A reality check on aiming systems of all kinds

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
An azbilliard poster, bioactive, previously drew a diagram based on his take that this was like TOI.
He included an insert of the cb center.
I copied the box and flipped it to put opposite the ghost ball since the offset he labeled as torque line, is mirrored at the ghost ball center.
That change in the impact area counters the original undercut line and sends the ball into pocket center.


View attachment 591255
Hope this works for you.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my request
sorry for my ignorance but how is what you show above not a touch of inside?
`i have not studied toi much
but i am guessing the torque line in toi is parrallel to the reference line
while yours is angled ie convergent
do i understand this correctly?
I know we discussed this many years ago but we were on other topics too and I never delved into it
 

Imac007

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thank you for taking the time to answer my request
sorry for my ignorance but how is what you show above not a touch of inside?
`i have not studied toi much
but i am guessing the torque line in toi is parrallel to the reference line
while yours is angled ie convergent
do i understand this correctly?
I know we discussed this many years ago but we were on other topics too and I never delved into it
The descriptions by CJ varied based on what shot happened to be in his mind at the time.
He specified an offset from the reference line at the face of the ball.
His narrative was about a parallel shift that guarded against flaring away from the reference line.
A ”hammerstroke“, his term, was used, and his descriptions talk about a connection in the impact area
Part of his description was a feeling of overcut.
A fractional aim system, of sorts, was described, and can be found on YouTube.

There was no contact point to contact point reference line dialogue.
English doesn’t care where the original reference line was, just the length of the torque line.
The use of the midpoint to get to the calibrated impact position consistently is different.

One criteria deemed important was consistent application regardless of angle, speed or distance.
A geometric principle emerged and is used.
Equal length lines crossed in the middle create equidistant offsets between the line ends.
Where I start at the cue ball and where I end in the impact location are the same regardless of shot length.

CJ deserves credit because of his acronym, TOI.
Dr. Dave deserves the bulk of the credit because it was his graph showing max throw inside english, a non-skidding cue ball and firm speed, had consistent 1° of throw across all angles tested. But the acronym, TOI elevated its importance, in my mind.
That triggered the rest of the inner questions and all the answers were in Dr. Dave’s data or could be extrapolated from there.
The simple geometry insight came from me.
I guess I can claim seeing the relevance of the torque line at the ball center.
That uncoupled the cue line from the ball surface and the reference line surface contact locations.

Apologies to all, I feel like I’ve pivoted and hijacked the thread away from its original intent.

This method depends on straight cueing like all others.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bbb

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
You don't say......

I think it was Neils that recently posted a vid on his channel that demostrates how to aim with the ghost ball. If you haven't I suggest you watch it. Based on your video, I fully understand why you believe the ghost is inaccurate method.
 

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
The descriptions by CJ varied based on what shot happened to be in his mind at the time.
He specified an offset from the reference line at the face of the ball.
His narrative was about a parallel shift that guarded against flaring away from the reference line.
A ”hammerstroke“, his term, was used, and his descriptions talk about a connection in the impact area
Part of his description was a feeling of overcut.
A fractional aim system, of sorts, was described, and can be found on YouTube.
There was no contact point to contact point reference line dialogue.
English doesn’t care where the original reference line was, just the length of the torque line.
The use of the midpoint to get to the calibrated impact position consistently is different.
One criteria deemed important was consistent application regardless of angle, speed or distance.
A geometric principle emerged and is used.
Equal length lines crossed in the middle create equidistant offsets between the line ends.
Where I start at the cue ball and where I end in the impact location are the same regardless of shot length.

CJ deserves credit because of his acronym, TOI.
Dr. Dave deserves the bulk of the credit because it was his graph showing max throw inside english, a non-skidding cue ball and firm speed, had consistent 1° of throw across all angles tested. But the acronym, TOI elevated its importance, in my mind.
That triggered the rest of the inner questions and all the answers were in Dr. Dave’s data or could be extrapolated from there.
The simple geometry insight came from me.
I guess I can claim seeing the relevance of the torque line at the ball center.
That uncoupled the cue line from the ball surface and the reference line surface contact locations.

Apologies to all, I feel like I’ve pivoted and hijacked the thread away from its original intent.

This method depends on straight cueing like all others.
Once again thanksfor your detaied explanation
 

Imac007

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Once again thanksfor your detaied explanation
I’m just wondering if people are understanding the concepts? I’m hoping the 👍 received indicated the descriptions were clear enough.
In fairness, since this method worked so good for me, the other methods like Poolology and CTE, had a complexity I wasn’t motivated to explore fully.
Brian’s more recent video using the balls in the wooden circle helped. I purchased the book quite a while ago.
That said $100 plus shipping and exchange, for the CTE offering, feels like a lot of work for very little return, for me. I won’t speak for others.
I think since I deal with parallel aim line perspectives and shifts, that Stan’s system likely has merit, and is something I could actually visualize and conceptualize.
Early descriptions and multiple presentations on YouTube created a mishmash that combined with negative feedback from commenters just created a mine field I had no desire to try to cross.

I‘m hoping my descriptions give players a simple useable method to graft onto any method they choose to get aligned to the undercut part of the pocket, using center ball.
I just happen to use contact point to contact point because it uses real spots on the ball surfaces, not guesstimates or imaginary locations.
The cueing method was designed to minimize the biggest problem with center ball aiming, throw.

It’s really just a two step process.
1) preset the adjustment
2) set the small torque line to midpoint cue line
 
Last edited:

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
I won't go over my post again in detail, but I will say this: It's always easier to build consistency when you do everything the same every time, rather than doing it differently. That is my main gripe with two directional physical pivot aiming systems, and I suspect (though I can't know for sure) it could be a reason why Stan moved away from those.

If you were to watch me from above, and I'm sure you'll find this to be true of most right handed shooters who go down low over the ball, you'll see the cue move in a sort of pivot from left to right as I'm going down. The hand is on the line the whole time (more or less) but the cue is sweeping into it. This is a function of how the body works. That means that I cannot put my cue on the shooting line while standing up, but rather it points to the left of that line and falls into place on that line as I go down. If you try to put your cue just on the line while you stand up and form your body around the cue as you go down, you may find your stance to be a lot less solid than it could be. The traditional snooker stance (though I had to change it up a bit because of back problems) has a number of "torquing" movements to cement the stance into place and get everything in line, this is one of them (there is also a hip torque). This movement COULD be worked into an aiming system with pivots in only one direction. I've yet to see someone make a unified shooting system around this possibility, but it could be done. There are several challenges to this, but they could probably be overcome.
I think that was we get more in touch with how our eyes and body work together, coupled with video analysis we learn more about what causes what. When I was teaching jumping I got pretty good at identifying how the approach and body position inhibited the stroking ability. But that identification had to be coupled with how to communicate it to the shooter and effectively describe how to fix it. I had about five different ways to explain the ideal position to be in to give the shooter the maximum range of effectiveness that they would have available as long as they stroked properly.

And despite all of that experience with teaching people to jump the other day when giving a clinic the owner of the pool dojo, a 700 speed player, had another couple insights that made it even easier to understand the dynamics in play.

I love that.

And..... As it happened coincidentally I came across someone talking about a guy called the jump master and I looked him up on YouTube and sure enough he is a master. More importantly he is a teacher of his insights and his technique is excellent and better in many ways than the way I teach. So I get to practice his way and incorporate his methods into my instruction.

That's the type of access to information that I think pool benefits from. Now anyone can be a content creator and no one is restricted to a few methods that blanket the field. And anyone can be a critic and when that criticism is constructive it means that we push each other to understand more, to inspect our own beliefs, to test on the table and record results.

Anyone sufficiently motivated has the ability to watch hundreds of thousands of hours of players playing at all levels and use their observations to discover commonalities that they can emulate or watch out for.

Regardless of a person's individual issues there is no information reason for them not to be able to reach their highest level possible.

That's why I appreciate you and those like you. Even if we disagree about the usefulness of particular methods of aiming our common goal is to help players achieve the best results that they can.

Every one of these discussions should be conducted this way. If they were then I predict that more players would benefit from them whether or not they adopted any given method or not. Just thinking about this stuff through reading a good conversation has an impact on how a player sees the game.

Last night I got about an hour of practice in and I was thinking about your advice on stance and focusing on it and had better results. It also got me thinking about checking whether my "demonstration" stance/stroking matches my practice/competition form. I think that there might be something there where I am doing something different in exhibition mode for the camera.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
I think it was Neils that recently posted a vid on his channel that demostrates how to aim with the ghost ball. If you haven't I suggest you watch it. Based on your video, I fully understand why you believe the ghost is inaccurate method.
It is inaccurate. The way niels explains it is just as inaccurate as the rest of the ways people explain using gb. Regardless of what he said the method relies on a human beings ability to imagine something that is invisible. We can do a test where you follow Niels' instructions exactly and I would bet high that you do not get on the true ghost ball line accurately more than 50% of the time over a wide range of shots. That doesn't mean you won't be close or even close enough to still pocket the ball. It just means that you won't be accurately on the exact line.

What does that mean then if my assertion is right? Well it means that there is a range of lines that you can adopt which would work to pocket the ball but being just outside that range will result in a miss. And since you're effectively guessing then you can't ever really know if you're dead perfect or just outside that range.

I know every possible way to use ghost ball. From the imagine a full ball and line up to it to railroad tracks to the tip on the table at (estimated) gb center. I have a ton of the gb training tools as well as templates I created and made using my laser cutter.

Do this experiment next time you're at the pool room. Set up a laser line that goes 100% to the ghost ball center on shot. Now turn it off. Make notes on the skill level of each player doing this. One would assume that higher skill players should be more accurate.

1. Tell people to put their cue down addressing center cueball pointing to gb center. Once the cue is down turn the laser on. How many people get it right?

2. Tell people to place another ball at the gb position. They can look at much as they want to but they can only place the ball once with no adjustment. How often do they get it right. (This one is particularly enlightening in my opinion)

3. Create a shot perspective image with the laser on so that you can overlay it on top of shots being taken. Now have shooters go into the shooting position and shoot. Superimpose the laser on video over the frames of shots being taken and compare the results. You will find that players get close and close enough to pocket but they won't be perfectly on the gb line.

Humans do have a remarkable ability to adjust from being slightly incorrect to whatever is needed to get the result. In the case of deliberately using ghostball this manifests itself constantly because humans are not capable of precisely identifying a distance of 1.125" from the edge of the object ball at many angles shot after shot. So their subconscious adjustment engine kicks in along with some conscious choices like using helping English(sidespin). This is the main source of so-called body English imo.

Ghostball or dummy ball as the British say is actually a solid way to explain aiming. It's really easy to show with props, easy to diagram, great for tangent line explanation and so on. Just as a practical way to reliably aim out is not the best method. Sure some people will swear that this is all they use and they can be great shot makers. One of my friends says he can imagine the ball as solidly as if a real ball were there. I can't dispute him.

All I could do is test him and if I believe that he is being completely honest about employing that method then if he posted great results in the above mentioned tests I would say that he is an outlier and fortunate to have that ability over the majority of the population.

The real data that would better inform our respective opinions is not available. I have done the above experiments in a limited and impulsive fashion. The results of those experiments has convinced me that I am likely to be right should we do them more formally. But I don't have the time and don't want to make the time right now for that.

However, it won't be long before I do make the time to test out what I think and set it up with the necessary controls.

I will finish with saying that I fundamentally disagree with you and I disagree with Niels. He is a phenomenal player who quite literally brute-forced himself into the elite. He is a great example of someone who proves that disciplined hard work on the table pays off.

But where I disagree is his magic pill comments in regard to aiming systems. We have players who use aiming systems who are in the world elite alongside him. It is my personal belief that even Niels could likely benefit from a good objective aiming system. But even if he couldn't his opinion of them is still wrong. Just because he said he uses ghost ball does not mean that gb is the best method for everyone else. And his instructions on how to use gb are nothing revolutionary which suddenly makes gb more accurate for the user.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
I’m just wondering if people are understanding the concepts? I’m hoping the 👍 received indicated the descriptions were clear enough.
In fairness, since this method worked so good for me, the other methods like Poolology and CTE, had a complexity I wasn’t motivated to explore fully.
Brian’s more recent video using the balls in the wooden circle helped. I purchased the book quite a while ago.
That said $100 plus shipping and exchange, for the CTE offering, feels like a lot of work for very little return, for me. I won’t speak for others.
I think since I deal with parallel aim line perspectives and shifts, that Stan’s system likely has merit, and is something I could actually visualize and conceptualize.
Early descriptions and multiple presentations on YouTube created a mishmash that combined with negative feedback from commenters just created a mine field I had no desire to try to cross.

I‘m hoping my descriptions give players a simple useable method to graft onto any method they choose to get aligned to the undercut part of the pocket, using center ball.
I just happen to use contact point to contact point because it uses real spots on the ball surfaces, not guesstimates or imaginary locations.
The cueing method was designed to minimize the biggest problem with center ball aiming, throw.

It’s really just a two step process.
1) preset the adjustment
2) set the small torque line to midpoint cue line
Just an FYI, no one is required to spend a penny to learn cte. The DVDs and book are complimentary to the information that is out there for free.

I see the book as the culmination of a 14 year deep dive into a fascinating and practically useful area of pool. Hal Houle give the pool world something new to the majority of players. Stan is not the only instructor who teaches aiming based on Hal's methods. Several others adapted Hal's work and others still have adapted and put it variations from the teachings of those instructors.

The overall fascination for me is the idea that one can use the objects we can see and touch to adopt a shot line that is actually accurate to withing a fraction of a millimeter.

I firmly believe that a lot of what has driven dr. Dave to explore aiming is that idea as well. Of course saying things like "three angles can handle every shot" are going to enrage the Dr. Dave and Bob jewetts of the world. On the surface such a claim is absurd and Hal himself acknowledged that.

But I personally think that the results from hal and other's objective methods are hard to deny and this has been an inspiration to think about how aiming can be made more certain.
 

Imac007

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Do this experiment next time you're at the pool room. Set up a laser line that goes 100% to the ghost ball center on shot. Now turn it off. Make notes on the skill level of each player doing this. One would assume that higher skill players should be more accurate.
Luck must have been on my side when I asked an older player how to aim.
He simply took me to the snooker table and showed me that the spot on the ball diametrically opposite the part of the pocket, in other words the spot on the ball farthest away, that I want the ball to go, was the aim point.
Next he took a pack of paper matches and one by one placed them just overhanging the rail edge at 90° to the lip.
My instructions were simple.
From various angles to contact each match head driving it at 90° to its origin.
Then he said each match head was equivalent to the contact point.

This is like the laser but with physical feedback.
A lesson most people still need to learn is that two balls from their static position have only one spot on the cue ball that can contact any single spot along the equatorial surface.
I use this still as a training aid.
Most players contact the rail on the near side coming up short of contact, hitting the rail just ahead of the match head.
The shape of the cushion point profile is different on pool tables, so a toothpick doesn’t work and paper matches are harder to find.

I also teach players they need to learn to shoot with the front of the cue ball.
It pays off when the cushioned or intervening balls obstruct the face.

This also works great for shooting straight ins.
Align the cue through the cue ball to the center of the object ball.
Note where the contact point is on the front of the cue ball and focus on driving it to the contact point on the object ball.
When advanced players learn this they can’t believe how their awareness of the cue ball face seems to recede.

Learning how to mesh contact points is all about manipulating balls with a purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb

Imac007

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I won't go over my post again in detail, but I will say this: It's always easier to build consistency when you do everything the same every time, rather than doing it differently. That is my main gripe with two directional physical pivot aiming systems, and I suspect (though I can't know for sure) it could be a reason why Stan moved away from those.

If you were to watch me from above, and I'm sure you'll find this to be true of most right handed shooters who go down low over the ball, you'll see the cue move in a sort of pivot from left to right as I'm going down. The hand is on the line the whole time (more or less) but the cue is sweeping into it. This is a function of how the body works. That means that I cannot put my cue on the shooting line while standing up, but rather it points to the left of that line and falls into place on that line as I go down. If you try to put your cue just on the line while you stand up and form your body around the cue as you go down, you may find your stance to be a lot less solid than it could be. The traditional snooker stance (though I had to change it up a bit because of back problems) has a number of "torquing" movements to cement the stance into place and get everything in line, this is one of them (there is also a hip torque). This movement COULD be worked into an aiming system with pivots in only one direction. I've yet to see someone make a unified shooting system around this possibility, but it could be done. There are several challenges to this, but they could probably be overcome.
I’ve played around with this and found that swinging to the cue line from the outside worked better than left to right.
So left to right works best half the time.
I now start from behind the cue with the tip grounded.
I hold my head on line, set my grip location and move to stand at about 90° to the cue feet shoulder width apart.
Next to the grip hand.
I start to bend forward by bending my left knee forward, which torques my hip line, bracing my right knee.
My right side is aligned with the cue and it feels like I could shoot one handed.
As I bend from the hips, my back stays straight, and I go down about half way.
Since both my head and cue were on the line originally, if I noticed that my cue moved while bending, I can return it on line.
If my head moved but the cue remains in place I can re-center my vision, sometimes raising up a bit, then back down
The bridge can seek the cue now as the hip bend folds the body along the hip line created by the forward knee hip torque.
The right side folds along the shot line as well moving ahead and down onto the table.
The right forearm and upper arm pronate to simply lay on the table, supporting a bit of weight shifted forwards.
The elbow bends to seek the bridge position.
The one handed shot feel should survive the bridge placement as you set the tip contact height.

My aiming all occurs before I get down and manifests in the grounded cue on line.

All of this is based on an ideal stance position.
It does train the upper body position.
The lower body can actually be in almost any position provided it doesn’t throw off the shooting alignment.
The table, ball positions and pockets change the dynamics of where body parts can actually be located on each shot.
The hip bend rather than a waist bend let me look along the cue rather than down on it.
That said some shots benefit from a more overhead view.
Controlling the hip plane angle and bending from the hips is more consistent in my experience.
 
Last edited:

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Luck must have been on my side when I asked an older player how to aim.
He simply took me to the snooker table and showed me that the spot on the ball diametrically opposite the part of the pocket, in other words the spot on the ball farthest away, that I want the ball to go, was the aim point.
Next he took a pack of paper matches and one by one placed them just overhanging the rail edge at 90° to the lip.
My instructions were simple.
From various angles to contact each match head driving it at 90° to its origin.
Then he said each match head was equivalent to the contact point.

This is like the laser but with physical feedback.
A lesson most people still need to learn is that two balls from their static position have only one spot on the cue ball that can contact any single spot along the equatorial surface.
I use this still as a training aid.
Most players contact the rail on the near side coming up short of contact, hitting the rail just ahead of the match head.
The shape of the cushion point profile is different on pool tables, so a toothpick doesn’t work and paper matches are harder to find.

I also teach players they need to learn to shoot with the front of the cue ball.
It pays off when the cushioned or intervening balls obstruct the face.

This also works great for shooting straight ins.
Align the cue through the cue ball to the center of the object ball.
Note where the contact point is on the front of the cue ball and focus on driving it to the contact point on the object ball.
When advanced players learn this they can’t believe how their awareness of the cue ball face seems to recede.

Learning how to mesh contact points is all about manipulating balls with a purpose.
Yep, I have had people show me aiming this way as well but not with matches. Also had one road player show me how to aim past the object ball and send the cueball to the rail as if the object ball was not present. The effect here is that you don't pull up on the stroke at contact and send the CB on a different vector.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
It is inaccurate. The way niels explains it is just as inaccurate as the rest of the ways people explain using gb. Regardless of what he said the method relies on a human beings ability to imagine something that is invisible.
Based on my life experience, if someone has convinced themselve's of something, then there's not much point in trying to tell them otherwise.

What you wrong about in the short portion I quoted is you're not trying to imagine something that's invisible. You're replicating an object with a precise example right in front of you. I was actually quite amazed at how off you were in the guesses you made within your vid. I would have assumed an error of an 1/8" where you'r line of sight wasn't on the correct perspective. To do your demostration correctly you have had to have been directly over top of the CB and blocking the camera angle. I think you averaged ~1/4" of error. Not to mention the whole experiment was contingent on you placing the CB on your pen mark accurately.

Obviously, your thoughts and ability to perform the ghost ball system are on the negative side. Nothing wrong with that. Not everybody can be good at everything. Back in my young snooker days, the ghost was the way to play the game. I've since easily tripled up on the HAMB method, so I haven't bothered with ghost ball for a long while.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Based on my life experience, if someone has convinced themselve's of something, then there's not much point in trying to tell them otherwise.

What you wrong about in the short portion I quoted is you're not trying to imagine something that's invisible. You're replicating an object with a precise example right in front of you. I was actually quite amazed at how off you were in the guesses you made within your vid. I would have assumed an error of an 1/8" where you'r line of sight wasn't on the correct perspective. To do your demostration correctly you have had to have been directly over top of the CB and blocking the camera angle. I think you averaged ~1/4" of error. Not to mention the whole experiment was contingent on you placing the CB on your pen mark accurately.

Obviously, your thoughts and ability to perform the ghost ball system are on the negative side. Nothing wrong with that. Not everybody can be good at everything. Back in my young snooker days, the ghost was the way to play the game. I've since easily tripled up on the HAMB method, so I haven't bothered with ghost ball for a long while.
Based on my life experience those who are convinced of their position REFUSE to accept ANYTHING anyone says against it. I told you about other experiments I have done and none of it mattered. By the way the cueball position was marked using the template and unless you THINK that I was so deficient that I could not place it accurately upon the mark we can assume that it was accurately placed.

Yes my thoughts on USING the ghost ball system are on the negative side BECAUSE my experience is that it is NOT ACCURATE as a useful aiming tool beyond simply diagramming and developing a FEEL for shot pictures/angles. The reason I made a few videos demonstrating why I feel this way is because that was the most clear way that I could explain my position based on my experience. I can USE Ghost ball just fine in the sense that I can understand and apply ANYONE's ghost ball technique just as they describe it. But their instructions DO NOT result in turning Ghost Ball into anything other than the ESTIMATION method that it is.

Great that you have tripled up on your table time. Nothing you have said invalidates what I showed in that video. I would bet VERY VERY VERY high that a controlled experiment would bear out what I said. You even contend that I did the experiment incorrectly but the fact is that I created the experiment and I stated clearly that IF I couldn't get fairly accurate results when I am sitting down and right over the object ball why then should I expect to get better results when I am three feet above and five feet away from the object ball? You say you would have assumed an error rate of 1/8th inch. Are you aware that a 1/8th error in judgement of where the ghost ball center line is from the cueball is almost certain to result in a missed shot? What exactly do you think that the vector range IS from a perfect GB shot line for the object ball to go into the pocket? Do you think that the margin is 1/8th of an inch? I hope not because it isn't. If we consider two balls colliding and say that there are 360 degrees and the contact represents a degree on the circumference then how many degrees to the left or right away from the "perfect" center pocket line can the collision occur and still send the object ball into the pocket?

The answer is that it varies based on several factors. But there is a maximum amount and it is going to be highly unusual that that this amount is 1/8th" away from that perfect vector. The widest amount of contact points away from the perfect line is going to be when a ball is sitting in the jaws. The narrowest is going to be when a ball is frozen to a rail and the pockets are super tight. Ghost ball aiming works decently enough when the pockets are huge and the shelf is shallow. It works less well when the pockets are tight and the shelf is deep. BUT even in favorable conditions the shooter is STILL estimating vaguely when using GB. As you said, you haven't ACTUALLY used Ghost Ball in a long time (contrary to what Niels claims he does) and I surmise that the reason for this is that you rely on just seeing it without thinking about it due to your increase in table time and brute-force immersion to learn shot pictures. And if that works for you then GREAT. But don't assume or presume to tell me that I can't use GB or understand GB when you don't even use GB. I do in fact use GB when I play. I just don't use it to aim shots that go directly to a pocket or on bank shots. I do use it successfully for the type of shots where I have determined that it is the technique that is most useful for.



 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
Based on my life experience those who are convinced of their position REFUSE to accept ANYTHING anyone says against it. I told you about other experiments I have done and none of it mattered. By the way the cueball position was marked using the template and unless you THINK that I was so deficient that I could not place it accurately upon the mark we can assume that it was accurately placed.
Honestly I didn't read about your other experiments. I have no axe to grind, no personal belief to chant. Not trying to convince you of anything and not interested in being told a system that worked fine for me when I was learning how to hold cue doesn't somehow work because you struggled with it.

You marked the CB position with a dot, and then attempted to place the CB on it without the aid of the template: (time stamped for your convenience):
Based on the method you used to gauge your guesses around the CB I don't think it a stretch to consider you may not have nailed the placement of the practice CB either. Any error invalidates the results of your experiment. Doesn't change that you failed to "imagine" the ghost ball. Just saying your numbers don't have any merit.

I applaud your passion for discounting the tried and true ghost ball method. For me at least, it's falling on deaf ears unfortunately.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Honestly I didn't read about your other experiments. I have no axe to grind, no personal belief to chant. Not trying to convince you of anything and not interested in being told a system that worked fine for me when I was learning how to hold cue doesn't somehow work because you struggled with it.

You marked the CB position with a dot, and then attempted to place the CB on it without the aid of the template: (time stamped for your convenience):
Based on the method you used to gauge your guesses around the CB I don't think it a stretch to consider you may not have nailed the placement of the practice CB either. Any error invalidates the results of your experiment. Doesn't change that you failed to "imagine" the ghost ball. Just saying your numbers don't have any merit.

I applaud your passion for discounting the tried and true ghost ball method. For me at least, it's falling on deaf ears unfortunately.
Thank you for your applause and your misplaced consideration. Are you a betting man? If so then we can do this experiment where there is ZERO CHANCE that the GB is misplaced and bet EXTREMELY high on the outcome.

The reason that a person FAILS TO IMAGINE the ghost ball is because ATTEMPTING TO imagine it is not easy when the OUTCOME of that imagination exercise should be a PRECISE line.

I have an extra 10k to throw at this IF you want to see if the results are closer to my thoughts on the subject or closer to yours. This is OPEN to everyone else as well.
 

Imac007

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Based on my life experience those who are convinced of their position REFUSE to accept ANYTHING anyone says against it. I told you about other experiments I have done and none of it mattered. By the way the cueball position was marked using the template and unless you THINK that I was so deficient that I could not place it accurately upon the mark we can assume that it was accurately placed.

Yes my thoughts on USING the ghost ball system are on the negative side BECAUSE my experience is that it is NOT ACCURATE as a useful aiming tool beyond simply diagramming and developing a FEEL for shot pictures/angles. The reason I made a few videos demonstrating why I feel this way is because that was the most clear way that I could explain my position based on my experience. I can USE Ghost ball just fine in the sense that I can understand and apply ANYONE's ghost ball technique just as they describe it. But their instructions DO NOT result in turning Ghost Ball into anything other than the ESTIMATION method that it is.

Great that you have tripled up on your table time. Nothing you have said invalidates what I showed in that video. I would bet VERY VERY VERY high that a controlled experiment would bear out what I said. You even contend that I did the experiment incorrectly but the fact is that I created the experiment and I stated clearly that IF I couldn't get fairly accurate results when I am sitting down and right over the object ball why then should I expect to get better results when I am three feet above and five feet away from the object ball? You say you would have assumed an error rate of 1/8th inch. Are you aware that a 1/8th error in judgement of where the ghost ball center line is from the cueball is almost certain to result in a missed shot? What exactly do you think that the vector range IS from a perfect GB shot line for the object ball to go into the pocket? Do you think that the margin is 1/8th of an inch? I hope not because it isn't. If we consider two balls colliding and say that there are 360 degrees and the contact represents a degree on the circumference then how many degrees to the left or right away from the "perfect" center pocket line can the collision occur and still send the object ball into the pocket?

The answer is that it varies based on several factors. But there is a maximum amount and it is going to be highly unusual that that this amount is 1/8th" away from that perfect vector. The widest amount of contact points away from the perfect line is going to be when a ball is sitting in the jaws. The narrowest is going to be when a ball is frozen to a rail and the pockets are super tight. Ghost ball aiming works decently enough when the pockets are huge and the shelf is shallow. It works less well when the pockets are tight and the shelf is deep. BUT even in favorable conditions the shooter is STILL estimating vaguely when using GB. As you said, you haven't ACTUALLY used Ghost Ball in a long time (contrary to what Niels claims he does) and I surmise that the reason for this is that you rely on just seeing it without thinking about it due to your increase in table time and brute-force immersion to learn shot pictures. And if that works for you then GREAT. But don't assume or presume to tell me that I can't use GB or understand GB when you don't even use GB. I do in fact use GB when I play. I just don't use it to aim shots that go directly to a pocket or on bank shots. I do use it successfully for the type of shots where I have determined that it is the technique that is most useful for.



I’m just going to comment on contact points since most ghost ball methods have that in common.
I don’t have trouble with ghost ball as an initial center ball reference.
My beef is with the combination of center ball and the ghost ball as an optimal impact position for most cut shots.
Center ball creates cut induced throw which has too many variables for any except the very experienced.
The very experienced shy away from its use.
It’s common for pros to use outside english to gear or throw the ball into the pocket opening.
Throw that only exists with center ball is the biggest enemy of ghost ball as the end aiming method.
Playing Valley bar boxes I used to play Mosconi’s version of ghost ball, parallel aiming.
On that platform with small tables and big pockets I rarely missed because of throw because I always aimed at the overcut side of the pocket, whenever possible.
Playing on 9 foot and 12 foot tables changed my methodology and my search for answers.
In order to progress each of us must find our solution to the throw problem, I detailed mine earlier.
 

JoeyInCali

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I love it when someone argues the ghost ball fails you but then uses a ghost ball template as an aid to his "objective" system .
There is no proof any objective system is better than the ghost ball .
Ghost ball is not aiming at a dot on the felt .
As mentioned by someone already, vicinity or area where the gb has to be would suffice for most .
You can yap about any system you are using but in the end, you have to visualize the two balls colliding.
And when you do that, you are actually aiming the ghost ball .
 

Imac007

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I love it when someone argues the ghost ball fails you but then uses a ghost ball template as an aid to his "objective" system .
There is no proof any objective system is better than the ghost ball .
Ghost ball is not aiming at a dot on the felt .
As mentioned by someone already, vicinity or area where the gb has to be would suffice for most .
You can yap about any system you are using but in the end, you have to visualize the two balls colliding.
And when you do that, you are actually aiming the ghost ball .
You are right in that the ghost ball is used as an impact zone reference, by most systems. I suggested earlier in this thread that it might be better labeled as a calibrated impact location.
In my earlier aiming process, I used a variant I called a pre-adjusted calibrated location.
Most systems start from the ghost ball, center ball line, then modify the cue line after.
I still reference my pre-adjustment, as an undercut of that line.
It’s no different than describing a shot as just off straight, using straight as the reference.
Every description is grounded in something in the real world.
 
Top