Advise to Dr. DAVE From Ron V.

Colin Colenso said:
[if a system has] built in refinement methods, such that 10 aim lines can be produced, then [it] can work for basically all shots that are considered reasonably makeable. If there are only 3 aim points, then some intuitive adjustments will need to come into play.
If you or Fred or anybody else comes up with a system that can accurately position a shooter to any of 10 different lines of aim, and there is an obvious way to know which line of aim to use for any given shot, then you have something to sell, and I would be happy to be the first customer (even though some shots would still require "adjustment").

Regards,
Dave
 
Colin Colenso said:
If the system has these built in refinement methods, such that 10 aim lines can be produced, then they can work for basically all shots that are considered reasonably makeable. If there are only 3 aim points, then some intuitive adjustments will need to come into play.

Colin

I believe Joe Tucker's method is based on 10 aimilines. It's a great idea if you can discern the 10 lines on a normal cueball (Joe sells the training balls with the numbers).


Fred
 
john schmidt said:
i have not read any of this.
there is a couple of things that bug me.
i see some teachers trying to say that these are the secret aiming systems the pros use and dont want to tell you about.

they must be secret because im a pro because noones told me about them.


anyway i think the thing that helps people play better is fundamentals and decision making,shot selection etc.thats where the poolshools can help i think.

trying to tell people the pros pocket balls because they aim this way and if you pay me i will show you.lol

myself i would look to play anybody for money thats relying on aiming systems because they are merely a reference thats all.

anyway if these aiming systems wiork then these poolteachers should run out like crazy.

we all know thats not the case so what gives.

anyway thats jmho and when someone figures out a way to aim thats damn near failproof ill be the first to peel off big money for it.also ill tell the world for free and then i will be worshiped by the planet lol

I like your post John. You've never been afraid to voice your opinion and this one isn't any different.

This is just my opinion:
I have been exposed to a number of different aiming systems and I have friends and acquaintances that have been exposed to aiming systems. With the introduction to specific aiming systems they have immediately improved their ball pocketing skills. This is simply the facts.

Unlike many of the pros, you included, some people have trouble just getting into the ball park of where they need to be to have a chance of pocketing the object ball. They need an aiming system to help them align their bodies better, to aim the shot better and they also need the confidence that goes with knowing that you are in the ball park or locked on to the correct shot.

Since I have been exposed to some of the aiming systems, I have noticed a greater consistency in my game, something that I didn't have before and while not many will have noticed my increased level of play, it has happened and I believe it is because I have been exposed to different aiming systems.

I can't end my post without saying that there are some people who will never be helped with aiming systems: those who already have the total package (like you and other professional players) , those who refuse to believe that an aiming system can help their game and those who are simply incapable of learning something new (very few).

If you don't need help in body alignment, aiming perspective and confidence, stay the heck away from aiming systems because they are not for you. IMO, if you need help in these areas, and MANY, MANY people do, by all means invest in a comprehensive pool lesson that not only stresses excellence in fundamentals but which has an aiming system thrown in for good measure.

An aiming system without good fundamentals is like a fishing boat equipped with a compass and a GPS but no captain at the helm to use them and all of the other tools needed to have a good boating trip.

It most definitely should be fundamentals first, aiming system second and I don't think any competent instructor will disagree.

FTR, my pool game took a very noticeable notch upward when I took a pool lesson from you too but you never included an aiming system with it. :mad: :D :D

Glad to see you back posting on AZ and especially nice to see you in posts like this. I wish more of the professional pool players would drop in on these threads and add their perspectives.
JoeyA
 
Listen Dave, I absolutely respect the information you provide and the videos you provide. That stuff is priceless as far as I am concerned.

However I take exception to the idea that all there is to it is focus and practice.

I spent years trying to learn to play this game on my own. I devoured Byrne's books and tapes, read the magazines, and practiced, intelligently, coherently, for hours a day for years. I became a decent enough player that I won my fair share of games and some tournaments.

But there were always shots that I couldn't quite master. Shots down the rail, backwards thin cuts, inside english shots, etc...

Then along comes Hal Houle with this whole aiming system crap and in the space of a few hours I am firing in those shots at warp speed, or any speed. Not only that but now I am shooting in shots and getting more spin in all directions, consistently.

I could have practiced for another hundred years and not discovered what Hal showed me in a few hours.

Fast forward a year and I hook up with a pretty good shortstop who has been on the road with Buddy and other top notchers. He shows me something else that has me doing fantastic shots.

This is not information that is easily available, at least it wasn't six years ago.

There are things on a pool table as Fred says that happen in 3-D space that are hard to diagram in 2-D space.

I really do think that someone can think that they are dead on with their aim and miss because of deflection, stroke errors, and also perception. When I hooked up with my shortstop friend and was getting some lessons he wasn't trying to teach me anything about fundamentals we were going over game situations. Watching me prepare to break he asked me where I was aiming and I pointed to where I was aiming and he pointed to where I was actually going to send the cueball.

THEN we worked on my aiming using his technique and sure enough my pocketing went way up again.

I said this earlier in the thread, the whole purpose of these "aiming systems" is to get someone to the proper line. But perhaps there is another purpose as well and that is to cancel out deflection. Perhaps that is the real benefit to these methods because it takes the guesswork out or at least dramatically reduces it.

I can take a short range shot and get two average players and with one of them I will allow them only to use parallel english and ghost ball to pocket the balls at various rates of speed and spins. The other one gets an aiming system and backhand english.

I predict that the pocketing success and successful cueball control will be much higher with the person who learned the aiming system than with the person who used ghost ball if both did one hundred shots.

Furthermore if we were to then move both balls to different positions I predict that the person using an aiming system would still have a better success rate.

You would have to think that after 100 shots with both balls fixed that the person shooting using parallel english and ghost ball should be able to learn what the correct adjustments are.

So let's assume that they do learn it and for the first fifty shots their success rate is not so good but then for the next fifty their success rate is about the same as the person using a system.

What happens then when both balls are moved to a different position? This is the same question you posed in your article to question the authenticity of aiming systems. Well in our experiemnt the person using ghost ball would have to start over with trial and error. The person using a system would start with the same basis and see success much earlier and more often than the other person.

I am fairly confident that such an experiement would bear out my hypothesis. However, setting it up and finding suitable subjects is well beyond my scope at the moment. Not neccesarily beyond yours though as perhaps there is just the right grant waiting to test spatial awareness cognizance based on performing the same task with different instructions.

The worst thing you can tell a student is that it's all practice and focus. Practicing and focusing on the wrong thing will only reinforce failure and increase frustration.
 
SmoothStroke said:
John if you find the instructor that holds the holy grail of aiming I will pay for the lessons and you can have all the worshipping,,, Please I insist.

The secret is that there is no secret.

I have watched many players clog their mind up with all kinds of information from a variety of different sources (some useful/some not) and in the end, all it does is confuse them. It slows down their ability to make a decision. When faced with a difficult situation, instead of making a decision, they sit there confused as to what knowledge or skill they should employ. Half of the knowledge that they have amassed is not applicable anyway. It's the equivalent of sorting through a junk yard. There is lots of stuff there, but very little of it is useful to you.

Collecting vast amounts of knowledge is not the answer. Knowledge is only useful if you can apply it. If you cannot control your thoughts, your emotions, or your decision making, you will not control the cue ball or the object balls either. Before you can control anything that happens on the table, you must first learn to control what goes on inside your head.

Many of the top players that I know have found one special ingredient to build the rest of their game on. It's usually not aiming. It is called "doing what is the simplest and most effective for their specific skills and abilities". They keep the complexity at a distance. In essence it comes down to making the right decisions based upon what it is that you can and cannot do.

John explains this perfectly in his 112 ball run DVD (available on Accu-Stats). When he was learning the game, he made a lot of mistakes - and Bobby Hunter was there to let him know where and why he was making the wrong choices. In the end, John built his game around his strengths.

In contrast, I run across many players that are hell bent upon building their game around their weaknesses, which only frustrates them. John Schmidt isn't likely to bank a ball very often. John is extremely proficient at banking and kicking, but I know for a fact that he would prefer to get his cue ball in a position to avoid the difficult shots altogether. 95% of the time his cue ball is NEVER in trouble (although he'd disagree with me on the percentage - LOL). This is why the great players make the game look so friggin easy.
 
dr_dave said:
If you or Fred or anybody else comes up with a system that can accurately position a shooter to any of 10 different lines of aim, and there is an obvious way to know which line of aim to use for any given shot, then you have something to sell, and I would be happy to be the first customer (even though some shots would still require "adjustment").

Regards,
Dave
Dave,
To do that in a way that a player can easily estimate the pot angle and have easy, accurate and repeatable line references and adjustment methods would be quite some task.

So while its not hard to create this type of system, I guess it's hard, if not impossible, to create one that is easy to implement.

btw: I haven't tried Joe's system enough to be able to determine how difficult it is to learn to align via the 10 points. I don't imagine it would be easy, but with enough systematic practice, it may be very effective.

Colin
 
dr_dave said:
We should be clear when talking about what we mean by "aiming systems." In this thread, our focus is on basic cut-shot aiming systems . I personally don't think "many pros" use the "aiming systems" that are often mentioned here (e.g., CTE, SAM, 90/90, ETE). However, I think there are many useful "systems" for aiming kick and bank shots, carom shots, frozen-ball shots, combination shots, etc. I'm not sure "many pros" use these systems either, but it is possible that "some pros" might benefit if they did. Maybe some pros would also benefit by using one of the "aiming systems" for cut shots also, but I personally don't this this would be true in general.

Regards,
Dave

I also doubt that most pros use "named" aiming systems. But after meeting Hal Houle I became very interested in this subject and as someone who comes into contact with many pros I have often asked them how they aim. Very few say that they imagine a ghost ball and adjust for deflection. Rodney Morris told me that he looks at parts of the object ball as taught to him in Hawaii by some of the players there. He didn't elaborate and I didn't prod.

I have however watched players very carefully since meeting Hal and noticed that the better players seem to be aiming from above the table and can see the line as they step into the shot and already have their spin pretty much locked down.

When I was in Germany everyone talked about Bustamante's aiming, as in WHERE is he aiming at. He looked as if he were aiming out in space. After meeting Hal I really started to study this and see if I could "see it".

I have taken lessons from people like Martinez, Joyner, Parica, Medina, and played with people like Wiseman, Joe Salazar, Rodney Morris, and others. The pros don't do what we do. The way they aim, their stroking techniques, how they think, everything they do is different. Why is is different? Well probably because they have turned the corner in their game so that what they want to do and executing it are pretty much subconcious.

When Parica or Medina tell me to this and execute it flawlessly and (seemingly) effortlessly and I have to seriously THINK about how to do what I JUST saw in person then it shows me how advanced they are compared to myself.

When I play I don't consciously use Hal's system or my friend's method. Now I just "see it" semi-automatically. I say semi because I still have bad habits from the first 20 years of learning on my own so sometimes I second-guess my newly trained intuition.

So until someone is able to do a true comprehensive study of what the "pros" do then no-one except the pros themselves will be able to say they do this or that unless they have first hand information. And even then it probably won't be easy to verify. But it's clear to me that they are doing something well beyond ghost ball and parallel english.
 
Popcornsmilie.gif
____________
 
john schmidt said:
i have not read any of this.
there is a couple of things that bug me.
i see some teachers trying to say that these are the secret aiming systems the pros use and dont want to tell you about.

they must be secret because im a pro because noones told me about them.

[...]

Wow! That is one tough fraternity to crack into. Mr. 400's not even budging.

Do you suppose Jack Bauer could help here?
 
Your points are well taken, but you took my "focus and practice" out of context. Obviously, "intelligent practice" with as-needed "coaching" (from a capable instructor) are important ingredients for success.

Also, English (with squirt, swerve, and throw) is an entirely different topic. There are systems for adjusting one's aim when using English, but I think the discussion in this thread has been focused on basic cut-shot aiming systems, with center-ball aim.

Regards,
Dave

JB Cases said:
Listen Dave, I absolutely respect the information you provide and the videos you provide. That stuff is priceless as far as I am concerned.

However I take exception to the idea that all there is to it is focus and practice.

I spent years trying to learn to play this game on my own. I devoured Byrne's books and tapes, read the magazines, and practiced, intelligently, coherently, for hours a day for years. I became a decent enough player that I won my fair share of games and some tournaments.

But there were always shots that I couldn't quite master. Shots down the rail, backwards thin cuts, inside english shots, etc...

Then along comes Hal Houle with this whole aiming system crap and in the space of a few hours I am firing in those shots at warp speed, or any speed. Not only that but now I am shooting in shots and getting more spin in all directions, consistently.

I could have practiced for another hundred years and not discovered what Hal showed me in a few hours.

Fast forward a year and I hook up with a pretty good shortstop who has been on the road with Buddy and other top notchers. He shows me something else that has me doing fantastic shots.

This is not information that is easily available, at least it wasn't six years ago.

There are things on a pool table as Fred says that happen in 3-D space that are hard to diagram in 2-D space.

I really do think that someone can think that they are dead on with their aim and miss because of deflection, stroke errors, and also perception. When I hooked up with my shortstop friend and was getting some lessons he wasn't trying to teach me anything about fundamentals we were going over game situations. Watching me prepare to break he asked me where I was aiming and I pointed to where I was aiming and he pointed to where I was actually going to send the cueball.

THEN we worked on my aiming using his technique and sure enough my pocketing went way up again.

I said this earlier in the thread, the whole purpose of these "aiming systems" is to get someone to the proper line. But perhaps there is another purpose as well and that is to cancel out deflection. Perhaps that is the real benefit to these methods because it takes the guesswork out or at least dramatically reduces it.

I can take a short range shot and get two average players and with one of them I will allow them only to use parallel english and ghost ball to pocket the balls at various rates of speed and spins. The other one gets an aiming system and backhand english.

I predict that the pocketing success and successful cueball control will be much higher with the person who learned the aiming system than with the person who used ghost ball if both did one hundred shots.

Furthermore if we were to then move both balls to different positions I predict that the person using an aiming system would still have a better success rate.

You would have to think that after 100 shots with both balls fixed that the person shooting using parallel english and ghost ball should be able to learn what the correct adjustments are.

So let's assume that they do learn it and for the first fifty shots their success rate is not so good but then for the next fifty their success rate is about the same as the person using a system.

What happens then when both balls are moved to a different position? This is the same question you posed in your article to question the authenticity of aiming systems. Well in our experiemnt the person using ghost ball would have to start over with trial and error. The person using a system would start with the same basis and see success much earlier and more often than the other person.

I am fairly confident that such an experiement would bear out my hypothesis. However, setting it up and finding suitable subjects is well beyond my scope at the moment. Not neccesarily beyond yours though as perhaps there is just the right grant waiting to test spatial awareness cognizance based on performing the same task with different instructions.

The worst thing you can tell a student is that it's all practice and focus. Practicing and focusing on the wrong thing will only reinforce failure and increase frustration.
 
dr_dave said:
Your points are well taken, but you took my "focus and practice" out of context. Obviously, "intelligent practice" with as-needed "coaching" (from a capable instructor) are important ingredients for success.

Also, English (with squirt, swerve, and throw) is an entirely different topic. There are systems for adjusting one's aim when using English, but I think the discussion in this thread has been focused on basic cut-shot aiming systems, with center-ball aim.

Regards,
Dave

Then I guess I need to ask what is a capable instructor? This whole thread was started by someone who felt slighted for what he teaches. He has however many students who report that they are more successful using his system than they were before they took the lesson.

So if an instructor is teaching just ghost ball then are they capable?

We aren't just talking about aiming systems with center ball aim. That's not pool. Pool is about pocketing and getting position, those two things are inseparable. Thus any aiming system also must include how to apply side spin within the system as well.

What are the systems for adjusting for English when using ghost ball and parallel aim?
 
any aiming system also must include how to apply side spin within the system

I don't think they must and I don't know of any systems that do; do you?

What are the systems for adjusting for English when using ghost ball and parallel aim?

Bring Your Own, the same as for all aiming systems.

pj
chgo
 
dr_dave said:
If you or Fred or anybody else comes up with a system that can accurately position a shooter to any of 10 different lines of aim, and there is an obvious way to know which line of aim to use for any given shot, then you have something to sell, and I would be happy to be the first customer (even though some shots would still require "adjustment").

Regards,
Dave

I have one, and I have described it in this forum before, for free.

So how much you willing to offer?
 
JB Cases said:
Then I guess I need to ask what is a capable instructor?
I and others have some answers to this question here:


JB Cases said:
This whole thread was started by someone who felt slighted for what he teaches. He has however many students who report that they are more successful using his system than they were before they took the lesson.
From what I have heard, Ron seems like a very capable instructor.

JB Cases said:
So if an instructor is teaching just ghost ball then are they capable?
I guess that depends on who he or she is teaching and on what the student's needs are.

JB Cases said:
We aren't just talking about aiming systems with center ball aim. That's not pool. Pool is about pocketing and getting position, those two things are inseparable. Thus any aiming system also must include how to apply side spin within the system as well.

What are the systems for adjusting for English when using ghost ball and parallel aim?
It is my understanding that the previous discussion in this thread has not involved shots with English. Info on systems for aim adjustment for English can be found here:


Regards,
Dave
 
Dead Crab said:
I have one, and I have described it in this forum before, for free.

So how much you willing to offer?
If you truly have this:

dr_dave said:
a system that can accurately position a shooter to any of 10 different lines of aim, and there is an obvious way to know which line of aim to use for any given shot
then I think you should re-post your complete description for comment again. I'm sorry, but I don't remember ever reading about any system that can truly do what I describe above (without special equipment or aids), and is practical for most people to use. I'm not saying your system doesn't satisfy these requirements, but I don't know unless you post a thorough description.

To answer your question, I would be willing to offer what it is worth if I think it could help me and others.

Thanks,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
If you truly have this:

then I think you should re-post your complete description for comment again. I'm sorry, but I don't remember ever reading about any system that can truly do what I describe above (without special equipment or aids), and is practical for most people to use. I'm not saying your system doesn't satisfy these requirements, but I don't know unless you post a thorough description.

To answer your question, I would be willing to offer what it is worth if I think it could help me and others.

Thanks,
Dave


OK, here goes, I'll even throw in a pivot shift step.

Item 1: It is possible (with a little practice) to estimate cut angle to within about 1 degree accuracy. It does not require any illegal equipment, but a mark of some sort (I use hole reinforcers) placed on the cue stick 16 and 31 inches from the distal edge of the ferrule is helpful. When the aim line is established with the cue stick, is passes thru the centers of the pocket, OB, and GB. Establish this line with the cue tip just under the overhang of the OB (without bumping it, of course). Drop a line from one of these these cue reference points to the CB-OB line, and perpendicular to the CB-OB line. Estimate the distance of this perpendicular in inches. It is legal to use your hand to estimate this distance if you choose.
If you measured from the 16" point, multiply by 4
If you measured from the 31", multiply by 2
If you measure 3" off the cue butt, multiply by 1

This yields the cut angle, at the GB center, in degrees. Don't proceed until you are comfortable that you can do this accurately.

Item 2: For cut angles up to 30 degrees, the correct "target point" on the OB is 1mm off center for each degree of cut angle. Note that this target point is on the 2-D disc (plane) passing through the center of the OB, viewed from the CB. For cuts over 30, up to 50 degrees, I use about 4 mm for every 5 degrees of cut beyond 30 degrees.

If you can estimate mm distances well, you are set to fix on the target. If you can't, some clockface reference points are: 15 degrees--> 5 or 7 o'clock, 20 degrees--> 7:30 or 4:30, 25 degrees-->8:00 or 4:00.

Or,

Item 3: To find the target point on the OB using shift-pivot-shift, proceed as follows using that convenient 13mm measuring stick at the tip of your cue"

1) Align cue along centers of CB-OB line, with tip slightly off the CB

2) Using the CUE BALL find where the target point would be on the CB "side of the cut", as if it were the OB. Example: suppose you had a shot that was a 13 degree cut to the left. Using the cue tip as a measuring device (one tip width = 13 mm), put the center of the tip aligned with the point 13mm to the left of center on the CUE BALL. As you do this, parallel-shift the cue to point at the desired point on the CB.

Now pivot (pivot point at cue-tip) to aim to center of the OBJECT BALL, then parallel-shift the cue "back to center" so the tip is now pointing thru CB center. Your cue is now aligned thru CB center, and a point 13mm to the right of center on the OB, which is the desired aim line. Fire away. You should get your 13 degree left cut.

Summary:
1) Estimate cut angle in degrees, as described.
2) For angles 0-30 degrees, target the OB 1mm off center for each degree of cut. Because it is easier to estimate mm distances close-up, the appropriate distance can be found on the CB, and thru the shift-pivot-shift sequence described, the CB center and OB target line can be established.
3) The 1mm=1 degree relationship doesn't hold beyond 30 degrees. Up to 50 degrees, I use about 4mm per 5 degrees of cut. Beyond 50 degrees, I am looking for another shot, or using the overlap method, as I personally find it difficult to aim at distances far off the OB.

That is it. Guaranteed to be geometrically correct.

Like anything, it takes some practice.
 
Thank you for posting your system. It takes courage to put something out there for critique. It seems "geometrically correct;" although, I haven't checked your math.

Here's my critique: The system is very interesting, but probably a little too detailed and numbers-oriented for most people. Also, I doubt many people are able to, or care to, "estimate mm distances well." The "clock-face" alternative might be better, but it won't be as accurate.

If you are going to have marks on the cue, why don't you just include a set of reference angles (with each angle indicated by two lines forming a "V") along with OB clock-face numbers (or illustrations) and/or ball-hit fraction circle-overlap illustrations (e.g., like the ones in Diagram 1 here). The graphics could be printed onto a milled-flat portion of the butt; or even better, make part of the butt (or a butt extender) transparent with the graphics in the center. Then, you could place the butt directly over the GB center to check the shot angle. I would recommend including, at a minimum, the angles and ball-hit fractions listed at the bottom of:


I know some people might think all of this is ridiculous and "takes away" from the "art" of the game, but some people might relate to it and give it a try if such a product existed.

I assume the cue with markings and/or illustrations would be legal, but I could see some people objecting if they saw it being used effectively in actual play.

What do you and others think?

Regards,
Dave

Dead Crab said:
OK, here goes, I'll even throw in a pivot shift step.

Item 1: It is possible (with a little practice) to estimate cut angle to within about 1 degree accuracy. It does not require any illegal equipment, but a mark of some sort (I use hole reinforcers) placed on the cue stick 16 and 31 inches from the distal edge of the ferrule is helpful. When the aim line is established with the cue stick, is passes thru the centers of the pocket, OB, and GB. Establish this line with the cue tip just under the overhang of the OB (without bumping it, of course). Drop a line from one of these these cue reference points to the CB-OB line, and perpendicular to the CB-OB line. Estimate the distance of this perpendicular in inches. It is legal to use your hand to estimate this distance if you choose.
If you measured from the 16" point, multiply by 4
If you measured from the 31", multiply by 2
If you measure 3" off the cue butt, multiply by 1

This yields the cut angle, at the GB center, in degrees. Don't proceed until you are comfortable that you can do this accurately.

Item 2: For cut angles up to 30 degrees, the correct "target point" on the OB is 1mm off center for each degree of cut angle. Note that this target point is on the 2-D disc (plane) passing through the center of the OB, viewed from the CB. For cuts over 30, up to 50 degrees, I use about 4 mm for every 5 degrees of cut beyond 30 degrees.

If you can estimate mm distances well, you are set to fix on the target. If you can't, some clockface reference points are: 15 degrees--> 5 or 7 o'clock, 20 degrees--> 7:30 or 4:30, 25 degrees-->8:00 or 4:00.

Or,

Item 3: To find the target point on the OB using shift-pivot-shift, proceed as follows using that convenient 13mm measuring stick at the tip of your cue"

1) Align cue along centers of CB-OB line, with tip slightly off the CB

2) Using the CUE BALL find where the target point would be on the CB "side of the cut", as if it were the OB. Example: suppose you had a shot that was a 13 degree cut to the left. Using the cue tip as a measuring device (one tip width = 13 mm), put the center of the tip aligned with the point 13mm to the left of center on the CUE BALL. As you do this, parallel-shift the cue to point at the desired point on the CB.

Now pivot (pivot point at cue-tip) to aim to center of the OBJECT BALL, then parallel-shift the cue "back to center" so the tip is now pointing thru CB center. Your cue is now aligned thru CB center, and a point 13mm to the right of center on the OB, which is the desired aim line. Fire away. You should get your 13 degree left cut.

Summary:
1) Estimate cut angle in degrees, as described.
2) For angles 0-30 degrees, target the OB 1mm off center for each degree of cut. Because it is easier to estimate mm distances close-up, the appropriate distance can be found on the CB, and thru the shift-pivot-shift sequence described, the CB center and OB target line can be established.
3) The 1mm=1 degree relationship doesn't hold beyond 30 degrees. Up to 50 degrees, I use about 4mm per 5 degrees of cut. Beyond 50 degrees, I am looking for another shot, or using the overlap method, as I personally find it difficult to aim at distances far off the OB.

That is it. Guaranteed to be geometrically correct.

Like anything, it takes some practice.
 
Last edited:
OK, "Doctor", I posted my system at your request, assuming you would give it a fair shake.

You did not. Real engineers do the math. Real engineers try it out. Engineers at the doctorate level do not belittle another's work with silly suggestions.

You like to play the "Doctor" card each and every time you post. Unfortunately, you don't want to pony up the professionalism that comes with the title.

Next time you don't want to take my work seriously, don't ask to have it explained to you.
 
Back
Top