Comparisons to CTE always come up. Might as well compare everything to the best.
Fractional Aiming - Seeing Major Benefits!
- Thread starter FeelDaShot
- Start date
Comparisons to CTE always come up. Might as well compare everything to the best.
Probably not good enough for big tables .
I find these aiming system videos on youtube that are recorded on barboxes.
Really?
Do you even need an aiming system on bar boxes ?
I've seen people with jacked up crooked strokes run out on bar boxes.
Fractional ? Can't that be made a lot simpler ?
If it's a quarter ball hit , aim a quarter of the cueball to the opposite quarter of the ob?
Then again, that's just another aiming system ( Marvin Chen's opposite parts ) outside of just knowing the aiming/stroking line.
Objective aiming systems help on any size table.
Lol. Poolology is easy. I don't have to sell it because it sells itself. Besides, my mentioning of CTE pertained only to pivots/sweeps, and had nothing to do with CTE itself. Shiskabob would've been a better reference....I should've known mentioning "CTE" would draw in the flame throwers.
Believing your aiming method is “objective” (whatever you and cookie imagine that means) is apparently helpful to you, so mazeltov.
pj
chgo
Anybody who has played "serious" pool for a year and who still can't "aim" needs to pick up another game to play.
I realize that some people have bad fundamentals and strokes, but that is not "aiming"...that is fundamentals.
It seems from all the postings on here that people have vision or perception problems with figuring out what part of the cue ball is supposed to connect with what part of the object ball in order to get it to do what they are attempting to achieve.
People need to spend more time at the table and less time on here yapping about it.
I realize that some people have bad fundamentals and strokes, but that is not "aiming"...that is fundamentals.
It seems from all the postings on here that people have vision or perception problems with figuring out what part of the cue ball is supposed to connect with what part of the object ball in order to get it to do what they are attempting to achieve.
People need to spend more time at the table and less time on here yapping about it.
Seems i'm right, poololgy isn't worth discussing. I mean if the guy that wrote the book won't even endorse it what does that tell you.
see, i'd have to correct you here.
There is nothing to "discuss" with Poolology. It's a fractional aiming system that provides the fractional aim point needed to pocket a ball without having to guess or rely on experience, which I have said more than enough times here. The main goal of the system is to become a system-free player. The system helps players develop shot recognition to speed up the process of becoming a more consistent shot maker.
By the way, I endorse the hell out of it. Lol. I use the system every time I play, not on every shot but on select shots that don't feel automatic to me as soon as I see them. And what I've found over the last couple of years is that these particular shots are becoming fewer and fewer, which means I recognize more shots immediately with no need to use the system. That's the beauty of it. So, like I said, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate about Poolology. It works. It contains no controversial, mysterious elements, no subjective "objectiveness" to argue about. The system has its limitations, admittedly, but it does work right out of the box, no assembly required.
Wait, wait, let me get this in before Cookie The Enforcer says it: If your system is so great then why don't you use it on every shot? :wink:
Well, the BEST aiming system is USED on every shot.
PRACTICE LIKE YOU PLAY !!!!!!!!
Never take a shot lightly.
You're so funny! :grin-square:
It's more enjoyable for me to play fast and loose, free of any systematic processes, other than a set PSR. And, believe it or not, I play pool for the enjoyment of it, for my enjoyment. But no one likes to miss an open shot, and so every now and then when a shot comes up that puts the brakes on my free-wheelin style, I look at that shot and weigh my best options. If I decide pocketing the ball is the best choice, I look at it's position value on the table (according to Poolology), then look at the rail value provided by looking from center cb through center ob to the Poolology alignment values on the rail, and BINGO!, I know exactly where to aim, where to send the cb in order to pocket the ball.
Prior to developing Poolology I'd either play a safety or I'd go for the low percentage shot using my best judgment, because of course we often think we can't miss. And when we do, the first thing we think is, "Damn, that was an ignorant shot!"
Last edited:
I have cookie on Ignore but because of your post I peeked at his recent posting history.
Taking a look, though I've posted that fact a couple of times here, he apparently chooses to repeatedly respond to me (?!) so it makes me wonder two things:
How has his history of no value added posts been allowed to go on for so long without a ban and two: reading his repeated posts you could make a good drinking game out of his standard list of responses:
Please stop until you actually learn CTE
I've described it, as have many others.
CTE is not fractional aiming.
I really think The Truth Series and The Book will clear everything up.
Wait for The Truth Series, it will be worth it.
Oh CTE is definitely the Gold standard.
Your obsession with Stan and CTE is off the charts.
Explain CTE on video.
CTE is the standard that other systems are compared to.
Lou Figueroa
bottoms up
(burp)
This is what has always made sense to me going back to when I 1st talked to Hal Houle.
I respond to stupid posts. Guess you post a lot of stupid stuff.
So where am i wrong. Everything on the list makes sense and are standard responses to guys like you who post stupid stuff.
Check out Stan Shuffett's traditional fractional aiming lesson (the "Five Lines", or "Quarter" system), here: https://youtu.be/EJwNqLnEwgE
It's a good basic old-school fractional lesson. I like how he keeps it simple by naming the shots 1, 2, 3, etc..., which works well for pocketing balls close to the pocket. Ignore what he says about margin of error being 3° from farther up table. The margin of error when the ob is half table or more away from the pocket is closer to 1° or less, depending on how close the ob is to the rail. It's already less than 3° around 2 diamonds out from the pocket. And ignore every time he insinuates that the quarters (fractional) system doesn't pocket the balls cleanly. The more you work with any aiming method the better you get at pocketing balls cleanly. Simply sticking to the 5 lines, guessing a lot until you gain experience, will surely not pocket balls cleanly. Nevertheless, it's a good video lesson on the old school way of learning how to aim fractionally. But here's why traditional fractional aiming takes so long to master, and it's all about that margin of error.....
The basic quarters are separate by intervals of around 15°. So each quarter aim makes a 15° difference in the path taken by the ob. Aiming for a 3/4 ball shot, or a "one" as Stan demonstrates in the video, will send the ob on a path around 14.5° from the straight on path, a "zero" shot. Aiming for a "two" will result in a shot near 30° (really closer to 28°), which is a 1/2 ball shot. Then a "three" is a quarter ball shot, around 45°, and so on...
As long as the ob is just a few inches from the pocket it's fairly easy to estimate the nearest quarter and pocket the ball most of the time. Occasionally you'll have a "tweaner" and will have to aim between two numbers, like between a 2 and 3. Here the margin of error is 5° or bigger, so you'll make most of these close shots because you don't have to be very accurate at estimating the shot angle, or which number to use. You could be off a whole aim point and still pocket the ball. But all of this changes as soon as the ob gets farther than just a few inches from the pocket. From less than two feet the margin of error is already less than 3°. Your estimations have to be very accurate. And at half table where a 1 or 2 degree aiming difference could cause a miss, you need to be even more accurate at estimating the fractional aim line for the shot. The difference between a 2 or a 3, or even a "tweaner", is enough to miss the shot by a few inches.
Good news is, after hitting a few thousand balls using this traditional Five Lines Quarter system, you'll begin to make better estimations on where to aim, and then you'll finally start developing some consistency with it. The same can be said for any aiming system or method that requires experience in order to make accurate estimations. This is why PJ plugged Poolology. It is fractional aiming with a roadmap that allows you to know the fractional aim without guessing or estimating whether it looks like a 2 or a 3 or somewhere in between. This provides your brain with correct fractional aim lines that don't require years of experience before you're able to simply recognize them. Knowing the fractional aim instead of estimating or guessing at it speeds up the brain's ability to build a data base of known shots, shots that you just know how to hit as soon as you see them. Traditionally, you first have to hit countless balls over some undetermined time period, all to get you to a point where you can better distinguish a 1/2 ball shot from a 3/4 or something in between, then you can finally begin to build some consistency. Poolology allows you to skip the first part of this old school process by providing known aim lines on day one.
I didn't intend for this post to sound like an infomercial, just thought if you were excited about fractional aiming then you might like to know some of the options available with it today.
Last edited: