Allowable Margin for Error -- Contact Point vs Fractional Aim Point

BC21 · Mar 4, 2020

SpiderWebComm said:
Oh God...here we go with analogies from outer space again.

I don't know how good you play the guitar, but I have to think you're an excellent dancer.

You do it here every day. The two step...the shuffle...the moon walk...River dance...
the samba...the mamba...the polka...the Minuet...the Waltz...the Charleston...we could go on and on.

But you can't explain what you do in detail to make two balls link up with each other to go in a certain direction to fall into a hole. Amazing!

(Dance on...)

What's even more amazing is that I'm not much of a dancer. :embarrassed2:

You enjoy learning new tricks, working on something until you finally get it working like it's supposed to work.
So I will attempt to explain how we feel players aim...

Step 1: I look at the cb-ob relationship in reference to the pocket.

Step 2: I look at where the ob will go if I shoot the cb straight into it, a full ball hit. On thin or awkward looking cuts I might stand behind the ob and visualize its path to the pocket also.

Step 3: I look to where I know the cb needs to be in order to send the ob to the pocket. I know this location because I've been doing it for many years. At some point throughout those years my brain eventually paved all those synaptic pathways that allow me to just know this information as soon as my eyes capture the image of the shot.

Step 4: I visualize the line the cb needs to travel. This is more like a vertical plane, not a line.

Step 5: I step onto this vertical plane, which usually crosses over the middle of my back foot, and I align my body so that my stroke is locked into this plane, stroking back and forth to ensure everything looks rightvand feels right in accordance with my experience.

Step 6: I stroke through the cb and send it on its way.

Steps 1 thru 4 typically take about 3 to 5 seconds at most. Steps 5 and 6 take another few seconds.

Now, do this several thousand times until you've shot most shots several hundred times successfully. This could take a few years if you only play 2 or 3 hours a week. Eventually you'll get pretty good at it, as long as you pay attention to the commonly missed shots and make some conscious effort here and there to figure out what you might be doing wrong or doing inconsistently.
But there will always be shots that just don't come up often enough to become automatic, unless you incorporate professional practice habits and hit hundreds or thousands of balls every day, which is very unlikely to be the case for most players.

BC21 · Mar 4, 2020

duckie said:
I’ve watched quite a few post motorcycle race interviews. Whenever a top finisher is asked about a specific moment or incident on track, they have to think back about it.

The answer given is from how he remembers the incident, not what he was thinking at the time.

At the time.......he wasn’t thinking, but reacting. Reacting to what is happening then doing what’s necessary.

If he had the think about........he would be dead.

There have been a few times I’d ran out in 8.......and didn’t know it or remember doing it.

When you get lost in what you are doing........there is no thinking.

Exactly. And this applies to everything we do, at least things we've done long enough to know by heart without having to think about how to do it..... riding a bike, driving a car, racing a motorcycle, playing chess, baseball, tennis, guitar, pool, golf, bowling, etc...

SpiderWebComm · Mar 4, 2020

BC21 said:
What's even more amazing is that I'm not much of a dancer. :embarrassed2:

I don't know about that. The dance I left out is the one you do the best. The TAP DANCE! You can tap dance around questions about as good as anyone I've seen. Buy some tap shoes for yourself. You'd be a natural.

You enjoy learning new tricks, working on something until you finally get it working like it's supposed to work.
So I will attempt to explain how we feel players aim...

Step 1: I look at the cb-ob relationship in reference to the pocket.

Step 2: I look at where the ob will go if I shoot the cb straight into it, a full ball hit. On thin or awkward looking cuts I might stand behind the ob and visualize its path to the pocket also.

Step 3: I look to where I know the cb needs to be in order to send the ob to the pocket. I know this location because I've been doing it for many years. At some point throughout those years my brain eventually paved all those synaptic pathways that allow me to just know this information as soon as my eyes capture the image of the shot.

Step 4: I visualize the line the cb needs to travel. This is more like a vertical plane, not a line.

Step 5: I step onto this vertical plane, which usually crosses over the middle of my back foot, and I align my body so that my stroke is locked into this plane, stroking back and forth to ensure everything looks rightvand feels right in accordance with my experience.

Step 6: I stroke through the cb and send it on its way.

Steps 1 thru 4 typically take about 3 to 5 seconds at most. Steps 5 and 6 take another few seconds.

Now, do this several thousand times until you've shot most shots several hundred times successfully. This could take a few years if you only play 2 or 3 hours a week. Eventually you'll get pretty good at it, as long as you pay attention to the commonly missed shots and make some conscious effort here and there to figure out what you might be doing wrong or doing inconsistently.
But there will always be shots that just don't come up often enough to become automatic, unless you incorporate professional practice habits and hit hundreds or thousands of balls every day, which is very unlikely to be the case for most players.

One more question. After all of the above, how is IT better and more effective than Poolology for you when Poolology is supposedly mathematically and geometrically
perfect and requires NO guesswork when done as written.

Nobody knows the system better than you because YOU created it. It's as second nature and ingrained in your brain as the "feel" system is. Although "feel" is never ingrained. It's a day to day thing. Just like putting is for a PGA Tour player. When the "feels" are there, they make everything. When it's not, they suck. Their score reflects it and they openly admit it. "I had NO touch or feel putting on the greens today. Couldn't see the line, the breaks, and the putter felt like a broom in my hands."

BC21 · Mar 4, 2020

Learning to pocket balls, this sums it up....

A young girl wants to learn how to play a violin, so her parents find a used cheap violin and take the girl to a local instructor for lessons. After she learns how to hold the instrument, how to rosin the bow, and how to hold and move the bow over the strings, she is ready to begin learning how to play. The instructor plays a very easy beginner piece and shows the student how to play it. When the teacher plays it it sounds beautiful, but when the student plays it it sounds horrible.

She asks why and the teacher explains that her fingers aren't yet hitting the exact positions needed to produce the correct notes, but if she pays attention to the sound of each note, she'll begin to hear when a particular note is sharp or flat. Stop and look at exactly where your finger is pressing down on the string, then slide it slightly up or down the neck until the note sounds correct. Do this every single time a note sounds a little off. Eventually your brain will tie it all together through repetition, and your fingers will automatically go where they need to go without looking or thinking about it.

Learning to play pool is no different. At first things seem awkward, off, out of tune. But through deliberate conscious effort we program our brain. Eventually we find ourselves doing most of it automatically without really thinking about how we are doing it. We just do it.

The little girl violinist was a great friend years later. When I first starting playing guitar, around 14 or 15 I guess, she gave me some little stickers to mark the chords on the frets so I could quickly get my fingers into the right mix to produce any chord. I didn't like the stickers because I didn't like the way they looked on my guitar neck. But she said it was a shortcut that would help me learn faster. She said they didn't have stickers like that when she was learning how to play the violin, but if there would've been stickers available she probably could've skipped out on countless hours of practice. She was right. Within no time I had the stickers off that guitar and could hit any chord I wanted without thinking about how or where to place my fingers. And I didn't have to play a each chord a thousand times before finally becoming consistent. They were labeled, so I hit em correctly every time with no doubt, no trial and error or guesswork.

When someone tells you there are no shortcuts, it's simply not true. There are shortcuts for everything, even for learning how to play pool.

SpiderWebComm · Mar 4, 2020

BC21 said:
Learning to pocket balls, this sums it up....

A young girl wants to learn how to play a violin, so her parents find a used cheap violin and take the girl to a local instructor for lessons. After she learns how to hold the instrument, how to rosin the bow, and how to hold and move the bow over the strings, she is ready to begin learning how to play. The instructor plays a very easy beginner piece and shows the student how to play it. When the teacher plays it it sounds beautiful, but when the student plays it it sounds horrible.

She asks why and the teacher explains that her fingers aren't yet hitting the exact positions needed to produce the correct notes, but if she pays attention to the sound of each note, she'll begin to hear when a particular note is sharp or flat. Stop and look at exactly where your finger is pressing down on the string, then slide it slightly up or down the neck until the note sounds correct. Do this every single time a note sounds a little off. Eventually your brain will tie it all together through repetition, and your fingers will automatically go where they need to go without looking or thinking about it.

Learning to play pool is no different. At first things seem awkward, off, out of tune. But through deliberate conscious effort we program our brain. Eventually we find ourselves doing most of it automatically without really thinking about how we are doing it. We just do it.

The little girl violinist was a great friend years later. When I first starting playing guitar, around 14 or 15 I guess, she gave me some little stickers to mark the chords on the frets so I could quickly get my fingers into the right mix to produce any chord. I didn't like the stickers because I didn't like the way they looked on my guitar neck. But she said it was a shortcut that would help me learn faster. She said they didn't have stickers like that when she was learning how to play the violin, but if there would've been stickers available she probably could've skipped out on countless hours of practice. She was right. Within no time I had the stickers off that guitar and could hit any chord I wanted without thinking about how or where to place my fingers. And I didn't have to play a each chord a thousand times before finally becoming consistent. They were labeled, so I hit em correctly every time with no doubt, no trial and error or guesswork.

When someone tells you there are no shortcuts, it's simply not true. There are shortcuts for everything, even for learning how to play pool.

It's called Poolology. The problem is nobody uses it including the CREATOR.
He decided he'd be a lot better off playing the violin so he's on his way to buying one.

Stay tuned to the next exciting installment of "ANOLOGY CORNER". Click the link while reading the next installment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9IA9oOM18A

BC21 · Mar 4, 2020

SpiderWebComm said:
One more question. After all of the above, how is IT better and more effective than Poolology for you when Poolology is supposedly mathematically and geometrically
perfect and requires NO guesswork when done as written.

Nobody knows the system better than you because YOU created it. It's as second nature and ingrained in your brain as the "feel" system is. Although "feel" is never ingrained. It's a day to day thing. Just like putting is for a PGA Tour player. When the "feels" are there, they make everything. When it's not, they suck. Their score reflects it and they openly admit it. "I had NO touch or feel putting on the greens today. Couldn't see the line, the breaks, and the putter felt like a broom in my hands."

You are right about feel. Frame of mind, emotions and outside influences affect it. Control this stuff and feel is pretty damn reliable.

As far as why I dont use Poolology 100% of the time.....that's simple. It's the same reason I don't have to look at my fingers when I play certain things on a guitar. I know where my fingers need to be and it just happens without me orchestrating it. It's the same reason I don't consciously control every step I take when walking, or every turn I maneuver when driving my car or motorcycle. It's automatic.

Poolology is not automatic. It's a systematic process to help players develop automatic shot recognition. Pros don't need it. Once you reach a certain level, thousands upon thousands of hours on the table, aiming is not an issue. Only a fool would believe otherwise. With that said, most amateur players struggle with certain shots, like full table back cuts. Applying a little Poolology can fix that trouble. Once fixed, you won't need Poolology anymore for that particular shot. It's that simple.

I don't play professional pool, never wanted to dedicate that much time to it. But I have dedicated enough to become very proficient with it. Some shots come up that seem to act like a monkey wrench thrown into the gear compartment of my subconscious process. That's when I apply Poolology. Then I'm right back on track. I've played more pool in the last couple weeks than I have in a long while, preparing for the BCA World Championships next week. Playing on a Diamond barbox, since that's what the tournament uses, I broke and ran 3 racks of 8ball straight. Then broke and scratched. My opponent ran down to the 8 and missed, hooked himself. I ran out, then put another 3 pack on him, winning 7-0. I'm sure, during all that time, I probably used Poolology once or twice, when needed. That's what it's about. That's how an experienced player should use the system.

A newby could use it on every shot, but the end result is that the brain will begin to automatically recognize certain shots, and eventually the systematic Poolology method will fall by the wayside because you won't need it every time anymore. It's a tool, a shortcut to learning how to pocket balls without relying on guesswork or trial and error.

SpiderWebComm · Mar 4, 2020

BC21 said:
You are right about feel. Frame of mind, emotions and outside influences effect it. Control this stuff and feel is pretty damn reliable.

As far as why I dont use Poolology 100% of the time.....that's simple. It's the same reason I don't have to look at my fingers when I play certain things on a guitar. I know where my fingers need to be and it just happens without me orchestrating it. It's the same reason I don't consciously control every step I take when walking, or every turn I maneuver when driving my car or motorcycle. It's automatic.

Poolology is not automatic. It's a systematic process to help players develop automatic shot recognition.

I don't play professional pool, never wanted to dedicate that much time to it. But I have dedicated enough to become very proficient with it. Some shots come up that seem to act like a monkey wrench thrown into the gear compartment of my subconscious process. That's when I apply Poolology. Then I'm right back on track. I've played more pool in the last couple weeks than I have in a long while, preparing for the BCA World Championships next week. Playing on a Diamond barbox, since that's what the tournament uses, I broke and ran 3 racks of 8ball straight. Then broke and scratched. My opponent ran down to the 8 and missed, hooked himself. I ran out, then put another 3 pack on him, winning 7-0. I'm sure, during all that time, I probably used Poolology once or twice, when needed. That's what it's about. That's how an experienced player should use the system.

A newby could use it on every shot, but the end result is that the brain will begin to automatically recognize certain shots, and eventually the systematic Poolology method will fall by the wayside because you won't need it every time anymore. It's a tool, a shortcut to learning how to pocket balls without relying on guesswork or trial and error.

I dub thee (drumroll please) …. "ANALOGY KID"

BC21 · Mar 4, 2020

SpiderWebComm said:
I dub thee (drumroll please) …. "ANALOGY KID"

I like it. When speaking to people who have a difficult time understanding common sense and straight talk, analogies prove to be very effective. :wink:

SpiderWebComm · Mar 4, 2020

BC21 said:
I like it. When speaking to people who have a difficult time understanding common sense and straight talk, analogies prove to be very effective. :wink:

Or they flat out get on the nerves and the analogy creator gets tuned out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xxTkB5bGy4

BC21 · Mar 4, 2020

SpiderWebComm said:
Or they flat out get on the nerves and the analogy creator gets tuned out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xxTkB5bGy4

Lol. Then by all means, tune out.

I mean, if analogies are the kryptonite that drives you away or tunes you out, then let me lay another one out here....

It's like the guy arguing with a chef because the chef can't tell him exactly how the flavors of his standard soup blend together to create its unique taste. The chef has two soups on the menu, his standard soup and his new soup, and both are very good. You keep pushing and prodding for some sort of explanation as to why the standard soup is even on the menu, since the new soup is supposed to be so good. All the while, the sole reason for your presence is because you have a buddy down the street that also has a soup, and he can explain exactly why it tastes like it does. It doesn't matter that you only eat your buddy's soup, or that your buddy's explanation of why his soup is so good involves some weird phenomenon that defies logic. What matters is that you just want your buddy's soup to be in the limelight, so you must try your best to discredit the other chef, this hack who can't even describe his standard soup, who prefers his standard soup and only occasionally swallows the new soup, when your buddy down the street eats his own soup 100% of the time.

SpiderWebComm · Mar 4, 2020

I honestly think you have some genetic link to ENGLISH!

BC21 · Mar 4, 2020

SpiderWebComm said:
I honestly think you have some genetic link to ENGLISH!

Lol. What's cool about you, Spidey, is we can poke each other without going overboard.

It's weird that you mentioned "genetic link". I started listening to a book this week titled, The Sports Gene, by David Epstein. It's about the role genetics plays, along with the 10,000 hour theory, when it comes to skill development in sports. Boring in places, but overall a very interesting book so far. You can only listen to so much data about long distance runners. He's on basketball now, so it's getting better.

Imac007 · Mar 5, 2020

BC21 said:
I found this comparison interesting....

On a straight in shot the allowable margin for error when aiming at the exact ob contact point for a center pocket shot is relevant to the ob's margin of error going into the pocket. For example, an ob on the foot spot of a 7ft diamond barbox has a 4.5° window going cleanly into the pocket, a +/- 2.25° margin of error from center pocket.

When measured across the surface of the ob (where the contact point is located) this 4.5° window provides a 2.2mm arc. If the cb strikes the ob anywhere within this arc the ob will go into the pocket. The same 2.2mm arc applies to cut shots also, but as the cut gets progressively thinner this 2.2mm becomes skewed. The change in perspective, as viewed from the cb, makes the 2.2mm arc look smaller. Straight in it looks like 2.2mm, but from a 1/2 ball hit perspective the 2.2mm looks like 1.9mm, and from a thinner 1/4 ball hit perspective it's only 1.5mm. Eventually, as the cut angle approaches 90°, the 2.2mm arc will not even be visible from the cb's perspective.

So, when trying to reference the contact point, the margin for error shrinks as the cut angle increases.

Compare this to fractional aiming, where the width of the ob (2.25") is used to partition the cb into quarter, eighth, or sixteenth aiming point references. This 2.25" never changes, regardless of cut angle/shot perspective. It's a constant. By ignoring the physical surface of the ball (sphere) you can simply focus on the diameter of the ball as a plain circle. Doing this doubles your margin of error when it comes to aiming references.

Fractional aim points have 2 times the allowable margin for error when compared to contact points. A contact point arc of 2mm gives you room for error to be off by no more than 1mm left or right of perfect. The same shot using a fractional aim point allows for 4mm, meaning you can be off by as much 2mm left or right of the fractional aim point needed and still pocket the ball.

Has anyone seen any information like this in any book or online resource? Just curious.

Contact point to contact point aiming also looks at 2 degrees. Fact is any Single point on the rounded object ball surface can only be contacted by a corresponding single point on the cue ball. When creating a variance of one degree on the object ball surface, a corresponding single degree of change must be made on the cue ball surface for the two points to actually contact.

On the topic of angles and ball quarters. Starting with the premise that ~ 90° of angles are available without technique intervention, those angles are encountered within the width of a ball, any more and the cue ball misses the object ball. As a rule of thumb, the half ball cut is about 30°. That means the remaining 60° of angles are found in the remaining horizontal half ball.

Half of that, from half to ¾ ball contain about another 19°, bringing the total from straight in to ¼ ball covering only 49 of the 90 degrees. The last ¼ ball, angled away from you visually, contains the remaining 41 degrees of angles. As noted in the 1:1 ratio of object ball contact to cue ball contact change dynamics in place, each single degree of required angle change must come as a half degree change on each ball. Find those 82 half degrees using fractions.

On a two dimensional model a simple swing over of a degree gives you a degree. That is part of what shooters get wrong when adjusting lines while down. They sweep from a position imagining a slight contact point adjustment on the circle rather than the reality of a round surface. The stroke with only half of the adjustment needed, results in a fat hit if the adjustment was for more cut, or a still thinner than desired contact, if adjusted for less cut.

Fractional aiming is a good introductory tool for creating base references for players. I love the half ball angle. Recognizing fractional aiming’s limitations allows players to make relevant decisions when those limitations are encountered. Planning suggests avoiding leaving thicker cut shots for most situations other than short distance to the hole shots where margin of error covers a significant number of those 41° possible degrees.

BC21 · Mar 5, 2020

Imac007 said:
Contact point to contact point aiming also looks at 2 degrees. Fact is any Single point on the rounded object ball surface can only be contacted by a corresponding single point on the cue ball. When creating a variance of one degree on the object ball surface, a corresponding single degree of change must be made on the cue ball surface for the two points to actually contact.

On the topic of angles and ball quarters. Starting with the premise that ~ 90° of angles are available without technique intervention, those angles are encountered within the width of a ball, any more and the cue ball misses the object ball. As a rule of thumb, the half ball cut is about 30°. That means the remaining 60° of angles are found in the remaining horizontal half ball.

Half of that, from half to ¾ ball contain about another 19°, bringing the total from straight in to ¼ ball covering only 49 of the 90 degrees. The last ¼ ball, angled away from you visually, contains the remaining 41 degrees of angles. As noted in the 1:1 ratio of object ball contact to cue ball contact change dynamics in place, each single degree of required angle change must come as a half degree change on each ball. Find those 82 half degrees using fractions.

On a two dimensional model a simple swing over of a degree gives you a degree. That is part of what shooters get wrong when adjusting lines while down. They sweep from a position imagining a slight contact point adjustment on the circle rather than the reality of a round surface. The stroke with only half of the adjustment needed, results in a fat hit if the adjustment was for more cut, or a still thinner than desired contact, if adjusted for less cut.

Fractional aiming is a good introductory tool for creating base references for players. I love the half ball angle. Recognizing fractional aiming’s limitations allows players to make relevant decisions when those limitations are encountered. Planning suggests avoiding leaving thicker cut shots for most situations other than short distance to the hole shots where margin of error covers a significant number of those 41° possible degrees.

Yes! And unless the player has zero cb control, most shots fall somewhere between 0° and 50°, with an occasional 60° cut.

The better a player gets at playing position, the more refined their pocketing skills become for shots less than about 48 (a quarter-ball shot).

For an object ball a half-table distance from the pocket, the ball has about a 2° window to hit the pocket, a +/- 1° left or right of center pocket. The contact point arc for this ob is about 1mm, which means the player must be able to reference the exact contact point within +/- 0.5mm. The same shot using the fractional ball method allows aiming directly at a point where you can be off by 1mm left or right and still pocket the ball. This equates to about 24 different aim points to cover shots between 0 and 48°, versus 48 different contact points. For shots within 2 or 3 feet from the pocket these numbers are cut in half, meaning only 12 fractional aim lines can cover all cut shots from 0 to 48°.

SpiderWebComm · Mar 5, 2020

BC21 said:
Lol. What's cool about you, Spidey, is we can poke each other without going overboard.

It's weird that you mentioned "genetic link". I started listening to a book this week

Is this an oxymoron or typo?

titledThe Sports Gene, by David Epstein. It's about the role genetics plays, along with the 10,000 hour theory, when it comes to skill development in sports. Boring in places, but overall a very interesting book so far. You can only listen to so much data about long distance runners. He's on basketball now, so it's getting better.

I can't wait until you get to Olympic events and the genetics of Bruce Jenner. Fill me in when you get there.

BC21 · Mar 5, 2020

SpiderWebComm said:
I can't wait until you get to Olympic events and the genetics of Bruce Jenner. Fill me in when you get there.

There have already been a few cases where the author talks about female athletes who were born with a Y chromosome. Males have XY chromosomes and females have XX. When a female has a Y chromosome she can have more testosterone than other females. Also, they have undescended testicles in their uterus. Outside, everything looks normal. Inside, there are dude parts. It's a rare anomaly. I've never read or heard of a case where a man is born without a Y chromosome, but it does happen. I doubt Bruce Jenner is one of them though. Lol

SpiderWebComm · Mar 5, 2020

BC21 said:
There have already been a few cases where the author talks about female athletes who were born with a Y chromosome. Males have XY chromosomes and females have XX. When a female has a Y chromosome she can have more testosterone than other females. Also, they have undescended testicles in their uterus. Outside, everything looks normal. Inside, there are dude parts. It's a rare anomaly. I've never read or heard of a case where a man is born without a Y chromosome, but it does happen. I doubt Bruce Jenner is one of them though. Lol

Sounds like a whole lot more hermaphrodites out there than realized.

I learned about that many years ago when going to a traveling carnival in a small town. It was a side show with the carny barker crying out, "step right up, step right up. See the half man and half woman."

A bunch of us paid our money and went inside the tent where he/she sat on a high stool and pulled up the dress to show what was there. Sure enough there was both.
Kind of underdeveloped for both, but nevertheless it was there.

Google the word and you can learn about it as well as see images. Whodathunk?

BC21 · Mar 6, 2020

This sketch shows 3 different aiming methods for the same shot, arranged from most complicated to least complicated.

On the left is contact point to contact point, then the middle shot is ghostball, and on the right is fractional aiming.

SpiderWebComm · Mar 6, 2020

BC21 said:
This sketch shows 3 different aiming methods for the same shot, arranged from most complicated to least complicated.

On the left is contact point to contact point, then the middle shot is ghostball, and on the right is fractional aiming.

Can you make another drawing for the "feel method" and how it's determined, visualized, and linked up between the two balls? What is the fail safe part of it that makes it better to use than one of the above?

duckie · Mar 6, 2020

BC21 said:
This sketch shows 3 different aiming methods for the same shot, arranged from most complicated to least complicated.

On the left is contact point to contact point, then the middle shot is ghostball, and on the right is fractional aiming.

Well..........by your drawing......you don’t know anything about ghost ball.

The ghost ball circle does not overlap the OB circle.

The proper representation of the ghost ball and OB is two circles, side by side, with the edges of the circles touching at some point......never ghost ball circle overlapping OB circle.

Allowable Margin for Error -- Contact Point vs Fractional Aim Point

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

HelpImBeingOppressed

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

HelpImBeingOppressed

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

HelpImBeingOppressed

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

HelpImBeingOppressed

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

HelpImBeingOppressed

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

AzB Silver Member

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

HelpImBeingOppressed

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

HelpImBeingOppressed

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

HelpImBeingOppressed

GregH