Fairly equal angles from dividing the cueball

[Angle Detective]

I think so too. Here's an idea:

Toss the CB and one OB onto the table randomly and start shooting the OB, cycling through the three main "reference" angles (3/4 ball, 1/2 ball and 1/4 ball) one after the other. One possible pattern is left 3/4, right 3/4, left 1/2, right 1/2, left 1/4, right 1/4, repeat. [NOTE: To start you might want to stick with just one angle, say 3/4 ball, until you get familiar with it. Then practice 1/2 ball for awhile, then 1/4 ball. After that you can cycle through all three for awhile, then go to mixing them up randomly.]

You're not trying to pocket the OB; you're just shooting the reference angles one after the other and trying to predict exactly where the OB will hit the rail each time. To be strict with yourself, place a piece of chalk on the rail each time and see how close you come. You should get more and more accurate and consistent over time.

Remember, you have to be able to visualize these reference angles precisely in order for the system to have value.

pj
chgo

Excellent idea. There is something not obvious about doing it this way that I think makes it especially effective---you aren't aiming the object ball to a target. This allows you not only to be strict about the stroke you make and aim you take, but also gets you to be more cueball-oriented when seeing shots.

I've noticed that when I'm playing well, I sort of feel like I AM THE CUEBALL, and things happen on the table by getting in my way. This, as opposed to the disjointed way of seeing things when focussing too much on the object balls. I think the times when I've played my best, I only peripherally saw the object balls. I, the cueball, am simply making my way around the table while happening to bump balls into pockets.

Jeff

 

[av84fun]

************
LOL! And he was SERIOUSLY delusional to think that he actually could SEE such thinly sliced targets...let alone hit them.

Regards,
Jim
**************************

Why do you say that?

The radius of a pool ball is 28.6 mm. If you have reasonable vision, you can resolve 1mm distances from several feet away, giving 28 "on ball" aims, and probably another 15-20 that can be reasonably estimated "off-ball" aiming points.

With a little practice, and knowledge of proper technique, it is possible to estimate narrow angles to within a half a degree, large angles to within 2 degrees, and the in-betweens to within a degree.

I don't consider myself delusional, and I do sometimes succeed in hitting a target that I have selected.

Bob stated that the gentleman sliced the ball into 64ths so that's less than .45mm.

More importantly, unless the shooter is lucky enough that a spot, smudge or part of a number on the OB is exactly centered on the aim point the shooter must decide what the fictitious aim point is and somehow "freeze" that point in the minds eye...and then keep recalling that tiny spot as the eye focus necessarily leaves and returns to the OB.

Unless I saw scientific evidence to show it is possible to repeatedly return precision focus to a given spot within a .5mm tolerance, I will continue to conclude that it is not.

Finally, it cannot be argued that the "tolerance" of .5mm can be on either side of the exact point...thereby creating a 1mm range on either side of perfect because a .5mm variation will occupy the place of an entirely different aim point.

In other words, if the tolerance is one foot and you miss by one inch, you have not encroached on any other target point.

Regards,
Jim

PS: I don't dispute that the gentleman memorized the angles for each contact point and could quote them at will.

 

[Jal]

Jim, I'll try to figure it out on the table and mark something up like a string and post the measurements I come up with. No need to trouble yourself with writing a program. Cool that you have the ability to though. I'm envious. It will also allow me to adjust to throw and remark the string appropriately. I don't know if the drill is even useful.

I was thinking about how just playing normal shots and guessing which 8th ball shot should apply might be even better for ingraining them, being sure to reposition the shots when I missed to use another 8th division.

I think a drill to practice realignment of the cue after taking aim would be a good idea too.

But for the sake of completeness I'll give the drill a real try on the table when I get to one.
Thanks,
Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Well, I went and did it anyway. However, don't feel obligated to use any of it, even though I was up all night, suffered a pretty massive stroke, and my family left me. It's just not necessary...don't worry about it....not a second thought.

Forget anything ever happened. You can put it out of your mind completely.

Seriously, I didn't really expect that you would use it, but the numbers are there if you decide to go ahead. Using the wordwrap feature of your text editor will help. The first table is the one corresponding to your diagram, but I took the liberty of putting the end-points of the line at the nose of the cushion, instead of at the diamond markers themselves. The program is flexible, so if you know how far offset the markers are from the edge of the cushion for your particular table, the numbers can be regenerated with the new coordinates very easily. If you want the units used for the distances changed (inches), that can also be done without too much heroism (easily).

http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/gtech/Cutline.txt

An internal crosscheck verified that the numbers are correct.

I think that your original plan, or the circle version, might be better than hitting balls at random placements. Setting them up the same way, with a fixed target pocket (or whatever), helps insure that you're hitting the OB at the same fractional offset every time, and from day to day and month to month, as needs be. With random placement, how do you know if you're really hitting it at, say, 3/8'th full? Just a thought.

(I'll be okay...eventually)

Jim

 

[Angle Detective]

Hi Jeff,

Well, I went and did it anyway. However, don't feel obligated to use any of it, even though I was up all night, suffered a pretty massive stroke, and my family left me. It's just not necessary...don't worry about it....not a second thought.

Forget anything ever happened. You can put it out of your mind completely.

(I'll be okay...eventually)

Jim

So what you're trying to tell me is now that your family left you, and the stroke put you out of work, all of your time can be devoted to pool? Really, you don't have to thank me. It was nothing.

Seriously though. Wow! Thanks for the numbers. It took me a while to get a real visual of it, but I can see what you did now. I actually have a 4 by 8 somewhere in my house. I forgot where I left it. I believe it may be under a pile of clothes. If I can find it I may be able to use your numbers right here to get a feel for the shots.

There are two issues that you may notice that makes the full line of balls impossible to arrange or impossible to pocket in most circumstances. This is something I noticed when originally coming up with a line upon which to place the balls. First, the line chosen has to allow for at least 2.25" (diameter) from one ball to the next. Second, the line of balls has to be angled enough to keep snookering behind another ball from occurring.

I believe the only setup that satisfies both conditions is the first table layout you have listed, which is my original line. I may be wrong, since I didn't do all of the subtractions from one ball to the next on all of your table lines, but I assume it is true all the way down.

Whether or not you can line all of the balls up at once really isn't so important, since with your calculations, a person can make several appropriately marked "guide strings" to take with him to practice the same ball fraction at different distances from the cue ball. This could be very helpful for recognition from different distances while playing.

Truly, thanks for all of the work you did. I'm excited to try it out. Now if only I could remember which pile of clothes the table is under.

Jeff

 

[Patrick Johnson]

There is something not obvious about doing it this way that I think makes it especially effective---you aren't aiming the object ball to a target.

I think that's very important, and it would be even more effective if you could somehow cover up the chalk each time after placing it so you couldn't aim at it even unconsciously. Maybe a long piece of cardboard folded into a "tent"?

pj
chgo

 

[Angle Detective]

I think that's very important, and it would be even more effective if you could somehow cover up the chalk each time after placing it so you couldn't aim at it even unconsciously. Maybe a long piece of cardboard folded into a "tent"?

pj
chgo

You've got me thinking now. The ideal would be to have targets all around the table that react when you hit them. I think I've got it....Coins!!! Bring rolls of them that you place on the cushions. When the object ball hits the cushion the adjacent coin will jump.
Now how do you explain this to the men in white coats ever-so-cautiously approaching.

Jeff

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Coins!!! Bring rolls of them that you place on the cushions. When the object ball hits the cushion the adjacent coin will jump.

This is a great idea. You don't need rolls of coins, just enough to make a line a few inches long on the cushion in the approximate location of your estimated cut angle. Place them all heads up and then flip one to tails at the exact estimated cut angle. This would give you an automatic measure of how close you come to your estimated angle without giving you an easy visual reference to aim at while shooting. Maybe you could even figure out a simple jig to help you place all the coins at once each time so it doesn't become too tedious.

pj
chgo

 

[Angle Detective]

This is a great idea. You don't need rolls of coins, just enough to make a line a few inches long on the cushion in the approximate location of your estimated cut angle. Place them all heads up and then flip one to tails at the exact estimated cut angle. This would give you an automatic measure of how close you come to your estimated angle without giving you an easy visual reference to aim at while shooting. Maybe you could even figure out a simple jig to help you place all the coins at once each time so it doesn't become too tedious.

pj
chgo

The laziness of not wanting to place a target each time I shoot is what makes me want to set up a large number of coins. This way, you would just visually select a coin as a target from behind the shot. If the OB hops that coin you were right. If it hops a coin 5 coins over you know how far off you were just by counting. You might even be able to estimate the error in degrees after a while by the number of coins by which you missed.

This way you don't have to replace any coins. Just go to your next shot for a ready array of coins.
I like the idea of a jig or some sort of contraption to place the coins. So here's a riddle:
How cheaply can you line the rails of a standard 4.5" by 9" pool table with coins? Estimate below..





























For about $2. The width of a US penny is .75 inches, and two 50" rails plus two 100" rails comes to about 225 pennies minus the pockets.
I see the makings of a bunch of new betting games here.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

you would just visually select a coin as a target from behind the shot

I see two potential problems with this method:

1. How do you keep track of the coin you visually selected after you turn your attention to the shot?

2. How do you prevent yourself from seeing it while you're down on your shot (so you're aligning the fractional hit without being influenced by the target in your peripheral vision)?

pj
chgo

 

[Angle Detective]

I see two potential problems with this method:

1. How do you keep track of the coin you visually selected after you turn your attention to the shot?

2. How do you prevent yourself from seeing it while you're down on your shot (so you're aligning the fractional hit without being influenced by the target in your peripheral vision)?

pj
chgo

To answer #1, every 10th coin can be a nickel. So it would be easy to count.
For #2, I suppose it isn't ideal if you really want a hidden target. But maybe you can have your cake and eat it too. One possible way of handling it is to realize that when you are selecting the coin you want the OB to hit you are standing tall. You can probably obscure the coins from the bent over shooting position by a shallow border in front of them that you can see over when standing tall. Maybe you can still see them hop from the shooting position. And then rise to see which coin hopped.

Jeff

 

[Angle Detective]

Hi Jeff,

Well, I went and did it anyway. However, don't feel obligated to use any of it, even though I was up all night, suffered a pretty massive stroke, and my family left me. It's just not necessary...don't worry about it....not a second thought.

Forget anything ever happened. You can put it out of your mind completely.

Seriously, I didn't really expect that you would use it, but the numbers are there if you decide to go ahead. Using the wordwrap feature of your text editor will help. The first table is the one corresponding to your diagram, but I took the liberty of putting the end-points of the line at the nose of the cushion, instead of at the diamond markers themselves. The program is flexible, so if you know how far offset the markers are from the edge of the cushion for your particular table, the numbers can be regenerated with the new coordinates very easily. If you want the units used for the distances changed (inches), that can also be done without too much heroism (easily).

http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/gtech/Cutline.txt

An internal crosscheck verified that the numbers are correct.

I think that your original plan, or the circle version, might be better than hitting balls at random placements. Setting them up the same way, with a fixed target pocket (or whatever), helps insure that you're hitting the OB at the same fractional offset every time, and from day to day and month to month, as needs be. With random placement, how do you know if you're really hitting it at, say, 3/8'th full? Just a thought.

(I'll be okay...eventually)

Jim

I tried the drill today, and Jim, your numbers seemed to be right on. What I didn't expect was how hard it was to aim using a fraction of a ball. I don't know how you fractional ball aimers do it. You must have a better imagination than I do. I just couldn't stay focused on the proper fraction. Maybe it takes a lot longer practice to acquire this skill. For now
I'm going to try something else.
Jeff

 

[Jal]

I tried the drill today, and Jim, your numbers seemed to be right on. What I didn't expect was how hard it was to aim using a fraction of a ball. I don't know how you fractional ball aimers do it. You must have a better imagination than I do. I just couldn't stay focused on the proper fraction. Maybe it takes a lot longer practice to acquire this skill. For now
I'm going to try something else.
Jeff

Jeff, thanks for the feedback. At least I know someone used it, once.

I consider myself to be primarily a fractional ball aimer, but I never think in terms of explicit numerical fractions. I really don't see the purpose since in the course of play no one tells you the cut angle, or more to the point, the sine of the cut angle (fractional offset). It seems to me that the benefit of your drill would be to lock in a set of fractions, regardless of whether you happen to know what particular fractions they are, numerically speaking. The setup just provides feedback as to whether you're hitting the OB at the same offset consistently, and can be used with any aiming method.

I'm not saying "do as I do". I've only fooled around with the circle version a bit, and not enough to produce any real benefit. But if I were more driven, I think I would employ some exercise like it or yours to keep certain representative cut angles cemented in my mind. Hey, it couldn't hurt.

Jim

 

[Angle Detective]

Jeff, thanks for the feedback. At least I know someone used it, once.

I consider myself to be primarily a fractional ball aimer, but I never think in terms of explicit numerical fractions. I really don't see the purpose since in the course of play no one tells you the cut angle, or more to the point, the sine of the cut angle (fractional offset). It seems to me that the benefit of your drill would be to lock in a set of fractions, regardless of whether you happen to know what particular fractions they are, numerically speaking. The setup just provides feedback as to whether you're hitting the OB at the same offset consistently, and can be used with any aiming method.

I'm not saying "do as I do". I've only fooled around with the circle version a bit, and not enough to produce any real benefit. But if I were more driven, I think I would employ some exercise like it or yours to keep certain representative cut angles cemented in my mind. Hey, it couldn't hurt.

Jim

I may go back to it. Whether I do or not, I appreciate all that you did.
Thanks,
Jeff