8intheside
Well-known member
I’ve never used any system other than my own, and it’s really not a system at all. I just play by feel and aim at the object ball. I tend to look at the bottom of the object ball on most shots.
Aiming System Or Not?
- Thread starter Sharivari
- Start date
Yeah I don’t even really think of the ghost ball method as an aiming system. To me there has to be some trick for it to really be a “system,” and not necessarily a BS trick. Counting diamonds and adding numbers is a kicking system, and I think that’s a good system.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
☑ I'm in this video and I don't like it.
It's very similar to what I do, though I'm crap at explaining it.
1: While standing, I first look where the CB is. I then go look at the OB and see the line from the target (part of pocket, carom, etc.) into the back of the OB. I don't consciously pay any attention the the front of the OB. At this point, my intent is fully set. This whole time I am laser focused on the OB and never let it leave my sight as I'm walking back behind the CB. I then walk around and "fall" into position behind the CB.
I instantly know if my stance is wrong. I know from practice and years of playing. I know how balls behave and what effects CIT/spin/deflection/throw/etc have on the ball. I know what a solid and balanced stance feels like. I don't think about mechanics. The CB is an extension of my body just as my cue stick is.
2A Normal shot: I glance at the CB to get a read on where it is exactly, then laser focus back to OB. I'm not paying attention to the "clock" on the CB, or where to hit it, unless it's a very touchy and unfamiliar shot. I know the CB, again it's an extension of my body and I know it's physical characteristics. I shoot the shot, I'm as concerned about getting my leave just right as pocketing. Pinpoint position (or pinpoint on wedges) on every shot. You have to have a feel for it (HAMB or practice, whatever you want to call it).
If it feels off, stand up, rechalk, and get your aim again. Burn your eyes into the OB. If at any point in competition I don't feel at least 90% certain I will get the results I want, I will get back up and start looking for a devastating safety play. If I feel 100% the safety will be air tight, I'll shoot that. 100%>90% If playing not serious I might shoot at a 35% chance because shooting trick shots is fun.
2B Jacked up: This can be playing over a ball or close to a rail. Before I "pull the trigger" as in 2A, I will focus on the CB to not foul. My alignment is right and I fine tune to avoid the foul. I then look at the OB last and shoot. These shots are tougher as you have to fully trust your alignment and also keep the "shot picture" in your head and in focus. Don't forget to stand up, chalk and get a sight on the OB again if it feels off.
3: Always stay down and watch the results. It's the only way you learn. You can focus on OB to fully learn what's happening, but I would personally rather watch the CB. I want to feel it's every reaction as an extension of my body.
4: Repeat and don't lose focus. Focus is key and probably one of the most important things you can practice once you're somewhat proficient at billiards. Imagine you're preforming brain surgery, or soldering under magnification, this is the level of focus you need to play your best. If you don't focus you get lazy and miss. If you don't focus on the results of the shot, you will never truly learn. We've all heard HAMB, but I think if you focus properly on the results, you can cut that number by 75%.
Aiming systems are great for learning but at some point you have to do it by rote to fully experience the game at your best level. Focusing on aiming systems IMHO is a distraction from the laser focus you need to play your best. Sure, you should know them and be able to recall them if you find yourself in an odd situation, but I feel relying on them on every shot is a distraction. Aiming systems mainly belong at the practice table, not when in competition unless you absolutely must.
Ghost ball is ok starting out but then you should concentrate on contact point on OB. Don't worry about the curvature of the spheres, aiming line, deflection, squirt, earth being flat, etc...... You have an amazing organ between your ears that will make the adjustments after you've put in the hours. Cue tip position and speed control will come with practice and then your brain along with muscle memory will have you singing with the angels!
Great Post!!!
A 2.25" margin of error in a 4.5" pocket translates to a 1/16" contact patch on a spotted OB. More than 50 of these contact patches fit on half of the OB's circumference, so it takes that number of discrete cut angles to make the spot shot from all possible CB positions (cut angles). No system could possibly have anywhere near that many clearly defined cut angles.
And it only gets worse as the shots get longer. With the OB at center table it takes close to 100 cut angles per half ball. Kinda makes you wonder how the hell we pull it off, doesn't it?
pj
chgo
Last edited:
If you are playing an object ball off the spot to a far corner pocket, you have to be correct within about 2 degrees to pocket it. That would be 45 locations from each side. If you want to put that OB in the center half of the pocket, you have about +- half a degree of allowed error. That would get us 90 different cuts on each side. Of course, if you give up on trying to pocket long shots, they you don't need to aim as well. And, of course, you probably won't play too many shots more than 60-degree cuts in this situation, but sometimes you have to.
Here is a scale drawing of a ball shot off the spot with three lines. One is to the center of the pocket. The other two lines are each 1 degree away from that direction. The second two lines will not put a ball in the pocket on this 4.5-inch pocket. (This is a 9-foot table with the balls and pockets drawn to scale.)
Or, what PJ said.
Here is what I think a system is:
A system is a complete set of instructions to accomplish a goal that a robot could follow exactly. If the system is also a good system it will accomplish the task reasonably well most of the time if followed exactly.
The standard ghost ball method is a system by this definition. It happens to miss a lot of shots, for reasons that Sharivari mentions, so without corrections, it is a bad system. The corrected ghost ball system is much more accurate but it requires a lot of info about the equipment to make it work.
Playing by feel is not a system -- by this definition -- until robots learn to feel, and then we better look out. Actually, you could use AI techniques to improve the accuracy even without giving the robot any info beyond the fact that speed, spin, elevation, cloth and balls change the shots. AI is supposed to figure out the details on its own, often in a more or less nebulous way. I would still not call that a system, unless the robot could articulate how and what it has learned.
A system is a complete set of instructions to accomplish a goal that a robot could follow exactly. If the system is also a good system it will accomplish the task reasonably well most of the time if followed exactly.
The standard ghost ball method is a system by this definition. It happens to miss a lot of shots, for reasons that Sharivari mentions, so without corrections, it is a bad system. The corrected ghost ball system is much more accurate but it requires a lot of info about the equipment to make it work.
Playing by feel is not a system -- by this definition -- until robots learn to feel, and then we better look out. Actually, you could use AI techniques to improve the accuracy even without giving the robot any info beyond the fact that speed, spin, elevation, cloth and balls change the shots. AI is supposed to figure out the details on its own, often in a more or less nebulous way. I would still not call that a system, unless the robot could articulate how and what it has learned.
Do you know if any of the pool playing robots played with spin, or accounted for throw, or deflection, etc?
Last edited:
More or less. The Virtual Pool virtual opponent figures those things out but of course does not wield a real stick. I suspect it has the advantage of calculating exactly where the ball is going to go and includes all of the characteristics of the equipment.
HOLD ON! Let's throw out the micrometers, slide rules, etc.- just for a minute
This was proposed by the OP as a good way to get a handle on finding the contact point for the OB. His method is as much a process of elimination as it is a method to find out the true contact point. The center ball hit from CB to OB and resulting path to the intended pocket of that hit will instantly give you a reference point from which to begin finding the proper OB contact point.Once you see the distance from the intended pocket that the center ball hit delivers the OB; one can immediately focus in on a much smaller surface area of half the OB as a target AREA- not yet the exact target POINT. This target AREA on the OB also gives you an alignment clue as well. The second part of this method results purely from experience/ memory. As one utilizes this method shot after shot you will begin to commit to memory where to aim the CB to the proper point on the OB.
I think this is a great method to help anyone understand the relationship between the CB, OB and the intended pocket. I think that it narrows the desired area to hit the OB with immediate feedback to the brain that is easily understood by anyone. It gives one a picture of a smaller area on that OB - much smaller than half the OB, TO BEGIN to find the true OB focus point. It gives an immediate alignment reference point as well.
After that- PRACTICE takes over- you begin to commit the true OB contact points on any shot to memory. I guess can use math/geometry to dice up an OB to 49 or 4900 possible contact points depending on the angle and distance - and I get that part and some folks interest in the math/geometry - but I think the OP was being realistic with an idea that could help a lot of folks have a very effective STARTING POINT on each shot- I use it, have been for a while now, and for me it works too. The last thing we want is for folks to think that they have to worry about choosing 1 of 49 places to hit the OB to make the shot- or the game will die quickly. I hope we all agree on that!
My experience is that an objective aiming system works best for me.
General pros: consistent approach to aiming and higher levels of confidence and execution.
General con: can be mechanical and stiff until mastery has been achieved.
Virtual pool opponents have to be deliberately crippled because the computer has the advantage of a 2d mapped grid and 100% clear knowledge of the path for every combination of speed and spin.
So the program has to literally have a mistake algorithm to tell it not to play perfect and even super human. Because armed with that exactitude the ability to play shots that would be low percentage even for pros imo.
Aiming systems fully belong in competition and are used daily to win tournaments and money matches.☑ I'm in this video and I don't like it.
It's very similar to what I do, though I'm crap at explaining it.
1: While standing, I first look where the CB is. I then go look at the OB and see the line from the target (part of pocket, carom, etc.) into the back of the OB. I don't consciously pay any attention the the front of the OB. At this point, my intent is fully set. This whole time I am laser focused on the OB and never let it leave my sight as I'm walking back behind the CB. I then walk around and "fall" into position behind the CB.
I instantly know if my stance is wrong. I know from practice and years of playing. I know how balls behave and what effects CIT/spin/deflection/throw/etc have on the ball. I know what a solid and balanced stance feels like. I don't think about mechanics. The CB is an extension of my body just as my cue stick is.
2A Normal shot: I glance at the CB to get a read on where it is exactly, then laser focus back to OB. I'm not paying attention to the "clock" on the CB, or where to hit it, unless it's a very touchy and unfamiliar shot. I know the CB, again it's an extension of my body and I know it's physical characteristics. I shoot the shot, I'm as concerned about getting my leave just right as pocketing. Pinpoint position (or pinpoint on wedges) on every shot. You have to have a feel for it (HAMB or practice, whatever you want to call it).
If it feels off, stand up, rechalk, and get your aim again. Burn your eyes into the OB. If at any point in competition I don't feel at least 90% certain I will get the results I want, I will get back up and start looking for a devastating safety play. If I feel 100% the safety will be air tight, I'll shoot that. 100%>90% If playing not serious I might shoot at a 35% chance because shooting trick shots is fun.
2B Jacked up: This can be playing over a ball or close to a rail. Before I "pull the trigger" as in 2A, I will focus on the CB to not foul. My alignment is right and I fine tune to avoid the foul. I then look at the OB last and shoot. These shots are tougher as you have to fully trust your alignment and also keep the "shot picture" in your head and in focus. Don't forget to stand up, chalk and get a sight on the OB again if it feels off.
3: Always stay down and watch the results. It's the only way you learn. You can focus on OB to fully learn what's happening, but I would personally rather watch the CB. I want to feel it's every reaction as an extension of my body.
4: Repeat and don't lose focus. Focus is key and probably one of the most important things you can practice once you're somewhat proficient at billiards. Imagine you're preforming brain surgery, or soldering under magnification, this is the level of focus you need to play your best. If you don't focus you get lazy and miss. If you don't focus on the results of the shot, you will never truly learn. We've all heard HAMB, but I think if you focus properly on the results, you can cut that number by 75%.
Aiming systems are great for learning but at some point you have to do it by rote to fully experience the game at your best level. Focusing on aiming systems IMHO is a distraction from the laser focus you need to play your best. Sure, you should know them and be able to recall them if you find yourself in an odd situation, but I feel relying on them on every shot is a distraction. Aiming systems mainly belong at the practice table, not when in competition unless you absolutely must.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I won't disagree, but it depends on the individual playing. I agree with what you said, it's truthful. I can also say that tournaments and money matches are won daily by players who don't use aiming systems and am being just as truthful. Different strokes for different folks and all. I promise you that I'm not trying to bash aiming systems.
I'm just a pool player who loves the game, like you. Nothing I said should be taken as gospel. It's never "my way or the highway." I've never claimed to be anything other than a player passionate about pool. Pretend I'm just some dude at a pool hall showing you how I do things. You can take the advice, or the BS alarm can go off in your head and you are free to ignore it all (or you can post a rebuttal, it's all good!). When I speak on AZ or other places regarding pool, that's what I'm doing, explaining how I do things and my thoughts (which could be dead wrong) to others interested in the game. If you use a particular aiming system and it works, great! I have no issue with it. Pool is a very complicated game, it's natural that there will be multiple methods to achieve the same results.
The more you use CTE, the quicker your shot selection and aiming becomes right? At some point CTE should be rote for you and you won't actually have to think about it. Even the videos and book says that the more you use it, the quicker it gets. You recognize "shot lines" almost automatically. Eventually it becomes automatic. At the point it is automatic, you were trained by CTE but you're not actually thinking the steps out unless you're on a questionable shot. Once a system is FULLY ingrained in your head/muscle memory you aren't using it, you were trained by it. That's all I'm saying. I did it with the much harder route of HAMB and close observation on how the CB and OB reacts. I'm still learning at every practice session and during every game as most are. I don't know everything by any means, but I do have enough of a "shot database" in my head that most shots go, and I know enough when to play the percentages and choose safety instead.
Have fun and listen to the balls drop!
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Interesting. Would the robot actually have to articulate how and what it has learned as long as there were datasets to evaluate? If it were a fully conscious entity like us, I would say yes. A sufficiently advanced AI could probably collate and evaluate the data too, but even if it it didn't we could still interpret the data. The AI has "learned" and a properly constructed AI would use this data for a new baseline. Each game will get better and better until finally it is the ultimate pool playing robot. AI neural networks are a pretty interesting topic, here is a video on the topic using Mario Kart as the test subject. It does a great job showing how it works.
The pool robot could also have temp and humidity gauges built in. It could have an appendage for analyzing the cloth too. If such a robot ever exists, it could become truly unbeatable by humans.
So we should hide the facts so we don't scare too many potential pool players off?
pj
chgo
That sounds like the definition of an algorithm rather than a system that a person could use. You could program a robot with a very complex set of inputs and adjustments that would be beyond a person’s ability to calculate at the table. Maybe with your definition that would just be a poor system because it would be overly complex?
If i miss a shot, and the OB hits half a diamond away from the pocket (i.e. about six inches from the edge of the pocket), does it follow that the CB-OB contact point was in error by about 4 x 1/16", or a quarter of an inch?
Yes the more you use any method the more routine it becomes.I won't disagree, but it depends on the individual playing. I agree with what you said, it's truthful. I can also say that tournaments and money matches are won daily by players who don't use aiming systems and am being just as truthful. Different strokes for different folks and all. I promise you that I'm not trying to bash aiming systems.
I'm just a pool player who loves the game, like you. Nothing I said should be taken as gospel. It's never "my way or the highway." I've never claimed to be anything other than a player passionate about pool. Pretend I'm just some dude at a pool hall showing you how I do things. You can take the advice, or the BS alarm can go off in your head and you are free to ignore it all (or you can post a rebuttal, it's all good!). When I speak on AZ or other places regarding pool, that's what I'm doing, explaining how I do things and my thoughts (which could be dead wrong) to others interested in the game. If you use a particular aiming system and it works, great! I have no issue with it. Pool is a very complicated game, it's natural that there will be multiple methods to achieve the same results.
The more you use CTE, the quicker your shot selection and aiming becomes right? At some point CTE should be rote for you and you won't actually have to think about it. Even the videos and book says that the more you use it, the quicker it gets. You recognize "shot lines" almost automatically. Eventually it becomes automatic. At the point it is automatic, you were trained by CTE but you're not actually thinking the steps out unless you're on a questionable shot. Once a system is FULLY ingrained in your head/muscle memory you aren't using it, you were trained by it. That's all I'm saying. I did it with the much harder route of HAMB and close observation on how the CB and OB reacts. I'm still learning at every practice session and during every game as most are. I don't know everything by any means, but I do have enough of a "shot database" in my head that most shots go, and I know enough when to play the percentages and choose safety instead.
But I can speak for myself when I say that it is also easy to get sloppy in the application and half-ass it and get less consistent results.
Ultimately the goal would be to just be on autopilot and in the zone and sometimes it is like that.