SAM - Stick Aiming Method

BC21 said:

You are correct Dan. But I had a conversation with Tom Rossman one day, discussing the old-school HAMB method using estimated ghostballs vs using known fractional aim lines. He flatly refused to acknowledge the learning benefit of a fractional aiming method free of guesswork for the vast majority of shots. That told me right then all I needed to know. The reason he wouldn't even look at my book, much less consider the value in it as a learning tool, was obvious... He has his own book, his own method of teaching, and he teaches ghostball, 100%.

There are others here that have their own methods, their own products on the market, their own books and DVDs and online resources geared toward the methods they teach and sell. I wouldn't expect any glowing endorsements for material that is not their own. It would be like General Motors saying Ford makes a very dependable and trustworthy vehicle. GM would never do that, just as Ford would never admit that GM makes a pretty good vehicle also.

It's all good. It's not a competition thing, but simply the fact that others have their own methods, the same aiming methods that have been taught for several decades now, and everyone believes what they teach is the best and quickest way to help players learn. For some it might be, and for others it might not. The best endorsements come from reviews submitted by players that are learning through one particular method or another, not from instructors or product creators that have their own methods and products for teaching.

Click to expand...

Good points mate-

Just my personal opinion: As an instructor you "should" have a very wide range of knowledge- and for me this does mean, that i (in best case) have a ton of knowlede- the more knowledge and expirience you have, the better you can help someone. Expirience, knowledge and communication are the keys for successful intructing and teaching.
Would say, that "here" are the typical "ghost ball and cp to cp" guys in europe. (ofc i know some others, who are lookin also around the corner- but for sure not that many).

I love to learn new stuff- or just things i know....but maybe in another way- things like that just widen my horizon.
Your poolology book for example was a pleasure to purchase and read. Great work- and useful for very sure. I like your point of view.

My journey into other "not so well known" aiming systems was fun pure. and also here i had so much fun while testing-
90/90 was a superb expirience-- also the guidance here from 8pack was a bomb. also to really have a look at the "See System" from Ecki ( super knowledged guy from germany) was a milestone. Great system as well.
Pure CTE- or also Pro1 --- gave me personally also a lot. Widened my horizon of knowledge, too.

So- to spezialize is one thing-- but to be stubborn and bash other stuff? Stupid-

Teach what you know- learn what you don t. That s it.

smooth stroke everyone.

Ratta said:

Good points mate-

Just my personal opinion: As an instructor you "should" have a very wide range of knowledge- and for me this does mean, that i (in best case) have a ton of knowlede- the more knowledge and expirience you have, the better you can help someone. Expirience, knowledge and communication are the keys for successful intructing and teaching.
Would say, that "here" are the typical "ghost ball and cp to cp" guys in europe. (ofc i know some others, who are lookin also around the corner- but for sure not that many).

I love to learn new stuff- or just things i know....but maybe in another way- things like that just widen my horizon.
Your poolology book for example was a pleasure to purchase and read. Great work- and useful for very sure. I like your point of view.

My journey into other "not so well known" aiming systems was fun pure. and also here i had so much fun while testing-
90/90 was a superb expirience-- also the guidance here from 8pack was a bomb. also to really have a look at the "See System" from Ecki ( super knowledged guy from germany) was a milestone. Great system as well.
Pure CTE- or also Pro1 --- gave me personally also a lot. Widened my horizon of knowledge, too.

So- to spezialize is one thing-- but to be stubborn and bash other stuff? Stupid-

Teach what you know- learn what you don t. That s it.

smooth stroke everyone.

Click to expand...

THATS GREAT ADVICE..........:thumbup:

Ratta said:

Good points mate-

Just my personal opinion: As an instructor you "should" have a very wide range of knowledge- and for me this does mean, that i (in best case) have a ton of knowlede- the more knowledge and expirience you have, the better you can help someone. Expirience, knowledge and communication are the keys for successful intructing and teaching.
Would say, that "here" are the typical "ghost ball and cp to cp" guys in europe. (ofc i know some others, who are lookin also around the corner- but for sure not that many).

I love to learn new stuff- or just things i know....but maybe in another way- things like that just widen my horizon.
Your poolology book for example was a pleasure to purchase and read. Great work- and useful for very sure. I like your point of view.

My journey into other "not so well known" aiming systems was fun pure. and also here i had so much fun while testing-
90/90 was a superb expirience-- also the guidance here from 8pack was a bomb. also to really have a look at the "See System" from Ecki ( super knowledged guy from germany) was a milestone. Great system as well.
Pure CTE- or also Pro1 --- gave me personally also a lot. Widened my horizon of knowledge, too.

So- to spezialize is one thing-- but to be stubborn and bash other stuff? Stupid-

Teach what you know- learn what you don t. That s it.

smooth stroke everyone.

Click to expand...

Thank you. If I were a certified instructor giving private lessons, I would follow your advice. It makes sense to learn as much as you can, and as thoroughly as you can. Because different students may latch on to a particular method more easily than another, and a well rounded instructor can therefore equip their students with the tools/methods best suited for them, not the methods best suited for the instructor.

Dan White said:

Sounds like you might not really understand what Poolology is about. Think of it as a more elegant and precise method to do what you might otherwise do with pointing the cue at the ghost ball position. The more you learn to "see" the shot the less you will need Poolology. It is mathematically correct and does not require voodoo to work. It works the first time you try it.

Give it another look!

Click to expand...

Mensa est omnis divisa in partes tres - Poology axiom - Brianus Cristus

It's unique in that respect. Never heard of a system that divides a pool table into three unequal segments before.

The formula used doesn't predict side pockets. Different approach angle factors, depending on table position, are needed to make them.

Banking with it is a convoluted mess.

Some shots have NO solution.

The system has so many 'fudge' factors it's suprising it's not sold in candy stores.

It's not mathematically correct. Close but no cigar.

Vorpal Cue said:

Mensa est omnis divisa in partes tres - Poology axiom - Brianus Cristus

It's unique in that respect. Never heard of a system that divides a pool table into three unequal segments before.

The formula used doesn't predict side pockets. Different approach angle factors, depending on table position, are needed to make them.

Banking with it is a convoluted mess.

Some shots have NO solution.

The system has so many 'fudge' factors it's suprising it's not sold in candy stores.

It's not mathematically correct. Close but no cigar.

Click to expand...

The same method/formula used for corners was used for side pockets as well. The entire system is derived from the inscribed angle theorem.

Poolology is not a bank shot system, though it can be applied to bank shots. It just requires a little common sense to make the spot on the bank rail the target.

The method works for 95% of the table surface for any shot up to about 60°, which is stated in the book. So of course there are shots that fall outside of the system's parameters.

Three are 3 "fudge factors", 3 small places on the table where a slightly thinner or thicker aim line must be used.

Due to collision induced throw, along with the simplification of the system from circular patterns to straight line patterns, the system is not mathematically perfect. But it works.

Anyone can read what most players think about the book here.... https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/reviews/B06XC6WY9Q/ref=cm_cr_arp_mb_viewopt_srt?ie=UTF8&sortBy=recent&pageNumber=1

These are people just trying to improve their game.

Mirza said:

https://youtu.be/qL2c_boou1o

Click to expand...

Nicely done video but the limitation of this system is that you have to identify the contact point and keep track of it as you get into shooting position. If you can do that then why bother aiming parts of the shaft at the contact point? Just aim a little to the side of it. Poolology tells you what fraction to aim at in order to pocket the ball. No other system does so as effortlessly.

Vorpal Cue said:

Mensa est omnis divisa in partes tres - Poology axiom - Brianus Cristus

It's unique in that respect. Never heard of a system that divides a pool table into three unequal segments before.

The formula used doesn't predict side pockets. Different approach angle factors, depending on table position, are needed to make them.

Banking with it is a convoluted mess.

Some shots have NO solution.

The system has so many 'fudge' factors it's suprising it's not sold in candy stores.

It's not mathematically correct. Close but no cigar.

Click to expand...

Why the snarkiness? I thought this was a congenial conversation, but if you must go there I can also point out a couple of things.

The difference between your method and Poolology is as clear as can be. Poolology is so easy to learn a pre-teen could do it. Your posts on aiming with triangles is so inscrutable and arcane that I'm quite sure you are the only one who has ever read your posts all the way through. I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than slog through your poorly written exposition again.

Poolology's goal is to shorten the learning curve for new players. Your system doesn't seem to have a point. NOBODY is going to use it. That leads me to the subject of mathematical integrity. As I said earlier in the thread, the math is sound. However, since the goal is to get people to actually learn something useful, Brian simplified the method so that people (get this) could actually benefit from it. Estimations were made that mostly still cause the ball to be pocketed and the system continues to do what it is supposed to do - show people where to aim so that their subconscious has a good foundation to learn from. I'm pretty sure your drawings are collecting dust in a drawer somewhere. :wink:

Dan White said:

Nicely done video but the limitation of this system is that you have to identify the contact point and keep track of it as you get into shooting position.

Click to expand...

I didn't watch the whole thing. Is it ever mentioned that the method is only geometrically exact for one cut angle (~13° for a 1/2" tip)? Without adjustment the method can be off by up to 20°.

pj
chgo

Dan White said:

Why the snarkiness? I thought this was a congenial conversation, but if you must go there I can also point out a couple of things.

The difference between your method and Poolology is as clear as can be. Poolology is so easy to learn a pre-teen could do it. Your posts on aiming with triangles is so inscrutable and arcane that I'm quite sure you are the only one who has ever read your posts all the way through. I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than slog through your poorly written exposition again.

Poolology's goal is to shorten the learning curve for new players. Your system doesn't seem to have a point. NOBODY is going to use it. That leads me to the subject of mathematical integrity. As I said earlier in the thread, the math is sound. However, since the goal is to get people to actually learn something useful, Brian simplified the method so that people (get this) could actually benefit from it. Estimations were made that mostly still cause the ball to be pocketed and the system continues to do what it is supposed to do - show people where to aim so that their subconscious has a good foundation to learn from. I'm pretty sure your drawings are collecting dust in a drawer somewhere. :wink:

Click to expand...

Which of my remarks about the system is untrue?

Seriously, when you first saw the table diagram overlaid with a bulls eye pattern and divided into three areas which require a different fudge factor, you didn't think, "WTF!"? BTW, I didn't mention the fact that it's only accurate for shots less than 4 feet because the system is so coarse (1/8 ball) and the originator doesn't use it. I still believe it's a Rube Goldberg Machine. A quick game of Mouse Trap anyone?

It's unfortunate you can't remember the sequence 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75 - have trouble dividing line segments in half - and can't form a right angle. Once you obtain the technique you'll see how accurate a Pivot Triangle can be. It's much better than 1/8 ball.

As a bonus, using a PT allows you to rotate the base of the triangle to cover the hypotenuse and get a very accurate contact point location. Are your eyes bleeding yet?

I don't want to disrupt this thread with the merits (or faults) of different aiming systems. If you have more to comment about the PT, drop me a pm or leave a post in one of my threads about the Pivot Triangle. I'm sure I can help you out.

If you want a better system I have a few threads about overlap systems. They're more accurate than brand x and none of them require zones, a funky diagram, or fudge factors. You can use them across the entire table. What a concept!

Or you can go on practicing shots in zone 1, zone 2, and zone 3.

Vorpal Cue said:

Which of my remarks about the system is untrue....

....it's only accurate for shots less than 4 feet because the system is so coarse (1/8 ball) and the originator doesn't use it.

Click to expand...

This statement, quoted above, is untrue.

The book teaches/shows aiming lines to the nearest 1/8 hit, and shots that are farther than about 4ft from the pocket could easily fall between the cracks, meaning, for example, it could require an aim point between say a 5/8 ball hit and a 1/2 ball hit. But it's obvious when looking at the numbers. You know without a doubt that the shot you're facing is a little thinner than a 5/8 or whatever, but not a whole 1/8 of a ball thinner. You know this because the system shows you, not because you're guessing. The system easily allows you to know when a shot is a little thinner or a little thicker than the nearest 1/8 of a ball aim. And the book specifically states that once the ob is more than about 4 feet from the pocket, the player may occasionally need to tune the aim, either a touch thinner or thicker than the nearest 1/8 aim point. This is where players begin to develop a great feel for cut shots. Start of by learning 1/4 and 1/8 ball aim lines, and once you're recognizing these shots with ease you will also recognize when one shot or another falls in between.

And you are 100% wrong about me not using the system. I use it on certain shots everytime I play. I didn't learn the game using fractional aiming or some difficult triangle visuals or whatever. So I don't use such systems on every shot, other than whatever system I learned with years ago... either ghostball or contact points or guesswork or what have you....it's rote. Having said that, I honestly wish I had started with a no-guesswork system like Poolology, but I didn't. And I don't use it as often as I should now because I usually don't feel like I need to use it that often. When I'm missing balls like crazy, it's due to lack of focus, laziness, not lack of knowing where the cb needs to be. Even on bad days using a great system on every shot may or may not provide good results, because if you're mind is somewhere else, zero focus, and your stroke just feels off, nothing much can help.

I think many good points have been made. I have a slightly different perspective; or perhaps I should say I describe it differently.

In the abstract, I think a player with perfect mechanics could figure out aiming quickly. But the problem is, of course, that no one has perfect mechanics and beginners and low-skill players are trying to work it all out and there are too many variables and they get confused.

Therefore, I think a developing player needs a way to know exactly how to aim a shot and then work to perfect their mechanics. My theory is that 1) cut shots at different speeds/vertical spins induce/reveal many stroke flaws not seen on straight in shots at one speed and spin 2) if you miss with an exact, known aim, it MUST be flawed mechanics (includes preshot routine) and one can focus attention on diagnosing and fixing the flaw(s). As their mechanics improve, they can learn ever more subtle variations in aim (training their 'eyes') [start with 1/2 ball hit; add in quarters; then add in eighth ball hit angles; then add in sixteenth ball hits and potentially even 32'nds].

So, I developed the AimRight to help ME because shooting straight in shots endlessly was proven unsuccessful in improving my mechanics (and didn't help my aiming at all). It definitely has helped me with my mechanics (unlike lessons from many instructors or watching videos or reading books or using stroke trainers) and aiming, including combo shots & banks and position play. I made this a product (and made ad-free videos) so I could share this with the pool community and with no expectation of making a profit. Note: the User Guide includes lots of tabulated data on throw compensation and position play at 16 cut angles. [Dr. Dave was instrumental in my computing this data; thanks again, Dr Dave. I am not saying he's endorsing the product, just that he graciously helped me.]

And to be completely clear, AimRight-trained players can use ANY aiming method (or none) -- including your favorite -- when playing.

AimPro Billiards said:

.......

In the abstract, I think a player with perfect mechanics could figure out aiming quickly. But the problem is, of course, that no one has perfect mechanics and beginners and low-skill players are trying to work it all out and there are too many variables and they get confused.

Therefore, I think a developing player needs a way to know exactly how to aim a shot and then work to perfect their mechanics. My theory is that 1) cut shots at different speeds/vertical spins induce/reveal many stroke flaws not seen on straight in shots at one speed and spin 2) if you miss with an exact, known aim, it MUST be flawed mechanics (includes preshot routine) and one can focus attention on diagnosing and fixing the flaw(s). As their mechanics improve, they can learn ever more subtle variations in aim (training their 'eyes') [start with 1/2 ball hit; add in quarters; then add in eighth ball hit angles; then add in sixteenth ball hits and potentially even 32'nds].

......

Click to expand...

I agree with this theory. If a developing player misses shots that have known aim lines, not guesstimated aim lines or "I think this looks/feels right" aim lines, then there's no doubt the miss was due to a faulty cue delivery (stroke flaws) or a poor psr/alignment.

Developing/new players traditionally work on aiming at the same time they're working on stroke and other fundamentals. Once those fundamentals become consistent, the player finally begins to build good aiming skills because they are able to deliver the cue more consistently, which in turn provides more reliable feedback on the trial and error process of learning how to aim the shots. But if you already know exactly where to aim without using trial and error or guesswork, you're a step ahead of the curve. Every missed shot will then provide feedback on stroke mechanics/alignment. The only trial and error involved will be geared strictly to ironing out those mechanics.

BC21 said:

I agree with this theory. If a developing player misses shots that have known aim lines, not guesstimated aim lines or "I think this looks/feels right" aim lines, then there's no doubt the miss was due to a faulty cue delivery (stroke flaws) or a poor psr/alignment.

Developing/new players traditionally work on aiming at the same time they're working on stroke and other fundamentals. Once those fundamentals become consistent, the player finally begins to build good aiming skills because they are able to deliver the cue more consistently, which in turn provides more reliable feedback on the trial and error process of learning how to aim the shots. But if you already know exactly where to aim without using trial and error or guesswork, you're a step ahead of the curve. Every missed shot will then provide feedback on stroke mechanics/alignment. The only trial and error involved will be geared strictly to ironing out those mechanics.

Click to expand...

You and I are in complete agreement on this.

AimPro Billiards said:

You and I are in complete agreement on this.

Click to expand...

Excellent! :grin-square: That makes two of us, probably the only two! Lol

Fact is, most instructors teach ghostball or contact point aiming to new students. They know the stroke is undeveloped, so the basic fundamentals get the primary attention. Aiming is secondary, a byproduct of stroke development. Once the player can deliver the cue with consistency, the trial and error of estimating ghostballs and contact points provides more useful feedback, which in turn trains the brain to aim. There's nothing wrong with this method. People have been doing it centuries, and it works. I'm sure that's how most of us learned to play the game.

But with your theory (and mine as well), using shots with 100% known aim lines could enable a player to developing a consistent stroke much quicker. And at the same time their brain is getting a lot of aiming repetition, building a great database of shots.

I did an experiment years ago where I had my wife (who had a no stroke fundamentals whatsoever) shoot a series of shots based on where she thought it looked like the ghostball center would be, 1.125" from the ob. I kept the cb within a foot of the ob to decrease the effects of stroke flaws. She missed about 80% to 90% of the shots. Then I set up a different set of shots that happened to be the same shot angles as the first series, but in a different place on the table so they looked like completely different shots. With this series I should her exactly where to aim her cue, like "aim it through the middle of the cb to the outer edge of the ob", and I pointed there to make sure she understood. I think there were 3 fractional aim lines I used on the shots. She was able to pocket more than 70% or so of those shots. Then the last series was back to guessing or estimating that 1.125" for ghostball. She did horrible again.

This proved to me that knowing where to aim is a great piece of information that can really help a player develop a consistent stroke in a much shorter timeframe than guessing where to aim. Of course, if I had set the shots up with 3ft between cb and ob, she would've done poorly either way. But by knowing the aim line, not guesstimating it, the feedback on missed and pocketed shots could be solely attributed to cue delivery/stroke mechanics. And as far as aiming development, she would be building shot recognition (cb-ob relationships) from the start.

BC21 said:

Excellent! :grin-square: That makes two of us, probably the only two! Lol
.

Click to expand...

More than the two of us. Besides our customers (thank you), Matt Sherman (Billiards author/teacher - https://twitter.com/aboutbilliards?lang=en) has given support to me; Tor Lowry (https://www.zerox-billiards.com/) has also been encouraging; and Steve Sherman (https://billiardproductreviews.com/) is a fan. Rick Matzke
General Manager of Seybert's Billiard Supply (https://www.seyberts.com/) & PBIA Instructor believes in my product enough to carry it from the beginning. Thanks to all of you.

I must say, though, that my product calls for disciplined practice -- like a musician doing scales. Not many are up to that; I understand. And it takes keen self-observation to identify the what and why of stroke flaws or an experienced instructor with a knowing eye. I'm still looking for such an instructor who does remote training who can help my customers for when they get stuck.