the best advice I ever got was George Breedlove. Years ago, I would play in regional level tournaments, and would get close, but never win. I knew him well, and asked him what it took to get to the next level. He said, First of all, you have a job. ( i was on active duty in the military at the time) He also said, I travel, and mostly play with people that don't miss, and you play at your local room, and go to tournaments on the weekends. He kept it real! thanks, Scott Richardson
The Best Advice You're Ever Likely To Get
- Thread starter jjohnson
- Start date
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I wrote a little sign with sharpie on a piece of notebook paper that I put on my wall. It says:
Many people think they need to sacrifice one to get the other. In reality it is a loop. Position play gives you more margin for error making the next shot which makes position play easier which makes the next shot have more margin of error which makes position play easier which provides more margin of error. This can go on endlessly but that is the point.
Hu
Hey man,
I get what you’re saying about stacking percentages. I have always overestimated my ability. I don’t think I’m always honest with myself.
You use the example of stacking 90 percent shots and then a 15 percent shot.
In my experience trying to improve on 90 percent is better spent trying to improve on 60-70%.
Trying to improve on 15 percent is not a waste of time, but you’re in the discovery phase at that point. Everybody has to start somewhere, but you say you’ve been around since Led Zeppelin’s debut album right?
If you put a video out where you are pretending that you can turn a 15 percent shot into a 90 percent shot… you are being disingenuous.
Pretending?
Disingenuous?
Okay. You've taken a position.
You've made a stand.
Fair enough.
We'll see.
the better position player will always beat the shot maker in games where you need to run many in a row.
gregg made be old and seems goofy at times but he knows his stuff, hung with champs, and still plays well.
jj has been around the block even if you cant understand his points. and is smarter than those criticizing him.
and if hu is the only person you listen to, you will still become a much better pool player.
gregg made be old and seems goofy at times but he knows his stuff, hung with champs, and still plays well.
jj has been around the block even if you cant understand his points. and is smarter than those criticizing him.
and if hu is the only person you listen to, you will still become a much better pool player.
and v kong if you are having lots of 60 to 70 percent second or even worse third shots your position is bad compared to ball making.
each shot visualize the area you want to be in with the cue ball next. and as you get better you narrow that area down more. till its second nature and all you have to do is glance at the next few balls and know where you want to pocket them and the angles you need for it.
its not work its thinking that gets it done. good luck with it.
each shot visualize the area you want to be in with the cue ball next. and as you get better you narrow that area down more. till its second nature and all you have to do is glance at the next few balls and know where you want to pocket them and the angles you need for it.
its not work its thinking that gets it done. good luck with it.
I know you're trying to make a point.
But it's pretty thin.
I'm not laughing too hard.
Do you really know good or strong shot makers that don't play position or play poor position?
Maybe a strong position player has a chance of beating a less skilled position player who is a good shot maker?
Maybe. Possibly.
I'll leave it for a seasoned odds maker/side-bet gambler on a case by case basis.
Cheers.
Verblage
All this math is interesting but I think contains flaws For starters, I'll take which shots to work on. Working on a 90% shot won't show much gain on paper. Nobody in the world is 100% even on very easy shots. That means there is very little room for improvement on a 90% shot. Spend five minutes or so on it in practice and move on. You want to maintain competence, maybe see some gain but no sense dwelling on a shot that will always have a large luck component in the last few percent.
The fifteen percent shot is likewise probably not a shot to spend a lot of time on. You should rarely be shooting it in a real game.
The 60-70% shot is the one with the most potential for improvement and the one with the most likelihood of being able to improve. This type of shot is the one to spend time on. Might be possible to make significant improvement here.
The OP's math is fine but I have a feeling it isn't really the right approach 90% on five factors. If there are compensating errors more than one of those factors may occur and a shot be made. Perhaps the margin of error is greater than usual. I always consider shooting into "big pockets" where another ball makes the pocket play bigger than normal.
How about if all five of the factors fail on one shot? Does that mean I am guaranteed to make the shot on the next four tries? I think we will both agree that the odds of making the next five shots is exactly the same as before the five factors came into play on one shot.
I think we have several floating variables that keep the math from being effective. I ran a test lab for an R&D company for awhile. That was a lot of fun. We used it for things where math wasn't practical or wasn't effective at all. Pool is one of those things. We can't sit back and model how a match will play out on a computer.
I walked into a place one night and knew two gamblers that were betting pretty heavily. Neither was aware I knew the other but there was a pretty massive imbalance. They were playing even and I would have said the weaker player needed about two balls. I decided to do my good deed for the next year or two and extract the weaker player who had no idea who he was playing. As I stood around watching for an opening to let the weaker player know he was outclassed I noticed something funny. Not only was the weaker player winning, on this night he had the stronger player dominated and was going to keep on winning! If he had known who the stronger player was the weaker one would have folded like a wet cardboard box! It's why pool is fun to play. The math might model the long term pretty accurately like Fargo, it doesn't model short term well.
Looking at your five factors, three is often in error, four sometimes.
Hu
Hu
The fifteen percent shot is likewise probably not a shot to spend a lot of time on. You should rarely be shooting it in a real game.
The 60-70% shot is the one with the most potential for improvement and the one with the most likelihood of being able to improve. This type of shot is the one to spend time on. Might be possible to make significant improvement here.
The OP's math is fine but I have a feeling it isn't really the right approach 90% on five factors. If there are compensating errors more than one of those factors may occur and a shot be made. Perhaps the margin of error is greater than usual. I always consider shooting into "big pockets" where another ball makes the pocket play bigger than normal.
How about if all five of the factors fail on one shot? Does that mean I am guaranteed to make the shot on the next four tries? I think we will both agree that the odds of making the next five shots is exactly the same as before the five factors came into play on one shot.
I think we have several floating variables that keep the math from being effective. I ran a test lab for an R&D company for awhile. That was a lot of fun. We used it for things where math wasn't practical or wasn't effective at all. Pool is one of those things. We can't sit back and model how a match will play out on a computer.
I walked into a place one night and knew two gamblers that were betting pretty heavily. Neither was aware I knew the other but there was a pretty massive imbalance. They were playing even and I would have said the weaker player needed about two balls. I decided to do my good deed for the next year or two and extract the weaker player who had no idea who he was playing. As I stood around watching for an opening to let the weaker player know he was outclassed I noticed something funny. Not only was the weaker player winning, on this night he had the stronger player dominated and was going to keep on winning! If he had known who the stronger player was the weaker one would have folded like a wet cardboard box! It's why pool is fun to play. The math might model the long term pretty accurately like Fargo, it doesn't model short term well.
Looking at your five factors, three is often in error, four sometimes.
Hu
Hu
Seems true until I remember players who have been playing over fifty years. They made some changes that made long term improvements. I don't think we quit improving at pool until we quit trying to improve.
Hu
It's not so much trying to make tough shots as it is practicing tough shots to hone your skills under pressure.
The math wasn't meant to be anything more than to indicate that with each error on the several requisites required to make the shot, no matter how slight, the likelihood of making the shot becomes increasingly less likely. So you better tighten up your game.
Yes. Each shot is independent of the previous shots in and of themselves. But if you are habitually making the same errors on each shot then there is a very high correlation one shot to the next.
And sometimes a player plays way over his head. And a good player can be in a slump. Obviously it happens. Even the champions/pros can have a tough time of it some of the time.
Last edited:
Chalk is free.
Nope. I have 30, 40 yrs of used, stolen blue Masters that I'll let go for um 30, 40 bucks a cube.
