretty weird position to take.

I mean, hitting the cue ball better isn't a BAD thing, right?

 

[tomker]

Here’s the rub.......for maximum improvement, you really need to be able to see what occurred and why.
Looking at numbers long after the deed is done does not replicate what happened and why it happened.

If you play several racks, unless you also made a video and then correlated every shot taken with the
metrical data to see what you did to make the device activate and then studied the video closely to see
what you did, therein lies the best application for using Digicue. Examining data long after the shots are
taken just leaves a big hole in my opinion. That is why I submit if you own one, you can enjoy using it on
your own but the best results would be from using it with a practice partner supplemented with video too.

That might be the best way to use it but I imagine that you can still benefit from the device even if you don't take video, etc.

I'm reminded of the well-understood phenomenon where, if a person is connected to a heartrate monitor, they can very easily lower their pulse by 10+ BPM within a few minutes. How? Nobody can explain it, but people can just kinda intuit how to do it because they are getting instant objective feedback about whatever it is they're doing.

I imagine that things are similar with this DigiCue device. Presumably the feedback it gives you will allow you to unconsciously intuit how to improve the feedback, which will improve your stroke, regardless of whether or not you can articulate what you were doing wrong.

 

[lfigueroa]

It's not clear to me what you're arguing here.

Do you think the device can help a person hit the ball better? Straighter or whatever? It seems like you agree that it can, or at least you don't seem to be arguing otherwise.

So are you trying to claim that hitting the ball better doesn't lead to better play?

That's a super weird thing to claim.

It’s a simple question: what proof is there that any feedback from this device leads to better/improved play?

If I work on stroking into a bottle (yes I know it’s different but still a valid analogy) is there any proof that or the machine leads to higher runs, better shot making, improved position play and so on?

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

It's complicated because there are two things being discussed here.

One: how well a player is hitting the cue ball. How is that being measured? With the electronic device in question.

Two: how well the player is playing pool. I haven't read all the messages in this thread but so far I haven't seen an improvement being claimed or substantiated.

The point of contention on this thread seems to be the idea that maybe a person is hitting the cue ball better, but that doesn't necessarily lead to an improvement in gameplay.

Which, again, is a pretty weird position to take.

I mean, hitting the cue ball better isn't a BAD thing, right?

Proof is not a bad thing either ;-)

Lou Figueroa

 

[tomker]

It’s a simple question: what proof is there that any feedback from this device leads to better/improved play?

If I work on stroking into a bottle (yes I know it’s different but still a valid analogy) is there any proof that or the machine leads to higher runs, better shot making, improved position play and so on?

Lou Figueroa

I don't know of any proof.

But you have to admit that it's a pretty weird question to ask.

Let's say I'm a magical wizard and I snap my fingers and make a person's stroke worse. I make them jab at the ball with no follow-through and cause them to chicken-wing and pop up on every shot.

Is there any proof that my magical spell is going to make that person worse at pool?

I doubt it.

 

[lfigueroa]

I don't know of any proof.

But you have to admit that it's a pretty weird question to ask.

Let's say I'm a magical wizard and I snap my fingers and make a person's stroke worse. I make them jab at the ball with no follow-through and cause them to chicken-wing and pop up on every shot.

Is there any proof that my magical spell is going to make that person worse at pool?

I doubt it.

Exactly, you have no proof.

And, there’s nothing weird about asking for proof… unless there’s no proof.

I’m in London right now and every time we walk across Westminster Bridge I see guys working the Cups and Balls. Sometimes things that look good are just snake oil.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Ģüśţāṿ]

I have no horse in this race, but proof is a normal thing to ask for.

If I claimed my car does 0 to 60 in 0.5seconds I'm sure most would want proof. If a product claims to you make you better at pool, there should be some kind of information to validate that point.

Unfortunately, in this case a "straighter stroke" based on a readout does little to support the fact that it makes you a better player. Sure, your stroke can be straight. But that doesn't mean your alignment and ball pocketing improves.

Real instructors are always best for immediate feedback.

 

[tomker]

Exactly, you have no proof.

And, there’s nothing weird about asking for proof… unless there’s no proof.

It's weird to ask for proof of something that's intuitively obvious.

I’m in London right now and every time we walk across Westminster Bridge I see guys working the Cups and Balls. Sometimes things that look good are just snake oil.
...

So your problem with the device is that you think it might be a scam?

Let's say I'm the same magical wizard from the previous post, but instead of making your stroke worse, I offer to wave my magic wand and improve your pool stroke, plus make a crisp new $100 bill appear in your pocket, and also make your penis an inch longer while I'm at it.

Are you going to first demand proof that any of those things are actually of any provable benefit to you?

 

[lfigueroa]

It's weird to ask for proof of something that's intuitively obvious.


So your problem with the device is that you think it might be a scam?

Let's say I'm the same magical wizard from the previous post, but instead of making your stroke worse, I offer to wave my magic wand and improve your pool stroke, plus make a crisp new $100 bill appear in your pocket, and also make your penis an inch longer while I'm at it.

Are you going to first demand proof that any of those things are actually of any provable benefit to you?

Just askin’ for proof.

So far, nada.

Lou Figueroa
intuitively will
get you busted

 

[someusername]

It’s a simple question: what proof is there that any feedback from this device leads to better/improved play?

If I work on stroking into a bottle (yes I know it’s different but still a valid analogy) is there any proof that or the machine leads to higher runs, better shot making, improved position play and so on?

Lou Figueroa

You won't find much proof of anything in pool. Does a $2000 cue make you better? To have real proof, you'd need a structured study of at least 30 participants structured in a way to isolate it to a cue. It would have to be published in a peer reviewed journal. Folks would also want a few of these before things were really accepted.

Which tip is best? No real proof
Lowest deflection? No real proof
Best balls? No real proof

It's a tool like any other. There's lots of things you can use to make your game better. I've used one of these. it's not a panacea but it does give you some data. It could also use some app improvements

Like anything in pool, there's no sense making a change unless you're going to drill it over and over. If this device did find a problem in your game, you still have to drill it to change what you do.

 

[tomker]

Just askin’ for proof.
...

Yeah, okay, fine.

Just to be crystal clear, you're asking for proof that improving a person's pool stroke will improve his pool game.

I suppose there's no harm in asking for proof of things but you might as well ask for proof that rain makes the ground wet while you're at it. You're providing nothing useful here.

 

[lfigueroa]

You won't find much proof of anything in pool. Does a $2000 cue make you better? To have real proof, you'd need a structured study of at least 30 participants structured in a way to isolate it to a cue. It would have to be published in a peer reviewed journal. Folks would also want a few of these before things were really accepted.

Which tip is best? No real proof
Lowest deflection? No real proof
Best balls? No real proof

It's a tool like any other. There's lots of things you can use to make your game better. I've used one of these. it's not a panacea but it does give you some data. It could also use some app improvements

Like anything in pool, there's no sense making a change unless you're going to drill it over and over. If this device did find a problem in your game, you still have to drill it to change what you do.

I don’t believe I was addressing any of those issues or making any assertions in regards to tips, shafts, etc.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Yeah, okay, fine.

Just to be crystal clear, you're asking for proof that improving a person's pool stroke will improve his pool game.

I suppose there's no harm in asking for proof of things but you might as well ask for proof that rain makes the ground wet while you're at it. You're providing nothing useful here.

You cannot claim that a person’s stroke is being improved or that they will experience better play.

BTW, you might want to look up the fallacy of begging the question.

Lou Figueroa

 

[tomker]

You cannot claim that a person’s stroke is being improved or that they will experience better play.
...

If you doubt that this device can improve a person's stroke, that's one thing.

If you doubt that an improved stroke leads to better play, that's another thing.

Maybe I haven't read all your posts but I've only see you claim the latter, rather than the former.

It seems like you're switching goalposts here.

 

[lfigueroa]

If you doubt that this device can improve a person's stroke, that's one thing.

If you doubt that an improved stroke leads to better play, that's another thing.

Maybe I haven't read all your posts but I've only see you claim the latter, rather than the former.

It seems like you're switching goalposts here.

How do you know this device categorically improves a person’s stroke?

Until you address the first your second point is irrelevant.

Lou Figueroa