A reality check on aiming systems of all kinds

[cookie man]

Come on Dave..."average" amateur? I know I played horribly down there in Florida, but you weren't exactly playing your best either. Lol.

I think the average amateur has a fargo around 500 or a little higher. I don't see those players running multiple racks during short races to 5 or 7 in 8ball or 9ball, or running out 9 or 10 balls in a one pocket game.

So I should at least rank a little better than average. Lol. Of course, all you have to go by is that one bad couple of hours we played. I can honestly say the best thing about that was the company, not the level of pool that was played. But it happens. We all have ups and downs. We all have to deal with regression to the mean, where we perform at our best about as often as we perform at our worst, and the rest of the time we are playing at our average level.

Just giving you a hard time. And I am 100% certain that I shot all 46 of those spot shots with my nose directly behind the cb, lined straight to a halfball aim. No CTE. Well, actually all CTE! Lol (but not your CTE. I used one line of aim, Center cb to Edge of Object ball)
.

I am a 613. Amateur is considered below about 730. So discount anything above that as pro level. That makes the average amateur around 500. Congrats...you are above average among amateur pool players. The Fargo app is very cool. It even gives you the percentage of games you've won against different ranked players. The blue is win percentage, red is loss percentage. That probably says more than the fargo rating alone.

Didn't mean any offense. For the record i consider myself an average amateur player also. 46 spot shots in a row is pretty impressive in my book.

 

[JB Cases]

Stan's instructions consist primarily of subconscious estimations - that's pretty much the definition of his "perceptions". Sorry you can't see that (although maybe that's helpful to you), but it doesn't change the fact.

pj
chgo

Really? So, the center of the cueball is NOT an objectively recognizable reference? The edge of the cueball is not an objectively recognizable reference? The center of the object ball is not an objectively recognizable reference? The edge of the object ball is not an objectively recognizable reference? Yes, all of those things are objective. What isn't strictly objective? The quarters of the object ball. The line that would slice the object ball halves in half. What is the result of these lines not being strictly objective? Well it means that IF the shooter does not pick them up correctly when TRYING CONSCIOUSLY to do so then the correct shot line is not produced. So the user has to practice until they can "see" that line in conjunction with the OBJECTIVE references and when they can then the correct shot lines are produced.

Perceptions are not subconscious. They are frames of reference created by physical stimulus. They can be something like my perception is that Daft Johanson is an asshole based on my interactions with him on the BAZ Billiard forum. And my perception might have been in the past that Daft Johanson was a cool guy who was just not in agreement with me about some terms based on my in-person experiences with him. In other words the perception of a person's character changes with the input.

When it comes to aiming in pool then perception is how a person takes in the very real objects in front of him and decides how to move his body in response to the specific situation. That activity can range from noting where the balls are and simply getting down on a line that seems right or it can be deliberately choosing a body position based on specific reference points.

This would be fairly easy to test by the way. You find players who have never heard of aiming systems and test them on a variety of shots and players who say they use specific aiming methods including Ghost Ball. You set up a player who is perfectly positioned for the shot addressing the cueball. The table is marked with a very specific grid system and an overhead camera. For each of the test shots you have the perfect player as a control image. Then you let the test players get into shooting position for each of the test shots. When the test players are compared to the control players the position of their cues should overlay exactly regardless of what method they used to get there.

Thus you should be able to determine whether "just feel it" aimers are as consistent as aiming system aimers and which of the aiming systems produce more consistent results. Not talking about form and fundamentals here. Just whether or not a players GETS TO the shot line correctly or not. The shot line is not known to the player, not marked out in any way. They only get the table, the balls and the pockets to use as references in any way they choose to do so. I am pretty sure that in the case of CTE vs Ghostball the results will show that CTE use indeed puts the shooter on the correct shot line considerably more consistently and accurately.

Perception can be trained. That's the whole premise of Sherlock Holmes' detective prowess. To look VERY CLOSELY at all of the details and be knowledgeable enough to understand what those details mean. Ghost Ball aiming is a method of training one to use the position of the balls to make a choice about where to lay the cue down. It is just not the best way to go about it because it requires a pretty hefty feat of imagination to do that. And that feat gets harder depending on how full the shot is. Still, it is not an invalid concept and of course for diagramming purposes to communicate ball direction, contact dynamics, throw, tangents and so on it is accurate and invaluable. However when you ask a person to point to the spot on the table where the ghost ball center should be they will get it wrong A LOT.

If you tell someone to point to where the quarter of the object ball is and they use the edge and the center as objective reference points then their accuracy is going to pretty good out of the gate and will only get better the more they focus on training their eyes to perceive that part of the ball. So no, perceptions in CTE aiming are not subconscious choices. They are deliberate choices that are based on OBJECTIVE references. To the point that one CTE user in a remote location can tell another CTE user what the right perceptions are for most shots faced in much the same way that a chess player can call out the move to another chess player remotely. Can't do that with Ghost Ball.

And when the remote CTE user calls out the perception and the shooter uses that perception without question and the shot line is found and used successfully with the overcut position built-in then in my opinion the objectivity in the system is clear. The proof is on the table Pat. Yes, I understand that your default position is that a person is either deliberately lying when they claim to be using a system consciously or that they are so self-deluded and clueless that they don't even know that they are not making conscious choices despite their claims that they are. I get it that this is your position and you are wrong. You have never been right on this subject and you will never be right no matter how often you want to repeat this false premise.

 

[cookie man]

Stan's instructions consist primarily of subconscious estimations - that's pretty much the definition of his "perceptions". Sorry you can't see that (although maybe that's helpful to you), but it doesn't change the fact.

pj
chgo

Wow PJ. I see these words no where in Stan's instruction. In fact quite the opposite. But you wouldn't really know that would you. Didn't you just admit within the last week that you couldn't follow the instructions well enough to even make a ball. The reality is you have no clue as to the instructions and even less of an idea as to how to use them. CTE- still not a fractional system as PJ has believed for 20 plus years.

 

[JB Cases]

I am a 613. Amateur is considered below about 730. So discount anything above that as pro level. That makes the average amateur around 500. Congrats...you are above average among amateur pool players. The Fargo app is very cool. It even gives you the percentage of games you've won against different ranked players. The blue is win percentage, red is loss percentage. That probably says more than the fargo rating alone.

The pro/amateur line is arbitrary and should not be used in any meaningful conversation. For the purpose of this discussion we should be using just the ratings that exist. The universe doesn't care about the label of professional but it does care that the 800 speed player can easily beat the 600 speed player in the exact same ratio that the 600 speed player can beat the 400 speed player.

I agree that the Fargo app is cool and think it can be a lot cooler when/if people are given more ways to parse the data.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Stan's instructions consist primarily of subconscious estimations - that's pretty much the definition of his "perceptions".

I see these words no where in Stan's instruction. In fact quite the opposite.

Something we agree on. Same from all his sales reps... er... cheerleaders here.

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

Didn't mean any offense. For the record i consider myself an average amateur player also. 46 spot shots in a row is pretty impressive in my book.

No offense taken really. Just poking you a little. Here's what I didn't mention. After that 46 in a row I thought, "damn...I'm going to record this and hit 50, or a hundred! All I gotta do is pay attention and stroke the ball each time." So I set my camera up and shoot 9 and then miss. Then I shoot 17 and miss. Then I shoot 7 and miss. Then I turn the camera off and delete the footage and go start a load of clothes. When certain thoughts or expectations get in your head it can sometimes turn you off as easily as flipping a switch.

 

[BC21]

The pro/amateur line is arbitrary and should not be used in any meaningful conversation. For the purpose of this discussion we should be using just the ratings that exist. The universe doesn't care about the label of professional but it does care that the 800 speed player can easily beat the 600 speed player in the exact same ratio that the 600 speed player can beat the 400 speed player.

I agree that the Fargo app is cool and think it can be a lot cooler when/if people are given more ways to parse the data.

I'm not convinced of that ratio. Just looking at my results, the win vs loss percentage playing different level players....I don't know, seems a bit off to think that an 800 would beat be 90 to 95 % of the time. But then again, we pool players do have a habit of overestimating our skill levels and underestimating the occurrence of luck.

 

[JoeyInCali]

No offense taken really. Just poking you a little. Here's what I didn't mention. After that 46 in a row I thought, "damn...I'm going to record this and hit 50, or a hundred! All I gotta do is pay attention and stroke the ball each time." So I set my camera up and shoot 9 and then miss. Then I shoot 17 and miss. Then I shoot 7 and miss. Then I turn the camera off and delete the footage and go start a load of clothes. When certain thoughts or expectations get in your head it can sometimes turn you off as easily as flipping a switch.

A friend of mine who plays a ton of one-pocket and was Efren's road manager and matchmaker for a long time showed me just how freaking good he is in spot shots . He picked the area to land the cue ball after making the spot shot.
He was shooting them all with inside english. He could get inside enough just missing the side pocket .
And the punchline is , he hand sands all his shafts when he gets them .
Saw someone make a prop bet against Efren at Hard Times. Two balls on the spot . Make both balls in the same corner pocket in two shots. Efren took one try . Made the lead ball then placed the second ball near the same corner after it went up and down the table . He didn't have to shoot the second ball . It was gimme . I couldn't believe .

Making the spot shot and not letting the cue ball hit the end rail is fun to do . Teaches you how much your shaft deflects and how to draw the ball decently . I have never drawn it enough to make the cue ball come up past the side pocket after hitting the first side rail .

 

[JC]

I'm not convinced of that ratio. Just looking at my results, the win vs loss percentage playing different level players....I don't know, seems a bit off to think that an 800 would beat be 90 to 95 % of the time. But then again, we pool players do have a habit of overestimating our skill levels and underestimating the occurrence of luck.

Not sure how you can beat 600 players 3/4 of the time and 700 players half the time and be a 613.

How does that make sense?

Anyone?

 

[JB Cases]

No offense taken really. Just poking you a little. Here's what I didn't mention. After that 46 in a row I thought, "damn...I'm going to record this and hit 50, or a hundred! All I gotta do is pay attention and stroke the ball each time." So I set my camera up and shoot 9 and then miss. Then I shoot 17 and miss. Then I shoot 7 and miss. Then I turn the camera off and delete the footage and go start a load of clothes. When certain thoughts or expectations get in your head it can sometimes turn you off as easily as flipping a switch.

In german we call that the vorfuerhungs effect. The act of demonstrating seems to bring out a worse performance than doing it without an audience.

 

[Brookeland Bill]

I'd like to know if they were both lining up low left. Can't trust you as you can't admit Busti ever did. Spot shot shooting is often a gimmick shot and a practice shot. Usually done with some kind of objective aim point, it's no surprise that they could do this. We just had an average amateur testify to making 46 in a row i believe. And just to be clear, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they were using a form of CTE to do it. Pocket size wouldn't matter as it is a center pocket aiming system. And we all know that there strokes wouldn't limit them from doing it .

CTE aside, have you ever thought they were using a half ball hit or another fractional ball method to make those shots?

 

[Brookeland Bill]

What is too mechanical?

It doesn’t take into consideration table variables.

 

[JB Cases]

Not sure how you can beat 600 players 3/4 of the time and 700 players half the time and be a 613.

How does that make sense?

Anyone?

We don't know how many players and games are represented in the stats. For example maybe he played just a few 600 speed players and lots of other speeds. Also what's the cutoff for the 600 category? 600-699? Races to 3? Races to 21?

So while the presentation looks neat it really doesn't impart the ability to drill down easily into how the stats were arrived at. The only thing that the app user can do is to see their own games against others but the ratings for those players at the time of the match are not displayed so it would be a tedious chore to go back and figure that out.

I can kind of see my progression because I do know the ratings for a lot of my opponents and can see how I fell off these past two years. Comparatively, five years ago when I was playing a lot more the results showed that I was able to hold my own a lot better.

 

[JB Cases]

A friend of mine who plays a ton of one-pocket and was Efren's road manager and matchmaker for a long time showed me just how freaking good he is in spot shots . He picked the area to land the cue ball after making the spot shot.
He was shooting them all with inside english. He could get inside enough just missing the side pocket .
And the punchline is , he hand sands all his shafts when he gets them .
Saw someone make a prop bet against Efren at Hard Times. Two balls on the spot . Make both balls in the same corner pocket in two shots. Efren took one try . Made the lead ball then placed the second ball near the same corner after it went up and down the table . He didn't have to shoot the second ball . It was gimme . I couldn't believe .

Making the spot shot and not letting the cue ball hit the end rail is fun to do . Teaches you how much your shaft deflects and how to draw the ball decently . I have never drawn it enough to make the cue ball come up past the side pocket after hitting the first side rail .

There is an aiming trick to drawing the ball so that it doesn't hit the end rail on a spot shot.

The one pocket shot also has a particular way to shoot it to get the result you described. If you know the trick and you have a consistent world class stroke then it happens often. If, like me, you have a shitty stroke and have barely practiced this shot then it happens infrequently.

 

[JB Cases]

It doesn’t take into consideration table variables.

What doesn't? An aiming system? No, they don't just like no system does. Center to Edge aiming is for getting to the shot line that would be right in perfect conditions. If conditions are imperfect enough to warrant an adjustment from that line then the shooter should hopefully have enough experience to know why and how to adjust accordingly.

A player should get familiar enough with the table to be able to adjust whatever might need adjusting as needed. CTE as an aiming method is perfectly fine to use for any pool table and any conditions. I would contend that if one of the variables is that the player is having an LSD trip that CTE could be especially helpful there since it has more than one line to use when aiming.

 

[JB Cases]

CTE aside, have you ever thought they were using a half ball hit or another fractional ball method to make those shots?

I can only say this about pros and aiming. When I started asking them about it many pros told me that they use some form of systematic aiming. Some of them preferred not to talk about it in too much detail as they felt it gives them some advantage. So it wouldn't surprise me if they had some method that they used which they felt was highly reliable instead of just winging it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Two balls on the spot . Make both balls in the same corner pocket in two shots.

It can be done with one shot - throw the head ball directly into the pocket with a 10-times-fuller draw hit and, if you went to church on Sunday, the second ball is thrown enough to bank two rails the long way.

pj
chgo

 

[JC]

In german we call that the vorfuerhungs effect. The act of demonstrating seems to bring out a worse performance than doing it without an audience.

I feel more pressure playing to achieve something for my camera than for money.

 

[JB Cases]

I'm not convinced of that ratio. Just looking at my results, the win vs loss percentage playing different level players....I don't know, seems a bit off to think that an 800 would beat be 90 to 95 % of the time. But then again, we pool players do have a habit of overestimating our skill levels and underestimating the occurrence of luck.

If you play an 800 speed player races to ten then you are likely to lose every set if you and they are both playing at your levels. Now if you have a set where you play like a 700 and so do they then you have a chance to win a set.

If you play races to three then you will win some of those sets but your overall game count will be very lopsided in their favor.

The stats shown aren't really indicative of much without the actual data to back them up.

As an example a guy who used to work for me would often come in and say that he beat such and such good player the night before. After a couple times I learned to ask him how many games they played and the answer was often 1, 2 or 3.

 

[straightline]

No offense taken really. Just poking you a little. Here's what I didn't mention. After that 46 in a row I thought, "damn...I'm going to record this and hit 50, or a hundred! All I gotta do is pay attention and stroke the ball each time." So I set my camera up and shoot 9 and then miss. Then I shoot 17 and miss. Then I shoot 7 and miss. Then I turn the camera off and delete the footage and go start a load of clothes. When certain thoughts or expectations get in your head it can sometimes turn you off as easily as flipping a switch.

I look at it as chemistry. Data chemistry that is. Extraneous elements often ruin the results; all the more reason to develop strong repeatable method.