Comments on Poolology

[SpiderWebComm]

I feel the benefit to Brian's system is when you are in the spots on the table where perception goes wonky. He has a YouTube vid on this. I can recognize a 30 degree angle for the most part, but due to certain layouts it may not look right. My brain is able to recognize which shots aren't "quite right " and only then do I use system

Couldn't that be said about any and all aiming systems once a person gains a high degree of proficiency with it or becomes too confident, lax, cocky, lazy, and takes any shot for granted even the kick in easy ones? I've seen tons of those missed by pros and have done it many times myself.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Very interesting, and pretty cool. But I believe, without a feel for table and ball condition, and a feel for a touch of spin or speed difference, and without an intuition, that robot would score below an average league player. However, technology is advancing at a rapid pace, so I guess anything can happen.

All subjective.

We can program a rocket to fly around for 10 years and land on a freaking comet.

The robot could easily analyze the speed of the ball and adjust for any conditions. So why can't we apply the principals of an aiming system and get quantitative data?
We have folks saying you can't do this or that, so wouldn't it be easy to prove outside of something as local as a person's skill set or understanding?

Robot wouldn't over think or mis-stroke or even argue..it could either be done or not. Empirical data.

 

[BC21]

All subjective.

We can program a rocket to fly around for 10 years and land on a freaking comet.

The robot could easily analyze the speed of the ball and adjust for any conditions. So why can't we apply the principals of an aiming system and get quantitative data?
We have folks saying you can't do this or that, so wouldn't it be easy to prove outside of something as local as a person's skill set or understanding?

Robot wouldn't over think or mis-stroke or even argue..it could either be done or not. Empirical data.

Good point. If someone designed a robot to be accurate enough to send the CB to a targeted point (fractional aim point for instance), my mathematical method would prove accurate for every shot from straight in to a 1/8 cut. This of oourse is only referring to pocketing balls directly into a pocket, not playing position, or kicks, or combos or banks. That would require additional programming parameters beyond the geometry of my book/system. With a robot shooter, the system is objective. It becomes less objective when a non-objective component is added, such as a player estimating the numbers or tweaking the shot to target a specific path into the pocket.

 

[sixpack]

for fun I started developing a pool simulator that aimed using aiming systems instead of the normal way they aim. Normally, the computer calculates outcomes based on cue ball speed and direction and then chooses the one to execute based on criteria such as how good the player is supposed to be, how much slack in the system and how long it has to calculate different options before choosing a shot.

Trying to program ai to use CTE is particularly challenging because of the 'perception' shift and all that goes along with it.

Poolology would be a much simpler method to program ai to use.

I have shelved that project simply due to lack of time and other priorities.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Good point. If someone designed a robot to be accurate enough to send the CB to a targeted point (fractional aim point for instance), my mathematical method would prove accurate for every shot from straight in to a 1/8 cut. This of oourse is only referring to pocketing balls directly into a pocket, not playing position, or kicks, or combos or banks. That would require additional programming parameters beyond the geometry of my book/system. With a robot shooter, the system is objective. It becomes less objective when a non-objective component is added, such as a player estimating the numbers or tweaking the shot to target a specific path into the pocket.

If you or I can do it, do you really suppose we can out think and out perform something that is entirely programmed?

Like I said, we can plan a spaceship's landing on a comet moving 87,000 thousands miles per hour 15 million of miles away.

You think maybe a few billiard shots is harder?

 

[Saturated Fats]

Not more difficult...

If you or I can do it, do you really suppose we can out think and out perform something that is entirely programmed?

Like I said, we can plan a spaceship's landing on a comet moving 87,000 thousands miles per hour 15 million of miles away.

You think maybe a few billiard shots is harder?

...given the same budget for development, it's probably one of the easier things to accomplish.

 

[Neil]

If you or I can do it, do you really suppose we can out think and out perform something that is entirely programmed?

Like I said, we can plan a spaceship's landing on a comet moving 87,000 thousands miles per hour 15 million of miles away.

You think maybe a few billiard shots is harder?

I get what you are saying. And, at first look, it seems very reasonable. But, what you are leaving out is just how they plan the spaceships travel. The spaceships travel is all pure math. Math that is now know how to do. I just saw a program on this subject today, but I can't remember the guys name that "cracked the code" on how to use math to predict and control the spaceships travel. It was some young guy in college that didn't even have his PHD yet. He solved it and NASA hired him.

The problem is, when we use our eyes, we don't always use straight line vision. Straight line vision, such as you see in diagrams, can be solved with math.

What we use in pivot systems is more peripheral vision. Which the math for it, (which I believe there is) has not been "cracked" yet. It's like trying to do the math for an optical illusion that is completely reliable. You know that it has to be there, but how does one define it?

edit: This video helps explain what I am talking about- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkm9WE8HMoE

 

[Bobkitty]

Wow, did this ever get off track. The original post is about the new book "Poolology". I don't think anyone other than NASA has the money to build a robot that can go around the table and shoot shots. What will it do when it's time for the bridge? Lift it up, lean it over, lengthen the arms, etc. etc. Building a pool robot like Iron Byron that is just stationary might be feasible. It could stroke the same path over and over if someone will set up the balls.
Let's get back to the book;.. I've taken the last 4 days to test Poolology and found it to be very accurate, especially in zones A and B for a corner pocket. Zone C and the side pockets shots are all correct and accurate too but just not as easy and clear as A and B to the corner. They can become so with more work because the value lines are harder to locate and the alignment values on the rails are not linear. The only pool I've played since studying the book is on a 7' Diamond at a bar. I'm an A player and found that I didn't need it on the dinky table. Soon I'll have some competition on my 9' table and I'll report back. I think shots like one would find in Zone C with some long distance back cuts, I'll really take a minute to figure it out. I find with this system and with kicking systems that if you can't solve it fast by knowing the system well you probably won't take an inordinate amount of time to do so just out of respect for your competitor. They will be rolling their eyes in short order. Another thing; it is really soothing to find your shot is sitting on exactly 1/2 ball hit. Especially on the nine ball. "Poolology"; maybe the best $10 I've spent so far on pool reading material? Yes! Just my two cents.

 

[Dan White]

"Poolology"; maybe the best $10 I've spent so far on pool reading material? Yes! Just my two cents.

It is a good tool for training and working on your stroke, too. It allows the player to remove one of the variables. If, during the course of a game, you miss a 1/2 ball hit shot, you KNOW you didn't miss because you "aimed" wrong. Your aim point was the 1/2 ball and through the math you KNEW it was 1/2 ball. That means you didn't get the cue ball to the half ball contact point. That helps focus your attention on what actually caused the miss.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

It is a good tool for training and working on your stroke, too.

Wouldn't that be true for any aiming system?

It allows the player to remove one of the variables. If, during the course of a game, you miss a 1/2 ball hit shot, you KNOW you didn't miss because you "aimed" wrong. Your aim point was the 1/2 ball and through the math you KNEW it was 1/2 ball. That means you didn't get the cue ball to the half ball contact point. That helps focus your attention on what actually caused the miss.

So what caused it and where do you start looking? How about we start at the grip first?

How about grip pressure? (relaxed and loose, tight with all fingers and palm, or loose at address and backstroke and then tightening at transition and forward stroke?

How many fingers are on the grip stroking the cue? (two, three, four, or five)

Where is the butt of cue gripped in the fingers? (fingertips, first crease from the tips, mid section of the fingers, last section of the fingers closest to the palm, tight grip in palm)

How does any of these grips and grip pressures affect the wrist position at setup or during the stroke. One wrist position can be concave with the back of the hand pointing upward like Keith McCready?

Another can be convex with the wrist protruding outward and the back of the hand more toward the floor.

A neutral wrist position is what it says, hanging straight. But it does no good if it's altered somewhere during the stroke or transition point.

All of the above affect the stroke, and we haven't even mentioned stance, angle of body (snooker or sideways), feet position, head and eyes over cue position, elbow and upper arm angles, posture (upright and high, bent and low).

The STROKE doesn't determine the above, the above determines the stroke.

So where would you like to start with your analysis about how any of those positions or changes determine the stroke?

 

[BC21]

It is a good tool for training and working on your stroke, too. It allows the player to remove one of the variables. If, during the course of a game, you miss a 1/2 ball hit shot, you KNOW you didn't miss because you "aimed" wrong. Your aim point was the 1/2 ball and through the math you KNEW it was 1/2 ball. That means you didn't get the cue ball to the half ball contact point. That helps focus your attention on what actually caused the miss.

Wouldn't that be true for any aiming system?

Dan is correct. With a specific point of aim you shouldn't miss the shot unless something goes wrong with delivering the CB to that aim point. Not true with pivot systems that bring your cue in line with CCB, because you could've done something wrong during that process if pivoting to CCB, and you could stroke it perfect and miss the ball, or stroke it wonky and miss the ball. How would you know if the miss was due to your stroke or due to the fact that your CCB alinement was sending the cue ball to the incorrect location to pocket the ball?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dan is correct. With a specific point of aim you shouldn't miss the shot unless something goes wrong with delivering the CB to that aim point. Not true with pivot systems that bring your cue in line with CCB, because you could've done something wrong during that process if pivoting to CCB, and you could stroke it perfect and miss the ball, or stroke it wonky and miss the ball. How would you know if the miss was due to your stroke or due to the fact that your CCB alinement was sending the cue ball to the incorrect location to pocket the ball?

OK, you make a good point with the pivot variable. I can live with that.

But a problem could also occur with your system or any other system such as Joe Tucker's Contact Point Aiming System which is without a doubt the most geometrically and mathematically correct over all systems including yours.

He also has a 32 box grid based on the diamonds where the OB and CB can be located anywhere on the table and 9 points of aim for left cuts and 9 points of aim and alignment for right cuts on both the OB and CB. You have to match the numbers with each other on both balls.

You system is greatly limited compared to his with fewer aim points on the OB and CB.

The problem with both that could happen isn't the stroke at all. It could be you misaligned to the aim or strike point itself or offset the aim or strike point a little more or a little less than it should actually be.

It might be from the eyes, the feet, or the body that give an incorrect perception.

 

[BC21]

........
...
But a problem could also occur with your system or any other system such as Joe Tucker's Contact Point Aiming System which is without a doubt the most geometrically and mathematically correct over all systems including yours.

He also has a 32 box grid based on the diamonds where the OB and CB can be located anywhere on the table and 9 points of aim for left cuts and 9 points of aim and alignment for right cuts on both the OB and CB. You have to match the numbers with each other on both balls.

You system is greatly limited compared to his with fewer aim points on the OB and CB.
........

I am not familiar with Joe Tucker's aiming system or table grid, so I'm not sure how complicated it is or long it takes to figure out the appropriate aim point.

When comparing systems that use math to accomplish aiming, the primary objective is to provide a means of pocketing the OB. So, if two or more systems meet that objective, there is no point in drawing comparisons, other than to compare the simplicity or user-friendly differences between the systems.

It's like two people standing outside of a door that says "Push or Pull to Enter". Maybe, for one person, pushing takes more effort than pulling, while another feels it's easier to push. Each method gets the objective accomplished. Pulling, however, involves a little more precision because you must stop, stand clear of the door while you pull it open, then when it's open wide enough to walk through, you continue on. This a very accurate method that requires a certain amount of steps to ensure you don't run into the door before it's opened wide enough to allow entering. Pushing the door open involves less work and fewer precise steps, but is no less accurate at achieving desired results. So any comparison of perceived precision is futile.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I am not familiar with Joe Tucker's aiming system or table grid, so I'm not sure how complicated it is or long it takes to figure out the appropriate aim point.

Then maybe you should buy it, study it, like you want others to do with your system before commenting on it.

Do you want to know how long it takes to find the aim point? The same length of time it takes to find any contact point. Get directly behind the OB in line with the pocket and put your tip up to the ball or just stare at it. The aim point and contact point are one and the same.

When comparing systems that use math to accomplish aiming, the primary objective is to provide a means of pocketing the OB. So, if two or more systems meet that objective, there is no point in drawing comparisons, other than to compare the simplicity or user-friendly differences between the systems.

There is NO MATH in Joe Tucker's system. It's contact point to contact point or equal and opposite. Yours is a FRACTIONAL aiming system which is different. His grid has nothing to do with the system other than being an adjunct to it for better understanding.

Your grid means a good bit to your system as well as the numbers on the rails with the diamonds to determine which fractional line to aim at and hit.

Last paragraph of yours has no bearing on anything. Nothing at all which is where it should be. Erased and gone. Worthless analogy.

You also erased a part of my post you were quoting which is the essence of how a ball can be missed with your system or even Joe's WITH A 100% STRAIGHT STROKE.

I said: "Your system is greatly limited compared to his with fewer aim points on the OB and CB.

The problem with both that could happen isn't the stroke at all. It could be you misaligned to the aim or strike point itself or offset the aim or strike point a little more or a little less than it should actually be.

It might be from the eyes, the feet, or the body that give an incorrect perception. "

In other words, lets say it's a 1/4 ball hit required. You see or imagine a 1/4 ball line of contact. Straight stroke included, if you are MISALIGNED on the 1/4 ball contact point as a parallax view from where you're now seeing it, it's an incorrect 1/4 ball on the OB which will cause a miss.

This is exactly what LF (the "L" word) was stating in one of his posts to Dan White. Here is his post: " In my experience this centering issue can vary from shot to shot. IOW, sometimes you might be lined up correctly but other times you might not. It's a problem that can haunt some players for years."





[/COLOR]COLOR]

 

[bbb]

Then maybe you should buy it, study it, like you want others to do with your system before commenting on it.

Do you want to know how long it takes to find the aim point? The same length of time it takes to find any contact point. Get directly behind the OB in line with the pocket and put your tip up to the ball or just stare at it. The aim point and contact point are one and the same. color changed to black for emphasis

When comparing systems that use math to accomplish aiming, the primary objective is to provide a means of pocketing the OB. So, if two or more systems meet that objective, there is no point in drawing comparisons, other than to compare the simplicity or user-friendly differences between the systems.

There is NO MATH in Joe Tucker's system. It's contact point to contact point or equal and opposite. Yours is a FRACTIONAL aiming system which is different. His grid has nothing to do with the system other than being an adjunct to it for better understanding.

Your grid means a good bit to your system as well as the numbers on the rails with the diamonds to determine which fractional line to aim at and hit.

Last paragraph of yours has no bearing on anything. Nothing at all which is where it should be. Erased and gone. Worthless analogy.

You also erased a part of my post you were quoting which is the essence of how a ball can be missed with your system or even Joe's WITH A 100% STRAIGHT STROKE.

I said: "Your system is greatly limited compared to his with fewer aim points on the OB and CB.

The problem with both that could happen isn't the stroke at all. It could be you misaligned to the aim or strike point itself or offset the aim or strike point a little more or a little less than it should actually be.

It might be from the eyes, the feet, or the body that give an incorrect perception. "

In other words, lets say it's a 1/4 ball hit required. You see or imagine a 1/4 ball line of contact. Straight stroke included, if you are MISALIGNED on the 1/4 ball contact point as a parallax view from where you're now seeing it, it's an incorrect 1/4 ball on the OB which will cause a miss.

This is exactly what LF (the "L" word) was stating in one of his posts to Dan White. Here is his post: " In my experience this centering issue can vary from shot to shot. IOW, sometimes you might be lined up correctly but other times you might not. It's a problem that can haunt some players for years."





[/COLOR]COLOR]

do you really beleive that?? (bolded above)
due to the curvature of the cue ball the aim point and contact point
ARE NOT THE SAME..........(except fot straight in)
jmho
icbw ( i dont think so ...)

 

[BC21]

SpiderWebbComm: You specifically stated that Joe's system is the "most geometrical and mathematically correct" aiming system out there. I then readily admit that I know nothing about Joe Tucker's system or how long it takes to determine the aim points. Then you tell me there is no math, and that I shouldn't comment on something I know nothing about. This is funny because my comment was exactly that -- that I know nothing of Joe's system. You are the one that said it's the most mathematically correct one out there, then you said it doesn't involve math. Well if that's not clear as mud I don't know what is.

And my door analogy is a solid logical approach that applies to every goal-oriented task in the world. There are always several methods available to perform the task, and if each method achieves the goal, the only significant comparison to judge which might be better or worse would have to involve the concept of user-friendliness, or simplicity.

Out of curiosity, have you purchased my book? If you have, and you find it worthless, please provide me with proof of purchase and I'll gladly refund your money. Because based on feedback I'm getting from all over
the world, players find it very useful and fresh. You are the exception. If you haven't purchased it, then your comments concerning the book are baseless.

Brian Crist

 

[sixpack]

I purchased poolology last week and finally got to a table to try it last night and tonight.

I love be it.

It's an objective way to get the aim point based on the geometry of the table. It helps me lock in my vision and is great for warming up. I found that using it warming up got me in alignment and then in competition I didn't really use it unless I needed the reassurance I was aiming correctly - but my to see the shot accurately and quickly seemed enhanced. I played very well and beat the guy I was playing handily. And he's a decent player. (Apa 7)

i bought the kindle book and screen capped the diagrams on my phone for reference.

I still have a little trouble with the side pockets and zone C but I'm sure they'll become second nature with practice.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

do you really beleive that?? (bolded above)
due to the curvature of the cue ball the aim point and contact point
ARE NOT THE SAME..........(except fot straight in)
jmho
icbw ( i dont think so ...)

I guess you aren't familiar with Joe Tucker's aiming system either. Do you know what is being aimed and what is being contacted?

https://www.pooldawg.com/aramith-ai...aining-balls?gclid=CJXmpcbGztMCFR62wAodDq8O-g

Here's Joe on youtube explaining the entire system FOR FREE! LMAO!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4qlPkkIQV8

 

[SpiderWebComm]

SpiderWebbComm: You specifically stated that Joe's system is the "most geometrical and mathematically correct" aiming system out there. I then readily admit that I know nothing about Joe Tucker's system or how long it takes to determine the aim points.

If you possessed even the slightest bit of professionalism and curiosity, you would have Googled his name and found out what I'm talking about. Joe is probably one of the best professional instructors and creative individuals to develop systems and training aids in the country and here we have YOU who lives in a vacuum who has never heard of him nor the tiniest bit of initiative to find out on your own. AMAZING!

Then you tell me there is no math, and that I shouldn't comment on something I know nothing about. This is funny because my comment was exactly that -- that I know nothing of Joe's system. You are the one that said it's the most mathematically correct one out there, then you said it doesn't involve math. Well if that's not clear as mud I don't know what is.

I had a strong suspicion after I posted it that you or someone would trip over what I said and not understand it.

What I meant by being geometrically and mathematically correct was that the scientists who make all of the 2D drawings and come up with their explanations for any and all aiming systems would be able to do it very easily and claim it to be geometrically and mathematically correct. It can't be done with pivot systems or fractions to cover all angles. Maybe someone will do yours. Where is Lamas when we need him?

There is NO MATH when shooting with it. NONE. There are "numbers" but no math. If you don't understand again, buy the system but don't bother me.

And my door analogy is a solid logical approach that applies to every goal-oriented task in the world. There are always several methods available to perform the task, and if each method achieves the goal, the only significant comparison to judge which might be better or worse would have to involve the concept of user-friendliness, or simplicity.

Worthless analogy for this discussion.

Out of curiosity, have you purchased my book? If you have, and you find it worthless, please provide me with proof of purchase and I'll gladly refund your money. Because based on feedback I'm getting from all over
the world, players find it very useful and fresh. You are the exception. If you haven't purchased it, then your comments concerning the book are baseless.

Brian Crist

I don't have your book nor do I have any intention of getting it. I, like Cookie, am already using what I consider to be the best aiming system available and I'm very experienced with it. Additionally, I'm very experienced and skilled with Shiskebob, 90/90, Joe Tucker's System, and a number of others.

I'm not knocking your system. If you take it that way, I can't help you. But I would like you to consider something and think about it. If you really think your system is getting knocked as well as you personally after a few weeks of making it available,
picture yourself going through living hell 10 times what has happened here based on what Hal Houle and Stan have gone through with CTE.

It's been 20 FRIGGIN' YEARS combined for both of them!! 20 FRIGGIN' YEARS of
FECES slung at them. Nobody is blasting you including me. And for the most part it's been the SAME individual or individuals who have been behind it for that length of time going after Hal, Stan, and users or they've picked up some new recruits here and there.

How would you like to go through THAT?!

Keep working on toughening up your skin with brine baths. Otherwise, focus harder on your day job.

 

[bbb]

I guess you aren't familiar with Joe Tucker's aiming system either. Do you know what is being aimed and what is being contacted?

https://www.pooldawg.com/aramith-ai...aining-balls?gclid=CJXmpcbGztMCFR62wAodDq8O-g

Here's Joe on youtube explaining the entire system FOR FREE! LMAO!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4qlPkkIQV8

joe tucker has you try to hit one contact point number to another contact point number
YOU ARE NOT AIMING YOUR STICK AT THAT NUMBER
this thread is about poololgy
l beleive (icbw) you say to the people who never tried cte or bought stans book if you havent tried it or understand it dont interfere
well if you beleive that for a cte thread
WHY DONT YOU FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE HERE
just sayin....
edit i dont want to derail the thread spiderwebcom
so if you would like you can pm me or start a new thread to discuss it