Developing Expertise In Pool

[Razor]

An area of expertise often missed when we ask questions about which ball, pauses at the back or front of the stroke, etc., is the bigger topic of timing, tempo and rhythm. Snapshots miss the ongoing time dynamic. I’ve started to research several areas of expertise and recently found this abstract on tempo.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4274878/

For players who want to work on this aspect I recommend YouTube videos. Emulate the timing elements of several players. Find out which snooker, pool or billiard player has an overall stroke you would like to have, and that feels comfortable and gives results. I’ve had good success using music as a timing and tempo aid. <snipped for brevity>

Relative to this post, I pulled up that article from the NIH and respectfully I don't think you are gonna find what you are looking for in a technical article like that...with coefficients of variation between musicians, athletes and controls when circle drawing and finger tapping but ICBW.

Now, I don't have any magic bullet answers, nor does that paper from the NIH, but I can admire your technical analysis and brain from here. I started at the beginning, but have not read the entire thread yet. Some of the best advice I have seen so far was in post 13 IMHO. But that is advice that I find valuable - and you may not. If it were me, I would take the spirit of that post, and head to the table to work on tempo and rhythm if you feel that is the area where you can make the most gains in performance currently.

Personally and at the moment, on top of my list, I need table time working on consistently potting long shots with power. Cue action = no bueno when adding power.

Perhaps we can connect with some better mutually beneficial ideas later in the thread. Best wishes on your journey.

~Razor

 

[Imac007]

Relative to this post, I pulled up that article from the NIH and respectfully I don't think you are gonna find what you are looking for in a technical article like that...with coefficients of variation between musicians, athletes and controls when circle drawing and finger tapping but ICBW.

Now, I don't have any magic bullet answers, nor does that paper from the NIH, but I can admire your technical analysis and brain from here. I started at the beginning, but have not read the entire thread yet. Some of the best advice I have seen so far was in post 13 IMHO. But that is advice that I find valuable - and you may not. If it were me, I would take the spirit of that post, and head to the table to work on tempo and rhythm if you feel that is the area where you can make the most gains in performance currently.

Personally and at the moment, on top of my list, I need table time working on consistently potting long shots with power. Cue action = no bueno when adding power.

Perhaps we can connect with some better mutually beneficial ideas later in the thread. Best wishes on your journey.

~Razor

After reading and researching tens of thousands of short tomes, such as these, I’ve learned to skim some and look for the relevant sections in others. The table of contents or basic paper outline usually have a results section, or conclusions, or implications. This paper had a general discussion at the paper end and careful reading there gets us to the conclusion that expertise involves precise timing without losing the rhythm of the action. Athletics needs less robotics and more fluidity. That doesn’t mean that a musician can’t have both. The critical stage involving transitions is part of that. The pendulum action of the stroke needs to transition between the necessary stops, bi-directional swing dynamics and a finishing movement through the impact area, all without the mechanically precise actions of a robot. Experts marry the two timing disciplines. Which dominates depends on the situation.

 

[straightline]

I think music provides the timing for musicians. Things happen in regular increments with allowances for feel, style, and genre, sub genre, and categorized, sub sub genre. Just kidding. There is no such latticework for jocks. I suspect they have an abstract hologram of the intended behavior and merely act it out. The required "timing" is probably way too anal (?) for musicians.

 

[Imac007]

I think music provides the timing for musicians. Things happen in regular increments with allowances for feel, style, and genre, sub genre, and categorized, sub sub genre. Just kidding. There is no such latticework for jocks. I suspect they have an abstract hologram of the intended behavior and merely act it out. The required "timing" is probably way too anal (?) for musicians.

You’re right, except in the case of jam sessions, a score constrains the play. A hole reinforcement session is the closest approximation on a pool table. The huge difference is the variation of transitions between the shots and in the case of non-rotation games, even the choice of shots to transition between. The seguay between notes is consistent relative to the score and once learned lacks creativity. The transitions in pool are where most of the creativity happens.

 

[Imac007]

Yes, everything we use in our behavior narrative can be used to positive achievements however, the deck is stacked against us!

For example, I used to try to hold the cue like other champions because I had trouble with long, draw shots. What I didn't take into account was my ability to "kill," of "stun" the cueball was a huge advantage as a result of how I held the cue.

We all need to write down our strengths and weaknesses as they are naturally and perhaps figure out a way to get the weaknesses to the strength side of the equation. Now I have figured out a way to capitalize on my natural grip and change it slightly to accommodate the shots that used to give me trouble.

"Strengthen your weaknesses, your strengths will take care of themselves!"

The Game is the Teacher

There is a saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. That said, I learned long ago that in the time leading up to a competition the key was to focus on your strengths. Thinking about how best to create situations that showcase those attributes, polishing the skills, builds confidence into the pre-performance routine, PPR.

There is a truth that says there is no meaning without context. Another truth is that principles transcend and are valid across contexts. Playing to your strengths is one of those principles. An early concept I learned was learning how to learn allows us to turn our weaknesses into strength. Working to reverse a weaknesses impact on your game will have greater return in terms of time spent than working on a strength and only gaining minuscule incremental improvement. However, you need to polish those skills prior to big matches and trust that the work you have put in on other skill development will emerge subconsciously to help you be your best player.

 

[straightline]

You’re right, except in the case of jam sessions, a score constrains the play. A hole reinforcement session is the closest approximation on a pool table. The huge difference is the variation of transitions between the shots and in the case of non-rotation games, even the choice of shots to transition between. The seguay between notes is consistent relative to the score and once learned lacks creativity. The transitions in pool are where most of the creativity happens.

I suppose "avant garde" stuff would have completely organic undefined timing but most jams involve rhythm that all concerned lock into. Jimi Hendrix had lots of both. CJW shows how one can correlate a specific tempo to basic shot performance defacto configuring shot actions to a regular pulse. I'm currently buried in shot alignment cues and clues to take that step. Good idea regardless.
One more thing, I used to read the word segue as seeg until it dawned on me it's pronounced like you spelled it lol. Otherwise, I defer to your detailed thinking.

 

[Imac007]

I suppose "avant garde" stuff would have completely organic undefined timing but most jams involve rhythm that all concerned lock into. Jimi Hendrix had lots of both. CJW shows how one can correlate a specific tempo to basic shot performance defacto configuring shot actions to a regular pulse. I'm currently buried in shot alignment cues and clues to take that step. Good idea regardless.
One more thing, I used to read the word segue as seeg until it dawned on me it's pronounced like you spelled it lol. Otherwise, I defer to your detailed thinking.

I wasn’t meaning to presume anything. Ad lib can have structure. My point was the looser structure of a jam allows deviation, and creativity to happen. CJ, ROS, and Stephen Lee each talked about using the same tempo from shot to shot. CJ spoke about choosing position that let him do that. The snooker pair talked about the height of contact and the timed squeeze of their grip allowing them to basically shoot each shot with the same tempo. One thing I find about using convergent inside english is that the cue ball glides rather than spins into position. The ball speed is consistent off first rail contact. And, the cue ball reacts like it is heavier. My tempo varies less because it has forced me to alter angles off contact more by height of contact. A ball with spin off contact travels farther on an open table. If it instead contacts a cushion it will either speed up, run, or slow down, check. Creating a neutral natural rolling cue ball decreases the need to vary tempo to adjust for spin. Height of tip contact controls the type of natural roll off impact with subsequent surfaces.

Cue alignment goes beyond making sure there is no parallax view. It’s how the player connects to the aim line. The player needs to feel the cue, cue ball and cueing arm connect to the target. Straight in shots give you post shot feedback. My experience tells me that when you position the cue so that you feel you are looking directly down the cue and can see equal amounts of the rounded sides of the shaft, the cue will self align. On a straight in find the line between the contact points on both balls and align it with the cue. A cue delivered down that line works if aligned.

 

[HawaiianEye]

One thing I find about using convergent inside english is that the cue ball glides rather than spins into position. The ball speed is consistent off first rail contact. And, the cue ball reacts like it is heavier. My tempo varies less because it has forced me to alter angles off contact more by height of contact. A ball with spin off contact travels farther on an open table. If it instead contacts a cushion it will either speed up, run, or slow dow, check. Creating a neutral natural rolling cue ball decreases the need to vary tempo to adjust for spin. Height of tip contact controls the type of natural roll off impact with subsequent surfaces.

That is why I always play with a TOI.

It kills the natural spin that will be put on the cue ball by it coming off the object ball at an angle.

When the cue ball then hits a rail, it is coming off the rail with less, or no, spin.

That makes the cue ball look like it is “floating” instead of rolling. I sometimes refer to it as “dead ball”.

It makes it much easier, for me, to navigate the cue ball around the table with angle control and stroke speed. I do not have to worry about how much spin to put on the cue ball. However, I do use spin when I need to change the angle of the cue ball coming off the rail in situations where a TOI dead ball will not let me get into the position I need for the next shot.

 

[CJ Wiley]

There is a saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. That said, I learned long ago that in the time leading up to a competition the key was to focus on your strengths. Thinking about how best to create situations that showcase those attributes, polishing the skills, builds confidence into the pre-performance routine, PPR.

There is a truth that says there is no meaning without context. Another truth is that principles transcend and are valid across contexts. Playing to your strengths is one of those principles. An early concept I learned was learning how to learn allows us to turn our weaknesses into strength. Working to reverse a weaknesses impact on your game will have greater return in terms of time spent than working on a strength and only gaining minuscule incremental improvement. However, you need to polish those skills prior to big matches and trust that the work you have put in on other skill development will emerge subconsciously to help you be your best player.

I agree, and have a strategy to find a way to make my chain using my strongest links every time possible!

The main difference from how I play a shot and position the cueball compared to the "conventional way," is very different - players usually look for the table to tell them what to do.....the speed, cue ball target, aiming (may change with spin/deflection/speed) - I also look for the table to tell me what to do BUT UNDER MY CONDITIONS! I look to hit the same side of the cue ball, same speed, same tempo, same alignment, and same aiming, THEN I look at what shot option allows me to do this as consistently as possible. If, I need to spin the cueball because the angle needs to change of the cushion or I need to intentionally swerve the cue ball then I do what's necessary.

What a player finds out is there is almost always a way to shoot your Master Shot (same tempo, alignment, aiming, etc) when you know what to look for. It's said "we can only recognize what we are familiar with," which is why most players that don't want to try something new can't see it anyway. The key to change is Willingness, without this acceptance the human mind will remain stuck, confused or missing something important.

In NLP this is referred to as a Re Frame, which is the catalyst of a paradigm shift from one reality to a new, more effective one!

The Game is the Teacher

 

[Imac007]

I was looking at this post in thread 'Developing Expertise In Pool'
https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/developing-expertise-in-pool.496802/post-6453408
I understand the HAMB mindset. We recognize that ability and talent must be earned, through effort. Talent is also not solely determined by genetic endowment.

There is a saying that practice makes perfect, that has since been modified to, perfect practice makes perfect. The idea of deliberate practice that lies at the heart of that idea, has now been challenged. Errorless learning is a myth. In fact, it’s our ability to harness the learning opportunity, in error, that can set us apart. Learning how to learn includes learning where things can go wrong and ways to adjust and correct. A mindset of continuous improvement goes beyond perfection. The perfection mindset constrains the learner. Motor skill learning has elements of trial and error. Without error the learning can’t take place. It promotes fear of making a mistake instead of embracing errors, the destructive, fear of failure.

Ask the Cognitive Scientist: Practice Makes Perfect—But Only If You Practice beyond the Point of Perfection

Question: Just how much should students practice what they learn? On the one hand, it seems obvious that practice is important. After all, "practice makes perfect." On the other hand, it seems just as obvious that practicing the same material again and again would be boring for students. How...

www.aft.org

The article is from 2004. The ideas come from people like you and me and our experiences. In many cases the research is only done to provide proof of what we already have found out.

Reminds me of the cartoon of two scientists. One is saying to the other, “That Works Very Well in Practice, But How Does It Work In Theory?” And, so much is so hard to design tests for. The contents of consciousness that was mentioned earlier and are so individual. We need to find the process.

Like addition. The process is the same regardless of the numbers. The content of consciousness is really the numbers. I’ve been tracing the process by looking at what part of consciousness is being processed. Like math the flow of consciousness is linear with each operation changing what came before.

There are rules that tell us about operations. Waking awareness reduces experience into parts. The subconscious, which every source tells us is the seat of peak performance, puts it all together. The unconscious is a reservoir of already assembled wholes, the sum/result. This is about modeling.

“We can model any human behaviour by mastering the beliefs, the physiology and the specific thought processes (that is the strategies) that underlie the skill or behaviours.” That is the premise behind my digging and interest in process. It goes beyond the quoted strategies. It varies based on the individual’s makeup of consciousness. Each level of consciousness is dominant in a sense and no two levels are dominant in the same sense.

 

[Imac007]

Willingness to change. When players discover that they should likely make a modification to anything in their mechanical game they are at a crossroads. The familiar, the old way we did something, acts a a comfort zone. We retreat there when under stress. So when you roll out your change there needs to be awareness that it won’t always translate into instant success. We need to continue to employ the new way, the change, until it becomes a habit, the new familiar. I see players try a change we decided they need and the first couple of shots that don’t go in and they are suddenly doing the old way, the familiar. Often they say the change didn’t feel right. It will feel different, NOT wrong. If the old way was right and truly better, the change would not have been chosen. Honor the choice for change. Commit to it. Set a time frame for re-evaluation, like a month. It’s how you build an expert game, one change at a time. Be patient.

 

[Imac007]

Physics and Geometry

Learn the Physics and Geometry of Billiard Balls.

I’ve been re-reading this thread because of all the things it has to offer. Recently I‘ve been reading a book by Bret Icenogle on advanced kicking. Basic geometry of equal angles was generally thrown out of the game because physics and experience told us it didn’t work. Icenogle resurrected the geometry from the ignorance grave and breathed new life into how things can work. He found that a ball shot with stun created a reflective angle equal to the approach angle. He added a method of mathematically determine the precise contact location using equal angle calculations to hit a ball. The one rail kick calculations are bang on. It’s a great starting point, a reference.

The math can be difficult to take to the table. I figured out a simpler math method, but doing math at the table is a pain and time consuming.

I then discovered a way of using spot on the wall to find the stun rail contact points. It’s so easy at the table and offers alternatives to current through the diamonds single rail kicks.

Then I used a cueing method designed to eliminate outside english on rail contact combined with the stun effect to get a natural rolling ball going into the second rail.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Recently I‘ve been reading a book by Bret Icenogle on advanced kicking. Basic geometry of equal angles was generally thrown out of the game because physics and experience told us it didn’t work. Icenogle resurrected the geometry from the ignorance grave and breathed new life into how things can work. He found that a ball shot with stun created a reflective angle equal to the approach angle. He added a method of mathematically determine the precise contact location using equal angle calculations to hit a ball. The one rail kick calculations are bang on. It’s a great starting point, a reference.
...

I assume that is the same stun kicking method that Ron Shepard described about 20 years ago. The cue ball has to arrive at the cushion with no follow or draw (so it does not curve as it leaves the rail) and exactly the right amount of side spin to cancel the normal "shortening" or "stiffening" of the angle for a stun shot. Shepard also showed how far off center you need to hit according to the angle into the cushion -- straighter into the cushion needs less sidespin to correct the line to the true mirror reflection line.

A stun shot into a cushion without side spin will come straighter out of the cushion than simple geometry shows. The effect is usually the equivalent of moving the mirror target 25-30% closer to the table than a true mirror target.

 

[Imac007]

I assume that is the same stun kicking method that Ron Shepard described about 20 years ago. The cue ball has to arrive at the cushion with no follow or draw (so it does not curve as it leaves the rail) and exactly the right amount of side spin to cancel the normal "shortening" or "stiffening" of the angle for a stun shot. Shepard also showed how far off center you need to hit according to the angle into the cushion -- straighter into the cushion needs less sidespin to correct the line to the true mirror reflection line.

A stun shot into a cushion without side spin will come straighter out of the cushion than simple geometry shows. The effect is usually the equivalent of moving the mirror target 25-30% closer to the table than a true mirror target.

I only had a few minutes at a table to test and just limited myself to about lag speed. And I know how speed definitely narrows angles off one cushion. As with all kicking and banking systems a calibrated consistent stroke is the key. All of these ideas are just starting reference points that trigger exploration. It’s how the quarter diamond adjustments for firm banking based on angles come from. As you noted curved paths occur off cushions with vertical rotation and they differ with speed too. At the speed I tested the stun reflected. The cue ball acquired outside off the rail. Just enough rail side englishbto cancel the outside gave me a neutral roll to the second cushion and a natural angle. You are right, speed and how much English determine results, as they do on all shots. Thanks for the reference. I will revisit his paper looking for the section.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...speed definitely narrows angles off one cushion.

Not always. More speed can actually widen (lengthen) the rebound angle of a sliding CB - because the CB sinks farther into and rolls farther along the rail while rebounding. Bob and Dave made a video showing that once upon a time - I'll bet it's on Dave's website somewhere.

pj
chgo

 

[Imac007]

Not always. More speed can actually widen (lengthen) the rebound angle of a sliding CB - because the CB sinks farther into and rolls farther along the rail while rebounding. Bob and Dave made a video showing that once upon a time - I'll bet it's on Dave's website somewhere.

pj
chgo

Yes there are also variances like narrow angles and new cloth on cushions. This was just a general acknowledgement of Bob‘s point.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Yes there are variances like narrow angles and new cloth on cushions. This was just a general acknowledgement of Bob‘s point.

Yes, my response was a nitpick - I think the harder sliding kick demonstrated by Bob and Dave only went an inch or two longer to the opposite rail than a "geometric" angle would have gone.

pj
chgo

 

[Imac007]

I assume that is the same stun kicking method that Ron Shepard described about 20 years ago.

The only Shepard document I have is the amateur physics one. It mentions achieving a neutral cue ball carom off an object ball by using calibrated neutralizing side but I didn’t find a banking system. The intent there was to create a neutral stun shot travel without side spin. It does mention a subsequent reflective angle off rail contact.

 

[dr_dave]

Not always. More speed can actually widen (lengthen) the rebound angle of a sliding CB - because the CB sinks farther into and rolls farther along the rail while rebounding. Bob and Dave made a video showing that once upon a time - I'll bet it's on Dave's website somewhere.

pj
chgo

Per the "speed" section of the bank and kick effects resource page, see HSV B.41 and NV B.95.

Enjoy!

 

[Bob Jewett]

The only Shepard document I have is the amateur physics one. It mentions achieving a neutral cue ball carom off an object ball by using calibrated neutralizing side but I didn’t find a banking system. The intent there was to create a neutral stun shot travel without side spin. It does mention a subsequent reflective angle off rail contact.

I think the only mention may be in RSB. I searched in his Amateur Physics paper and it is not there. In any case, it is simply gearing stun at the cushion. Whether that results in a perfect mirror angle off all cushions has not been determined. Cushions are complicated.