Advise to Dr. DAVE From Ron V.

[Patrick Johnson]

I don't see how you can even call the fixed-offset systems, "systems". At heart, they rely on the shooter's judgment and experience

This is a given for CTE, 90/90, 1/4-1/2-3/4, etc. - all of these systems are "approximation" systems that leave "final aiming" up to the player. But I don't think that means they're not systems - it means they only get you part way there, but they do that systematically.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave,

If you're an advanced intermediate player and you're plateaued based on your work situation, you're cheating yourself for not trying Ron's system. What do you have to lose?

I don't think I have "plateaued." I'm still climbing ... albeit slowly. I have tried fractional-ball, SAM, CTE, 90/90, ETE, and every other system I've had an interest in. I still like DAM better.

What's your high run in 14.1? The reason why I ask is not to dig, but to get an indication of what 'intermediate' is, because I don't know.

I don't play much straight pool (I like 8-ball), but I'll spend a few hours when I find some time to try for a good run and I'll PM the number to you. The best I can remember from the last time I played was in the 30s. I know this isn't very good, but I'm sure I could do better.

FYI, I'm done with this line of questioning, unless you want to continue it via PM.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

SPF is unquestionably good!

... you have contributed a great deal to the game your video analysis of what really happens on a pool shot is invaluable...A+

Thank you.

SPF is a natural fit for you

set pause finish is a stroke technique that you are most likely familiar with...

SPF is also an extraordinary collection of simplified systems that boil everything down to purified pool. everything you need and nothing you don't.

it is the right way to do it...

I agree 100%. My online stroke "best practices" document is very consistent with SPF. What made you think I don't agree with SPF?

Regards,
Dave

 

[YOLO]

I lost 2 matches in my head just after I reading some of these calculations.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

All i`m saying iz that many have said that U don`t shoot any better than a advanced beginner, a APA 4 or 5. Iz this true??

I usually don't like responding to posts like this because, IMO, they are tasteless, insulting, and inappropriate

Not to mention stupid - which you can see from the post itself.

Ignore the bozos, Dave.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I can give any SPF player the following data...

SAM 2... 3 speed... 2 tips 9:00 o'clock

and given the same conditions and equipment

every player will make the shot and place the cueball within a cocktail napkin sized target zone.

provided they execute correctly..

they don't need to know where the pocket is ... and they don't need to know where the napkin is.......

all of them will get there simply by following the numerical input....

Sorry, but it's impossible to specify only "SAM 2" and expect every SAM 2 shot to be made. SAM is an approximation system that only gets you in the ballpark for each shot - from there you have to refine the aim yourself for the specific shot.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

... they simply enjoy the intellectual discovery of proving the math on pool's many positions maybe more so than they enjoy playing the game.

I'm not sure if you were lumping me in with the "math and physics guys," but do you really believe we enjoy analysis more than playing?

This certainly is not the case for me. I do spend more time writing, analyzing, filming, reading, and watching than I do playing, but that doesn't diminish how much I love the game. Just to be clear:

I love playing pool more than I love math and physics
​

and you can quote me on that, but I can't speak for the other "math and physics guys" out there.

Whether it helps their game or anyone else's is not that important, although from time to time, they have helped mine.

Thank you for admitting you have been helped at times. Personally, my search for pool knowledge and physical understanding almost always has an ultimate purpose of helping me and others play better (although, I know my work isn't always perceived that way).

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

All i`m saying iz that many have said that U don`t shoot any better than a advanced beginner, a APA 4 or 5. Iz this true??

I usually don't like responding to posts like this because, IMO, they are tasteless, insulting, and inappropriate

Not to mention stupid - which you can see from the post itself.

Ignore the bozos, Dave.

Patrick,

Thanks for the advice. I think you are right, but it's not always easy to ignore the immature attacks.

Regards,
Dave

 

[SJDinPHX]

Patrick,

Thanks for the advice. I think you are right, but it's not always easy to ignore the immature attacks.

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave,

I would like to say that I would not be so crude as to inquire about your level of play. The person who did that (Brian) has often proven himself to be an inconsiderate, juvenille, wanabee, idiot.
I can see why you, and guys like Colin and RonV can become obsessed with trying to apply math to pool. It is simply your way of applying your obviously superior skills on that subject, to a game you must love.
It is short-sighted of me to make fun of those attributes. I cannot comprehend them, but that doesn't mean they may not have some merit.
Please accept my apology for trying to undermine your efforts in that area.
One day a world beater may emerge from your systems. But I still maintain he will have to be an MIT graduate (4.0 grade average) just to comprehend what you guys work so hard at putting out there.

Have a great time with your threads.

Dick (the guy who got an F in math every year in school)

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...it's not always easy to ignore the immature attacks.

Regards,
Dave

I'm the poster boy for unable-to-ignore syndrome.

LOL.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

PJ:

Every aiming system is an approximation system because of one's sighting flaws / perception flaws. Is it better to sight perfectly and make a small 3 degree correction or sight to a make-believe point that can be off 2-3x more and make no adjustment?

I think what Ron's saying (and Hal) is that one can perceive a ETE (90/90) / CTE line and pivot to center and require less adjustment that perceiving where a ghost ball is and adjusting from there.

Here's a cute test (takes about 3 mins but totally worth it):
http://woodgears.ca/eyeball/

I think eyeball tests like this prove why picking a ghostball in 3D space is a lot harder than sighting two clearly visible points and pivoting to center.

The average adjustment required post-pivot has got to be less than sighting the base of an imaginary ball a number of feet away.

What's your score with that test?

Dr. Dave:

Here's a good test for you and PJ....

Have either of you stand on one side of the table with an object ball placed up-table at a random spot. Have an assistant hold a laser pointer and have you tell that person where to move the red dot to where you perceive the base of the ghost ball to be (say: higher, lower, right, left until you think it's exactly where the aim point should be).

When you think it's perfect, chalk a line through that point and the base of the OB and test the average delta to the center of the pocket. Pick about 10 random shots above 5 feet in length.

It will be interesting to see how well you or anyone can truly see the ghostball compared to the accuracy of these pivots systems.

Spidey

 

[Jal]

This is a given for CTE, 90/90, 1/4-1/2-3/4, etc. - all of these systems are "approximation" systems that leave "final aiming" up to the player. But I don't think that means they're not systems - it means they only get you part way there, but they do that systematically.

pj
chgo

Patrick, I really don't think they're any different from complete feel, except maybe for the psychological boost they might offer to those who don't understand the geometry. Colin outlined the possible benefits regarding that very nicely.

What they seem to do is cast the problem of determining just where the ghostball is located into a new and different problem. There's nothing wrong with that as far as it goes; by looking at a problem in a different way, the fog often lifts. But I don't think that what's going on here. Rather, they offer a too simplistic solution to the transformed problem that is flat out wrong, but not obviously wrong, and satisfying if you don't know it.

After a relatively short time, most people can probably estimate the correct aim line within a sixteenth of a ball diameter immediately upon seeing the shot. What advantage is there from not starting at this point, and instead begin the zeroing in process even further away from this? I'm not saying there absolutely isn't any, but I haven't seen any explanation of why there might be, other than Colin's.

Jim

 

[dr_dave]

Dick,

Thank you for the message. Thanks also to the people who have sent me PMs and e-mails today showing support, providing encouragement, and giving me insight on some of the forum "personalities." I really appreciate it.

I don't have any issue at all with you Dick. You don't seem to have the bad intentions that others sometimes seem to have. These type of people would rarely be mature enough to apologize (like you have) or even realize there is a need for an apology.

However, I do take issue with your final statement about needing a 4.0 at MIT to comprehend what guys like me put out there. I'm sure you don't mean this to apply to everything I put out there, and maybe you were just joking. Have you ever seen my peace-sign technique for the 30-degree rule and for the draw-shot trisect system? IMO, it doesn't take good grades or a degree at any institution to understand and use these techniques. These techniques were inspired by very complicated math and physics; but like most things in pool, you don't need to know the math and physics behind them to apply them effectively.

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave,

I would like to say that I would not be so crude as to inquire about your level of play. The person who did that (Brian) has often proven himself to be an inconsiderate, juvenille, wanabee, idiot.
I can see why you, and guys like Colin and RonV can become obsessed with trying to apply math to pool. It is simply your way of applying your obviously superior skills on that subject, to a game you must love.
It is short-sighted of me to make fun of those attributes. I cannot comprehend them, but that doesn't mean they may not have some merit.
Please accept my apology for trying to undermine your efforts in that area.
One day a world beater may emerge from your systems. But I still maintain he will have to be an MIT graduate (4.0 grade average) just to comprehend what you guys work so hard at putting out there.

Have a great time with your threads.

Dick (the guy who got an F in math every year in school)

 

[dr_dave]

For people who have trouble visualizing the GB center and aligning there cue with the necessary line of aim, I recommend the method demonstrated here:

NV 3.2 - Using the cue to help visualize the impact and aiming lines
​

I only time I use this method is when if I'm not feeling very confident about my aim for a shot, but beginners might find it very useful.

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave:

Here's a good test for you and PJ....

Have either of you stand on one side of the table with an object ball placed up-table at a random spot. Have an assistant hold a laser pointer and have you tell that person where to move the red dot to where you perceive the base of the ghost ball to be (say: higher, lower, right, left until you think it's exactly where the aim point should be).

When you think it's perfect, chalk a line through that point and the base of the OB and test the average delta to the center of the pocket. Pick about 10 random shots above 5 feet in length.

It will be interesting to see how well you or anyone can truly see the ghostball compared to the accuracy of these pivots systems.

 

[RiverCity]

Here's a cute test (takes about 3 mins but totally worth it):
http://woodgears.ca/eyeball/

What's your score with that test?

The eyeballing game


Your inaccuracy by category:

Parallelogram 12.6 2.2 10.2
Midpoint 3.2 2.2 0.0
Bisect angle 3.9 1.3 1.4
Triangle center 9.1 6.0 10.9
Circle center 3.2 5.4 2.2
Right angle 2.8 0.5 0.6
Convergence 1.0 0.0 2.0


Average error: 3.84 (lower is better)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Best of the last 500 games: (more)

2.56 Tailon
2.64 JAG
2.68 IM NOT JOX
2.76 baboon
2.76 i got your eyeball right
2.76
2.77 jmm
2.80 efw
2.88 LWATSON
2.89

Best scores on this computer:
3.84 Ok

I have spent a long long time as a "by feel" aimer. And I can attest to the value of the system Ron V has talked about. It needs adjustments to work on some angles, distances etc... BUT no one has said that it didnt. This is being debated and geometry is being discussed...... for no reason. If everyone who says it wont work for all shots would stop and listen to the FACT that the system does require adjustments (EVEN RON SAYS IT DOES)... maybe the adjustments required could be discussed instead.
Just a thought.
Chuck

 

[SpiderWebComm]

For people who have trouble visualizing the GB center and aligning there cue with the necessary line of aim, I recommend the method demonstrated here:

NV 3.2 - Using the cue to help visualize the impact and aiming lines
​

I only time I use this method is when if I'm not feeling very confident about my aim for a shot, but beginners might find it very useful.

Regards,
Dave

Dave,

In my earlier post I mentioned that a subject should stand at an end of the table as perceive the base of the ghost ball from 5' away-- no cue pivots --- sighting only.

My post is sincere - I really think that's a great test. No one pivots their cue during actual game play on every shot. Let's run a real scientific test--- as I described in my earlier post.

This would be fascinating with 10 random pool players. Don't you think?

Regards,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

The eyeballing game


Your inaccuracy by category:

Parallelogram 12.6 2.2 10.2
Midpoint 3.2 2.2 0.0
Bisect angle 3.9 1.3 1.4
Triangle center 9.1 6.0 10.9
Circle center 3.2 5.4 2.2
Right angle 2.8 0.5 0.6
Convergence 1.0 0.0 2.0


Average error: 3.84 (lower is better)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Best of the last 500 games: (more)

2.56 Tailon
2.64 JAG
2.68 IM NOT JOX
2.76 baboon
2.76 i got your eyeball right
2.76
2.77 jmm
2.80 efw
2.88 LWATSON
2.89

Best scores on this computer:
3.84 Ok

I have spent a long long time as a "by feel" aimer. And I can attest to the value of the system Ron V has talked about. It needs adjustments to work on some angles, distances etc... BUT no one has said that it didnt. This is being debated and geometry is being discussed...... for no reason. If everyone who says it wont work for all shots would stop and listen to the FACT that the system does require adjustments (EVEN RON SAYS IT DOES)... maybe the adjustments required could be discussed instead.
Just a thought.
Chuck

Chuck:

I'm impressed. That's a hell of a score. Good job. Fun, isn't it?

 

[SJDinPHX]

For people who have trouble visualizing the GB center and aligning there cue with the necessary line of aim, I recommend the method demonstrated here:

NV 3.2 - Using the cue to help visualize the impact and aiming lines
​

I only time I use this method is when if I'm not feeling very confident about my aim for a shot, but beginners might find it very useful.

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave,

Thank you for your kind response. I would just like to point out, that, until the fairly recent advent of internet communication on a very broad scale, most (or almost all) of the worlds top player's had never even heard of BHE,SPA,OHW, pivot point, or any other acronym you guy's apply to how to make the ball go into the pocket. We've all tried "aiming systems" with varying degrees of success. We always seem to revert to what best works for us.
I realize your honest effort at trying to enlighten us, and I applaud you for your efforts. But I must still maintain, that natural skill and real life experience will, IN MOST CASES, triumph over numerical, engineering, and physics, principles when it comes down to playing the game.
I do not mean to be disrespectful to your point of view, I simply have my own years of experience, and many other's, to believe that the way to playing "top level" pool, will NOT come from numerical equations.
I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it.
Let all the people who subscribe to your theories, match up with SVB or Scott Frost (or hundreds of others) and if they can WIN.... I will be the first to admit I was wrong. Keep trying your method though, a breakthrough might be just around the next (Y= BHE = spe minus /12.07+squirt/swerve) corner.
Hope you guys take this in the spirit it was intended. :wink:

Dick

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin,

If, say, you have a cut shot to the right and use an initial offset of b (to the right of center of the cueball), then you pivot through some angle "B" to some new offset, b', the pivot distance from the tip is given by:

P + G = (b - b'/cos(B))/sin(B) - {Sqrt[R^2 - b'^2] - b'tan(B)}

if I haven't botched the math. "G" is the gap between the tip and the cueball after the pivot. Since we're mainly considering the cases where you pivot to centerball (b' = 0), this simplifies to:

P + G = b/sin(B) - R

or

P + R + G = b/sin(B)

In the subcases where the cue is initially aligned parallel to the line of centers between the cueball and object ball, and C is the desired cut angle:

sin(B) = (2R/D)sin(C)

where D is the distance between ball centers. Then:

P + R + G = b(D/2R)/sin(C)

With edge-to-edge, b = R. Using that and dropping the foul avoidance gap G:

P + R = (1/2)D/sin(C)

So the distance factor is (1/2)/sin(C). Calculating these for the same angles in your table:

Yours:

90 = 0.4
80 = 0.5
70 = 0.6
60 = 0.7
50 = 0.8
40 = 0.9
30 = 1.0
25 = 1.1
20 = 1.3
15 = 1.6
10 = 2.1
5 = 4.0
0 = Infinite

Mine:

90 = 0.5
80 = 0.5
70 = 0.5
60 = 0.6
50 = 0.7
40 = 0.8
30 = 1.0
25 = 1.2
20 = 1.5
15 = 1.9
10 = 2.9
5 = 5.7
0 = inf.

These aren't a heck of a lot different than the ones you came up with. Congrats...or we'll both go down together. Mine tend to be a little larger, probably because they are for P + R, instead of P itself.

Just to note again that if the initial offset points to the center of ghostball #2 instead (with a slight correction), no factors have to be memorized or guessed at. In this case:

P = D - R - G

So P can be determined from visual estimation or a quick measurement.

Jim

Brilliant Jim

I just got a few rough points from measuring some lines in paintbrush and interpolated the rest by assuming the shape of the curve.

Even knowing these pivot distances, I found it is very hard to do them on many shots, especially when the required pivot point of the cue is in the air past the rail, which it often is.

If I were making a robot, this might be a good way to make it aim.:grin:

Colin

 

[JB Cases]

Dr. Dave,

Thank you for your kind response. I would just like to point out, that, until the fairly recent advent of internet communication on a very broad scale, most (or almost all) of the worlds top player's had never even heard of BHE,SPA,OHW, pivot point, or any other acronym you guy's apply to how to make the ball go into the pocket. We've all tried "aiming systems" with varying degrees of success. We always seem to revert to what best works for us.
I realize your honest effort at trying to enlighten us, and I applaud you for your efforts. But I must still maintain, that natural skill and real life experience will, IN MOST CASES, triumph over numerical, engineering, and physics, principles when it comes down to playing the game.
I do not mean to be disrespectful to your point of view, I simply have my own years of experience, and many other's, to believe that the way to playing "top level" pool, will NOT come from numerical equations.
I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it.
Let all the people who subscribe to your theories, match up with SVB or Scott Frost (or hundreds of others) and if they can WIN.... I will be the first to admit I was wrong. Keep trying your method though, a breakthrough might be just around the next (Y= BHE = spe minus /12.07+squirt/swerve) corner.
Hope you guys take this in the spirit it was intended. :wink:

Dick

Most of the world's bangers had also never heard of those terms either. A lot of the things we talk about are fairly recent discussions (in the last ten years) and the fact that we ARE all able to communicate in several ways, with text, diagrams, animations, and videos, allows us to understand the UNDERLYING physical actions going on in pool.

I don't know what spirit you intend this to be in but you are coming across to me as if you are being quite backhanded about the whole thing.

What does it really matter to you whether a bunch of geeks like to talk high math when discussing pool? So what? You know what it takes to be a champion.

In poker I once heard someone say that at the highest level ALL the players know the odds and probabilities and can figure those in a split second. That's where it comes down to SKILL.

WE ALL KNOW that NO ONE is going to become a champion because they play pool with a calculator that figures the perfect line of aim every time.

We know that so why do you keep pushing this? Why should YOU CARE about this at all?

After all you have said that you have NO INTEREST in teaching beginners how to play. So why does this bother you so much?

Do you think that if someone tells a beginner to use an aiming system that this will ruin the player for life? Is that it?

Bustamante uses SOME kind of aiming method that is CLEARLY different than ghost ball. Do you think Scott Frost would like to play him some 9 or 10 ball on his OWN MONEY?

I asked you three times to tell us how YOU AIM. Is that so hard to answer a SIMPLE QUESTION?

Or is it not so simple?