Aiming techniques

CaptainJR said:
If your not going to explain it, would you please remove all responces that mention it. Don't just come in with this technique and say I have a great one but I'm not telling how it works. Your term out side the box is what leads me to beleave that this is a technique not a system. There for as I mention above we were probally talking abou two different things
Click to expand...

How bout I make up a hypothetical method, just for example....

- Look at the line from the pocket to the object ball.
- Place an imaginery ball (ghost ball) contacting object ball on that line between object ball and the pocket. Thus, ghost ball is pocket side.
- Create a line between center of ghost ball to center of cue ball.
- Create a line between center of object ball to center of cue ball.
This creates an angle.
- Move your stick an equal angle.
- Then shoot on that line.

Once again, you can try to imply that a contact point was indirectly calculated. But technically, no contact point was involved in the system. Just a line of aim for the stick.
 
CaptainJR said:
I'll try to end my participation in thread on a lighter note. I've seen two posts here mention overlapping so here was my overlapping and pointing aiming system for a short period of time a long time ago. Before I got old and stubborn. Have a good laugh on Captain JR

It is post number 8 in the thread called 'another aiming system thread'


http://www.azbilliards.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=9112
Click to expand...


The pointing system or path to the pocket was still there which is the same for contact point aiming, you never eliminated that. BUT the horizon thing was actually a start to what I'm talking about. You didn't carry it or think it through to other possibilities, like sides or edges. But then again that in of itself isn't the entire system.
 
FLICKit said:
The solution is to basically to reverse the situtation, such that the fix now works in your favor instead of against you. There can be several different means of attempting this...

1. Have the money-lender pick from the pocket, with the condition that he'd have to pick a white one to keep her.

Or

2. Announce that since black is her father's favorite color, then if she picks a black stone, then she will do as he chooses, and thus if she picks a white stone she will follow the wishes of the money-lender. Since it's a 50/50 chance either way, surely the money-lender couldn't argue with that.

Or

3. Announce that her choice will be the one that remains in the pocket. So, if she picks a black stone, then the alternate color remaining in his pocket must be white.

or

4. Even better, pick the stone from his pocket but keep it hidden. Then force the money-lender to reveal the remaining stone in his pocket. If the one in his pocket is black, then the one she has would have to be the opposite.

or

5. Bit more riskier... Reach into his pocket. Claim you fear cheating by the money-lender which will be an automatic disqualification, and thus you will pull out both stones first.

or

6. Claim that the money lender must really love her in order to take such a chance, so as a sign of her reward to him, say she will only stay with her father if the two stones are the same (of course, while simultaneously picking the two stones).
Click to expand...


Now that's some real good outside of the box thinking there, FLICKit. Most
vertical, or "in the box" thinkers normally come to 3 conclusions.
1. The girl should refuse to take a pebble
2. The girl should show that there are two black pebbles in the bag and expose the money-lender as a cheat.
3. The girl should take a black pebble and sacrifice herself in order to save her father from prison

None of these suggestions are very helpful, because it was already stated if she didn't take a pebble her father goes to prison, and if she does take a pebble she's going to end up with the ugly ass money-lender.

"In the box thinkers" are concerned with the fact that the girl has to TAKE a pebble. "Outside the box" thinkers become concerned with the pebble that is LEFT behind. "Inside the box thinkers" take the most reasonable view of a situation and then proceed logically and carefully to work it out. "Outside the box" thinkers tend to explore all the different ways of looking at something, rather than accepting the most promising, the obvious, and proceeding from there.

Your choice of #4 was pretty much what she did. The beautiful girl put her hand into the money-bag and drew out a pebble. However, she immediately fumbled it and let it fall to the ground and lost among all the others. "Oh, how clumsy of me" she said, "but never mind...if you look into the bag you will be able to tell which pebble I took by the color of the one that is left."

Since the remaining pebble is of course black, it must be assumed that she has taken the white pebble, especially since the money-lender dare not open his mouth and admit his dishonest.

The same thing holds true with ALL of the normal aiming systems. They're geometrically calculated with lines, angles, contact points, etc. to their end conclusion of being struck and taking a path into the pocket. "Inside the box" thinking that takes it from start to finish in it's most logical fashion. BTW, it does work with adjustments for throw, squirt, etc.

Hal's systems also get the OB in the pocket, but you're looking at all the REST of the ball instead of a contact point, and it's done in a variety of ways and perspectives. NONE of which include contact point, angles, or lines to the pocket. On one of his systems just about all shots are a half ball shot. And on another it all has to do with aiming your cue to the center or edge of an OB. "Outside the box thinking" Strange but true. Believe it or not.
 
Last edited:
drivermaker said:
Teacherman didn't take your statements out of context. That's what you said and you're DEAD WRONG!

Let's face it, an OB and CB always "contact" each other at a certain point. However, in setting up to the shot with Hal's system, it is NOT imperative that you even try to determine it, look at it, analyze it, determine the contact point on the CB, set up on an angle to the contact point or any of it.

There are multiple systems that he has and some have an "aiming point" which is totally different than a "contact point". And some of his other systems don't even have an aiming point. It's basically a visual overlay of the CB to the OB and it's about in the same place for EVERY shot. I know this sounds ridiculous and is way over your head, but as I said yesterday...you don't even know what there is to know.

And if you keep wanting to harp on that without even knowing the system and say that a shot can't be made without identifying a contact point, I'm going to call for a removal of your cap and have it replaced with a dunce hat.
And NO, I'm NOT going to explain Hal's system in writing on this forum!
Click to expand...
:eek:


I wasn't going to jump in on this thread for a few different reasons.Those reasons are listed in bold black below:

1.I use two of Hal Houles systems and in respect to Hal he has asked me and others not to explain them on Billiard forums. Others have tried and have screwed up the information and this has thouroughly pissed Hal off. People get pissed off at you when you say you know Hal's systems and won't explain them in writing.


2. When you tell people you don't aim for a contact point or think about (a million different) angles or that you sight the exact same point on the object ball for EVERY shot(on one system) or point and pivot your cue stick(another system) etc, they think you are insane. Also when you tell them there are only about 6 sighting(3 on the left and 3 on the right) points for ALL SHOTS in pool, they who think there are millions of angles, think you are crazy.People who are CLOSE-MINDED and have never tried it put the systems down and the possibility that they work.People who question it with mathematical or geometrical theories deny it won't work, however, they don't know that these systems somewhat defy math or geometry or at least in the way that close minded people perceive it.Anyone who has tried it , definitley won't put it down and it's irratating dealing with negativity of the faithless non-believers who think they know it all.

3.Allthough our local pros (and most other pros) know these systems,(or others that are simuliar) I'm not ready to share(nor are the pros) them locally in my town.I've got some serious revenge issues...LOL.... I want to inflict on others.Someday(when I'm really old) for sure, I will show some young promising kids who love pool what I've learned. As for right now, I don't want anybody that I have to play against have the knowledge of Hal's Systems


4. My friend Drivermaker was getting slagged and I wanted to see if he could still fend for himself...LOL

I learned one of Hal's systems about 6 or more months ago, however, I never stuck with it long enough to give it a fair shake, because there can be an adjustment period.I re-dedicated(gave it a fair shake) myself to it a few weeks ago and learned another system of his a few days ago and they are nothing short of magic.
I can honestly say that my potting overall has improved 20 per cent on 45 degree shots or less and at least 50% on the finer to the finest cuts.The difference is, is that now I KNOW where to aim, when as before, I was guessing.When I miss now, the majority of times it's due to a headlift or some other mechanical flaw.

I don't have(lost it) Hal's phone number, nor (out of respect to Hal) will I explain his system in writing so please don't PM me. Hal's phone number is available on billiard forums and there are people who know it.His mission in life is to teach recreational players how to aim....FREE of charge.

He 's really ticked off at the Pro's and instructors who take students money and (although they teach them some good stuff), MOST don't teach them how to aim.Why.....(according to Hal)because pools their livelyhood and they don't want to teach anyone how to beat them and/or they want to keep their students.

If you want to open your mind a little (and stop thinking DM's insane, LOL) I'd suggest doing a post to find out Hal's number and talk to him. Or you can think you know it all and enjoy life on the plateau......... which is(probably) your pool game.RJ

ps. Mosconi ran over 500 balls. Thomas Engert ran over 400. Many other pros have ran hundreds of balls in succsession. Yes they have good mechanics, cue ball control, play great shape, have practised hard and/or are blessed with some God given talent, however, do they make all those pots because they've memorized an infinite number of angles? No ,aiming isn't that complicated, because they ALL use systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top