Splitting The Difference Aiming System

BC21 said:

Nevertheless, it's nothing like shiskabob if the guy isn't pivoting.

He was pivoting in the beginning. Now he's all over the place.

It appears to be, as Dan White pointed out, a method of teaching beginners how to aim using the face of the OB and three or four aim points.

What Dan White pointed out is what LITTLE MIKE CLAIMED in writing at the beginning of his first video. Both Little Mike and Dan for quoting him are wrong.

Here is what he has posted on his first video: "Published on Nov 9, 2017
This "Split the Difference" aiming system was created by "Little Mike".
This aiming system makes it very simple for beginners and mediocre players. I wish I learned this system in the beginning.
Very accurate!!!"

This system is NOT for beginners. NO WAY IN HELL! At the start he was pivoting on all the shots. Pivoting is NOT for beginners. Now he has all of us confused and we all have knowledge about different systems. I have more knowledge and experience than anyone on this forum when it comes to Shiskabob which is a 3 line aiming system with pivot. THAT'S IT!! As simple at that! Stan does also but he isn't posting here any more.

Eventually you begin to recognize when "splitting the difference" is too thin or too thick, and you adjust as needed. This puts StD in the fractional system category, a wastered down version of the basic quarters system, where instead of guessing the fractional aim you base it on a couple of reference aim lines.

How does everything come down to a fractional system category with you? The next thing you'll be saying is Joe Tucker's contact point aiming system is fractional. Maybe a fractional aiming system is a CONTACT POINT aiming system. You can absolutely do everything from the three lines without necessarily continuing to split the difference. What you learn to do is alter your offset as well as the pivot. It isn't necessary to keep splitting the difference to create another target or fraction as you want to claim.

It appears to be helping people learn, and little Mike seems sincere with that goal, so...:thumbup: for him and his student(s).

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

The way it was first introduced, with pivots resembling shishkabob or whatever, you are correct....It's not a good beginner method, or shouldn't be for beginners. But now he shows to simply reference a couple of alignments based on shot angle, either center ob or the quarter, and then the horizon/edge it looks too thin for either of those two. Then aim straight for halfway between your ref point and the ob edge.

I think it's spitting hairs on the meaning of "aim", "align", "fractions" or "spot".

To me "aim" is something you're attempting to hit. When you align center to center but then pivot, you aren't aiming to hit halfway between center and edge or the 1/4, it's just a reference. If you specifically aim to strike the OB 1/2 way between center and edge without pivot sure, you could call it fractional for that particular shot. When I am aiming to hit halfway between center and edge I refer to it as "A" or "C" and start off at center to center pivoting to outside for "A" or "C". Sometimes less of a pivot based on the tip portion of the cue and I could give a rats a** what the fraction is when it ends up because I don't care. If I needed a pure 30 degree cut I don't aim it as a 1/2 ball alignment with a straight cue as a fraction. I would aim it as an A or C with pivot. Why? Because that's my style and the way I like to do it.

It's a reference for me because my pivot, (manual or visual) is going to end up outside of that spot.

This way there are only 4 possible aim points: straight on, 3/4, 5/8, or 1/2. It's fractional.

I refer to an overlap of the CB and OB as Center to Edge. You put it into the fraction. I don't. I also don't normally aim to strike it as a pure half ball hit which has a limited fixed angle. It's a reference point. Once I pivot outside of the edge of the OB (which has no fraction) it increases the angle by quite a bit over 30 degrees. I also have either less or more of a pivot than he does which I don't measure on a fixed point of the OB to be "fractionalized", I do it by "tip widths" and it can end up where it ends up.

Click to expand...

paultex said:

Ok thanks spidey, shiskabob is a pivot based system, I get that, but if shot relationships of close distances, hangers basically, then wouldn't you be sometimes target shooting "fractional" in essence?

If it's a hanger and the balls are close, use the STEVIE WONDER system. Even he can't miss. Just smack those sumbeetches anywhere and they'll go in.

Look, I really don't care either way, but I understand the point and I just figure whatever puts the ball in the damn hole with the desired cb destination is what counts. I just don't see any one system that takes care of all that, other than combining a repituar of "systems" or methods that I feel must be incorporated.

What that tells me is you don't know what there is to know. Aren't you the same guy who didn't want to learn CTE when you had Stan's attention all those times? You made your own choice to say you didn't want to learn so think what you want. But let's forget about CTE for now. Here's a system that will take care of every angle shot on the table from straight in to 90 degrees. Joe Tucker's Contact Point Aiming System. Can shots be missed? Of course due to "operator error".

Mathematically it will knock ALL angled balls in and when the player does exactly what the shot calls for without error. (now we're getting into stroke which is another subject and has no business here)

You got to get a reference from something and I personally can't reference all shot requirements from one method, simply because of visual perception break downs that occur because of personal illusions and con jobs that the table throws at you.

I think what's going on inside your head all the time is creating personal illusions, con jobs, doubt, questions, (this list could go on forever). There's far, far too much sh*t analysis going on in your skull for every conceivable shot and physical combinations at the table. Even when you have the same shots over and over something different seems to be going on with your brain.

However, I do not doubt that CTE itself, can act as a complete visual reference point starting line for all shots, based on its 3 line reference points that act as a undeniable verification sequence. Its got to be right if all 3 line up, but then its a matter of address and stroke from there, but at least the stand up portion is consistent.

GREAT! Something stuck and you have the foundation.

That's very important. But I CAINT see dem lines no mo mang. I only sees shot path mang mein.

Click to expand...

Straightpool_99 said:

I'm not going to say this system is bad, because it probably isn't. I just don't see how it's supposed to create the angles you need to make every shot. I don't see the reason for the pivots, even. The whole idea of the pivot in most systems is to move away from a defined starting position, not into a defined destination, because how on earth is that going to help you? It's like getting a solution and then creating the math problem leading up to it. There are a million ways to get there and no right or wrong answers (as long as the math itself is correct). In the case of this system, where we have both the start and finish defined, the whole exercise becomes meaningless, like copying a textbook...

Pivot systems, especially this one, are not for you. Forget about them.

I also dislike systems that combine pivoting with straight alignments. Either pivot or don't (IMO of course).

Pivot system are not for you. Forget about them.

I do see the value of using a limited number of angles, 3 or 4 each way, as this is the case with most aiming systems. Whenever you start dividing up into minute fractions you instantly risk falling into paralysis by analysis.You have straight fractions, SEE, 90/90, CTE all use the simple 3-4 angle thinking, even if the mechanisms they use are different. The odd man out is contact point, aiming by the numbers which uses either 10 angles or inifinite numbers of angles. All of these systems have merit and will help players.

Pivot systems are not for you. Forget about them.

The whole problem of aiming in pool, IMO, is that it goes against every instinct a person has for aiming things. We want to aim straight ahead, at something we can see clearly. Instead, in pool, we have to "hold off" to one side or another, or aim into some undefined area of the cueball or even at "nothing". Pivot systems start from a defined place and then pivot into the undefined space. Muscle memory is used to guide our aim to the space we cannot really see clearly, and this movement becomes completely automatic after the initial alignment. Our body and subconscious are incredibly precise. However, pivoting from one defined area (center) to another (3/4) just seems redundant and silly to me.

Pivot systems are not for you. Forget about them.

Personally I don't really "like" cutting the ball. All my life I've hit balls too thickly when I missed. Which is why I favor TOI, because the english/deflection cuts the ball for me. I align center to center or center to 3/4 for a huge quantity of shots and I never have to really think about aiming at all. I can't tell you how much fear and worry this takes out of my game, as I'm sure pivoting does for others. I recommend everyone to try setting up that one awkward cut that they really dislike, align to the appropriate "big" fraction, maybe even center to center and the slam the ball in with inside english. Doing that only 20 times with my most hated shot changed my pool playing life forever.

Click to expand...

paultex said:

Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post

I thought you saw molecules and atoms colliding.


Don't you?

My vision isn't that strong nor my imagination. (Thank God).
I see phenolic resin colliding. But more so I hear phenolic resin colliding. It's a very distinctive "CLICK" sound. Unbelievably addictive without being ingested, injected, smoked, or snorted.

I see bulges and curves and feel hydraulics and electro magnativity. Slippery and sticky.

Connectivity and understanding. I know of no systems no know.

Submersion. The end road.

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

EVERY shot in pool represents a specific fractional relationship between the CB and the OB. Pivot systems like Shiskabob and CTE use basic quarter factional reference points, then a pivot on the CB end to manipulate the shot angle, focusing on a CB solution instead of a distant OB solution. StD, according to Little Mike, DOES NOT involve pivoting.

What was all the pivoting about in the first video when he said to start at center ball and pivot the tip of the cue half way between the center and edge? An illusion?

He chooses a basic quarter fractional reference point on the face of the OB, then from that perspective he aims for a point halfway between the chosen reference point and the edge of the OB. So, yes...when I suggest a certain system is fractional, it's because it easily fits the category, where the final solution for the shot is brought about by aiming through the center of the CB to a point on the OB, like these systems ....

I'm more interested in the system you choose to use in actual play that up to this point can't be explained. What is it and how does it work?

Traditional Quarters 5-line system: No pivot, just a straight aim from CCB to a specific face-of-OB FRACTIONAL aim point. The specific aim point is estimated based on experience, gaps are filled in based on experience. Eventually, shots are recognized and become automatic.

Split the Difference system: No pivot, just a straight aim from CCB to a specific face-of-OB FRACTIONAL aim point. The specific aim point is based on which quarter fractional reference you choose, based on experience, then aim halfway between that reference and the edge of the OB. Limited aim points are used, which means many gaps exist.

Then why was he pivoting?

Poolology Fractional Method/System : No pivot, just a straight aim from CCB to a specific face-of-OB FRACTIONAL aim point.

That is until you run out of OB to aim at. If it wasn't for the lousy edge on those balls that make you aim off into space.

The specific aim point is determined by simple math, comparing a couple of numbers and then choosing the aim line/point that the numbers indicate. Experience fine tunes the method and builds memory recall, eliminating the need for depending on the numbers. Shots quickly become automatic.

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

This "trick" was brought to you by low500's trolling. Once again, a civil discussion gets splashed with a mud. And then you help push it even further from the thread topic.

So in other words, he MADE YOU DO IT. You had no control over yourself or no other alternative. And now I'M the one to blame. You're a real trip Brian.

Concerning my book, if all you've done is look at the drawings, it's no wonder you think it's complicated. Try reading a little.

Oh trust me, I'm taking it apart page by page, paragraph by paragraph, and sentence by sentence. Needless to say it could be turned upside down.

It's pretty simple for anyone that can do basic elementary level math, as Billiards Digest said in the review. And the zone lines are not some complicated grid. They are as straightforward as looking at a football field and determining the exact yard line where the football is resting. Not hard to memorize. There are a few odd number alignments that need memorized in one zone, but no complicated grids or calculations.

I don't think everyone would agree with that. Not even a small percentage.

By the way, I didn't side track the thread. You did simply by questioning my fractional comment about StD. Then low500 felt the need to troll.

Again, WE'RE TO FAULT.

I can't help that little Mike has switched gears from pivoting to straight line aiming, resembling fractional aiming. When he initially mentioned pivoting, he must meant pivoting his perspective, not his cue.

Bullsh*t! It's as clear as day that his cue is pivoting. At another point he even states he doesn't use his body or hip to pivot. He does it with his/hand arm.

Maybe before starting a thread about a system you think somebody stole from Hal Houle, you should stick to starting threads about your own system. Or about shiskabob, which I think is s pretty neat system.

Click to expand...