Fairly equal angles from dividing the cueball

[Bob Jewett]

... Also, my instinct tells me that you should start with fewer angles, like the 3, 5 and 7, and add in-between angles (if necessary) once you've mastered those. My guess is that you won't add all the in-between angles because (A) it's hard to memorize so many cut angles accurately and (B) you probably don't need so many. I don't think you really need to practice the 1 and 9 alignments at all for this system (you should already know those).

pj
chgo

Well, there are exceptions. I know one good player in this area who divided the ball into 64ths. Yes, 63 hits on each side. I know this because he had me program his HP calculator to give him the angles when he got tired of working them out one by one. If a ball was sitting half a diamond off the third diamond on the long rail, he could tell you that it's path to the pocket made a 9.5-degree angle with the cushion. If the line for the cue ball for the shot went from the third diamond on the short rail to the sixth diamond on the long rail, he knew that it made a 26-degree angle with that same rail, and that the needed cut was therefor 16.5 degrees and a 46/64ths hit was needed. As for how well he could play, the last time we played he gave me 10-5 at one pocket and beat me.

 

[3andstop]

Respectfully, I submit that I'm sitting here at my computer with my jaw dropped nearly to the floor.

I've been playing this game for nearly a half century and seeing all this about fractions of angles, snap lines, protractors, OMG, do you all really go through all this?

If someone gave me a sheet of paper and a pencil and asked me to draw a 17 degree angle, I'd doubt I'd come within 10 degrees of it let alone recognizing it on a pool shot from 6 feet away.

I suggest, forget all that and consider that you already see the contact point just fine. Expend your energy on developing a stroke that delivers the cue ball accurately to what your brain simply sees already.

I have a headache just trying to understand how this is useful, I'd pop a blood vessel if I had to worry about all that while shooting. Wow ......

 

[Angle Detective]

Another alternative is to just place the CB and OB at various intersections of the diamonds and use some diamond or pocket as a target. You won't be getting offsets in neat 1/8'th ball increments, but is that important?
Jim

Jim, I like the circle drill. Did you come up with it? It looks very easy to set up and understand. I'll give it a try.

I'm trying to follow the above quote. Can you describe what you mean by placing the CB and OB at intersections of the diamonds?

As for setting up the line of balls in my diagram, here I show that after moving the 9 ball to a more realistic angle pointing at the 2nd diamond on the bottom rail, only the 3, 7, and 8 balls have no defined target for setting up.
If someone had the inclination, and since the balls are in a straight line, he could draw up a template once on paper, or even mark a string, showing the exact spread of all balls and keep it in his case for ease in setting up.

 

[Angle Detective]

Another alternative is to just place the CB and OB at various intersections of the diamonds and use some diamond or pocket as a target. You won't be getting offsets in neat 1/8'th ball increments, but is that important?
Jim

Jim, I like the circle drill. Did you come up with it? It looks very easy to set up and understand. I'll give it a try.

I'm trying to follow the above quote. Can you describe what you mean by placing the CB and OB at intersections of the diamonds?

As for setting up the line of balls in my diagram, here I show that after moving the 9 ball to a more realistic angle pointing at the 2nd diamond on the bottom rail, only the 3, 7, and 8 balls have no defined target for setting up.
If someone had the inclination, and since the balls are in a straight line, he could draw up a template once on paper, or even mark a string, showing the exact spread of all balls and keep it in his case for ease in setting up.

 

[Angle Detective]

Sorry here's the diagram I just described:

CueTable Help

 

[Angle Detective]

Also, my instinct tells me that you should start with fewer angles, like the 3, 5 and 7, and add in-between angles (if necessary) once you've mastered those. My guess is that you won't add all the in-between angles because (A) it's hard to memorize so many cut angles accurately and (B) you probably don't need so many. I don't think you really need to practice the 1 and 9 alignments at all for this system (you should already know those).

pj
chgo

I think the reason it may be advantageous to keep all of the angles in the drill is not only to memorize the individual angles, but also the close stepping from one angle to the next. You may be right about sticking to a few angles not to be overwhelmed, but I'm wondering if the fan-like spread of the table as it is can be helpful. Maybe with more angles in one memorizable configuration there's less likelihood to oversee or undersee a particular angle.
Just a consideration.

Jeff

 

[Angle Detective]

Respectfully, I submit that I'm sitting here at my computer with my jaw dropped nearly to the floor.

I've been playing this game for nearly a half century and seeing all this about fractions of angles, snap lines, protractors, OMG, do you all really go through all this?

If someone gave me a sheet of paper and a pencil and asked me to draw a 17 degree angle, I'd doubt I'd come within 10 degrees of it let alone recognizing it on a pool shot from 6 feet away.

I suggest, forget all that and consider that you already see the contact point just fine. Expend your energy on developing a stroke that delivers the cue ball accurately to what your brain simply sees already.

I have a headache just trying to understand how this is useful, I'd pop a blood vessel if I had to worry about all that while shooting. Wow ......

I agree. It's nothing I want to be thinking about while playing. And I may ditch the whole thing after giving it a try. I'm just sick of missing easy shots that others have no problem with. I will take your advice and work on my stroke though. Which has me thinking....
New thread about to start.

Jeff

 

[Rumplestiltskin]

2nd... I know a physicist that studied all this from every angle, and at the end of the day, I could still beat him.

Respectfully, I submit that I'm sitting here at my computer with my jaw dropped nearly to the floor.

I've been playing this game for nearly a half century and seeing all this about fractions of angles, snap lines, protractors, OMG, do you all really go through all this?

If someone gave me a sheet of paper and a pencil and asked me to draw a 17 degree angle, I'd doubt I'd come within 10 degrees of it let alone recognizing it on a pool shot from 6 feet away.

I suggest, forget all that and consider that you already see the contact point just fine. Expend your energy on developing a stroke that delivers the cue ball accurately to what your brain simply sees already.

I have a headache just trying to understand how this is useful, I'd pop a blood vessel if I had to worry about all that while shooting. Wow ......

 

[Bob Jewett]

2nd... I know a physicist that studied all this from every angle, and at the end of the day, I could still beat him.

Physicists can't do. Physicists think. Engineers do. Make a note of it.

 

[Rumplestiltskin]

I guess I'm not too surprised to see a familiar name from the old rec.sport.billiard newsgroup...

I'll make a note of it, but I'm not sure it does anything to make my point less valid, especially since he was an engineer by trade. All the calc and trig in the world won't make you a good pool player.

Physicists can't do. Physicists think. Engineers do. Make a note of it.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... All the calc and trig in the world won't make you a good pool player.

True enough, but it can help on maybe 1% or 0.1% of shots if you already have the other 99% covered. And some people just need to know how this stuff works even if they can't do it very well. I'm not yet convinced that the geometry and angles and stuff helps most beginners at all.

Once I was showing a system for calculating an angle for an interference system to someone at a tournament. Several exacting steps with measurements are required to get the right angle and then you have to hit the object ball pretty accurately. Rempe was walking by and I asked him, "Jim, how would you shoot this shot?" Without any calculation he fired at the ball and made it in a far pocket. Talent with experience often beats arithmetic.

 

[av84fun]

I like the fact that you have them set up in a straight line, but I think there's a problem with placing them accurately along that line. At least you haven't indicated how to do that. An alternative is here:

http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/gtech/CircleDrill.jpg

Here the object balls are placed on a circle going from the side pocket to the corner pocket (intersection of the adjacent cushions). The cueball is shot perpendicular to the end cushion. The offset in which to hit each OB is the same as its location across the width of the table. In other words, the OB at one diamond from the bottom cushion, which is one-quarter way across the table, is hit at an offset of 1/4 ball (3/4 full).

Hitting from medium to brisk speed with full follow or draw all but eliminates throw, so the ball should come close to center pocket when shot that way.
Since the goal is not to sink balls but to memorize the OB's direction when hit at each offset, it would be better to move the whole setup one diamond up table and make the first diamond the target. That way you're concentrating on the OB's direction and not on pocketing the ball. The target is there just to confirm that you're hitting the OB consistently. Also, you get an automatic ball return.

It would help to have your own table to mark up, but a cue stick can be used to set the balls in position.

Another alternative is to just place the CB and OB at various intersections of the diamonds and use some diamond or pocket as a target. You won't be getting offsets in neat 1/8'th ball increments, but is that important?

Just some thoughts. Maybe you can come up with an easy way to position the balls along that line in your diagram.

Jim

VERY interersting post Jim. Great that you included the throw and non-throw cb paths since SO many diagrams fail to do that and are therefore, quite misleading.


But you threw me a curve with your comment in bold above. Can you give me the quick and dirty about why follow or draw would eliminate CIT?

THANKS!

Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JAL:
Hitting from medium to brisk speed with full follow or draw all but eliminates throw, so the ball should come close to center pocket when shot that way.

I know that follow/draw converts some of the fixed amount of CB/OB rubbing friction from a horizontal force to a vertical force, which reduces horizontal throw. I also know that a higher speed impact reduces horizontal throw, but I don't know the mechanism for that - can you explain how that works for the physicsaholics among us? Do you know the relative magnitudes of these two effects when combined like this?

pj
chgo

 

[lfigueroa]

Well, there are exceptions. I know one good player in this area who divided the ball into 64ths. Yes, 63 hits on each side. I know this because he had me program his HP calculator to give him the angles when he got tired of working them out one by one. If a ball was sitting half a diamond off the third diamond on the long rail, he could tell you that it's path to the pocket made a 9.5-degree angle with the cushion. If the line for the cue ball for the shot went from the third diamond on the short rail to the sixth diamond on the long rail, he knew that it made a 26-degree angle with that same rail, and that the needed cut was therefor 16.5 degrees and a 46/64ths hit was needed. As for how well he could play, the last time we played he gave me 10-5 at one pocket and beat me.

But, but, Bob, everyone knows you don't play 1pocket. How about at 14.1?

Lou Figueroa

 

[Angle Detective]

I know that follow/draw converts some of the fixed amount of CB/OB rubbing friction from a horizontal force to a vertical force, which reduces horizontal throw. I also know that a higher speed impact reduces horizontal throw, but I don't know the mechanism for that - can you explain how that works for the physicsaholics among us? Do you know the relative magnitudes of these two effects when combined like this?

pj
chgo

In my experience, the sharpest cuts occur when using extreme draw. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but whenever faced with cinching an extreme cut, I draw the ball.

Jeff

 

[Rumplestiltskin]

In my experience, the sharpest cuts occur when using extreme draw. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but whenever faced with cinching an extreme cut, I draw the ball.

Jeff

Extreme draw and follow will help eliminate the "cling" or throw, but I believe in the case of using extreme draw, you're also helping the cue ball "float" which make you cut the ball a little more than your line of aim would normally do.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Jeff:
In my experience, the sharpest cuts occur when using extreme draw. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but whenever faced with cinching an extreme cut, I draw the ball.

I don't think you're deluding yourself (draw reduces throw), but you could accomplish the same thing with more control by using follow.

pj
chgo

 

[Majic]

Good point. I suppose "burning in" applies to any method. And if you experiment too often and don't give any one method its full burn in time, you'll probably end up burning in inconsistency. Which I think I've done. I have to unlearn and unburn some bad habits.

Jeff

If you want to learn some good practice habits, then I highly recommend reading the book "Pleasures of Small Motions" written by Bob Fancher, Ph.D.

 

[Jal]

Sorry here's the diagram I just described:

CueTable Help

Jeff, sorry for the delay. Wow, you've been doing some work! I'm wondering how you figured it all out using compass and protractor....or maybe you did the trig?

As you say, you could make some sort of gauge to set them up quickly. If you don't have their locations along the line in numerical form, I could help, if you like.

As for the circle setup, I did come up with it, but likely many others have as well.

I was thinking that you might be able to get a good distribution of offsets just by placing the balls at selected intersections of the diamonds. I thought about writing a small program to figure the various cut angles, but laziness won out. Still, it might be a good alternative, though the cut angles would be a bit dependent on table size. I think your way might be more accurate, although it also depends on table size, and it should allow for the fact that diamond markers are not a fixed distance from the edge of the cushion in going from table to table style.

Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

you might be able to get a good distribution of offsets just by placing the balls at selected intersections of the diamonds

But for this to be worthwhile, he needs offsets he can align using ball fractions, doesn't he?

pj
chgo