Shot Pictures and Aiming Systems

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've come to realize more recently that I am confused as to what the purpose of an aiming system is. I know that sounds dumb, but hear me out for a minute. First a couple of definitions:

Shot Picture - This seems to be the terminology people use here on AZ. I believe the shot picture is the image you see that contains the shaft, cb, ob and pocket. Those items will form an angle with the ob located at that point where the angle is formed. I have always believed that this shot picture gets processed by the brain and when you shoot, it either becomes a success or a failure. By shooting enough successful shots, your brain automatically knows when a shot picture is correct, meaning the ball will be pocketed. (As a side note, this is why a good, straight stroke/alignment is so important. If your mechanics are not consistent, and you pocket the ball one time and then miss the next with the identical shot picture, your brain gets fuzzy feedback and isn't able to store clear information for recall later.)

Recognizing this shot picture is what people call playing by "feel" or "just knowing" when the shot looks right. It is NOT a guess but a recall of past success. It is no more a guess than saying you guessed your dog's name. You know your dog's name because it is committed to memory. You know the shot will be successful because you have committed it to memory (it looks right).

So my argument (and others here) is that the shot picture is what is really important for pocketing balls.

Aiming Systems - systems involve a set number of steps to be performed in order to allow the shooter to get the cue on the correct shot line. That's the theory, but is this really possible?

Someone the other day mentioned that Nick Varner swears by his own aiming system/method but it left me scratching my head. Let's say Nick is cutting a ball to the left and he's going to first aim the left edge of the ferrule at the right edge of the ob. OK, so now Nick is down on the shot using his system, but here's where the system fails. There is nothing to link that system or procedure to the correct shot picture that the brain is looking for. It seems like you have to know the correct shot picture even before you perform the steps required of your aiming system. In this way, when the cue is on the correct line the shot picture looks correct to your brain and you fire away. If this is the way it works, then isn't the aiming system irrelevant?

There is one system, Poolology, that manages to bridge the gap between an aiming system and the shot picture. In Poolology, the random alignment of the cb and ob are linked to the pocket through some math derived from the table rails. The system makes use of some clever geometry of circles and spits out a fractional hit that pockets the ball. Of course you sometimes have to interpolate between fractions, but that is not difficult if you have a good stroke.

It seems like Joe Tucker's system might do something similar but it does seem a bit cumbersome.

CTE users swear that CTE also is able to link the system steps to the correct shot picture, though for me personally let's just say the jury is still out on that.

So anyway this isn't a sales pitch for Poolology, but it does seem to be the exception to the rule. Now, for those who still don't follow what Poolology is all about, it is a way to speed up the learning process so that your brain starts understanding the shot pictures that are successful. Ultimately you won't need to calculate the fractions because you brain will already have stored the information. It is like a child sounding out words. Eventually they just know the word and don't need the crutch.

So back to Nick Varner. Is it possible that Nick is using his aiming system mostly as a method for focusing his attention and nerves on the task? In tennis I know it is important to keep you mind from wandering between points. Players are taught, for example, to adjust their strings or tie their laces before the next point. It clears the mind and keeps you in the present instead of worrying about the last bad shot. Is that really what Nick is doing or does he believe that his method actually puts the cue on the shot line without the necessity of a good shot picture? I think if we had a good hour to discuss this with him, he's going to say the shot picture is what really matters. It would be very interesting to probe him over that (well, maybe not to him).

Where am I going wrong on this?
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
First of all, let me say that I think "the shot picture" is an apt description. However it seems to me that you are under a slight misapprehension regarding how our memory works? For instance the world record for remembering digits in pi is currently 70030! Obviously these people are not remembering random strings of numbers but rather using various memory techniques in order to achieve this.

Likewise we are not remembering random shot pictures, but rather categories, such as quarter ball, 30 degrees or contact point number 4 or whatever. Some people do not do this consciously, but over time it will happen to some degree, nevertheless. What aiming systems do is to provide a framework, mnemonic as well as visual, in order to better remember and understand shots. And OF COURSE you can pocket a half ball shot, without ever having seen one before if you are told what to aim at. Then you can build and expand upon that later. You don't necessarily need the "full picture" to make a shot, though it helps.

Then there is not just the shot picture to consider, but also how you arrive there, and how you stand! If I start at center to center and then wiggle around while in my stance til I get the picture, that is NOT the same as forming the picture while standing up and then going down into the shot. So even if an aiming system may not be 100% dead on, it still helps, because you will be so close to the actual shotline that your alignment will be good even after some minute fiddling about, though it's of course MUCH better not to do that. And because it is a system, it may be more consistent than an individual randomly trying to get close.

I've never been a great shotmaker, compared to the very best, and I believe that is due to my difficulties in achieving perfect alignment of both tip and cue direction. I usually get the cue pointing the right direction but I'm always tweeking my tip position...It's only recently that I've gotten better at this part of the "shot picture" more under control and my shot making has gotten a bit better because of it.
 

One Pocket John

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
First of all, let me say that I think "the shot picture" is an apt description. However it seems to me that you are under a slight misapprehension regarding how our memory works? For instance the world record for remembering digits in pi is currently 70030! Obviously these people are not remembering random strings of numbers but rather using various memory techniques in order to achieve this.

Likewise we are not remembering random shot pictures, but rather categories, such as quarter ball, 30 degrees or contact point number 4 or whatever. Some people do not do this consciously, but over time it will happen to some degree, nevertheless. What aiming systems do is to provide a framework, mnemonic as well as visual, in order to better remember and understand shots. And OF COURSE you can pocket a half ball shot, without ever having seen one before if you are told what to aim at. Then you can build and expand upon that later. You don't necessarily need the "full picture" to make a shot, though it helps.

Then there is not just the shot picture to consider, but also how you arrive there, and how you stand! If I start at center to center and then wiggle around while in my stance til I get the picture, that is NOT the same as forming the picture while standing up and then going down into the shot. So even if an aiming system may not be 100% dead on, it still helps, because you will be so close to the actual shotline that your alignment will be good even after some minute fiddling about, though it's of course MUCH better not to do that. And because it is a system, it may be more consistent than an individual randomly trying to get close.

I've never been a great shotmaker, compared to the very best, and I believe that is due to my difficulties in achieving perfect alignment of both tip and cue direction. I usually get the cue pointing the right direction but I'm always tweeking my tip position...It's only recently that I've gotten better at this part of the "shot picture" more under control and my shot making has gotten a bit better because of it.



I agree with you both.
I have found myself that when I use my aiming system and body and cue alignment and then bend down to shoot, on some shots it just doesn't look and feel right. So I have to start over with the procedure.
Interesting thread.

John.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

LAMas

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
One can learn a straight in shot quickly - CCB to COB.

Next is the ~30 degree cut - CCB to the edge of the OB about it's equator.

These are tangible points - easy to remember and visualize.

The other points that are off center, off edge are in between these tangible points or off of the edge of the OB - they are harder to visualize and associate with a desired cut angle.

The simple "system" starts when you recognize the cut angle while standing - I can use the stick to acquire the angle. I then you drop down to acquire the correct shot picture that I have committed to memory.

Be well.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't consider CTE a shot picture, as you describe it.
CTE is a perception of the OB and CB relationship. The perception has exact steps to get you to CCB. Pocket isn't necessary to get there. CTE is all about CCB, not a shot picture. Any memory of prior shots really isn't necessary. That doesn't mean the memory of those shots isn't used, just that it isn't really necessary.. Once your perception leads you to CCB you are done, you can just shoot from there.

PS I really think CTE should be left out of all discussions until The Truth Series comes out.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So anyway this isn't a sales pitch for Poolology, but it does seem to be the exception to the rule. Now, for those who still don't follow what Poolology is all about, it is a way to speed up the learning process so that your brain starts understanding the shot pictures that are successful. Ultimately you won't need to calculate the fractions because you brain will already have stored the information. It is like a child sounding out words. Eventually they just know the word and don't need the crutch.

This to me doesn't make sense. One of the true things in life is use what got you there. If you practice with poolology and get good with it why not just keep using it. I get the familiarity thing, but you guys say forget about it till you think you need it again.
Yes shots get automatic after a while, but does that really mean you aren't using the system? Seems to me it should always be your starting baseline for every shot if it's that good.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
First of all, let me say that I think "the shot picture" is an apt description.

I agree. I actually think it might have been PJ who started using that term, but I'm not sure. Unfortunately he won't be posting for a spell.

However it seems to me that you are under a slight misapprehension regarding how our memory works? For instance the world record for remembering digits in pi is currently 70030! Obviously these people are not remembering random strings of numbers but rather using various memory techniques in order to achieve this.

I understand memory techniques pretty well. I memorized pi out to 2000 digits in about 2 days and probably could have gone to 10,000 in a week. The problem is that if you really don't have a need for such information you lose it rather quickly.

Likewise we are not remembering random shot pictures, but rather categories, such as quarter ball, 30 degrees or contact point number 4 or whatever. Some people do not do this consciously, but over time it will happen to some degree, nevertheless. What aiming systems do is to provide a framework, mnemonic as well as visual, in order to better remember and understand shots. And OF COURSE you can pocket a half ball shot, without ever having seen one before if you are told what to aim at. Then you can build and expand upon that later. You don't necessarily need the "full picture" to make a shot, though it helps.

That's probably a good point. If you learn 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 shot pictures in a systematic way it might help with recognizing the in betweeners faster.


... So even if an aiming system may not be 100% dead on, it still helps, because you will be so close to the actual shotline that your alignment will be good even after some minute fiddling about, though it's of course MUCH better not to do that. And because it is a system, it may be more consistent than an individual randomly trying to get close.

This is the curious part to me, though. You might say, "OK, I need to aim right edge of ferrule to left quarter cue ball in order to pocket the ball." In this case you have already relied on your memory of the shot picture to tell you where the cue should be aimed, and the system steps (ferrule here or there, etc.) seem irrelevant. You may be explaining it but I am at my two drink limit and it is over my head!

I've never been a great shotmaker, compared to the very best, and I believe that is due to my difficulties in achieving perfect alignment of both tip and cue direction. I usually get the cue pointing the right direction but I'm always tweeking my tip position...It's only recently that I've gotten better at this part of the "shot picture" more under control and my shot making has gotten a bit better because of it.

Have you ever made use of apps like Coach's Eye for a smart phone? I have learned things that would otherwise be impossible to know. Of course, having said that, once the more obvious things that can be seen in slow motion or digicue are solved, that doesn't mean that you have achieved a "perfect" stroke/alignment. Then you are at the point where variables that cannot be seen on camera come into play. I had an extremely slight movement of the elbow toward my body that was hard to see, but through trial and error I found it. I'm always amazed at the tremendous improvement that can be had from a change so small you can hardly perceive it.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't consider CTE a shot picture, as you describe it.
CTE is a perception of the OB and CB relationship. The perception has exact steps to get you to CCB. Pocket isn't necessary to get there. CTE is all about CCB, not a shot picture. Any memory of prior shots really isn't necessary. That doesn't mean the memory of those shots isn't used, just that it isn't really necessary.. Once your perception leads you to CCB you are done, you can just shoot from there.

Well if it can really work like that then sacman is right: pool might be ruined because aiming will be too easy. For me, I reserve further opinion until something more definitive on the subject comes around (Stan's book).

PS I really think CTE should be left out of all discussions until The Truth Series comes out.

It's kind of like the gun control debate. Guns don't commit mass murder, people do. Likewise, CTE doesn't shut down threads, people do. I feel no need to obsess over CTE if it is just laying there. One thing is for sure, if and when the book comes out it will be a much anticipated event!
 

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
ok guys dont flame me for this
if i put a penny slightly overhanging the rail
and regardless of where i put the cue ball
i asked you to hit the edge of the penny could you do it
OF COURSE YOU COULD.....:)
so if the object ball was in space and i asked you to hit it into the pocket
you would have a shot picture to make the shot....hit it there it will go there
from the basic starting point you would just "see"
if i hit it there it will go there......:thumbup:
as time goes on you get more obsessed with being more specific
what angle is it/what fraction is it/what perception is it ?? to name a few

i agree having a system to find where to hit it there to make it there
will increase your success....:)
but there is more than one way to skin a cat
jmho
VERY MUCH
icbw
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
This is the curious part to me, though. You might say, "OK, I need to aim right edge of ferrule to left quarter cue ball in order to pocket the ball." In this case you have already relied on your memory of the shot picture to tell you where the cue should be aimed, and the system steps (ferrule here or there, etc.) seem irrelevant. You may be explaining it but I am at my two drink limit and it is over my head!

I'll try to explain myself better:

Let's say that you are using the quarter ball system and you come across a shot that is a slight bit thicker than 3/4 ball. So far you have practised only the major angles like full, 3/4, half ball and quarter ball. So you align yourself to 3/4 every time a shot that is close to that angle comes up. You are now very close to the needed alignment of your body and cue to make the ball. You shoot the ball and it's too thin. Now it is easy to correct this mistake, because it was made from an allready defined and well known aim category, and an amendment to that category or indeed a brand new category could easily be formed. Because it's a near miss, it's a lot easier to see how much to correct the angle etc..Not only that, but because your body's alignment is close to where it needs to be, it's less likely to influence the shot by moving etc, which would "corrupt" the data input to the brain. If you swipe the cue, the brain really didn't learn as much as it would if you were completely still.

If the person was not using such defined aiming points, all the information would be shot specific (not really, but I exaggerate for the purpose of this discussion). So when the balls are here, I should aim here. Now, if we move the balls but keep the angle the same, the shot needs to be learned all over again (to a greater extent than in the previous example). Not only that but you may be too thick on one occation and too thin on the other, and sometimes your alignment will be way off. This is especially true of beginners.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This to me doesn't make sense. One of the true things in life is use what got you there. If you practice with poolology and get good with it why not just keep using it. I get the familiarity thing, but you guys say forget about it till you think you need it again.
Yes shots get automatic after a while, but does that really mean you aren't using the system? Seems to me it should always be your starting baseline for every shot if it's that good.

I keep trying to answer this question and you keep ignoring the reply and asking the same question again. Here goes, again, some analogies:

- training wheels helped you learn how to ride a bike but you now have the balance and experience so that you no longer need the training wheels. You take them off.

- When you first learned to read you sounded out each syllable. You look at "dictionary" and you sound it out, "Dict-shun-airy...dict-shun-airy... dictshunairy"! But now you know the word so when you see it again, you automatically think of the whole word, not the parts. You don't need to sound it out any more.

- When you learn to play tennis you are taught foot work and the steps needed to get the racquet back and through the ball properly. You have to concentrate on each step one at a time. Eventually, it just becomes a part of you and you don't give it a second thought.

There are probably an infinite number of examples. Back to Poolology. You don't use it after you've learned the shot pictures because it becomes an unnecessary step that requires mental energy. If I look at a shot and I know 100% it is exactly a 3/4 ball shot, why should I stand there and make the necessary rail judgments and make the math calculation if I already know the answer? You wouldn't do this any more than you would put the training wheels back on your 10 speed bike.

Maybe you have trouble understanding this because you say CTE does not require a shot picture in order to work. I started this thread saying that the shot picture is really the only thing that matters and the aiming system is just something to done maybe out of habit. In your case the aiming system, CTE, purportedly DOES put you on the correct shot line without any need for a shot picture. If that is the case then it truly is revolutionary.

Can you at least understand why people like Brian and I and others say that you won't need Poolology after awhile? Once you learn the shot pictures, like once you learn the alphabet or addition and subtraction, it just becomes second nature and going back to the crutch (Poolology) becomes counterproductive. Of course if there are situations you are not confident of then of course it is smart to go back to it.
 

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
Shot picture has a great argument.
How the heck do you explain some GREAT players with side saddle stroke and cocked head or misaligned dominant eye ?

Shot picture to me is the right brain working . The very good players and the great ones know how a shot looks like . Be it masse's , jump, behind the back shooting or conventional shooting .

Tor Lowry calls it automatic aiming. Practice the same shot 30 times till the picture becomes automatic to you.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
This to me doesn't make sense. One of the true things in life is use what got you there. If you practice with poolology and get good with it why not just keep using it. I get the familiarity thing, but you guys say forget about it till you think you need it again.
Yes shots get automatic after a while, but does that really mean you aren't using the system? Seems to me it should always be your starting baseline for every shot if it's that good.

Poolology is advanced fractional aiming.

With the traditional 5-line fractional system a player has to estimate which quarter aim (which of the 5 lines) looks best for the shot, then estimate whether the true aim line is thinner or thicker or dead on this estimated line. Results are subject to player experience and judgement. It's a rote system, more of a shot estimation method than a true aiming "system". Use the method enough and someday you'll find yourself making more and more shots. You can use some triangular visualizations in order to come close (if you have excellent spatial/visualization skills), and eventually you'll refine your estimations. After this trial and error refining phase, you'll find yourself more often immediately recognizing the proper cb-ob relationship needed to pocket the ball. You'll look at the shot picture and know exactly where to aim. Of course not for every shot, unless you've shot every shot that exists a few thousand times.

Poolology applies a systematic process to fractional aiming. It allows a player to skip that whole time-consuming trial and error phase that's needed in order to refine traditional fractional aiming. Knowing where to aim from day one, instead of estimating where to aim until your estimations become accurate, is a great boost toward the end result -- to just be able to recognize the cb-ob relationship needed to pocket the ball. Poolology is not a system that a player has to use on every shot. It's a system that trains a player to use fractional aiming in a much more advanced manner than traditional guesswork. The end goal is about automatically recognizing cb-ob relationships without the need of any conscious systematic process. You'll just see the shot and know how to hit it. Of course not every shot, as mentioned above, unless you've hit every possible shot a few thousand successful times already.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well if it can really work like that then sacman is right: pool might be ruined because aiming will be too easy. For me, I reserve further opinion until something more definitive on the subject comes around (Stan's book).



It's kind of like the gun control debate. Guns don't commit mass murder, people do. Likewise, CTE doesn't shut down threads, people do. I feel no need to obsess over CTE if it is just laying there. One thing is for sure, if and when the book comes out it will be a much anticipated event!

It can work like that IMO.

Just saying everything about CTE has been argued over for years, why keep it up.
It's not if, the book is coming out,and yes at that point i expect major debates to be had. There will be no secrets at that point. The Book and The Truth Series will tell all.
Will people take the time to learn it completely or just start bashing right away is the question.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I keep trying to answer this question and you keep ignoring the reply and asking the same question again. Here goes, again, some analogies:

- training wheels helped you learn how to ride a bike but you now have the balance and experience so that you no longer need the training wheels. You take them off.

- When you first learned to read you sounded out each syllable. You look at "dictionary" and you sound it out, "Dict-shun-airy...dict-shun-airy... dictshunairy"! But now you know the word so when you see it again, you automatically think of the whole word, not the parts. You don't need to sound it out any more.

- When you learn to play tennis you are taught foot work and the steps needed to get the racquet back and through the ball properly. You have to concentrate on each step one at a time. Eventually, it just becomes a part of you and you don't give it a second thought.

There are probably an infinite number of examples. Back to Poolology. You don't use it after you've learned the shot pictures because it becomes an unnecessary step that requires mental energy. If I look at a shot and I know 100% it is exactly a 3/4 ball shot, why should I stand there and make the necessary rail judgments and make the math calculation if I already know the answer? You wouldn't do this any more than you would put the training wheels back on your 10 speed bike.

Maybe you have trouble understanding this because you say CTE does not require a shot picture in order to work. I started this thread saying that the shot picture is really the only thing that matters and the aiming system is just something to done maybe out of habit. In your case the aiming system, CTE, purportedly DOES put you on the correct shot line without any need for a shot picture. If that is the case then it truly is revolutionary.

Can you at least understand why people like Brian and I and others say that you won't need Poolology after awhile? Once you learn the shot pictures, like once you learn the alphabet or addition and subtraction, it just becomes second nature and going back to the crutch (Poolology) becomes counterproductive. Of course if there are situations you are not confident of then of course it is smart to go back to it.

I get your argument, but Brian says he does go back to it from time to time. You don't go back to training wheels from time to time. Your analogies don't work for pool.
If you learn the proper way to work out a complex subtraction problem, do you abandon that method until you start making mistakes again? The other side of the picture. We can let this rest though.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Poolology is advanced fractional aiming.

With the traditional 5-line fractional system a player has to estimate which quarter aim (which of the 5 lines) looks best for the shot, then estimate whether the true aim line is thinner or thicker or dead on this estimated line. Results are subject to player experience and judgement. It's a rote system, more of a shot estimation method than a true aiming "system". Use the method enough and someday you'll find yourself making more and more shots. You can use some triangular visualizations in order to come close (if you have excellent spatial/visualization skills), and eventually you'll refine your estimations. After this trial and error refining phase, you'll find yourself more often immediately recognizing the proper cb-ob relationship needed to pocket the ball. You'll look at the shot picture and know exactly where to aim. Of course not for every shot, unless you've shot every shot that exists a few thousand times.

Poolology applies a systematic process to fractional aiming. It allows a player to skip that whole time-consuming trial and error phase that's needed in order to refine traditional fractional aiming. Knowing where to aim from day one, instead of estimating where to aim until your estimations become accurate, is a great boost toward the end result -- to just be able to recognize the cb-ob relationship needed to pocket the ball. Poolology is not a system that a player has to use on every shot. It's a system that trains a player to use fractional aiming in a much more advanced manner than traditional guesswork. The end goal is about automatically recognizing cb-ob relationships without the need of any conscious systematic process. You'll just see the shot and know how to hit it. Of course not every shot, as mentioned above, unless you've hit every possible shot a few thousand successful times already.

Ok, doesn't make any sense at all to me but we can let it rest.
 

336Robin

Multiverse Operative
Silver Member
I don't contribute here much but I overheard a local One Pocket hustler
giving a lesson to a guy the other night at the Pool Room while I was practicing on
3.5 in pocket table, yeah 3.5 inches and some of what he said falls in line with my
own beliefs and techniques but these are as close to his words as I can remember.

In this loud communication between the guy giving the lesson and his student. This is
what I observed and over heard.

The teacher put the student in a situation where the shot is make able but he has to
move the cue ball with spin to get to the position to run out. So he says there is the
shot, now shoot it, you have to shoot it, you have no alternative you must make the
ball and run out , there is no defensive move left. It is the right shot.

So the student gets up there and fails and then the Instructor goes into his assessment of Aiming and Shot Making.

He says in Aiming you have to know where the hit the ball but there is more to it that that, you have to also deliver.

You aim with your mind, deliver at what you see but you must learn to put the ball in with your stroke.

Now I see you shooting shots and making balls but I don't see you practicing that
part. You must learn to put the balls in with your stroke and you must be able to count
on your stroke to make up the difference.

Now for my comments. There are many parts of the puzzle but how you approach the
feel part is personal and is built around the clues you learn to visually recognize and
while you can learn to aim in many subjective ways delivery will always be subjective no matter how you aim.

There is considerable power of shot pictures in Aiming you first have to be able to conjure up what the correct
shot picture at cue ball arrival is, then you must be able to deliver correctly to that end. How you go about doing all of that due to the parallax
over a variety of distances is anything but objective. It takes practice at those distances with a variety of strokes including spin strokes.



I've come to realize more recently that I am confused as to what the purpose of an aiming system is. I know that sounds dumb, but hear me out for a minute. First a couple of definitions:

Shot Picture - This seems to be the terminology people use here on AZ. I believe the shot picture is the image you see that contains the shaft, cb, ob and pocket. Those items will form an angle with the ob located at that point where the angle is formed. I have always believed that this shot picture gets processed by the brain and when you shoot, it either becomes a success or a failure. By shooting enough successful shots, your brain automatically knows when a shot picture is correct, meaning the ball will be pocketed. (As a side note, this is why a good, straight stroke/alignment is so important. If your mechanics are not consistent, and you pocket the ball one time and then miss the next with the identical shot picture, your brain gets fuzzy feedback and isn't able to store clear information for recall later.)

Recognizing this shot picture is what people call playing by "feel" or "just knowing" when the shot looks right. It is NOT a guess but a recall of past success. It is no more a guess than saying you guessed your dog's name. You know your dog's name because it is committed to memory. You know the shot will be successful because you have committed it to memory (it looks right).

So my argument (and others here) is that the shot picture is what is really important for pocketing balls.

Aiming Systems - systems involve a set number of steps to be performed in order to allow the shooter to get the cue on the correct shot line. That's the theory, but is this really possible?

Someone the other day mentioned that Nick Varner swears by his own aiming system/method but it left me scratching my head. Let's say Nick is cutting a ball to the left and he's going to first aim the left edge of the ferrule at the right edge of the ob. OK, so now Nick is down on the shot using his system, but here's where the system fails. There is nothing to link that system or procedure to the correct shot picture that the brain is looking for. It seems like you have to know the correct shot picture even before you perform the steps required of your aiming system. In this way, when the cue is on the correct line the shot picture looks correct to your brain and you fire away. If this is the way it works, then isn't the aiming system irrelevant?

There is one system, Poolology, that manages to bridge the gap between an aiming system and the shot picture. In Poolology, the random alignment of the cb and ob are linked to the pocket through some math derived from the table rails. The system makes use of some clever geometry of circles and spits out a fractional hit that pockets the ball. Of course you sometimes have to interpolate between fractions, but that is not difficult if you have a good stroke.

It seems like Joe Tucker's system might do something similar but it does seem a bit cumbersome.

CTE users swear that CTE also is able to link the system steps to the correct shot picture, though for me personally let's just say the jury is still out on that.

So anyway this isn't a sales pitch for Poolology, but it does seem to be the exception to the rule. Now, for those who still don't follow what Poolology is all about, it is a way to speed up the learning process so that your brain starts understanding the shot pictures that are successful. Ultimately you won't need to calculate the fractions because you brain will already have stored the information. It is like a child sounding out words. Eventually they just know the word and don't need the crutch.

So back to Nick Varner. Is it possible that Nick is using his aiming system mostly as a method for focusing his attention and nerves on the task? In tennis I know it is important to keep you mind from wandering between points. Players are taught, for example, to adjust their strings or tie their laces before the next point. It clears the mind and keeps you in the present instead of worrying about the last bad shot. Is that really what Nick is doing or does he believe that his method actually puts the cue on the shot line without the necessity of a good shot picture? I think if we had a good hour to discuss this with him, he's going to say the shot picture is what really matters. It would be very interesting to probe him over that (well, maybe not to him).

Where am I going wrong on this?
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I don't contribute here much but I overheard a local One Pocket hustler
giving a lesson to a guy the other night at the Pool Room while I was practicing on
3.5 in pocket table, yeah 3.5 inches and some of what he said falls in line with my
own beliefs and techniques but these are as close to his words as I can remember.

In this loud communication between the guy giving the lesson and his student. This is
what I observed and over heard.

The teacher put the student in a situation where the shot is make able but he has to
move the cue ball with spin to get to the position to run out. So he says there is the
shot, now shoot it, you have to shoot it, you have no alternative you must make the
ball and run out , there is no defensive move left. It is the right shot.

So the student gets up there and fails and then the Instructor goes into his assessment of Aiming and Shot Making.

He says in Aiming you have to know where the hit the ball but there is more to it that that, you have to also deliver.

You aim with your mind, deliver at what you see but you must learn to put the ball in with your stroke.

Now I see you shooting shots and making balls but I don't see you practicing that
part. You must learn to put the balls in with your stroke and you must be able to count
on your stroke to make up the difference.

Now for my comments. There are many parts of the puzzle but how you approach the
feel part is personal and is built around the clues you learn to visually recognize and
while you can learn to aim in many subjective ways delivery will always be subjective no matter how you aim.

There is considerable power of shot pictures in Aiming you first have to be able to conjure up what the correct
shot picture at cue ball arrival is, then you must be able to deliver correctly to that end. How you go about doing all of that due to the parallax
over a variety of distances is anything but objective. It takes practice at those distances with a variety of strokes including spin strokes.

Well said. A thorough knowledge of where to aim or how to aim means very little if you can't deliver the cue consistently as intended.

On a side note, I read "The Flight of the Cue Ball" and really liked it. Great information/instruction.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I get your argument, but Brian says he does go back to it from time to time. You don't go back to training wheels from time to time. Your analogies don't work for pool.
If you learn the proper way to work out a complex subtraction problem, do you abandon that method until you start making mistakes again? The other side of the picture. We can let this rest though.

Dan's apologies are correct in a simplistic way, which is all he was trying to show. You are correct that once the training wheels are removed from the bike you typically have no reason to go back to them. Once you develop a good sense of balance you can shed those training wheels and enjoy the freedom of unrestrained control.
This doesn't mean you're ready for downhill high speed biking or trick riding. It simply means you have acquired the basic skill of maintainting equilibrium and balance while in motion on a bicycle. You are still prone to crash and burn anytime you exceed your comfortable skill set, leaving you with skinned up knees and elbows, wishing you had kept those training wheels on a little longer.

In pool, the training wheel analogy is great. The only difference is that on a bike you physically remove the training wheels, leaving yourself vulnerable to disaster with no safety net. Training aides/tools/systems in pool are mental and visual, always available, never completely removed and discarded like training wheels on a bike. So you can be riding along at a comfortable pace within your experienced skill set (playing pool and remaining in line without leaving yourself any shots you aren't comfortable with), and if you take a wrong turn and find yourself entering dangerous ground (find yourself facing a difficult shot that you aren't sure about), you can easily fall back on whatever tools you have to confront the situation without crashing.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Dan's apologies are correct in a simplistic way, which is all he was trying to show. You are correct that once the training wheels are removed from the bike you typically have no reason to go back to them. Once you develop a good sense of balance you can shed those training wheels and enjoy the freedom of unrestrained control.
This doesn't mean you're ready for downhill high speed biking or trick riding. It simply means you have acquired the basic skill of maintainting equilibrium and balance while in motion on a bicycle. You are still prone to crash and burn anytime you exceed your comfortable skill set, leaving you with skinned up knees and elbows, wishing you had kept those training wheels on a little longer.

In pool, the training wheel analogy is great. The only difference is that on a bike you physically remove the training wheels, leaving yourself vulnerable to disaster with no safety net. Training aides/tools/systems in pool are mental and visual, always available, never completely removed and discarded like training wheels on a bike. So you can be riding along at a comfortable pace within your experienced skill set (playing pool and remaining in line without leaving yourself any shots you aren't comfortable with), and if you take a wrong turn and find yourself entering dangerous ground (find yourself facing a difficult shot that you aren't sure about), you can easily fall back on whatever tools you have to confront the situation without crashing.

Practice like you play and you don't have to worry about falling back.
Is poolology too complicated to use in match situations ?
 
Top