Poolology Question

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Brian, I've been using the half ball hit for straight pool break shots to see how that goes after Poolmanis recommended it.

How big is the "no go" zone at the foot spot where you have to adjust the numbers to a 24 and 12 instead of 20 and 10? Should any straight pool break ball be far enough away not to factor in to that issue? In other words, if I have the 14 balls racked up is it possible to position the break ball close enough to the foot spot, but outside the rack, to require an adjustment?
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Brian, I've been using the half ball hit for straight pool break shots to see how that goes after Poolmanis recommended it.

How big is the "no go" zone at the foot spot where you have to adjust the numbers to a 24 and 12 instead of 20 and 10? Should any straight pool break ball be far enough away not to factor in to that issue? In other words, if I have the 14 balls racked up is it possible to position the break ball close enough to the foot spot, but outside the rack, to require an adjustment?

Not possible. This "no go" area extends to only about an inch or so from the footspot. In this photo, the line of white hole reinforcements represents the 20 line. Any ob on this line is a 20, and if the cb-to-ob center line is pointed to the first diamond on the end rail, it's a halfball shot. On this line, the closest you can place an ob to the rack and have a corner shot is 2 or 3 inches from the footspot, well out of the small "no go" area.

picture.php
 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Not possible. This "no go" area extends to only about an inch or so from the footspot. In this photo, the line of white hole reinforcements represents the 20 line. Any ob on this line is a 20, and if the cb-to-ob center line is pointed to the first diamond on the end rail, it's a halfball shot. On this line, the closest you can place an ob to the rack and have a corner shot is 2 or 3 inches from the footspot, well out of the small "no go" area.
picture.php
:rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::
 
Last edited:

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks for the thorough reply! I didn't realize the spot was so small. I flipped through your book to find more about the size of that zone but didn't find anything. Maybe it is in there somewhere.

Did you see the thread on the main forum where someone asks whether there are systems for banks, or if they just have to be learned by feel? I'm shocked that none of the CTE'rs posted about how great CTE works for banks. Funny how Low never answered my question about whether Stan could bank worth a damn before he learned CTE. Oh well, selah!
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Thanks for the thorough reply! I didn't realize the spot was so small. I flipped through your book to find more about the size of that zone but didn't find anything. Maybe it is in there somewhere.

Did you see the thread on the main forum where someone asks whether there are systems for banks, or if they just have to be learned by feel? I'm shocked that none of the CTE'rs posted about how great CTE works for banks. Funny how Low never answered my question about whether Stan could bank worth a damn before he learned CTE. Oh well, selah!

Yep, saw that bank thread. I think rote is most used by good bankers, especially considering the amount of feel (speed and spin) that is needed for some banks.

Here's a thought I had once after watching one of Stan's CTE banking videos. If CTE perceptions always connect balls to the pockets (the whole "15, 30, 45 connecting to right angles" bit), then a CTE user should be able to randomly use ANY perception for any given shot, shoot very firm, and the ball should connect to a pocket somewhere. That would be awesome, but I suspect the results would be no different than doing the same thing with any random aiming method -- some balls will find a hole, and some will not.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yep, saw that bank thread. I think rote is most used by good bankers, especially considering the amount of feel (speed and spin) that is needed for some banks.

Here's a thought I had once after watching one of Stan's CTE banking videos. If CTE perceptions always connect balls to the pockets (the whole "15, 30, 45 connecting to right angles" bit), then a CTE user should be able to randomly use ANY perception for any given shot, shoot very firm, and the ball should connect to a pocket somewhere. That would be awesome, but I suspect the results would be no different than doing the same thing with any random aiming method -- some balls will find a hole, and some will not.

They actually used to make that claim. Maybe they still do.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Some Joes might laugh at this, but I think it's pretty neat, and simple, that a player can place a ball anywhere on this 20 line, then line the cb up with it so that the cb-ob center line points to the first diamond on the rail (side rail or end rail), and it's a halfball shot.

Using just 1/16 inch intervals, you could have over 300 different ob placements along this line between the side rail and footspot, and if the cb to ob alignment is lined to the first diamond, every one of these balls can be pocketed using just one ob aim point -- the halfball aim.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Some Joes might laugh at this, but I think it's pretty neat, and simple, that a player can place a ball anywhere on this 20 line, then line the cb up with it so that the cb-ob center line points to the first diamond on the rail (side rail or end rail), and it's a halfball shot.

Using just 1/16 inch intervals, you could have over 300 different ob placements along this line between the side rail and footspot, and if the cb to ob alignment is lined to the first diamond, every one of these balls can be pocketed using just one ob aim point -- the halfball aim.

I don't think anybody has linked the diamonds to random ball positions on the table in such a simple, elegant way as Poolology. Those who don't understand it, or have an agenda, scoff at it. The problem for those people is that it just plain works. No months of "making" it work, no need to rewrite the laws of physics.

Selah!
 

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Dan White;6526253[B said:
]I don't think anybody has linked the diamonds to random ball positions on the table in such a simple, elegant way as Poolology. [/B] Those who don't understand it, or have an agenda, scoff at it. The problem for those people is that it just plain works. No months of "making" it work, no need to rewrite the laws of physics.

Selah!

dan
brian is a genius.....:eek:.......:)
for the mathematically challenged it may not be for them
but his system is amazingly accurate and a MAJOR contribution to the pool playing community.
he doesnt get the credit he deserves
it may not be for everyone
but thats ok
ghost ball
contact points
cte
is not for everyone either
but its an easy way after you memorize the mother diagrams
to figure the cut angle and ball hit
 

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
let me be clear before the war begins
i am not saying its better than
cte
ghost ball
contact points
etc
just one more arrow you can have in your quiver
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
let me be clear before the war begins
i am not saying its better than
cte
ghost ball
contact points
etc
just one more arrow you can have in your quiver

I was with you up until you wrote this. Poolology is one hell of a lot better than all of those methods. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that different methods don't strike a chord with people differently. I'm saying that all those methods require a significant amount of practice to be useful. Poolology will have you pocketing balls within minutes of learning it, assuming you have a half way decent ability to deliver the cue in a straight line.
 

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
I was with you up until you wrote this. Poolology is one hell of a lot better than all of those methods. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that different methods don't strike a chord with people differently. I'm saying that all those methods require a significant amount of practice to be useful. Poolology will have you pocketing balls within minutes of learning it, assuming you have a half way decent ability to deliver the cue in a straight line.

But it will not develop consistency........which requires a significant amount of practice.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
But it will not develop consistency........which requires a significant amount of practice.

It shortens the learning curve until aiming becomes automatic, which is what it is all about. That does take time.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
dan
brian is a genius.....:eek:.......:)
for the mathematically challenged it may not be for them
but his system is amazingly accurate and a MAJOR contribution to the pool playing community.
he doesnt get the credit he deserves
it may not be for everyone
but thats ok
ghost ball
contact points
cte
is not for everyone either
but its an easy way after you memorize the mother diagrams
to figure the cut angle and ball hit

I agree with all of this, except for the genius part.:grin:
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
But it will not develop consistency........which requires a significant amount of practice.

Consistency is the result of repetition. You can repeat the same mistakes over and over and over, and become very consistent at making those same mistakes. Or you can repeat successful shots over and over and over, and you'll become very consistent at making these shots.

With enough practice, one can eventually gain consistency regardless of which aiming method is used. If there is a lot of guesswork/estimation or trial and error, then it'll just take a lot more practice, a lot more repetition, because you need to repeat good results to become consistent at doing good things. And since trial and error/guesswork has a learning curve of its own before you begin to see good results, consistency can take much longer to achieve.
 
Last edited:
Top