Advise to Dr. DAVE From Ron V.

[shinigami]

Nice report Shinigami,
and nice to know my ideas aren't too far off the mark. At least while a player is becoming familiar with the system.

Can you expand on the ranges where you use 90/90, 90/CB and 90/Reverse 90?

Colin

Hi Colin,

I think Ron or Spidey can explain this in better detail. Generally speaking, I want to use 90/90 for almost straight in to 1/2 hits, 90/CB for any cuts greater than that, and save the 90/Reverse 90 for extreme cuts where I'm basically slicing a ball in. Also, if the CB and OB are closer than a diamond I'm supposed to use another method I think. Still very confusing and I will be contacting Ron again for further clarification.

I hope that this is correct. If anybody else would like to jump in, please help me

 

[scottjen26]

My initial tinkering with the 90/90 system

As promised 285 pages or so ago, I will post my initial take on the 90/90 system based on my hour long conversation with Ron V. Thanks to Shinigami for doing the same after his lesson with Ron, which was probably much more thorough than my phone call.

I tried the 90/90 system and some CTE (as I understand both, probably not perfectly) to see how those results compared to my "normal" aim. Being an experienced player trying this was probably a plus and a minus for me. On the plus side, when I pivoted, I could "see" immediately if I was lined up right, i.e. the system was working. However this was a minus for the same reason - when I didn't feel like I was aimed properly, I found my body, bridge, etc. shifting slightly to the correct line. This took some effort to override my natural tendencies, but I tried.

What I found - the 90/90 system DOES work, or at least gets you very close to the right ballpark, for a certain range of shots. It seems to break down outside of certain angles or distances, but if you are more than 2 diamonds or so from the object ball and within a certain range of angles it was pretty accurate if not spot on. Ron did mention this distance/angle effect, and the need for adjustments, and we didn't have time to go over the other systems, so that could be what shinigami referred to with the 90/center and 90/reverse systems. So I guess everyone who uses these types of techniques to enhance their aiming/feel, or even uses them exclusively, must learn or know when to use which system or which edge etc. for which type of shot.

Some problems I had - aside from the dependency on shot angle and distance, bridge length/pivot point seems to be crucial to the shot. I bridged at my normal distance (about 12" or so) and tried to pivot around my bridge hand, feeling more like my hip was rotating (something I saw in Spidey's videos). But when I intentionally shortened my bridge to 4 - 6", the adjustments didn't work, and I felt like I had to move my bridge hand to accomodate the pivot. I'm sure this is more a factor of me not knowing how or from where to pivot, maybe where a good description or video or in person lesson would help. I still think this does not have to be done in person, but I agree with Spidey that it may not be trivial to explain properly either.

Again, I just had an hour long phone call, not a full lesson, and at least 1/2 of that call was stories and normal conversation, so I just took what I could learn and combined that with my experience and knowledge of the game and decided to give this a try, so I am by no means an expert. My initial findings:

- Does it make sense to me geometrically? No, and I'm too tired to try to plot it out and figure it out

- Does it work for all shots/angles? No, it breaks down and you have to know where and how to adjust

- Does it find the right line, or very close, for a certain range of shots/distances? Yes, it does, even though I can't explain it

- Does it work automatically? Personally, I found I had to spend some time aiming the edge of the cue ball to the edge of the object ball and trying to pivot correctly. I'm sure this gets better with time, but during my initial hour long attempt I found I spent as much time if not more aiming edge to edge and pivoting than I would just stepping into the line of the shot that I just "saw" based on past experience. Again, to be fair, if I spent a few months working with this and incorporating the aim/pivot into my routine so I knew when and where to do both it could possibly become as second nature as my current method.


I plan on using this for some of those long, weird, off angle shots, the kind where I do sometimes have to guess a little where to aim. I can't see myself using it for 5, or 10, or even 30 degree cuts that are a normal distance away - I already see that line just fine, and adjust for english etc. just fine. But I can see for a beginner, it may help them develop their own eye. I think whether you divide the balls into sections, or lines, or use CTE/90/90/SAM/etc, or ghost balls or points, I think it all boils down to developing your eye and letting your brain visualize the shots and speed/spin necessary and telling your arm how to execute the shot. Just like in most other sports, some of these calculations that our brains perform are just very, very complex and can't always be analyzed perfectly - which is why when we are in "dead stroke" or "the zone" we play better, just letting our brains figure everything out based on past experiences. So if one of these systems helps someone visualize the shots more accurately, and they make more balls because of it, and then that success helps them have more confidence, and they start unconsciously adjusting and making more balls, etc. - then I guess they work!

Scott

 

[RonV]

Adam, That was a fair reply...

But you forgot one thing, Your girl friend made that spot shot in one position that you had a perception problem with. Some people call it percption but I like to think of it as illusion and there is a lot of it in this game.

I enjoyed working with you and Sahra very much and hope to do it again...

Your Friend Ron V.

 

[shinigami]

Adam, That was a fair reply...

But you forgot one thing, Your girl friend made that spot shot in one position that you had a perception problem with. Some people call it percption but I like to think of it as illusion and there is a lot of it in this game.

I enjoyed working with you and Sahra very much and hope to do it again...

Your Friend Ron V.

Yes, my girlfriend did make it it one shot lol. She uses a long bridge either on or off the rail.

Way to put me on the spot Ron :grin:

 

[RonV]

Adam, didn`t mean as a put down, just that some people get it right away and others it takes a few minutes.

Take care and call me if you need any or more info.

Ron V

 

[Jal]

A....What I found - the 90/90 system DOES work, or at least gets you very close to the right ballpark, for a certain range of shots. It seems to break down outside of certain angles or distances, but if you are more than 2 diamonds or so from the object ball and within a certain range of angles it was pretty accurate if not spot on. Ron did mention this distance/angle effect, and the need for adjustments, and we didn't have time to go over the other systems, so that could be what shinigami referred to with the 90/center and 90/reverse systems. So I guess everyone who uses these types of techniques to enhance their aiming/feel, or even uses them exclusively, must learn or know when to use which system or which edge etc. for which type of shot.

The 90/90 system works exactly for cut angles of 26.74... degrees IF you pivot at the right distance from the tip. This distance is equal to the distance between the centers of the balls, minus one ball radius, minus whatever gap you allow between the tip and cueball to avoid a foul when pivoting to centerball. The edge-to-edge version is exact at 30-degree cut angles if your pivot distance is also as just described. As you move away from these cut angles, the systems become increasingly problematic. The reason is given below.

You can get a feel for how accurate they are by comparing them to a much more geometrically sound one. If your pivot distance is as described above, the initial (pre-pivot) offset should have the cue aiming at the center of the antipodal ghostball. That's the ghostball that lies on the opposite side of the object ball from our more familiar ghostball. Call it ghostball #2. The center axis of the cue must also be parallel to the line of centers between the real balls, as is assumed with 90/90 and edge-to-edge systems. After this initial alignment, you then pivot over to the center of the real cueball.

This still doesn't get you an exact aim line, but pretty close. A small correction needs to be made, depending on the cut angle and distance between the balls. The greater the cut angle and closer the balls, the more this correction is required. Unfortunately, it's hard to describe how to do this without a diagram, but it's fairly simple.

The main point is that the geometrically (nearly) correct initial offset is such that you're aiming at the center of ghostball #2, assuming you're pivoting at the distance indicated. Unlike with 90/90 or edge-to-edge, this is not a fixed offset but depends on the specific geometry of the shot at hand. It presents the same problem of accurately visualizing the familiar ghostball (ghostball #1), but using a fixed offset just sweeps this problem under the rug. The price you pay is having to correct for a rather gross error on most shots by feel, whether you're aware of it or not.

The initial offset can be altered by varying your pivot distance from the tip. Let's call this distance, "P". Also, call a ball's radius, "R", and the foul avoidance gap, "G". If, for example, you wanted to halve the initial offset, which would have the cue pointing at the "contact point" between ghostball #2 and the real object ball, you would have to use a new pivot distance, P', given by:

P' + R + G = (P + R + G)/2

Solving for P':

P' = (P - R - G)/2

or, roughly speaking, you would need to halve the pivot distance from the tip if the balls are not close together (P >> R + G). In general, altering the initial offset away from the center of the antipodal ghostball by a factor of k, requires that you also adjust P to some new P' where:

P' = k(P + R + G) - R - G

If you lay all of this out on paper, I think the differences between the fixed and ghostball based offset systems become pretty apparent. In fact, 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, without the help of a ghostball, to boot.

Jim

 

[APA7]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I can only assume you have negative intent (although, I could be wrong because people have accused me of being overly "defensive" before). FYI, we have had many happy customers both in our group classes and in private lessons, with people of wide ranges of ability.

Regards,
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??:thud::killingme: :speechless:

Brian

 

[Colin Colenso]

P' = k(P + R + G) - R - G

If you lay all of this out on paper, I think the differences between the fixed and ghostball based offset systems become pretty apparent. In fact, 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, without the help of a ghostball, to boot.

Jim

Jim,
I was up late last night doing a bit analysis similar to your own, though I came to a different conclusion. (Early days yet though).

Anyway, I found that for a 4 foot shot of intermediate cut angle, a 1" change in pivot point changes the OB angle about 2.5 degrees. I think this is in the range of being executed.

On shots of 1 foot, the pivot point would have to be placed within 0.25" of the required spot to put the OB in a +/- 2.5 degree accuracy zone.

I developed a rough formula for determining the required pivot point for ETE.

Pivot point = Distance x Angle Factor

Angle Factors are as follows:
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

Note that with angles under 10 degrees, the variation is rapid. It is most useful for 15 degrees and higher. Fortunately, these are usually the angles peole have the most troubles with.

Note: These angle factor calculations are somewhat rough. They need to be refined.

eg. If the distance between balls is 20 inches and you want to cut the ball 36 degrees, then you need to pivot from ETE at 20 x 0.95 = approx 19 inches.
If you want to shoot a 4 foot shot at 22 degrees you would need to pivot from 48 x 1.2 = 57.6". (Basically the butt of the cue).
Coversely, at 4 foot shot with a 60 degree cut requires only 48 x 0.7 = 33.6" pivot point.

This method would get a player in a pretty narrow ballpark.

Colin

 

[softshot]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm always looking for new people to learn from and share ideas. If you see or talk to him soon, also encourage him to contact me (my contact info is readily available). If you have a phone number or e-mail address for Mark, please PM me. Is he an instructor? Where is he located?

Thanks,
Dave

Whoops....My bad..

I only recommended Mark (whom I have never met) because he is an advanced SPF instructor.... my geography deficiencies incorrectly placed the cascade mountains in Colorado... instead of Washington...

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

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...

these guys are not selling snake oil with phony claims... these are proven systems that work..

all values are expressed numerically and the muscles are repetitively trained to respond to the numerical input... this stuff really should be right up your alley.

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....



imagine a self diagnosing stroke that when you get it wrong..

tells you what went wrong..

these guys did their homework and they deserve respect..

S.A.M. is not a magic bullet... it is a component of the right way to play pool..

just sayin..

 

[SJDinPHX]

Jim,
I was up late last night doing a bit analysis similar to your own, though I came to a different conclusion. (Early days yet though).

Anyway, I found that for a 4 foot shot of intermediate cut angle, a 1" change in pivot point changes the OB angle about 2.5 degrees. I think this is in the range of being executed.

On shots of 1 foot, the pivot point would have to be placed within 0.25" of the required spot to put the OB in a +/- 2.5 degree accuracy zone.

I developed a rough formula for determining the required pivot point for ETE.

Pivot point = Distance x Angle Factor

Angle Factors are as follows:
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

Note that with angles under 10 degrees, the variation is rapid. It is most useful for 15 degrees and higher. Fortunately, these are usually the angles peole have the most troubles with.

Note: These angle factor calculations are somewhat rough. They need to be refined.

eg. If the distance between balls is 20 inches and you want to cut the ball 36 degrees, then you need to pivot from ETE at 20 x 0.95 = approx 19 inches.
If you want to shoot a 4 foot shot at 22 degrees you would need to pivot from 48 x 1.2 = 57.6". (Basically the butt of the cue).
Coversely, at 4 foot shot with a 60 degree cut requires only 48 x 0.7 = 33.6" pivot point.

This method would get a player in a pretty narrow ballpark.

Colin

Colin,

I know I promised not to butt into to any aiming system thread ever again. But my morbid curiosity led me to look at your post. Also, you seem to be the most friendly number cruncher, and least liable to boil me in oil. I tried to be subjective and read the whole post. I now have a migrane !
All I can say is, in the words of the immortal tennis great, John MacEnroe...arguing a bad call with a linesman....
" YOU CAN'T BE F****** SERIOUS !!!"

Carry on boy's (I need a percoset)

Dick

 

[kaznj]

BCE= between the center of ball and edge of the ball.
SD = the tip is aiming at the edge of the object ball. the tip is half on and half off the ball.
90 = the right edge of the stick is aligned with the edge of the ball. the stick is two tips of english over.

cue tip position on the cue ball comes first.

straight in shots bce -sd swivel
all cut shots up to half ball aim -- 90 - 90 swivel
cut shots were you would aim you stick just past the edge of the object ball use 90- center ball swivel.
more to follow.

 

[JoeyA]

Kaz's Aiming Glossary

BCE= between the center of ball and edge of the ball.
SD = the tip is aiming at the edge of the object ball. the tip is half on and half off the ball.
90 = the right edge of the stick is aligned with the edge of the ball. the stick is two tips of english over.

cue tip position on the cue ball comes first.

straight in shots bce -sd swivel
all cut shots up to half ball aim -- 90 - 90 swivel
cut shots were you would aim you stick just past the edge of the object ball use 90- center ball swivel.
more to follow.

God bless you. This was sorely needed. Keep em coming. :thumbup:
JoeyA

 

[SJDinPHX]

God bless you. This was sorely needed. Keep em coming. :thumbup:
JoeyA

Joey,

I can't tell if you were being facetious or not. I thought you were a "normal"guy.
If you were serious, maybe you could help me out and act as a translator
for these "number crunching" threads. I may be missing something.
or NOT.

Dick

 

[kaznj]

To understand this post read my previous post (271)
The shots in previous post are only good if the balls are more than 2 diamonds apart.
Try the following:
put both the cue ball and the object ball in the kitchen near the spot. put them about 8-12 inches apart.
You will align the balls with the diamonds on the side long rail.
The aiming spot the cue ball is first. Your hips swivel not just the stick. When you swivel you are hitting center ball....No english on any of these shots.

shot 1: align both balls so the are straight with diamond 1.
aim 90-90 swivel and shoot.

shot 2: align both balls so the are straight with diamond 2.
aim 90-center of object ball swivel and shoot.

shot 3: align both balls so the are straight with diamond 3.
aim 90-90 reverse swivel and shoot


shot 4: align both balls so the are straight with side pocket.
aim 90-split the difference swivel and shoot

I hope this helps. If you can get to Ron in NYC he will help you. If you can get to central Jersey I will be glad to help.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin,

I know I promised not to butt into to any aiming system thread ever again. But my morbid curiosity led me to look at your post. Also, you seem to be the most friendly number cruncher, and least liable to boil me in oil. I tried to be subjective and read the whole post. I now have a migrane !
All I can say is, in the words of the immortal tennis great, John MacEnroe...arguing a bad call with a linesman....
" YOU CAN'T BE F****** SERIOUS !!!"

Carry on boy's (I need a percoset)

Dick

Perhaps we need a warning sign on posts like that Dick

Funny thing, is the numbers can crunch pretty well on this method, but after trialing it tonight for a couple of hours, it's damn hard to make accurate pivots at long distances, especially when over a rail.

IMHO, better to have 3 or 4 (short, standard, long, extra long) pivots and use them as a ball park and then use the old trusty 'see the angle' from there.

Or just spot the angle from scratch.

Still not sure which is best, but I do think looking at the edges of the OB seem to help.

Colin

 

[Jal]

...
I developed a rough formula for determining the required pivot point for ETE.

Pivot point = Distance x Angle Factor

....

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

 

[HighEndCues]

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

All I can say is WOW...
You obviousley know what your talking about..
I think it's amazing that any of us can actually play this game
after reading some of this thread

 

[JoeyA]

A mathematical problem sank the Titanic Dick.

Joey,

I can't tell if you were being facetious or not. I thought you were a "normal"guy.
If you were serious, maybe you could help me out and act as a translator
for these "number crunching" threads. I may be missing something.
or NOT.

Dick

I have yet to find a "normal" guy who plays pool.

Dick,
The younger guys and a couple of them not so young who enjoy math/physics have decided to further define the how, what and why's of pool using mathematics to explain all of it.

While I was a A student in Geometry, I didn't pursue math much beyond Algebra. Following the math threads is interesting even if I don't "get" it all. Bob Jewitt and some of the other math guys will throw me a clue every now to ponder on and that's enough to keep me
satiated for a while. :smile:

I'm not interested in learning how to decipher their equations and my ego's large enough that I don't have to jump on their IQ about the practical aspects of pool but FTR it is my opinion that they simply enjoy the intellectual discovery of proving the math on pool's many positions maybe more so than they enjoy playing the game. Whether it helps their game or anyone else's is not that important, although from time to time, they have helped mine.

Best Regards,
JoeyA (always waiting for a crumb to fall from the bountiful table)

 

[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, but I will this time since several users in this thread seem to have similar concerns.

First of all, I don't think any of the people who post negative evaluations of my playing ability have ever seen me play, except on DVDs or online videos. Sometimes I wonder why they feel a need (or think they have a right) to post insulting comments on a public forum about my playing abilities. I was once married to a psychologist, so I can usually come up with some interesting and plausible answers to what motivates the insulting posters, but I won't share them publicly.

Granted, when I posted many of my early videos many years ago, my ability could probably be characterized as "intermediate" (or even "advanced beginner") but I have learned a lot and improved many aspects of my game over the last 5 years. I would characterize my current level of play as "advanced intermediate." But I think understanding, knowledge, ability to give solid advice, and ability to teach have little to do with actual level of play. A person can have knowledge and solid understanding of fundamentals, strategy, CB control, defensive play, shot selection, advanced shot techniques, etc., and be able to provide accurate and useful advice without having advanced playing ability. To be a top player, one must have near perfect speed control, excellent vision and visualization skills, and exceptional stroke accuracy and consistency (in addition to many other things). I honestly do not have these things at a level to be a top player, and I probably never will unless I quit my "day job" and spend many hours practicing every day (and even then, it might not happen). However, I do not think I am lacking in any of the knowledge and understanding necessary to be a top player. But none of this should matter to anybody.

I honestly don't play very much. I am lucky to be able to play once a week at best, and usually only for about 2 hours. I do so mostly for fun with friends. When I film stuff, I spend a great deal of time at the table, but I don't get in much quality practice and play time. I spend most of the time working the cameras, adjusting lights, thinking about what to say, and re-shooting misses because I wasn't focused on the shot. Despite my lack of time for adequate practice and play time, I do think about the game a lot. I also watch and study every televised pool event, watch top players live whenever I get a chance, and read almost everything about pool in all available mainstream books, magazines, and forums. I have also been fortunate to spend time with and learn from many great instructors and some great players including Randy Goettlicher, Jerry Briesath, Tom Ross, and Bob Jewett. I also frequently communicate with many top instructors and players around the country and world, who often ask me questions via e-mail. I also teach a pool course regularly with Dave Gross, who is a top notch player. I think we have learned a great deal from each other and from our many students.

I prefer to be judged based on all of the resources, education, and input I provide through my book, DVDs, courses, private lessons, extensive collection of online videos, Billiards Digest articles, forum contributions, etc. If anybody questions anything in any of my resources as being incorrect or poor advice, I am always wiling to discuss the matter, film additional shots and/or do analysis to support my claims, and happily and thankfully change my mind when I am proven wrong.

I hope this addresses the "concerns" of some of the people who care about such things.

Now back to useful and productive work and discussion,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

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?

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.

Dave