Exact point on the OB vs. exact overlap of CB/OB

[Oikawa]

When you have done your aiming, no matter the method, you'd either end up staring at a certain point on the OB or not.

If you stare at a point on the OB, depending on the method, this point could be the final target, or a baseline before adjusting for BHE, or the contact point, or many other things too.

However, another method is to not pick a point at all, and instead focus on the CB/OB relationship. This can be with or without being aware of the amount of exact overlap, depending on the method.

Now for the point of this topic:

What benefits or weaknesses do you find in looking at a precise point vs. just looking at the OB as a whole?

I personally don't focus on a point. I pick the correct overlap when standing (based on feel), then step into the shot with intense focus on keeping the shot image the same and not moving my head sideways (both accomplish the same thing, but only focusing on one of the two might allow tiny mistakes a bit more). Once down, I should see the same overlap. If it feels wrong (very rare, usually due to lack of focus or rushing the transition), I step up, but if not, I know the line is right and I just have to stay still, align my cue to be precisely on the right line, and shoot it straight.

My reasons for not focusing on a point are:
1. My method of feeling the correct overlap doesn't require a point to work
2. It strains my eyes and focus a lot to focus on a single point, and even if I try, I find it almost impossible to keep that point during the transition down. So just overall 100x more effort for a less reliable style. I recognize this is a personal preference, some can do it just fine and prefer it.
3. I find that my method of overlap focus gives room for the subconscious to very easily do tiny adjustments without me even realizing. On a long shot the shot image of barely missing vs. going in can be almost unnoticable in difference, but the subconscious might know better and do that 0.1mm movement without me being aware of any movement. However, if I pick a spot on the OB and stare at it, I find that the subconscious has more friction between doing that sort of fixes, since your focus isn't on all of the components of the shot (OB, CB, cue), but mainly on a point in the OB. But perhaps this is also just my lack of experience doing it this way, and with practice it doesn't matter.

 

[garczar]

When you have done your aiming, no matter the method, you'd either end up staring at a certain point on the OB or not.

If you stare at a point on the OB, depending on the method, this point could be the final target, or a baseline before adjusting for BHE, or the contact point, or many other things too.

However, another method is to not pick a point at all, and instead focus on the CB/OB relationship. This can be with or without being aware of the amount of exact overlap, depending on the method.

Now for the point of this topic:

What benefits or weaknesses do you find in looking at a precise point vs. just looking at the OB as a whole?

I personally don't focus on a point. I pick the correct overlap when standing (based on feel), then step into the shot with intense focus on keeping the shot image the same and not moving my head sideways (both accomplish the same thing, but only focusing on one of the two might allow tiny mistakes a bit more). Once down, I should see the same overlap. If it feels wrong (very rare, usually due to lack of focus or rushing the transition), I step up, but if not, I know the line is right and I just have to stay still, align my cue to be precisely on the right line, and shoot it straight.

My reasons for not focusing on a point are:
1. My method of feeling the correct overlap doesn't require a point to work
2. It strains my eyes and focus a lot to focus on a single point, and even if I try, I find it almost impossible to keep that point during the transition down. So just overall 100x more effort for a less reliable style. I recognize this is a personal preference, some can do it just fine and prefer it.
3. I find that my method of overlap focus gives room for the subconscious to very easily do tiny adjustments without me even realizing. On a long shot the shot image of barely missing vs. going in can be almost unnoticable in difference, but the subconscious might know better and do that 0.1mm movement without me being aware of any movement. However, if I pick a spot on the OB and stare at it, I find that the subconscious has more friction between doing that sort of fixes, since your focus isn't on all of the components of the shot (OB, CB, cue), but mainly on a point in the OB. But perhaps this is also just my lack of experience doing it this way, and with practice it doesn't matter.

A lot of words to basically say nothing. You think this is some discovery? You see overlaps and shoot. Wow.

 

[Oikawa]

A lot of words to basically say nothing. You think this is some discovery? You see overlaps and shoot. Wow.

Where did I claim to discover anything new? The point of the thread is to have people say their opinions and insights about this topic. There's a lot of variance in how people perceive and think about these. It's a conversation starter, not a discovery. I explained my own method, hoping others would explain theirs.

If you find that I said basically nothing, perhaps you just aren't interested in this topic, and don't see the value in discussing it.

 

[BC21]

I look at the cb-ob overlap needed, then focus on an ob target (a point on the ob or outside the ob) that will produce the desired overlap.

 

[Paul_#_]

I can't find the post now but a fellow recently wrote that for small-angled cut shots he aimed at the edge of the bottom of the object ball where there was a gap between it and the felt. I instead was aiming for a little off the top center of the object ball. His suggestion improved my shot making on those cut shots. Aiming off the top of the ball has no identifiable spot to aim versus aiming at the daylight where ball meets the felt.

I had been aiming at some point at the top-half edge of the object ball for cut shots and wonder whether other shots could be helped by looking at the bottom of the ball instead.

Aiming at overlap? Its foreign to me.

 

[dquarasr]

I try to aim at the center of the ghost ball, no matter if it is within or outside the OB’s boundaries.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

When you have done your aiming, no matter the method, you'd either end up staring at a certain point on the OB or not.

If you stare at a point on the OB, depending on the method, this point could be the final target, or a baseline before adjusting for BHE, or the contact point, or many other things too.

However, another method is to not pick a point at all, and instead focus on the CB/OB relationship. This can be with or without being aware of the amount of exact overlap, depending on the method.

Now for the point of this topic:

What benefits or weaknesses do you find in looking at a precise point vs. just looking at the OB as a whole?

I personally don't focus on a point. I pick the correct overlap when standing (based on feel), then step into the shot with intense focus on keeping the shot image the same and not moving my head sideways (both accomplish the same thing, but only focusing on one of the two might allow tiny mistakes a bit more). Once down, I should see the same overlap. If it feels wrong (very rare, usually due to lack of focus or rushing the transition), I step up, but if not, I know the line is right and I just have to stay still, align my cue to be precisely on the right line, and shoot it straight.

My reasons for not focusing on a point are:
1. My method of feeling the correct overlap doesn't require a point to work
2. It strains my eyes and focus a lot to focus on a single point, and even if I try, I find it almost impossible to keep that point during the transition down. So just overall 100x more effort for a less reliable style. I recognize this is a personal preference, some can do it just fine and prefer it.
3. I find that my method of overlap focus gives room for the subconscious to very easily do tiny adjustments without me even realizing. On a long shot the shot image of barely missing vs. going in can be almost unnoticable in difference, but the subconscious might know better and do that 0.1mm movement without me being aware of any movement. However, if I pick a spot on the OB and stare at it, I find that the subconscious has more friction between doing that sort of fixes, since your focus isn't on all of the components of the shot (OB, CB, cue), but mainly on a point in the OB. But perhaps this is also just my lack of experience doing it this way, and with practice it doesn't matter.

How about neither overlap nor one point on the CB only? Rather, stand so that the OB's pocket path is clear, and take that in or some of that path in peripherally while hitting the shot with your choice of OB target or overlap.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Aiming at overlap? Its foreign to me.

For Joe Davis, it was the only way one should aim. He played snooker. Better than anyone for 20 years.

 

[BC21]

I can't find the post now but a fellow recently wrote that for small-angled cut shots he aimed at the edge of the bottom of the object ball where there was a gap between it and the felt. I instead was aiming for a little off the top center of the object ball. His suggestion improved my shot making on those cut shots. Aiming off the top of the ball has no identifiable spot to aim versus aiming at the daylight where ball meets the felt.

I had been aiming at some point at the top-half edge of the object ball for cut shots and wonder whether other shots could be helped by looking at the bottom of the ball instead.

Aiming at overlap? Its foreign to me.

The bottom "V" formed between the ob and cloth is a good reference point for aiming small cut shots, much more concrete than estimating a specific point somewhere along the top edge/surface of the ball.

Producing specific cb-ob overlaps simply involves aiming center cb at a specific point along the ob's horizontal diameter. For example, aiming halfway between center ob and ob left edge would produce a 3/4 overlap, cutting the ball to the right, about a 14° cut shot.

The more this is practiced and used, the better one gets at visualizing the cb-ob relationship/overlap needed for a particular shot.

It's easier to think of the balls as circles, not spheres. This means you don't aim for a point along the fat equator of the ball, rather you aim for a point along its diameter/width. Visually splitting that distance into equal portions provides consistent references used for aiming, like the basic quarters (fourths), or eighths once you've gotten good at it.

Aiming 1/4 ob width from center ob produces a 3/4 overlap, aiming 1/8 ob width from center produces a 7/8 overlap. A full ball overlap is 8/8, zero cut angle, while a 1/8 overlap produces a 60° cut angle (which is aiming 7/8 of a ball away from center ob).

Of course, once the aim point passes the edge of the ball, we're aiming outside the edge of the ball. Many think this is aiming into "no man's land" or "into space", but the same reference distances still apply based on the width of the ob, which is always visible. In other words, 1/8 of a ball thicker than a halfball shot has your tip/shaft aimed 1/8 of a ball inside the edge (going toward center ob), while aiming 1/8 thinner than a halfball shot is aiming 1/8 of ball outside the edge (moving farther away from center ball). That 1/8 of a ball distance is always the same, regardless of where we apply it.

And if you start incorporating your tip/ferrule width into the references, it becomes so much easier. You'll start recognizing when to aim a half tip thinner or a quarter tip thicker or whatever. All of this is done while standing, while determing the line of aim, not after you're down on shot.

Sorry to ramble on... didn't realize I had written so much.

 

[bbb]

The bottom "V" formed between the ob and cloth is a good reference point for aiming small cut shots, much more concrete than estimating a specific point somewhere along the top edge/surface of the ball.

Producing specific cb-ob overlaps simply involves aiming center cb at a specific point along the ob's horizontal diameter. For example, aiming halfway between center ob and ob left edge would produce a 3/4 overlap, cutting the ball to the right, about a 14° cut shot.

The more this is practiced and used, the better one gets at visualizing the cb-ob relationship/overlap needed for a particular shot.

It's easier to think of the balls as circles, not spheres. This means you don't aim for a point along the fat equator of the ball, rather you aim for a point along its diameter/width. Visually splitting that distance into equal portions provides consistent references used for aiming, like the basic quarters (fourths), or eighths once you've gotten good at it.

Aiming 1/4 ob width from center ob produces a 3/4 overlap, aiming 1/8 ob width from center produces a 7/8 overlap. A full ball overlap is 8/8, zero cut angle, while a 1/8 overlap produces a 60° cut angle (which is aiming 7/8 of a ball away from center ob).

Of course, once the aim point passes the edge of the ball, we're aiming outside the edge of the ball. Many think this is aiming into "no man's land" or "into space", but the same reference distances still apply based on the width of the ob, which is always visible. In other words, 1/8 of a ball thicker than a halfball shot has your tip/shaft aimed 1/8 of a ball inside the edge (going toward center ob), while aiming 1/8 thinner than a halfball shot is aiming 1/8 of ball outside the edge (moving farther away from center ball). That 1/8 of a ball distance is always the same, regardless of where we apply it.

And if you start incorporating your tip/ferrule width into the references, it becomes so much easier. You'll start recognizing when to aim a half tip thinner or a quarter tip thicker or whatever. All of this is done while standing, while determing the line of aim, not after you're down on shot.

Sorry to ramble on... didn't realize I had written so much.

for me the spots on the bottom of the ball are clearer to aim at (see arrows)
ie where along the lower curve to the edge
the tips/edge of shaft worth past the edge

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You can visualize more than one simultaneously - some combination of the OB contact point, the overlap that hits it, and/or the ghost ball center. I visualize the OB contact point and the ghost ball center (which I see as a measured distance from the contact point - more distance = more cut).

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

You can visualize more than one simultaneously - some combination of the OB contact point, the overlap that hits it, and/or the ghost ball center. I visualize the OB contact point and the ghost ball center (which I see as a measured distance from the contact point - more distance = more cut).

pj
chgo

The more visual data provided to the mind, the more efficient and accurate we become at determining where/how to aim. Eventually, with experience, we know how to play most shots as soon as we look at them... no ghostballs or contact points or fractional lines needed, just our eyes looking at the cb-ob relationship to the pocket.

 

[Poolmanis]

The more visual data provided to the mind, the more efficient and accurate we become at determining where/how to aim. Eventually, with experience, we know how to play most shots as soon as we look at them... no ghostballs or contact points or fractional lines needed, just our eyes looking at the cb-ob relationship to the pocket.

I was gonna say same

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The more visual data provided to the mind, the more efficient and accurate we become at determining where/how to aim. Eventually, with experience, we know how to play most shots as soon as we look at them... no ghostballs or contact points or fractional lines needed, just our eyes looking at the cb-ob relationship to the pocket.

I try to maintain awareness of my references (contact point / ghost ball center) to “anchor” my perceptions of shots.

pj <- wut?
chgo

 

[BRKNRUN]

I could never get comfortable with overlap....It may be due to my eyes....I have different astigmatisms in both lenses....edges are a tough one......A part of my game that is a major struggle is if a ball clears another ball on its way to my OB ball....I have had guys ask me after I hit a shot and foul...."you did not know that ball did not clear?".....but we do the best we can with what God gave us...and I am blessed with eye sight that others don't have....so I am not complaining.

My aim points are "bottom of ball" as pictured above (post #10).....I actually use what has not been mentioned.....I look at track lines from the CB to pocket, CB to OB and OB to pocket....The track line from center CB through center OB....to the extension point on the bottom of the ball is my alignment.

I made a 3LC conversion tool that helps for demonstration purposes

The picture above calls it a 3/4 alignment point....I assume for reference to overlap.......I actually call that a 1/4 alignment point (referencing the CB)

That 1/4 CB alignment point is right at about where the CB and the cloth start to meet.....A little triangle is formed or as some refer a sideways V......

I posted a video where I don't even look at the pocket for alignment....I was just rapid fire looking at the triangle or V (or however you reference it) at the bottom of the OB and shooting and the ball was going in.

I have had opponents sit up and take notice when I make a long down the rail shots on a 9' table and it looks like a routine hanger.....It also makes playing shape easier when you have no fear of being on the long shot side past a side pocket.

So for me.....my alignment is a track line to a contact point on the bottom of the ball.......square my cue on the track line....shoot the ball down the track line (to make the OB go down the track line to the pocket)

I should mention....The CB to pocket track line is my starting point.....I am not sure anyone else in the world does this....but...For whatever reason...when I start with that track line...I then see the other two track lines and a "triangle" that is formed.....the triangle helps me then determine how much cut is needed, the tangent path of the CB....and the track lines for CB to OB and OB to pocket become more noticeable.....

Even on what seems like a straight in shot....When I start by looking CB to Pocket.....the slight offset becomes easily noticeable.

 

[Paul_#_]

I have a queston about bbb's figure. I eyeball the circumference distance from ball-bottom edge to ball edge at the equator. The distance along the edge between the point at the ball bottom to the aiming point for a 1/4-ball hit seems shorter than the distance from the 1/4-ball-hit point to the equator edge. Correct? As far as BC21's mention of sphere versus circle, I guess it doesn't matter here----whether you think of it as a sphere or circle, this effect occurs. What is half the distance of radius along vertical line for the 1/4-ball hit is not half the circumference distance for that same hit.

I suppose the halfway-point on the vertical line on the bottom of the ball at the table felt must be identical to the halfway-point on the vertical line at the equator. In the figure, however, even that seems a little off but must be from human error in drawing the lines.

 

[BC21]

I try to maintain awareness of my references (contact point / ghost ball center) to “anchor” my perceptions of shots.

pj <- wut?
chgo

Those anchors become triggers for the subconscious, and you find yourself automatically lining up for most shots with little conscious effort involved.

 

[BC21]

I have a queston about bbb's figure. I eyeball the circumference distance from ball-bottom edge to ball edge at the equator. The distance along the edge between the point at the ball bottom to the aiming point for a 1/4-ball hit seems shorter than the distance from the 1/4-ball-hit point to the equator edge. Correct? As far as BC21's mention of sphere versus circle, I guess it doesn't matter here----whether you think of it as a sphere or circle, this effect occurs. What is half the distance of radius along vertical line for the 1/4-ball hit is not half the circumference distance for that same hit.

I suppose the halfway-point on the vertical line on the bottom of the ball at the table felt must be identical to the halfway-point on the vertical line at the equator. In the figure, however, even that seems a little off but must be from human error in drawing the lines.

Correct... If we measured the halfway distance from center to edge on the actual surface of the ball (the circumference), it will not be the same as the halfway point along the diameter from center to edge (the radius), not from our visual perspective.

For fractional aiming, what we actually see is a circle, a simple 2D circle, and we can easily slice it into vertical sections based on its width. This can't be done using the fat circumference of a sphere.