Cue pivot SOTW alternative?
- Thread starter lobstertex
- Start date
That's the concept, but as Bob says, both blue "x" lines need to point where the lines from CB/OB hit the rail - pointing the left blue line at the point where the CB line hits the rail (rather than at the pocket, as I carelessly described it) moves your target a little to the left.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
@Patrick Johnson ...thanks for the explanation and i was sloppy with my drawing
i thought but wasnt sure
when you said side pocket above it was because thats where the cue ball rail point was so close to
@Bob Jewett please check your pm
i thought but wasnt sure
when you said side pocket above it was because thats where the cue ball rail point was so close to
@Bob Jewett please check your pm
I just wanted to add something:
If the cue ball and the object ball were in line, from left to right, then the center of the 'X' would be equally distant from the parallel lines. As the diagram shows, as the cue ball is moved upwards, the center of the 'X' moves towards the cue ball (which moves the centerline and the cushion target). If you think about it a little more, the center will move towards the ball which is closer to the kicking cushion.
And that's not exactly where Sharivari uses, but it might be close enough.
Yes, that's what this system says. That means that if the 1:2 simple diamond system works on the table, this X system will go too long. They give different answers for the same shot. Pretty close, but different by maybe a ball, depending on the shot.
When looking at aiming, I tend to treat them in a sort of "in a vacuum" manner, as EVERY system needs the disclaimer for "table conditions"....
Looking at this had made me wonder, what the formula would be, for how much the center line would move towards the cue ball, as the cue ball moves towards the target cushion. It's obviously not a 2:1 ratio, like the centerline-to change in width of the kick (when balls are in line), but since it *would* involve right triangles, so maybe Trig applies here? I start thinking about radians and my vision gets blurry....
The ratio of the two distances along the banking cushion is the same as the ratio of distances from the cushion, because of the similar triangles involved. So:
I should have thought of the similar triangles part, but I was focused on what the change would be in 'a', as 'A' decreases, but 'ab' stays the same. I'm going to have to throw some values in a spreadsheet.
I should have thought of the similar triangles part, but I was focused on what the change would be in 'a', as 'A' decreases, but 'ab' stays the same. I'm going to have to throw some values in a spreadsheet.
Funny thing is....years ago I told this method on a drive back from Vegas to a long time avid pool player I had played on BCA teams with in vegas back when it was at the Riviera (now passed away RIP) He shockingly to me had never heard of this method......He was a math guy and actually had a "mathnasium" or something along those lines where they did math well beyond my knowledge.....Next time I saw him back in AZ I showed it to him on a table....He applied the method and kicked a ball in using it and was so intrigued he went home and did a whole math work up on it. He actually sent me a paper on it....LOL
Meanwhile.....One of the main reasons I use the method is because I "don't" have to do math to use it.