My Touch of Inside Experience

West Point 1987 · Mar 5, 2019

Patrick Johnson said:
Because you'll get the same inconsistent results - sometimes on or to either side of whatever spot you're trying to hit.

Paying closer attention to where you're hitting the CB is what helps.

pj
chgo

Absolutely true...but your ball line (OB to pocket) is initially to the far left or right edge of pocket opening, and the error/adjustment of the line has the whole pocket to go to...but a center ball alignment's error (assuming you're aiming center pocket) has only half a pocket to wiggle in to. It's one reason a straight in shot with some distance can be one of the harder to see and stroke true...just a smidge right or left of vertical (often as little as 1/8 tip) can rattle or miss the pocket, and only had half a pocket to wiggle at since you were aligned to center pocket.

It doesn't take an experienced player long to dial this technique in, and once you play with it a few hours, you see a very powerful, consistent technique and a surprising amount of CB control that you'd think you surrendered...but actually didn't. The consistency on thin rail cuts alone is worth the effort.

As mentioned earlier, precise tip placement is pretty important, and looking CB last helps this for most players...a "short cut" to near perfect "TOI" alignment for most angles/distances is 1/8 tip parallel to center CB, with inside edge of ferule aimed at contact point on OB. Use draw or follow to control the post collision angle, instead of spin (when hit correctly, there is little to no post collision spin...you're trying to use just enough inside to cancel out collision-induced spin on the CB). That's the long hand explanation of what I see...just try the "short cut" alignment for about 10 minutes and see for yourself.

Patrick Johnson · Mar 5, 2019

West Point 1987 said:
...your ball line (OB to pocket) is initially to the far left or right edge of pocket opening, and the error/adjustment of the line has the whole pocket to go to...but a center ball alignment's error (assuming you're aiming center pocket) has only half a pocket to wiggle in to.

If this was true, sidespin shots would be twice as successful as centerball shots. But we know that's not the case.

The TOI technique is the same as simply using sidespin - your "ball line" is always to the side of your intended target, but since you're actually aiming to hit the middle of the pocket the margin for error is the same as with a centerball hit - and stroke errors to either side will result in the OB missing to either side.

This has been hashed over several times since CJ floated his "greater margin for error with squirt" idea. He's simply wrong.

pj
chgo

P.S. Somebody once pointed out that throw is more predictable with inside spin than with outside spin. This might make a small difference, but not enough to "fix" the conceptual error.

TheLoneSilencer · Mar 5, 2019

Patrick Johnson said:
If this was true, sidespin shots would be twice as successful as centerball shots. But we know that's not the case.

The TOI technique is the same as simply using sidespin - your "ball line" is always to the side of your intended target, but since you're actually aiming to hit the middle of the pocket the margin for error is the same as with a centerball hit - and stroke errors to either side will result in the OB missing to either side.

This has been hashed over several times since CJ floated his "greater margin for error with squirt" idea. He's simply wrong.

pj
chgo

P.S. Somebody once pointed out that throw is more predictable with inside spin than with outside spin. This might make a small difference, but not enough to "fix" the conceptual error.

Your obsession with TOI is annoying. You don't believe in it, fine so stop beating your obsession against it to death.

West Point 1987 · Mar 5, 2019

Patrick Johnson said:
If this was true, sidespin shots would be twice as successful as centerball shots. But we know that's not the case.

The TOI technique is the same as simply using sidespin - your "ball line" is always to the side of your intended target, but since you're actually aiming to hit the middle of the pocket the margin for error is the same as with a centerball hit - and stroke errors to either side will result in the OB missing to either side.

This has been hashed over several times since CJ floated his "greater margin for error with squirt" idea. He's simply wrong.

pj
chgo

P.S. Somebody once pointed out that throw is more predictable with inside spin than with outside spin. This might make a small difference, but not enough to "fix" the conceptual error.

That's the problem with aiming threads. We perceive what we perceive the way we perceive them--and no one can convince us otherwise. I'm not talking about spin doing anything WRT throw. My description deals with squirt/deflection. The slight inside spin is negated at contact, it's so slight. It's all about deflection and anchoring all the lines to one edge of the pocket (instead of an approximate center).

I'm convinced I'll never change your mind, so I'll roll up my chain and slink back to lurker status.

sixpack · Mar 5, 2019

Patrick Johnson said:
If this was true, sidespin shots would be twice as successful as centerball shots. But we know that's not the case.

The TOI technique is the same as simply using sidespin - your "ball line" is always to the side of your intended target, but since you're actually aiming to hit the middle of the pocket the margin for error is the same as with a centerball hit - and stroke errors to either side will result in the OB missing to either side.

This has been hashed over several times since CJ floated his "greater margin for error with squirt" idea. He's simply wrong.

pj
chgo

P.S. Somebody once pointed out that throw is more predictable with inside spin than with outside spin. This might make a small difference, but not enough to "fix" the conceptual error.

I experimented with a system that I mentioned to you in person. Basically shooting with inside and aiming the edge of the cue at the contact point. No matter how much inside you are using. I understand why you don't buy it. I really do understand. But I've never made balls better in my life. I set up for every single shot for inside position and made everything much better than even that with CCB and no spin.

I have backed off this system now because the perception of it messes with CCB for other shots and it's hard for me to switch back and forth. However whenever I have a shot requiring a ton of inside English I use it.

mjdoutdoors · Mar 5, 2019

Now that I really have this dialed, I just come down and aim sight with the edge of my shaft at the contact point. I shoot thick and the TOI finishes the cut to center. It has given me a new and powerful consistent reference point. Aiming is automatic now. Just point and shoot.

Patrick Johnson · Mar 6, 2019

West Point 1987 said:
I'm convinced I'll never change your mind, so I'll roll up my chain and slink back to lurker status.

sixpack said:
I understand why you don't buy it. I really do understand. But I've never made balls better in my life.

I believe both of these systems “work” as personal perceptions that make aiming easier for you. I’m not questioning their usefulness, only their “geometric accuracy”.

pj
chgo

BC21 · Mar 6, 2019

Patrick Johnson said:
I believe both of these systems “work” as personal perceptions that make aiming easier for you. I’m not questioning their usefulness, only their “geometric accuracy”.

pj
chgo

Good post. It's our subjective experience that usually makes most aiming systems/methods begin to work well for us. The more you do it the better you get at it, which proves it's not so much due to objective geometric accuracy as it is to personal experience and growth.

Valiant Thor · Mar 6, 2019

Toi

Pj doe you believe in the perception of CTE ?

jokrswylde · Mar 6, 2019

Valiant Thor said:
Pj doe you believe in the perception of CTE ?

please. no. do not open that can...

Low500 · Mar 6, 2019

BC21 said:
Good post. It's our subjective experience that usually makes most aiming systems/methods begin to work well for us. The more you do it the better you get at it, which proves it's not so much due to objective geometric accuracy as it is to personal experience and growth.

--------------

jokrswylde · Mar 6, 2019

Low500 said:
Naturally, you will not understand or believe that......because you sell a book for money that teaches the opposite. "Learn this and watch the balls fly into the pocket", etc. etc.

I am not trying to get into the middle of this, but to be fair, I bought Poolology, and I might not use it but a couple times every few racks, if at all. But when I am questioning cut angle of a certain shot it is a big help. The big plus , for me at least, is that it took maybe 10 minutes tops at the table to get the gist of it.

Now I'm not saying other methods can't do the same or better , but it is a very easy to learn, easy to implement, accurate system to have in your bag of tricks.

Conversely, I have played around with 90-90, shish-kebob, and toi. I am the poster boy for "this crap don't work for me, I'm going back to ghost ball/contact point aiming!" (after a few hours). :grin-square:

Low500 · Mar 6, 2019

jokrswylde said:
I am not trying to get into the middle of this, but to be fair, I bought Poolology, and I might not use it but a couple times every few racks, if at all. But when I am questioning cut angle of a certain shot it is a big help. The big plus , for me at least, is that it took maybe 10 minutes tops at the table to get the gist of it.
Now I'm not saying other methods can't do the same or better , but it is a very easy to learn, easy to implement, accurate system to have in your bag of tricks.
Conversely, I have played around with 90-90, shish-kebob, and toi. I am the poster boy for "this crap don't work for me, I'm going back to ghost ball/contact point aiming!" (after a few hours). :grin-square:

-------------------

Valiant Thor · Mar 6, 2019

Toi

PJ WHERE DO YOU PLAY AT IN CHICAGO ? I understand you are a pool instructor. Can someone on here share there experance of taking lessons from him? Has anybody ever played him in any of the pool halls in the Chicago area?

BC21 · Mar 6, 2019

Originally Posted by BC21.....

"It's our subjective experience that usually makes most aiming systems/methods begin to work well for us. The more you do it the better you get at it, which proves it's not so much due to objective geometric accuracy as it is to personal experience and growth."

Low500 said:
No, that's not what it "proves" at all.
The only thing proven in this series of posts is that maybe if you say something to yourself long enough and if you preach it over and over for years and years (without being able to do it), after a while it becomes a matter of "creating one's own sense of reality".
Naturally, you will not understand or believe that......because you sell a book for money that teaches the opposite. "Learn this and watch the balls fly into the pocket", etc. etc.

No need to get yourself all worked up and assume I'm talking about CTE. Lol. But I realize you can't help but to bring it into every aiming thread, or at least into every thread related to aiming systems. Now here's a "series" of "truth" for you:

Yes, I wrote a book and I sell it for money. I'm an evil capitalist that believes in a system where people should pay for products created by someone else. I also believe in honest and open critiques of products so that others can decide for themselves whether or not any particular product is worth buying. On my youtube channel I don't block comments or hide my subscriber count in an effort to persuade nor mask other people's opinions. My product speaks for itself through those who've purchased it.

And it's not my "own sense of reality" that proves whether or not any system is learned through subjective experience. It's common sense. It is how we learn anything that doesn't immediately work for us. If I show someone how to do something, anything, and they immediately do it as well I do it, then there is no subjective/individual experience required to successfully perform the task. It's an objective process. But if I show how to do it and the person struggles to get it, tries and tries and tries and just can't do it, says it's impossible or too hard, then there is an element they're missing, something I have that they don't when it comes to this particular task. That element is individual experience. If they keep working on it, they'll eventually learn how to do it through experience. That is subjective.

Patrick Johnson · Mar 6, 2019

Patrick Johnson said:
The TOI [aiming] technique is the same as simply using sidespin...

To expand on this a little (and hopefully clarify)...

The only difference between aiming using TOI and aiming any shot with a small amount of inside spin is the order of visualizing/doing the steps:

Normal
1. add tip offset
2. correct aim

TOI
1. correct aim
2. add tip offset

In both cases you're simply trying to hit center pocket with inside tip offset. Visualizing/doing the steps in reverse order doesn't add or change anything. The results (and margin for error) are identical.

pj
chgo

Dan White · Mar 6, 2019

BC21 said:
No need to get yourself all worked up and assume I'm talking about CTE. Lol. But I realize you can't help but to bring it into every aiming thread, or at least into every thread related to aiming systems. Now here's a "series" of "truth" for you:

Yes, I wrote a book and I sell it for money. I'm an evil capitalist that believes in a system where people should pay for products created by someone else. I also believe in honest and open critiques of products so that others can decide for themselves whether or not any particular product is worth buying. On my youtube channel I don't block comments or hide my subscriber count in an effort to persuade nor mask other people's opinions. My product speaks for itself through those who've purchased it.

And it's not my "own sense of reality" that proves whether or not any system is learned through subjective experience. It's common sense. It is how we learn anything that doesn't immediately work for us. If I show someone how to do something, anything, and they immediately do it as well I do it, then there is no subjective/individual experience required to successfully perform the task. It's an objective process. But if I show how to do it and the person struggles to get it, tries and tries and tries and just can't do it, says it's impossible or too hard, then there is an element they're missing, something I have that they don't when it comes to this particular task. That element is individual experience. If they keep working on it, they'll eventually learn how to do it through experience. That is subjective.

You forgot to drop the mic. :thumbup:

BC21 · Mar 6, 2019

jokrswylde said:
I am not trying to get into the middle of this, but to be fair, I bought Poolology, and I might not use it but a couple times every few racks, if at all. But when I am questioning cut angle of a certain shot it is a big help. The big plus , for me at least, is that it took maybe 10 minutes tops at the table to get the gist of it.

Now I'm not saying other methods can't do the same or better , but it is a very easy to learn, easy to implement, accurate system to have in your bag of tricks.

Conversely, I have played around with 90-90, shish-kebob, and toi. I am the poster boy for "this crap don't work for me, I'm going back to ghost ball/contact point aiming!" (after a few hours). :grin-square:

Thanks! I use the Poolology method when needed also. It's a tool. Tools are used for specific tasks.

BilliardsAbout · Mar 7, 2019

Patrick Johnson said:
To expand on this a little (and hopefully clarify)...

The only difference between aiming using TOI and aiming any shot with a small amount of inside spin is the order of visualizing/doing the steps:

Normal
1. add tip offset
2. correct aim

TOI
1. correct aim
2. add tip offset

In both cases you're simply trying to hit center pocket with inside tip offset. Visualizing/doing the steps in reverse order doesn't add or change anything. The results (and margin for error) are identical.

pj
chgo

You speak of two different processes above. Are both of them standing erect, in the stance...?

Thanks in advance for clarifying.

Vorpal Cue · Mar 7, 2019

TOI ain't english

If you watch the vids and read the info CJ has put out about TOI, he stresses the stroke technique involved using the system. CJ's TOI depends on the user developing the correct stroke to make the system work. Done correctly the combination of tip offset and stroke will give a repeatable deflection. Once you gain this repeatability, the deflection will make it possible to aim thick at the edge of a pocket and allow the deflection to thin the cut to the correct angle. Smart idea, simple to understand and effective in use. Without the correct stroke technique it is just a small amount of english, but people who use and study the system know the difference.

My Touch of Inside Experience

On the Hill, Out of Gas

Fish of the Day

AzB Silver Member

On the Hill, Out of Gas

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Fish of the Day

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

Fish of the Day

AzB Silver Member

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

BondFanEvents.com

Just galumping back