A good trick for aiming.

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

My apologies. The time stamp on your post says 05.26, or something. Living in a small country makes you forget there are countries with several different timezones.

See how easy it is to apologise for your mistakes, Secretarial Sean?
 
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.

[...]

Right, and Tim knows there is no threshold at which beating someone over the head with the "enjoying the banter" hammer gets old and tiresome. And afterall, when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, right?

In case there are still reading comprehension problems, I'm trying to tell you there's a limit to that "enjoying the banter" thing. I do enjoy banter, but not when someone is stalking my every post, and certainly not when someone is twisting facts while doing so. Rationale: 1.) it gets old having to defend myself out of the blue for no good reason, and 2.) it's an entirely different thing when a response is to just to attack the person (i.e. your inappropriate ding on the 5:30am thing -- it served no useful purpose), rather than respond to the material posted, as in you're refuting it (which I have no problem with).

My apologies. The time stamp on your post says 05.26, or something. Living in a small country makes you forget there are countries with several different timezones.

See how easy it is to apologise for your mistakes, Secretarial Sean?

That apology was meaningless, because you closed it with another inappropriate insult. I could respond along the lines of how I'm not surprised that a holier-than-thou Brit like yourself is not cognizant of different timezones in other countries, but I won't. Oh, I guess I just did.

See how easy it is to completely nullify the effect of an apology, TheMysogynist?

-Sean
 
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?

Why the heck do we need banter? I was enjoying Sean's postings until you got involved. The Aiming Forum was created for dialogue about aiming. If I want banter I can go out to the nearest tavern and find an opposing point of view.

Contribute or take a hike! Haters like you are the reason I rarely post anymore. :frown:

Best,
Mike
 
Right, and Tim knows there is no threshold at which beating someone over the head with the "enjoying the banter" hammer gets old and tiresome. And afterall, when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, right?

In case there are still reading comprehension problems, I'm trying to tell you there's a limit to that "enjoying the banter" thing. I do enjoy banter, but not when someone is stalking my every post, and certainly not when someone is twisting facts while doing so. Rationale: 1.) it gets old having to defend myself out of the blue for no good reason, and 2.) it's an entirely different thing when a response is to just to attack the person (i.e. your inappropriate ding on the 5:30am thing -- it served no useful purpose), rather than respond to the material posted, as in you're refuting it (which I have no problem with).



That apology was meaningless, because you closed it with another inappropriate insult. I could respond along the lines of how I'm not surprised that a holier-than-thou Brit like yourself is not cognizant of different timezones in other countries, but I won't. Oh, I guess I just did.

See how easy it is to completely nullify the effect of an apology, TheMysogynist?

-Sean

TheMysogynist? That's even poorer than TheContrarian, which was fairly shocking itself.

Do you think merely linking two words together somehow makes for a fitting moniker, Secretarial Sean? No, there needs to be an element of truth to a nickname, or a play on words. Arbitrarily selecting adjectives that fit only your personal whims are meaningless.

Must do better. A good example would be the alliterative 'Secretarial Sean', which is a) truthful, given what you've told us in this thread, and b) pretty damn funny given your, er, personality and delicate disposition.
 
Last edited:
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?

I can't be bothered with repping people either way so it wasn't me. However, I can be bothered with telling you that you're input here is useless and uninteresting to anyone but yourself. I hope you're getting something out of your complete waste of time because it's coming at the expense of people interested in an intelligent conversation.
Enjoy your night.
 
I can't be bothered with repping people either way so it wasn't me.

No? Then someone's hacked your account.

A good trick for aiming. 06-09-2012 07:59 AM droveto If nothing worthwhile to say, why not shut up?

So, was it red or green? I'm on tenterhooks here!
 
The opportunity presented to you is to play nice and add constructively to the conversations on AZB.

The next time I ban you...it will be permanently.

You have two weeks to consider the proposition.

Dave
 
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

Hello, Folks. I just wanted to get back to this thread, now that TheNuisance is gone and we're back to our regularly-scheduled programming ;).

I wanted to expand on the thin cut thing I mentioned in my reply to AtLarge above, as well as expand on why I divide the cue ball into the fractions that I do.

First, I find it easy to see thirds. (And no, it's not because of "my secretarial duties that TheMysogynist outed me on," whereby I have to fold letters into thirds to stick into envelopes. ;) ). Rather, I've always found thirds easy to see, because 1/3rd of the ball is "exactly 50% of the remainder of the ball" if that makes sense. That is, splitting the ball into thirds, for me, is as easy as seeing a section of the ball that is exactly half of "what's left" (i.e. the remaining 2/3rds) of the ball. To me, it's just as easy as seeing a half-ball hit, and then splitting those halves into two to see quarters. Thirds just jump out at me.

Second, concerning the thin cuts, anything less than a 1/4-ball hit, for me, is considered a thin cut. It's just the amount of "thinness" that differentiates one thin cut from the other. I tend to view these as not "1/8th ball" or "1/16th ball" hits, but rather, I focus on that l-i-t-t-l-e overlap where the cue ball is eclipsing the object ball. I measure that by sight and by feel, as well as what spin I'm putting on the cue ball (i.e. for positional or for throw reasons). For example, I like to shoot a lot of thin cuts with inside english on the cue ball, because the resistive nature of the inside spin tends to "throw" the object ball more accurately down the line to the pocket. Additionally, inside spin on the cue ball tends to put "pocketing" spin on the object ball when the object ball is close to a cushion. That is, the object ball, when it meets the cut of the pocket, is spinning in a direction to "help" it in. Additionally, if that thin cut (where that object ball is very close to or against a cushion) is REALLY thin, if I miss the object ball completely (say, I underestimate the amount of deflection my cue's shaft induces and j-u-s-t miss the object ball), the inside english turns into running english when the cue ball strikes the cushion, and that presents a second chance at pocketing that object ball when the cue ball rebounds out from the cushion.

When evaluating these thin cuts, I've shot enough of them to know, by feel, which angle the object ball is going to take after contact.

It's just part of setting it up, shooting it, staying down, observing, and memorizing. I guess I should add "thin cuts" to my list of 6 common/reference ball-to-ball relationships, but I always treated thin cuts differently than the 6 reference cuts -- I don't view or divide the object ball that way at all in thin cuts.

I hope this is helpful.

-Sean

P.S.: I'm heading out for 8-ball league and a ring game tonight, but if I think of something else (or if I remember aspects of how I view certain cuts that I haven't already shared), I'll make a mental note of it and share it back here.
 
Sean,
I had to read your post/s a couple of times for you covered several important aspects of how you aim - all good stuff like using inside english on cut shots alonmg the rail.

Thanks.:smile:
 
Sean,
I had to read your post/s a couple of times for you covered several important aspects of how you aim - all good stuff like using inside english on cut shots alonmg the rail.

Thanks.:smile:

Thank you for the kind words, LAMas (and AtLarge). I know I'm not known for brevity, but I hope I pack a lot of information into my posts, with minimal "chaff."

I "aim" to please! :)

-Sean
 
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

Great info Sean......I teach using seven shots as I include the 1/8 cut shot as well, but after reading your explanation on why u don't use it , I have to say it does make a lot of sense. The 1/8 cut is just so different than a 7/8 hit, that u really need to drill it down further and becomes more of a feel and experience shot. I can see the shot as I type this now.....but no worries I type as fast as I think too and it it is after 5:30am :)
 
Great info Sean......I teach using seven shots as I include the 1/8 cut shot as well, but after reading your explanation on why u don't use it , I have to say it does make a lot of sense. The 1/8 cut is just so different than a 7/8 hit, that u really need to drill it down further and becomes more of a feel and experience shot.

Thanks! I did that as well -- include the 1/8th ball hit -- but I later dropped it off because there are too many variables to it. It's not a "baseline" ball-to-ball relationship, IMHO.

I can see the shot as I type this now.....but no worries I type as fast as I think too and it it is after 5:30am :)

<facepalming myself> Yup, I guess I deserved that, for not taking the high road against TheMisogynist. But in the end, things worked out for the better. And besides, it appears there's a lot of folks owning up to having the same "typing as fast as one thinks" abilities -- so I guess we're all secretaries, eh? ;)

-Sean
 
..........

Pat:

I didn't see your original post before you later removed it, but if it were to remind me to use the phrase "reference angles" in future fractional aiming / back-of-ball aiming descriptions, I truly get it and agree.

-Sean
 
Pat:

I didn't see your original post before you later removed it, but if it were to remind me to use the phrase "reference angles" in future fractional aiming / back-of-ball aiming descriptions, I truly get it and agree.

-Sean
LOL - busted. I rewrote my whole previous post almost verbatim before realizing I was responding to the same post as before (just re-quoted). It was sounding eerily familiar.

pj
chgo
 
Great info! Thanks for taking the time to post all this. I'll echo what someone said earlier about the various aiming discussions being very helpful. I love them. It is what brought me into the forum... The arguing/insulting/dissecting that was done in some of the CTE threads was epic and taught me so much. Also gave me alot of insight into certain posters on this forum. Anyway, just wanted to point out that i read all of this stuff and i love it. Please keep it coming, if only for the lurkers like myself. Cheers.
 
Great info Sean......I teach using seven shots as I include the 1/8 cut shot as well, but after reading your explanation on why u don't use it , I have to say it does make a lot of sense. The 1/8 cut is just so different than a 7/8 hit, that u really need to drill it down further and becomes more of a feel and experience shot. I can see the shot as I type this now.....but no worries I type as fast as I think too and it it is after 5:30am :)

Shooting the center of the CB to the center of the OB is a straight in shot. Shooting the center of the CB at the edge (at it's equator) of the OB (1/2 overlap) is a ~30 degree cut angle shot. From the 1/2 overlap to the edge of the CB to the edge of the OB (90 degree) is twice the 30 degrees or 60 degrees and why thin cut angles are difficult. At an 1/8 CB to 1/8 OB overlap, the slightest shift from that (perfect overlap) results in several degrees of error.

But you all knew that.:smile:
 
Back
Top