Aiming and Execution in Pool

JB Cases

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
The methods that Hal Houle teaches are the most exact and precise ways to aim that I have ever seen.

Ron Vitello also teaches one that is dubbed 90/90 which is also incredibly precise and accurate.

When these methods are used the feel in aiming is reduced to almost zero. It's reduced so much that it literally becomes point and shoot with no guessing required.

As with everything though there is a yin to the yang. With finding a perfect shot line comes the need to execute perfectly. Being on the right shot line means that any wavering in execution will throw the cueball off the line. Thus a perfect aiming method reveals imperfect execution and punishes it severely.

However with good execution the reward is that the shooter can make more shots consistently, make tougher shots consistently and not worry about whether or not he is on the right shot line.

Feel is guessing. Pure feel is going into the shot with no measurement of any kind. Systematic aiming is using certain steps to get to the line which are repeatable. Pure feel is at one end of the spectrum and mechanical aiming is at the other end.

At the end of the day you want to get to a point where most shots you take are point and shoot. You can get there using pure feel with enough trial and error practice or you can get there through using a system that you master to the point that all the steps are one fluid motion.

As I said above, in more than 25 years the stuff I learned from Hal Houle and Ron Vitello and those who have spent the time to master their methods has proven to me to be the most accurate and precise way to aim I have ever come across. I have a bunch of videos explaining things from my journey to master them. These are not meant to instruct you. They are mostly a video blog where I share my thoughts on what the benefits are to learning and using these methods.

If you're confused when watching them keep in mind that explaining the concepts is way harder than actually doing the steps. Because these methods have generated a lot of controversy over the years I have attempted to figure them out and these videos are those thoughts in action.

Lastly, don't look to me as an authority on how these methods work or as a teacher of them. I am a student of them. I am a cheerleader for them.

To really learn them go to a qualified instructor or someone who is very proficient. As with all things in order to teach one must learn to teach. For this type of aiming I am very much still the student.

My Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/jbideastoo?feature=mhee

Aiming and Execution in Pool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKCD...DvjVQa1PpcFPat3DYZeSUw5XSnnN27RFpch-O1IJqDNs=

CTE Parallel Shots:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb9e...DvjVQa1PpcFPat3DYZeSUw8pNESwsbL9bqrAmkgvJ04M=

Convergence Lines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nETW...DvjVQa1PpcFPat3DYZeSUwzsJt94n7lhUnimGwt7tDYg=

Thoughts on Aiming Systems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoQc...DvjVQa1PpcFPat3DYZeSUwyLGxYwNaKGTSdK5DFc5zkI=

Playing Around With CTE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwga...DvjVQa1PpcFPat3DYZeSUwyicQCmAF6fgdn8S1CJPkWo=

Joe Tucker's All Diamonds Drill - Done with CTE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lHJ...DvjVQa1PpcFPat3DYZeSUw5QJIq2rVK77oA2TUXZpzss=

CTE with English (Sidespin):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpt_...DvjVQa1PpcFPat3DYZeSUw7vrC47METynkI--QbgAoQg=

CTE Stance Approach:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJzD...DvjVQa1PpcFPat3DYZeSUw6siF8RP612XQTDaR3lcf0s=

JSP Shot Test - done in response to a challenge that CTE can't work for shots along the same CTE line:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAOE...DvjVQa1PpcFPat3DYZeSUw16xXXnf2KbQ2TyWg6qRV-I=

So that's enough for now. For those of you who want to comment on my "form" - yes I know it kind of sucks but it also gets me by enough to be one of the better players where ever I go. I don't have the time or energy to really work on it diligently. At 44 with a bad back I am about done with any thoughts of trying to be competitive at pool in any meaningful way.

But these aiming methods are the nuts. Truly they feel magic. And this is the bone of contention about them for some people. But I am not the only one who has had the real world on-table results to prove that they work as described. Now there are world class instructors who teach them, pros who admit openly to using them and scores of people who benefit from them.

So if you are at all interested then get busy learning the ones you can and see if you get the same experience that I have had with them. You can always go back to Ghost Ball. :-)
 
Send a CB 2 rails to hit an OB and then say how accurate they are.

Nothing beats Ghost ball in terms of being used for every shot. Plus the way I describe the use Ghost Ball, it is "dead on balls" accurate.
 
duckie said:
Send a CB 2 rails to hit an OB and then say how accurate they are.

Nothing beats Ghost ball in terms of being used for every shot. Plus the way I describe the use Ghost Ball, it is "dead on balls" accurate.
Click to expand...

Well Duckie, if you are able to be super accurate using an imaginary ball then more power to you.

As I said I find that there are other methods for lining up shots that are way more accurate. When it comes to any shots that aren't shooting a ball directly to a hole then I can certainly use any other method including Ghost Ball if that's what I think will be the best to use.

Or to put it simply, I have all your tools plus mine and I know how to use them all.
 
feel?

"Feel is guessing. Pure feel is going into the shot with no measurement of any kind. Systematic aiming is using certain steps to get to the line which are repeatable. Pure feel is at one end of the spectrum and mechanical aiming is at the other end."

jb
true feel would exclude vision totally. are you saying im guessing when i send the exact point on the cb into the exact point on the ob required to make the shot?that is the method i use, no more no less. commonly refered to as "feel".at least here. its the same thing many great players have done over the years. some people see the entire picture when they look at a shot. its obvious to them.
cheers
mark














not using some system is not really feel. that is ridiculous. dont think ive ever seen anyone shoot by feel.
 
no real problem with what people choose to use, i just think the term "feel "misses the mark entirely. unless your eyes are closed, the brain is making decisions based on lots of information that is mechanical in nature and boiling it down to the shot. semantics. people
'feel" their way around in the dark, not on a pool table.
carry on lol
 
barking said:
"Feel is guessing. Pure feel is going into the shot with no measurement of any kind. Systematic aiming is using certain steps to get to the line which are repeatable. Pure feel is at one end of the spectrum and mechanical aiming is at the other end."

jb
true feel would exclude vision totally. are you saying im guessing when i send the exact point on the cb into the exact point on the ob required to make the shot?that is the method i use, no more no less. commonly refered to as "feel".at least here. its the same thing many great players have done over the years. some people see the entire picture when they look at a shot. its obvious to them.
cheers
mark

not using some system is not really feel. that is ridiculous. dont think ive ever seen anyone shoot by feel.
Click to expand...

If you take a player who has not had any instruction then they will play by feel.

I have a shop full of people who like to play. Most of them have had no instruction. They line up by whatever they feel is right. Sometimes they are dead on, sometimes close and sometimes way off.

Now IF they would practice then they would develop a more refined sense of the angles needed. This would come from trial and error in the absence of instruction. Now it MIGHT occur to them to look for contact points but I doubt it.

And when we are talking about tasks that require vision then pure feel is guessing. When I have a four foot board and I want to cut it into two equal parts then I can eyeball it and guess or I can figure out how to measure it. Naturally the more ways I know to measure the more chance I have to make two pieces of wood that are both exactly two feet long.

If you were a carpenter then you wouldn't last long without a measuring tape. Conversely playing pool without some way to figure the shots is pretty much guessing. Now with enough experience the guessing gets fairly accurate for most shots. That's fine if it's all you need and want.

If however you want to be able to make tougher shots more often and really all shots more often then perhaps you might like to have a way to measure that's very accurate.

If you don't need it then great. As you all are so fond of pointing out people aren't all the same. Some people just see it and others don't. So for the ones that don't then it's good to have alternatives that might help them. As for what all the great players have done you don't know any more than I do what all the great players did because they didn't talk about it and it's not recorded anywhere.

And even if they didn't use any systems that still doesn't mean that the systems being talked about today are not good. That would like saying tennis pros in 1928 didn't "need" any of the training techniques that modern tennis players use. In every major sport systematic and scientific approaches have resulted in a higher average performance.

Only in pool do we still have a bunch of "just hit it" folks who think all that's needed is to "just hit it" to play great pool. The way I see it is that the more that these alternative methods gain in popularity then the more people there will be who master them and refine them and teach them. Then the natural result should be that the average skill level goes up.

However it's not easy when the "just hit the ball" crowd is out there actively campaigning against it by essentially telling people that they don't need to learn an aiming system.

If we went to the store and I stopped you every two feet to tell you not to buy whatever you were interested in you would tell me to mind my own business. So why don't you all mind your own business and let people learn what they want to without injecting poison into the discussion???

Don't knock and everyone rocks.
 
barking said:
no real problem with what people choose to use, i just think the term "feel "misses the mark entirely. unless your eyes are closed, the brain is making decisions based on lots of information that is mechanical in nature and boiling it down to the shot. semantics. people
'feel" their way around in the dark, not on a pool table.
carry on lol
Click to expand...

I already explained what feel is in a visual medium.

It's not semantics. Feel is a spectrum which defines how someone arrived at a decision. That spectrum ranges from an instinctive one based on no prior experience to an educated one based on knowledge and lots of experience.
 
i posted that before your explanation of feel in a visual medium. so there are varying levels of feel? at what point does feel become informed enough to be considered a mechancal system? it still would have a portion of its effectiveness contributed by feel? instinct seems like a better word. i agree everyone should use whatever works for them. i never said any aiming sysem were worthless or not to buy any related instruction. i dont believe that. i think feel is perhaps seen as a lesser term for the shotmaking process and seems belittling to some.
 
i was simply trying to discuss what i believe to be a term which divides rather than identifies. if feel is a system then why not treat those who use it with some civility? i guess i dont get the debate or the conflict or whatever.i could care less how a person gets to a shot. i am now injecting poison? i dont get it.
 
barking said:
i was simply trying to discuss what i believe to be a term which divides rather than identifies. if feel is a system then why not treat those who use it with some civility? i guess i dont get the debate or the conflict or whatever.i could care less how a person gets to a shot. i am now injecting poison? i dont get it.
Click to expand...

Civility? Sure, I explained my position clearly and without being unkind.

If you could care less how a person gets to the shot then why are you here at all. You say that this "overcomplicates" the act of aiming. Is that not injecting a contrary position in a debate that you claim not to care about?

As for feel it is not divisive UNTIL someone like Pat Johnson says that there is no spectrum of feel and that someone who has never played pool before lines up to a shot the same as a person who has played 10,000 hours. Obviously that's not true.

My point was and is that feel ranges from making a decision with no experience and making one with tons of experience. Obviously the one made with tons of experience will result in a favorable outcome more often than not.

Thus feel is not divisive nor derogatory UNLESS someone tells me that the way I aim is not any different than some noob. I know from shotmaking drills that in fact the way I aim is very accurate and that I will beat any newcomer in a shot making contest with ease.

In fact I will beat many players who have as much time in as me because they shoot by feel closer to the "Just see it" end of the spectrum. That's the whole point of an aiming system and the reason I promote it. "Just see it" "Hit a Million Balls" and the like are certainly ways to get good and ANY person can do that with no instruction at all. All you need is a table, balls and a stick.

Aiming systems that were discovered/developed by diligent players who studied the dynamics are not going to be readily apparent to most average players. They could go their whole lives and never discover a way to approach the balls that increases their consistency.

But if introduced to these methods then they can take that knowledge and work with it and see if it helps them. IF not then they can ALWAYS default back to simply hitting a million balls by pure feel or use any other method they come across.

In your other thread you asked what's wrong with just seeing the contact point? What's wrong is that many people can't "see" a tiny point on a sphere. If it were that easy then these aiming systems we discuss would never have been discovered or promoted.
 
never actually considered that the contact point is hard to see. does being on a sphere make it harder for some to see a specific point? interesting.
 
dont have anything against any method, i just think its funny how some people respond to the fact that i dont use some kinda system they might know about. the feel thing doesnt apply at all as i know exactly where to hit the ob and can make contact conistently and exactly. im sure these systems are acomplishing the same things for players in a different way. its all good.
btw ive see a couple of your cases over the years and they are the shtizzle.
later
 
barking said:
never actually considered that the contact point is hard to see. does being on a sphere make it harder for some to see a specific point? interesting.
Click to expand...

That is why I do the combination test from the side. Just set two balls in a line to the pocket from the side. The second ball is the ghost.
In my case, I can be way off when I look at it from straight behind.
What looks right is sometimes way off! If you can't place the balls right, you can't aim. :o
Earl can just point and shoot because he can see it correctly. If you can't, you are not going to make too many!
If you are right, you should see a slight overcut from directly behind to allow for ball throw on some shots.
 
Last edited:
barking said:
never actually considered that the contact point is hard to see. does being on a sphere make it harder for some to see a specific point? interesting.
Click to expand...

Yes it does,,,,,,,,,especially as you get older. When I was younger I would cut anything on the table,,,,,,,not so anymore. In fact after the last couple of years or so of ending a high percentage of my innings with misses on very simple shots, the awareness has finally started hitting me that, even though I feel like I see the contact points, maybe I'm just seeing "about" where they are. Just in the last few days I have started experimenting with a couple of the alternative aiming systems, and I already can see their usefulness. I'm not an expert at it by any means, but it does feel nice to make balls center pocket without even looking at the pocket. If aiming systems do nothing else at all,,,,,they certainly give you more confidence because you have exact points of aim and a set PSR, as opposed to aiming where you percieve a ghost ball center point to be. I can see both sides of this argument, but as age begins to set in, it appears I personally am starting to get scared of ghosts.
 
I showed an older gentleman my aiming system a few weeks ago. He's been playing for over 40 plus years and he tell me that he never realized you could aim like that. Anyway, met with him yesterday, similar to what you saying, he felt that the aiming system I showed him..let him get back into stroke much faster.

Duc.
Renegade_56 said:
Yes it does,,,,,,,,,especially as you get older. When I was younger I would cut anything on the table,,,,,,,not so anymore. In fact after the last couple of years or so of ending a high percentage of my innings with misses on very simple shots, the awareness has finally started hitting me that, even though I feel like I see the contact points, maybe I'm just seeing "about" where they are. Just in the last few days I have started experimenting with a couple of the alternative aiming systems, and I already can see their usefulness. I'm not an expert at it by any means, but it does feel nice to make balls center pocket without even looking at the pocket. If aiming systems do nothing else at all,,,,,they certainly give you more confidence because you have exact points of aim and a set PSR, as opposed to aiming where you percieve a ghost ball center point to be. I can see both sides of this argument, but as age begins to set in, it appears I personally am starting to get scared of ghosts.
Click to expand...
 
JB Cases said:
The methods that Hal Houle teaches are the most exact and precise ways to aim that I have ever seen.

Ron Vitello also teaches one that is dubbed 90/90 which is also incredibly precise and accurate.

When these methods are used the feel in aiming is reduced to almost zero. It's reduced so much that it literally becomes point and shoot with no guessing required.

As with everything though there is a yin to the yang. With finding a perfect shot line comes the need to execute perfectly. Being on the right shot line means that any wavering in execution will throw the cueball off the line. Thus a perfect aiming method reveals imperfect execution and punishes it severely.

However with good execution the reward is that the shooter can make more shots consistently, make tougher shots consistently and not worry about whether or not he is on the right shot line.

Feel is guessing. Pure feel is going into the shot with no measurement of any kind. Systematic aiming is using certain steps to get to the line which are repeatable. Pure feel is at one end of the spectrum and mechanical aiming is at the other end.

At the end of the day you want to get to a point where most shots you take are point and shoot. You can get there using pure feel with enough trial and error practice or you can get there through using a system that you master to the point that all the steps are one fluid motion.

As I said above, in more than 25 years the stuff I learned from Hal Houle and Ron Vitello and those who have spent the time to master their methods has proven to me to be the most accurate and precise way to aim I have ever come across. I have a bunch of videos explaining things from my journey to master them. These are not meant to instruct you. They are mostly a video blog where I share my thoughts on what the benefits are to learning and using these methods.

If you're confused when watching them keep in mind that explaining the concepts is way harder than actually doing the steps. Because these methods have generated a lot of controversy over the years I have attempted to figure them out and these videos are those thoughts in action.

Lastly, don't look to me as an authority on how these methods work or as a teacher of them. I am a student of them. I am a cheerleader for them.

To really learn them go to a qualified instructor or someone who is very proficient. As with all things in order to teach one must learn to teach. For this type of aiming I am very much still the student.



Nice post John.

I have been looking into the CTE aiming system for quite some time. And yes, I have studied all of your YouTube posts.

After reading a post you made and an AZ'er slamming the CTE system.
You simply replied "that not only do I know your aiming system I also know mine".

That got me to thinking and I thought I would give CTE an honest attempt.

UH, this weird, I have my own table, so I started practicing using CTE. Logically I cant explain how CTE works.......but it does and I plan on incorporating it into my game.

I have always been a "back of the ball" aiming system player.

Your right, its almost like point and shoot. Man, I wish I could understand how CTE works. It works and I'm having some fun.

Thanks for the YouTube posts.

John
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top