Visualizing the CB/OB overlap should be the same (proportionally), as long as CB and OB are the same size as each other.
pj
chgo
How to Use Pivot Point Knowlege To Increase Error Margins
- Thread starter Colin Colenso
- Start date
pj
chgo
Yes Thanks Colin. I can see how this knowledge can do exactly as you have said... let you know more precisely why you have missed.
After this thread I see more value in bhe and fre also. When aiming to apply english you can use bhe or instead of extending your bridge on certain shots use fhe, Correct?
This will let you know more precisely why you missed also I believe right?
Thanks again Colin.
Last edited:
You're welcome Satori.
It's difficult to produce an explanation that provides perfectly accurate or even useful guides to dealing with all variables, and some of the minutia I am still working through and how this type of knowledge conflicts with various traditional theories.
But the more I learn, the more I can use this knowledge to nullify various effects and adjust well for others.
No problem. I was able to understand the basics of what you were saying.
My findings after playing with this some are to calibrate at 2 diamonds distance between cb and ob then:
1) Use a little longer than calibrated bridge for shots where cb and ob are closer than the distance you calibrated at as more spin induced throw would occur if you somehow cued away from center.
2) Use a little shorter bridge for shots where curve is likely to come into play, again if you somehow cued outside of center.
This is of course if you feel the need to adjust your bridge distance and this is on shots with no english used and no collision induced throw.
On shots where english is the goal simply calibrate then use that bridge length with bhe or bhe/fhe as needed.
Last edited:
Satorie & Colin,
A couple of things.
1. I was a bit surprised how well CJ's method for outside english worked. He starts with the 'parallel' inside tip placement & then pivots to center or just past center. Naturally the center really only allows for the CIT outside pick up on the cue ball, but going past center works well too.
2. I learned on my own from 13 yrs. old on & I have used 'parallel', BHE, FHE, & a Combo of moving both back & front at the same time. But since I am not a mechanical player I did it all by feel & never consciously knew the balance pivot point of the cues that I used.
My point of #2 is that using a process like Colin has outlined, I think would be fine tuned somewhat by the subconscious through experience. That is how I 'learned' to use what I was doing at 13. If I tried outside & missed heavy or thin, the next time that shot came up I made an adjustment. I basically settled on what I would call is a subconscious air turn. Which is basically the cue getting 'turned to the proper angle with the pivot point somewhere between my two hands. I know this is rather useless for other individuals as it comes from HAMB, but I think since that is what I naturally gravitated to, it might be something for someone like Colin to consider or study. In some regards it sounds like part of Stan's CTE & the air pivot but I am going off center & not to it.
Sorry for the ramblings.
A couple of things.
1. I was a bit surprised how well CJ's method for outside english worked. He starts with the 'parallel' inside tip placement & then pivots to center or just past center. Naturally the center really only allows for the CIT outside pick up on the cue ball, but going past center works well too.
2. I learned on my own from 13 yrs. old on & I have used 'parallel', BHE, FHE, & a Combo of moving both back & front at the same time. But since I am not a mechanical player I did it all by feel & never consciously knew the balance pivot point of the cues that I used.
My point of #2 is that using a process like Colin has outlined, I think would be fine tuned somewhat by the subconscious through experience. That is how I 'learned' to use what I was doing at 13. If I tried outside & missed heavy or thin, the next time that shot came up I made an adjustment. I basically settled on what I would call is a subconscious air turn. Which is basically the cue getting 'turned to the proper angle with the pivot point somewhere between my two hands. I know this is rather useless for other individuals as it comes from HAMB, but I think since that is what I naturally gravitated to, it might be something for someone like Colin to consider or study. In some regards it sounds like part of Stan's CTE & the air pivot but I am going off center & not to it.
Sorry for the ramblings.
Last edited:
I will read this tomorrow. I have exceeded my limit of thinking for one day.:smile:
No need to apologize Rick, it's part of expanding or clarifying the conversation. Hopefully my responses answer some of your questions or lead to interesting areas of investigation.
On point 1. If using CJ's TOI alignment method, from what I understand it, it is a clever way to compensate for the very common tendency to align to undercut imho. I think in most cases on US tables, players still manage to undercut using this system, but not as much as previously, so most shots go in.
If one pivots to a touch of OE, the change in cut continues to widen, but the margin for error become smaller the more outside english is applied.
If you try his system on open table cuts or long rail pots, the weaknesses will become readily apparent. I don't think he's ever referred to the bridge length or speed of shot variables and that's why I've never given much credence to his system as being very useful outside of a small range of relatively easy shots. It will work ok when CB is within 2 feet of the OB on medium speed shots, but one will need to learn various adjustments at different length and speeds.
On your points regarding #2: All I can say is I tried this stroke cancellation bridge length method on CB to OB about 1 foot apart and 4 foot from the pocket for 30 mins today and couldn't miss one, regardless of where I hit the CB, so long as my speed was constant and my bridge placement was accurate. I can't imagine how I could subconsciously achieve this, as I'm stroking the cue along lines that varied 2 inches either side of the OB contact point. I can't even imagine a way I could subconsciously adjust to that... without changing the shot speed or elevation, there is no physical way to do so. I wasn't even looking at the OB during the stroke if that helps in reducing speculation about subconscious adjustment.
Hope that gets the cogs turning
Colin
[Edit]: On re-reading, you referred to a possible similarity with Stan's CTE methods. The only similarity is that I try to align most shots imagining medium firm natural follow, which would align one with a contact point for slight over-cutting, which is the aim line Stan claims his aiming system results in. ( I believe they came up with that theory only after it was pointed out to them that firm stun shots into the middle of pockets meant they were hitting LOC for a slight overcut). Beyond that, I see no technical similarities to how they aim compared to how I do..... BUT, if they have found a way to aim for a slight overcut as they claim, then utilizing pivot point knowledge would allow them to play all manner of shots with various spins and speeds if they learned the adjustments well.
[Edit again]: Note, I have made no mention of an aiming system in this thread, what I'm talking about is squirt, swerve, throw and swipe effect compensation systems.
Last edited:
Thanks for the chuckle. But it's not even noon where I am.:wink:
There is nothing much there for you. I thought was just sent to my head form something said & I rambled.
No need to apologize Rick, it's part of expanding or clarifying the conversation. Hopefully my responses answer some of your questions or lead to interesting areas of investigation.
On point 1. If using CJ's TOI alignment method, from what I understand it, it is a clever way to compensate for the very common tendency to align to undercut imho. I think in most cases on US tables, players still manage to undercut using this system, but not as much as previously, so most shots go in.
If one pivots to a touch of OE, the change in cut continues to widen, but the margin for error become smaller the more outside english is applied.
If you try his system on open table cuts or long rail pots, the weaknesses will become readily apparent. I don't think he's ever referred to the bridge length or speed of shot variables and that's why I've never given much credence to his system as being very useful outside of a small range of relatively easy shots. It will work ok when CB is within 2 feet of the OB on medium speed shots, but one will need to learn various adjustments at different length and speeds.
On your points regarding #2: All I can say is I tried this stroke cancellation bridge length method on CB to OB about 1 foot apart and 4 foot from the pocket for 30 mins today and couldn't miss one, regardless of where I hit the CB, so long as my speed was constant and my bridge placement was accurate. I can't imagine how I could subconsciously achieve this, as I'm stroking the cue along lines that varied 2 inches either side of the OB contact point. I can't even imagine a way I could subconsciously adjust to that... without changing the shot speed or elevation, there is no physical way to do so. I wasn't even looking at the OB during the stroke if that helps in reducing speculation about subconscious adjustment.
Hope that gets the cogs turning
Colin
Your last paragraph sounds intriguing. I'll have to remember & give it a try when I find time. I was more 'responding' to Satori's concerns about the different length shots & asking you how to adjust.
As to TOI, I've noticed some of your 'negative' comments but I will tell you that for me & perhaps that is for the more feel type players it works quite well & especially for long thin cuts & banks too. The thing is that one has to learn their cue & sort of calibrate, with feel, for the speed to keep swerve out of the picture. That said I found that I had to hit shots harder than I like a bit too often & especially on the bigger tables & I was using an LD shaft. That is why I added a 3rd. alignment/aim point.
It seems that you are still referring to the way CJ first introduced it for explanation purposes. It was upgraded to just CTC & CTE alignments & that is part of the beauty of it. It virtually takes 'aiming' out of the picture. It's just CTC or CTE. It is a very Dynamic method in that one is using the combination of offset amount with speed. Though it is called a 'touch' of inside there are more than a few shots that come up that require more than a touch. Sometimes it's 2 to 3 tips or more with a LD shaft which CJ does not use & that is the reason that I added the 3rd alignment. He also said the he used different diameter shafts for different size tables. He was changing the end mass squirt amounts for the table even if he was not aware of it. He found what worked for him.
I've gotten away form it since I started playing 1 pocket but I hit some with it the other day & while it works I quickly saw that I would need to work on the subconscious feel 'calibration' aspect or I would be missing shots that I can make without it.
I'm too long winded.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Sounds like you're on the right track, but just to be clear, place CB 1 foot from OB on straight line to a pocket a few feet away, pick a bridge length of about 15 inches for starters and try to use a medium firm stroke, such that it would travel 3 table lengths if it didn't hit an OB.
Aim CCB precisely, then hit 1+ tips right. If the OB goes left of pocket, increase the bridge length. If it goes to the right, such that squirt superceded throw, then shorten the bridge length.
After a few trials you'll find the stroke cancellation pivot length for that speed and that distance to CB and no matter where you stroke to, at that approximate speed, for that distance of OB to CB separation, you'll make the shot. The stroke becomes irrelevant, apart from positional requirements.
Colin
Last edited:
I guess it's fair to say I've been critical of CJ's TOI, and I don't know every aspect of it, and CJ doesn't seem the type to entertain questioning about the minutia of his systems, and I suspect it's because he doesn't understand it.
But that's just my opinion and I've nothing against the man, who I barely know, other than he shoots pretty well and has bullet proof skin in the internet world
Kudos to him for that!Sounds a bit like you're developing your own compensation methods for TOI. Good on you, but I think that's telling about the system.
I'd like to see you try some of the shots you like using TOI on and play them with medium-firm follow 200 times until you're sliding the OB just past the corner jaw without touching it, consistently.
Then, learn your cue's effective pivot point for that shot and align the same and then pivot for IE and touch of OE. If you want heavy OE, align a little thicker or bash it in.
I suspect that methodology would open new doors for your shot selection.
But just my opinion. I wish you the best whatever you trial and find success with.
Colin
Proportionally perhaps, but the aim line, compared to line of centers, is different. If the balls are pretty close, the aim line could be 30+ degrees different for smaller versus larger balls placed on the same spots.
Well, I never use fhe or it's equivalents of parallel type shifting anymore, because I consider it far less accurate as it requires bridge shifting, and the bridge position is the gold standard for aiming imho.
Perhaps when I aim to miss a little, and let throw do it's job, I'm using a form of fhe, but I don't think of it in that way. I just think of it as an aiming adjustment for the few shots where throw is significantly different than the OB throw when hitting with medium firm follow, which is almost identical to hard stun, most draw shots, most inside english shots and softer stun and follow shots with a touch of outside english. That's a lot of shot choices that don't require any aim adjustment at all.
Colin
I guess it's fair to say I've been critical of CJ's TOI, and I don't know every aspect of it, and CJ doesn't seem the type to entertain questioning about the minutia of his systems, and I suspect it's because he doesn't understand it.
But that's just my opinion and I've nothing against the man, who I barely know, other than he shoots pretty well and has bullet proof skin in the internet world
Sounds a bit like you're developing your own compensation methods for TOI. Good on you, but I think that's telling about the system.
I'd like to see you try some of the shots you like using TOI on and play them with medium-firm follow 200 times until you're sliding the OB just past the corner jaw without touching it, consistently.
Then, learn your cue's effective pivot point for that shot and align the same and then pivot for IE and touch of OE. If you want heavy OE, align a little thicker or bash it in.
I suspect that methodology would open new doors for your shot selection.
But just my opinion. I wish you the best whatever you trial and find success with.
Colin
Thanks Colin,
I've been hitting long shots with outside & inside with rolling, forced follow, 'stop' & draw for decades at slow, medium & fast speeds.
I think it might be a bit much to call TOI a system unless one is talking about the overall playing plan vs just a shot. For just a shot it's a simple method but one that requires some understanding & then feel.
Not too long ago I was watching a young woman trying to pocket a thin cut into the side pocket. She never made it one time & it was getting a bit painful for me. I don't usually walk up to young women in a crowded hall, but I could not take it anymore. So, I politely asked if I could show her something that I thought might help. I explained TOI & she made the shot on the first attempt using it. She was flabbergasted.
Right now, if I had to hit a full table length near 90* cut or bank that I could hit firm, I'd go with TOI. If I had to hit it more softly, I'd go with outside or inside depending on the CB requirement. I would rarely hit it with a slow center hit rolling ball unless leaving the cue ball as near to that end was a requirement & even then I would probably come up & go back down if that was possible.
That's the beauty of the game there is more than one way to skin the cat.
Cheers.
You're right, there are various ways to skin a cat, figuratively, on a pool table.
I can see how aligning with inside english cue tip position helped that girl make a shot.
And I agree that slow center hitting of the CB is highly unpreferable... it's up there with slow 50+% outside english, though the effects are opposite.
Add any slow long shot with side english to that mix. They're low percentage unless one has practiced that shot on that table beforehand, regardless of aiming or side english adjustment systems.
Colin
Colin, Please see the blue.
The thing is, she was trying to make it with every different type of hit. center, outside, inside, hitting them relatively slowly.
I had her it hit it firm & it dove into the pocket. I've certainly made my share of thin cuts in the side with both outside & inside depending on the angle but they have become more consistent & 'easy' using TOI.
Even if one does not play the total TOI 'system' of play I think anyone can find something about the method to utilize in their game even if just for a special situation.
I am very glad that CJ convinced me to give it a straight 3 hours of just it.
I added a tool.
Cheers.
Here are my thoughts after some more work with this.
The goal for using this knowledge is:
1) To increase margin of error allowed
2) To let you know better why you missed
Does it do this?
Using the calibrated bridge length, along with a pivot that is exactly at the point needed, will eliminate the need to adjust your aim for deflection. All you have to do is use the bridge length, line up like you are using center ball then pivot.
1) In one way this will increase the margin of error you can have because if you are off where you wanted to hit the cueball the deflection will automatically increase or decrease giving you the same end result target. As long as no curve had time to take over. (If you do not understand this part then study back hand english)
2) This will also let you know better why you missed... but only because you can take deflection out of the equation. It is still possible that you missed because of a few other reasons
The above is what I liked (the benefit being that your aim did not need to be adjusted to compensate for deflection)
______________________________________________________________________
Now lets talk about what I did not like.
1) The biggest thing I did not like about the pivot system is that when I pivot I could not hit my target on the cueball nearly as accurately as simply lining up with parallel english. This might just be because I have spent years with parallel english and have not practiced bhe but to me it felt as if my stroke was crooked and this feeling had my stroke hitting inaccurately.
Now if you hit inaccurately, meaning a little more outside english than expected or something similar, as stated already it will not affect the deflection but it will still effect the spin induced throw, the amount of curve, and most importantly... it will affect your position play.
My conclusion is... if you can pivot precisely and if you can stroke as accurately using bhe then there is merit in using it because it does help with deflection. Personally, I am pretty good with parallel english, meaning my adjustment for deflection is pretty solid therefor the negative of not being able to stroke as accurate and not feeling good stroking is not worth it to me. Perhaps if I had learned to play with bhe and it felt more comfortable I would feel different but that is what I have noticed messing with this stuff.
P.S.
The other factors that go into aiming... curve, collision induced throw, spin induced throw, aiming precisely in the first place... I see no benefit to using bhe over parallel english whatsoever.
Colin... in the op you stated that "There is a bridge length for these shots, which varies according to the separation of CB and OB, where the CB deflection is perfectly cancelled out by the unintended spin induced throw."
I'm not sure if this is true. The result of deflection does not change when you change the amount of english if using bhe. The result of throw does change when you change the amount of english. What I am getting at is I dont think it is correct to say that a bridge length will allow deflection to cancel throw or the opposite unless you hit a precise point on the cueball everytime. So I think it is useless for increasing the margin of error in this way.
I like threads like this that cause me to think but now I definitely have to catch some zzzzz's.
The goal for using this knowledge is:
1) To increase margin of error allowed
2) To let you know better why you missed
Does it do this?
Using the calibrated bridge length, along with a pivot that is exactly at the point needed, will eliminate the need to adjust your aim for deflection. All you have to do is use the bridge length, line up like you are using center ball then pivot.
1) In one way this will increase the margin of error you can have because if you are off where you wanted to hit the cueball the deflection will automatically increase or decrease giving you the same end result target. As long as no curve had time to take over. (If you do not understand this part then study back hand english)
2) This will also let you know better why you missed... but only because you can take deflection out of the equation. It is still possible that you missed because of a few other reasons
The above is what I liked (the benefit being that your aim did not need to be adjusted to compensate for deflection)
______________________________________________________________________
Now lets talk about what I did not like.
1) The biggest thing I did not like about the pivot system is that when I pivot I could not hit my target on the cueball nearly as accurately as simply lining up with parallel english. This might just be because I have spent years with parallel english and have not practiced bhe but to me it felt as if my stroke was crooked and this feeling had my stroke hitting inaccurately.
Now if you hit inaccurately, meaning a little more outside english than expected or something similar, as stated already it will not affect the deflection but it will still effect the spin induced throw, the amount of curve, and most importantly... it will affect your position play.
My conclusion is... if you can pivot precisely and if you can stroke as accurately using bhe then there is merit in using it because it does help with deflection. Personally, I am pretty good with parallel english, meaning my adjustment for deflection is pretty solid therefor the negative of not being able to stroke as accurate and not feeling good stroking is not worth it to me. Perhaps if I had learned to play with bhe and it felt more comfortable I would feel different but that is what I have noticed messing with this stuff.
P.S.
The other factors that go into aiming... curve, collision induced throw, spin induced throw, aiming precisely in the first place... I see no benefit to using bhe over parallel english whatsoever.
Colin... in the op you stated that "There is a bridge length for these shots, which varies according to the separation of CB and OB, where the CB deflection is perfectly cancelled out by the unintended spin induced throw."
I'm not sure if this is true. The result of deflection does not change when you change the amount of english if using bhe. The result of throw does change when you change the amount of english. What I am getting at is I dont think it is correct to say that a bridge length will allow deflection to cancel throw or the opposite unless you hit a precise point on the cueball everytime. So I think it is useless for increasing the margin of error in this way.
I like threads like this that cause me to think but now I definitely have to catch some zzzzz's.
Last edited:
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Satori,
I'm sure Colin will respond but I have a few points.
I, like you. much prefer 'parallel' english. One of the reasons I think we do is that we set up on the line we intend. With a pivot method, you first set up on the 'straight line' & then turn the cue away & we are not on the cue line unless WE pivot with the cue & then when we do, as you say, we are basically stroking out into space with no subconscious reference. It is more mechanical & I am not a mechanical player. I like & trust my subconscious feel. I think what might help is to picture in one's mind that one is squirting the ball into the OB, which is what is actually being done but I don't have that mind set when using 'parallel'.
With TOI you start with the cue & eyes parallel inside & then when you pivot to center & past center your eyes can stay & you are looking down the cue line without making a head & eye shift. I was rather amazed how well it works but I found that speed control was not as precise for me as it was with my normal 'parallel' method.
Just my nickel's thoughts.
Satori,
I'm sure Colin will respond but I have a few points.
I, like you. much prefer 'parallel' english. One of the reasons I think we do is that we set up on the line we intend. With a pivot method, you first set up on the 'straight line' & then turn the cue away & we are not on the cue line unless WE pivot with the cue & then when we do, as you say, we are basically stroking out into space with no subconscious reference. It is more mechanical & I am not a mechanical player. I like & trust my subconscious feel. I think what might help is to picture in one's mind that one is squirting the ball into the OB, which is what is actually being done but I don't have that mind set when using 'parallel'.
With TOI you start with the cue & eyes parallel inside & then when you pivot to center & past center your eyes can stay & you are looking down the cue line without making a head & eye shift. I was rather amazed how well it works but I found that speed control was not as precise for me as it was with my normal 'parallel' method.
Just my nickel's thoughts.
Last edited:
That is what's cool... different strokes for different folks.
It was cool discussing aiming without being called a hater.
Last edited:
It was cool discussing aiming without being called a hater.
Yeah, imagine that. We can have some disagreements & not be taken for or called haters. But then, Colin is not selling this & no one has put money out for it.:wink: