A good trick for aiming.

Patrick Johnson said:
Memorizing the cut angles produced by a core set of easy-to-see CB/OB overlaps is, of course, the basis for all "fractional" aiming systems, including simpler ones like Hal Houle's old "3-angle" system and more complicated ones like CTE.


Sorry, gotta disagree. If you shoot these six cut angles accurately (without adjustment), they'll cover only a minority of the shots you'll see on the table. For example, these six angles are only about 1/4 of all possible angles to cut a ball on the spot into a 4.5-inch corner pocket (including "pocket slop"). All the cut angles between these six are made by starting with the closest "reference" angle and adjusting from there.


If you're not consciously adjusting for the "in-between" shots, then you're doing something unconsciously - either adjusting your aim or steering your stroke.

I'm not criticizing the technique; it's used successfully by lots of players and systems. I'm just clarifying some details about how it actually works.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Pat:

Without going into a point-by-point, yes, of course I'm obviously making some adjustments to these "standard template" cut angles for each shot. But these adjustments are not a conscious decision -- i.e. "oh, that's a 1/3rd ball hit, but x degrees more outside." As I view the shot line, I make the adjustments as I'm getting down into the shot -- for a 1/3rd-ball hit.

I wanted to describe this process, without getting mired in the intricate details and subconscious thought decision possibilities I go through for each shot. Of course every shot is unique. But they *can* (and are, in my case) based on six basic cut angles that are committed to my "lookup table" memory.

Like you say, "reference angle." My entire aiming system is based on six reference angles -- which are recognized at first glance at the shot -- and then adjusted from there.

-Sean
 
sfleinen said:
I wanted to describe this process, without getting mired in the intricate details and subconscious thought decision possibilities I go through for each shot.
Click to expand...
I understand and fully agree that's the best way for a first description. I just recommend adding the "reference angle" as an initial concept too so it's not misleading (and to avoid sidetracking interruptions like this). I think that can be done without going into too much detail.

Your description was excellent.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I understand and fully agree that's the best way for a first description. I just recommend adding the "reference angle" as an initial concept too so it's not misleading (and to avoid sidetracking interruptions like this). I think that can be done without going into too much detail.

Your description was excellent.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Thank you, Pat! (And thank you everyone for the critique -- good or bad.)

Also, I didn't want to go into the fact that I use other aiming systems to "verify" and confirm each other. For example, if a 1/4-ball hit shot jumps out at me, but for some reason in my gut, I don't feel comfortable just getting down on it and firing, I might get behind the object ball in-line with the pocket, and verify the contact point. Or, I might stand tall over the shot, looking "down-ish" upon the shot, and visualize the ghost ball, keeping my eyes fixated on it until I move behind the cue ball, and then verify "is that really a 1/4-ball hit I'm seeing?"

You know what I mean, right?

But absolutely, no system is without adjustments. I like to make those adjustments upon the standard template as I get down on the shot. Not by steering the cue once I'm down on the shot <shudder!>.

-Sean
 
This is good stuff.............

sfleinen said:
Shaky1:

That's the reason why there are different aiming systems -- because different people have different abilities. Some have great 3D spacial visualization/perception, others don't. But where a person doesn't have this ability, they make up for it in another ability that the other [spacial-visualization-gifted] person does not have. However, I believe spacial-visualization ability can be built, with repetition and memorization.

This is where, believe it or not, an advanced method of using ghostball concepts comes in -- back-of-ball aiming. But there's a snag with this method -- you have to memorize some ball-to-ball relationships! That is to say, you have some homework to do.

What I'm talking about here is, can you recognize, say, a half-ball hit and the angle it produces upon collision? ("Recognizing" a half-ball hit is easy -- that's a core relationship used in other aiming systems like pivot-based aiming. But do you know the angle it produces upon collision?). Can you recognize a 1/4-ball hit, and the angle it produces? 2/3rd-ball? 3/4-ball?

If you don't, do this:

  1. Set that ball relationship up on your table
  2. Forget about the pockets on your table -- stuff them with towels so that you can't pocket balls in them and so they won't be a distraction for you. (Or better yet, do this on a 3-cushion/billiards table.)
  3. Shoot that shot -- shoot a half-ball hit, or 1/4-ball hit, or 2/3rd-ball hit, or what-have-you.
  4. Stay down on the shot -- stay in your "Finish" position.
  5. Observe where the object ball goes -- what angle it takes.
  6. Memorize it -- shoot this over and over and over again. Reposition the cue ball and object ball differently on the table each time, and shoot this same ball-to-ball relationship over and over again.
The idea is that you don't want to be concerned about the "pockets" on your table -- you only are concerned about the angles produced by different ball-to-ball relationships, and you're trying to memorize them.

You need to do this for the following CRUCIAL (i.e. fundamental) ball-to-ball relationships:
  • 1/4-ball hit
  • 1/3rd-ball hit
  • half-ball hit
  • 2/3rd-ball hit
  • 3/4-ball hit
  • 7/8-ball hit
Shoot those over and over, and MEMORIZE them! This is your "kit" -- you need to recognize these ball-to-ball relationships anywhere on the table. And when you do, you'll obviate the need to have to "see" or "visualize" a ghost ball -- a ball that isn't there and which will introduce considerable error if you don't have the ability to automatically "see" it. Memorize these ball-to-ball relationships, recognize them when you see them on the table, and YOU WON'T HAVE TO VISUALIZE A GHOSTBALL! Commit these to your "kit" and you'll bring back consistency into your game.

Believe it or not, those half-dozen ball-to-ball relationships I've bulleted above for you will give you an incredible amount of mileage. Those six ball-to-ball relationships occur in the lion's share of most shots you'll see on the table. I'm not kidding. When I view a table layout and pick out my shot, I go, "ah, that's a 1/3rd-ball hit, I know that one!" -- and then go fire it in.

The beauty of this style of aiming is that:
  • You will remove having to "visualize" a ghost ball in the shot.
  • You are adding a *tangible relationship* in its place.
  • You are giving yourself something to shoot at that removes the pocket from your line of aim. This is key, because you are now concentrating on only aiming at a 1/3rd, or 1/2, or 3/4, etc. ball relationship -- you are not focusing on the pocket. What this will do, is lessen the tendency to "steer" your cue, because you're not focused on the pocket.
  • You will greatly increase your ability at carom and combination shots.
Trust me on this one -- find yourself a quiet place to play, and just focus on hitting ball-to-ball relationships. Notice I said "hitting" and not "pocketing." The reason should be clear, because pocketing the ball is not the value here -- memorizing the angles produced *is*. Afterwards -- after you feel comfortable with recognizing a certain ball-to-ball relationship on the table (i.e. it's committed to your memory), set that shot up where the angle produced leads the object ball to a pocket, and shoot it. You'll notice that you "see" shots differently now, and you're not focused on the pocket any longer. Rather, you just "see" the ball-to-ball relationship, and you know that if you deliver your cue correctly to put that cue ball onto that object ball (i.e. "eclipsing" the object ball by that ball-to-ball relationship amount), you just *know* the object ball is heading for the pocket.

Thoughts?
-Sean
Click to expand...

There is alot of stuff in this aiming section that a player that is trying to improve their game has to sift through. Alot of stuff that is just rediculous.

This is the real deal. Anyone that wants to improve their game really needs to listen and work at what Sean is saying.

When something like this is said on here it's too bad it couldn't be highlighted because it's the real deal by the pool gods wherever they are. ;)

Again, GREAT STUFF.
 
genomachino said:
Anyone that wants to improve their game really needs to listen and work at what Sean is saying.
Click to expand...
I like Sean's description of basic fractional aiming principles, but it isn't the holy grail of aiming. Even though I've posted about how the concept might help players who don't even use a system (How Fractional Aiming Systems Help), it's still just another approach that will help some and not others.

pj
chgo
 
sfleinen said:
Pat:

Without going into a point-by-point, yes, of course I'm obviously making some adjustments to these "standard template" cut angles for each shot. But these adjustments are not a conscious decision -- i.e. "oh, that's a 1/3rd ball hit, but x degrees more outside." As I view the shot line, I make the adjustments as I'm getting down into the shot -- for a 1/3rd-ball hit.

I wanted to describe this process, without getting mired in the intricate details and subconscious thought decision possibilities I go through for each shot. Of course every shot is unique. But they *can* (and are, in my case) based on six basic cut angles that are committed to my "lookup table" memory.

Like you say, "reference angle." My entire aiming system is based on six reference angles -- which are recognized at first glance at the shot -- and then adjusted from there.

-Sean
Click to expand...

After one has commited these points/fractions to the lookup table.

1/4-ball hit
1/3rd-ball hit
half-ball hit
2/3rd-ball hit
3/4-ball hit
7/8-ball hit

He can increase the number (from 6) of cut angles by aiming the side of the ferrule/shaft, left and right, at those fractions while still aiming the center of the ferrule at the center of the CB...it keeps on getting better.
Thanks.
:smile::thumbup:
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I like Sean's description of basic fractional aiming principles, but it isn't the holy grail of aiming. Even though I've posted about how the concept might help players who don't even use a system (How Fractional Aiming Systems Help), it's still just another approach that will help some and not others.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
I need to correct this - I didn't give Sean's post its due when I said the fractional stuff isn't necessarily for everybody. There's other good advice in there that I think is universal, particularly the advice to practice aiming in a consciously structured way.

pj
chgo
 
I don't care what anybody says, I love the aiming threads.
A thanks to Sean, LAMas, Pat, Geno , and everyone else that contributes! :smile: Ya', you too Thaiger :thumbup:
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I like Sean's description of basic fractional aiming principles, but it isn't the holy grail of aiming. Even though I've posted about how the concept might help players who don't even use a system (How Fractional Aiming Systems Help), it's still just another approach that will help some and not others.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Patrick Johnson said:
I need to correct this - I didn't give Sean's post its due when I said the fractional stuff isn't necessarily for everybody. There's other good advice in there that I think is universal, particularly the advice to practice aiming in a consciously structured way.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Pat:

Again, thanks for the kind words, and ABSOLUTELY -- my method of aiming ISN'T the holy grail. It is something that I distilled down from several decades of playing, that I found is easily "teachable" (if that's a word?) to new pool students. They understand this right away. The problem is that there's some memorization involved -- i.e. work on the part of the student to commit these ball-to-ball relationships to memory. This is like memorizing multiplication tables in elementary school -- everyone absolutely HATED it when they had to do it, but when you look back, you realize what such a crucial skill it is.

Also, while this method is technically fractional aiming, it's a principle part of back-of-ball aiming, because the idea is that you're using recognizable fractions to match the contact points of the balls to each other. That is to say, you're viewing the "amount of eclipse" from the back of the [object] ball. Recognizing the amount of eclipse you need to send that object ball on its way to the pocket is the key to the kingdom.

I do want to emphasize Pat's important point that NO AIMING SYSTEM is without adjustments. There is no holy grail. Every aiming system, including (and especially!) this one requires work on the student's part to first understand it, and later to make it "theirs." But it's like riding a bike -- difficult at first, but once you "muscle memorize" it, it's second nature. And memorizing these six ball-to-ball relationships will come quickly with structured practice. After you start seeing these ball-to-ball relationships in live play, you're there! All it takes is for you to just play / practice -- as you normally do, nothing special -- to keep these "lookup table" skills honed. The fact that you're playing, and these ball-to-ball relationships are now jumping out at you, is all you need to maintain that skill.

Also important to note that this isn't a "one size fits all" system. Like I mentioned at the beginning of the thread, different people have different abilities and skillsets. Pure ghostball may "click" with some. Pivot-based aiming systems will "click" with others. Others may find back-of-ball (or even my boiled-down system) "clicks" with them. Etc., etc. I merely offer it in the sincere hope that it helps someone, somewhere.

And here's hoping that it will,
-Sean
 
Last edited:
sfleinen said:
...
You need to do this for the following CRUCIAL (i.e. fundamental) ball-to-ball relationships:
  • 1/4-ball hit
  • 1/3rd-ball hit
  • half-ball hit
  • 2/3rd-ball hit
  • 3/4-ball hit
  • 7/8-ball hit
...
Click to expand...

Sean -- what's your reason for using 1/3 and 2/3 rather than 3/8 and 5/8? The latter two fractions would be half-way between the ones on either side of them, and produce more equally spaced cut angles. Do you just consider the thirds easier to see? Do snooker players use the thirds?

I also notice that your smallest fraction is 1/4 (48.6-degree cut), which leaves quite a large gap from there to "edge to edge." It would seem that adding 1/8 would fill in that gap quite a bit. Again, do snooker players not use 1/8? Do they use exactly the 6 cut angles you have listed?

[When I refer to snooker players, I'm assuming that many of them use fractional-ball aiming, although I imagine some of them aim differently.]
 
eAt Large,
While we await Sean's reply, what is proffered is to commit to memory in the mental "look up table" the resulting cut angle for the fractions of aim on the OB.

I can perceive in thirds as well as quarters, but some others may not. The question you ask may also apply for 1/8.

This is the first time that I have seen thirds being referenced as fractions of the OB.

Previously to this, I can see the edges about the equator and the center of the OB and if I bisect the distance to the left edge and the center the result is 1/4, for me, if I bisect the center to the right edge, the result is 3/4 for me.

To visualize 1/8ths, I bisect the quarters. If thirds can be visualized without bisecting (trisecting?), then the resulting cut angles are as usefull and more parsimonious than visual bisecting half and quarters.

What has been proffered by Sean are how one can relate fractions of the OB aiming to the resulting cut angles to the mental "look up table" for instantanious recall at the table (rote).

The more fractions that one can identify, the more cut angles can be commited to memory.

This accounts for the variations of the dominant aiming eye which if is the right eye, the results may be different than if the dominant eye is the left.

Whatever works for you is commited to memory.

I proffered that some of the angles between these fractions can be augmented with more cut angles by using the side of the ferrrule/shaft which creates a slight offset (5 degrees?) from those fractions to achieve more cut angles.

The rub of what I proffer - using the side of the ferrule is that there are different shaft diameters that different shooters use. Regardless, for the individual shooter, it is the resulting cut angles for the fractions or what one effects to achieve the cut angles between (like english) is the nut.

Just saying...now where is that 2nd bottle of wine?:smile::thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Sisters are doing it for themselves!

sfleinen said:
Ah, I see that I am now the fixation of TheContrarian -- him following me around and dinging me on just about every post I make. The worry should be about who's stalking who, Tim. I worry for *you* in that regard.

5:30am? If you must know, it only took me 15 minutes to type that up. I'm not kidding. How many times do I have to tell you that I'm a "stream of consciousness" writer -- that I quite literally can type as fast as I think? While you sit there and single-finger-on-each-hand poke at keys on the keyboard, I'm able to get complete thought pictures out in 1/10th the time.

Take a typing class sometime. Besides the obvious benefit of realizing just how slow at the keyboard you currently are, you'll have the side benefit of being outnumbered gender-wise 5-to-1 in the class, if you don't mind that sort of thing.

-Sean
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is really the place to brag about going to secretarial school, but I questioned the sanity of getting up at 5.30am to write a post about aiming, not how quickly you could type. You do have comprehension difficulties, it must be said.

Still, you must be very proud - not every man is in touch with their feminine side {cough} enough to be comfortable discussing 'words per minute' and 'touch-typing skills' on a forum populated largely by men. Bravo.

Now, how's about that cuppa, love? Two sugars, please, and hold all calls.
 
AtLarge said:
Sean -- what's your reason for using 1/3 and 2/3 rather than 3/8 and 5/8? The latter two fractions would be half-way between the ones on either side of them, and produce more equally spaced cut angles. Do you just consider the thirds easier to see? Do snooker players use the thirds?

I also notice that your smallest fraction is 1/4 (48.6-degree cut), which leaves quite a large gap from there to "edge to edge." It would seem that adding 1/8 would fill in that gap quite a bit. Again, do snooker players not use 1/8? Do they use exactly the 6 cut angles you have listed?

[When I refer to snooker players, I'm assuming that many of them use fractional-ball aiming, although I imagine some of them aim differently.]
Click to expand...

Snooker players - I should say British snooker players, perhaps - only really use such terms in commentary, or when describing a shot to someone. It is used as a CONCEPT more than an APPLICATION.

There is no conscious thought about aiming with snooker players. Anyone still struggling with aiming after about 6 months of play should seriously consider doing something they have more natural aptitude for.

Aiming is the least of a snooker player's worries.
 
Someone here has quite a complex... I too type fast. Will I be accused of having a feminine type job by a misogynist? Only time will tell...

Thanks for all the aiming chat. People that get emotional about this stuff (while ironically calling others out for doing "women's work") have some problems...
 
AtLarge said:
Sean -- what's your reason for using 1/3 and 2/3 rather than 3/8 and 5/8? The latter two fractions would be half-way between the ones on either side of them, and produce more equally spaced cut angles. Do you just consider the thirds easier to see? Do snooker players use the thirds?

I also notice that your smallest fraction is 1/4 (48.6-degree cut), which leaves quite a large gap from there to "edge to edge." It would seem that adding 1/8 would fill in that gap quite a bit. Again, do snooker players not use 1/8? Do they use exactly the 6 cut angles you have listed?

[When I refer to snooker players, I'm assuming that many of them use fractional-ball aiming, although I imagine some of them aim differently.]
Click to expand...

AtLarge:

Yep, the thirds -- at least for me -- are easier to see. Dividing a ball into eighths -- and then only using 3 of them -- for me, is not as easy to see, and quite frankly, I arrive at those from making adjustments to the other cut angles (one of the six) bordering them. What's interesting, is that I can easily see a 7/8-ball cut, because that is half the width of a ferrule on the ball. A 7/8-ball cut just jumps out at me.

As far as the smallest ball cut being 1/4-ball, the reason for that is that I consider anything less to be a thin cut (or at least bordering on a thin cut), and I treat those a little differently. I tend to "feel" those (i.e. thin cuts), rather than approach them with a system.

I think my point is that one needs to come up with a "boiled-down" set of a small number of common ball-to-ball cut relationships, and commit them to memory. I do know that many snooker players have their own set.

Please feel free to substitute 3/8 and 5/8 respectively for your boiled-down set of common ball-to-ball cut relationships. However, do this only if they truly are a baseline for you. If you have problems seeing 1/3- or 2/3-ball cuts even though they commonly appear, that's all the more reason to work on them!

Hope this helps!
-Sean
 
TheThaiger said:
I'm not sure this is really the place to brag about going to secretarial school, but I questioned the sanity of getting up at 5.30am to write a post about aiming, not how quickly you could type. You do have comprehension difficulties, it must be said.

Still, you must be very proud - not every man is in touch with their feminine side {cough} enough to be comfortable discussing 'words per minute' and 'touch-typing skills' on a forum populated largely by men. Bravo.

Now, how's about that cuppa, love? Two sugars, please, and hold all calls.
Click to expand...

I don't have much time for this (I'm at work today, on Saturday), but I'll make it brief. Where do I brag about going to secretarial school? You are incredibly dense. I mean, mind-numbingly dense! I answered your accusation that I "got up at 5:30am and worked 3 hours on an aiming essay" because -- understand me now -- I DIDN'T. I wrote that in 15 minutes, as stated. The timestamp on my post says 8:20am, which means I started my reply at about 8:05am. (As if I really need to explain those details to you?!?) Where does 5:30am come into the picture, and why are you still stuck on it? Do you have a problem with basic math or comprehension of time? And, who has the reading comprehension problems again?

I'm particularly enamored with the secretarial analogies -- of just how far off base you are with them. Let's see... because you really reached with that accusation of getting up at 5:30am to work 3 hours to write that post (some time-slot you pulled out of the crack of your *ss), and then recommending a typing class to you because you're obviously must be so outclassed by your own keyboard, somehow makes me a secretary, putting words in my mouth of e.g. "words per minute" that I never used. Nice try, though.

Oh, and so there's no continuance of reading comprehension problems on your side, I'll make it clear, Mr. Misogynist. Get bent.

-Sean
 
Last edited:
droveto said:
Someone here has quite a complex... I too type fast. Will I be accused of having a feminine type job by a misogynist? Only time will tell...

Thanks for all the aiming chat. People that get emotional about this stuff (while ironically calling others out for doing "women's work") have some problems...
Click to expand...

Who got emotional again?

Anyway, Sean's just 'enjoying the banter'. He's not one that can dish it out but not take it back. Oh no.

And just so I know, were you green or red repping me? As you're new, it comes out as blue, apparently. Not knowing is the sort of thing that drives you mad, y'know?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top