FEEL IN AIMING

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
BC21 said:
Do you not believe the same thing can happen with fractional aiming or contact point aiming or ghostball? I believe it can. It's all about visual experience and a developed feel of how your body and cue are aligned.

I would imagine it could. But have you ever seen anyone do it or being taught that way? I can't say that I have nor used it like that when I was using contact point aiming. I looked at the OB contact point and went down from there because I knew where the equal and opposite spot on the CB was supposed to be but still did some fine tuning when down. However, never to the point of looking like a lizard. LMAO

Yeah... I believe contact points and ghostball probably do require a little more guesstimation, considering that you can't see the cb contact point or a ghostball. So maybe that guesstimation can be considered "feel" for those players.

When using known reference points that are visible to the eyes, there is no rooting around or guessing when you knoe which line to reference. I mean, if I say look here, aim here, then that's where you look/aim. There is no feel in that. It's like looking at something on the wall directly in front of you - it's right there in plain sight. Of course, this is only true when pocketing balls using the vertical center axis of the cb with no stun. When we applying english and speed, feel usually comes into play.

Aiming has 2 parts. You have to be able to determine where to aim (using visual references), and then you have to be able to align your body and cue in order to send the cb where you intend to send it. The first part doesn't have to involve any feel, but the second part certainly does. It's the reason why beginners can't pocket the easiest shots even when you show them an exact aim point, where to aim. Other than having poor fundamentals, they just haven't developed a good feel for knowing when their body and cue are indeed lined up for the given aim point.
 
Last edited:

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Yeah... I believe contact points and ghostball probably do require a little more guesstimation, considering that you can't see the cb contact point or a ghostball. So maybe that guesstimation can be considered "feel" for those players.
But it doesn't mean just because they go through their gyrations, manipulations, and guesswork for "their feel" that it's like that for everyone who plays pool who uses something else and is trained and skilled enough to do it that way.
When using known reference points that are visible to the eyes, there is no rooting around or guessing when you knoe which line to reference. I mean, if I say look here, aim here, then that's where you look/aim. There is no feel in that. It's like looking at something on the wall directly in front of you - it's right there in plain sight. Of course, this is only true when pocketing balls using the vertical center axis of the cb with no stun. When we applying english and speed, feel usually comes into play.
No, not necessarily. I can honestly say it doesn't when using Shishkabob with a pivot from CCB to the outside. It puts both balls at the proper impact point coupled with some outside. How the outside reacts depends on whether it's center, low, or high. Little Mike clearly shows it in his youtube videos. Again, the locked, all knowing, rigid minds claiming that this is impossible will argue the fact until they die.
Aiming has 2 parts. You have to be able to determine where to aim (using visual references), and then you have to be able to align your body and cue in order to send the cb where you intend to send it. The first part doesn't have to involve any feel, but the second part certainly does.
Or you just flat out KNOW from long term experience and repetition
It's the reason why beginners can't pocket the easiest shots even when you show them an exact aim point, where to aim. Other than having poor fundamentals, they just haven't developed a good feel for knowing when their body and cue are indeed lined up for the given aim point.
Beginners just flat out don't know much of anything, yet some think they do. It can also be said that some players with 10 years of experience only have 1 year of experience times 10 because they never much went beyond what they learned in the first year to experience all of the amazing ways to do things. Yet will argue until the cows come home that something couldn't possibly work as stated and shown.
 
Last edited:

phreaticus

Well-known member
In your best interpretation of a professional pool player or professional instructor, PLEASE DEFINE FEEL IN AIMING.

What is it exactly? How is it used in the aiming process? How does it enhance or correct whatever aiming method or system you use?
Does feel work better for some aiming systems and not others? Can feel do more harm than good by sabotaging the aiming system
being used since feel was never factored into it when the system was created and tested? Can feel from one person to another be transferable and taught? Can feel be developed to a higher state and if so, how?

Remember, this has nothing to do with TOUCH/FEEL, meaning how soft or hard to strike the CB or stroke the cue. Only aiming.

[Long post alert, post #1 of 2]

Spidey,

Its really hard to imagine that you are seriously interested in answers to your questions because of the manner and tone of how you communicate, which emerged by post #3. It's very clear from your many years of passionate posts on the subject that you firmly believe “feel” has no part in the aiming process and certainly no relationship to CTE.

Brian (@BC21) already did a great job IMO of patiently explaining the basic role of “proprioception” in the overall aiming process for pool, and really any human action. Basically, it's the underlying psychological process of what's commonly called “hand eye coordination”. Also can loosely be understood as our cognitive processing systems having many sensory inputs that guide our sense of spatial awareness, alignment, balance, and motion - the dominant ones being our visual & proprioceptive senses, which work together in complex ways. The easiest way to explain how proprioception works & how it interacts with visual references - is this simple fun little test than anyone can do right now reading this in 20 seconds. Babies intuitively point at things from birth - by age 5 most of us can look at a light switch on the wall one time, look away, and then again blindly point at it - about 80% of folks will hit it the first time, other 20% will get it after only 2-3 tries. Try it right now!

Proprioception/kinesiology are widely documented in medical & sports science. Your shooting analogy could not be more wrong. I have a 15+ yr background with various shooting disciplines, rifle & pistol, primarily pistol, in mil/le & competitive environments. Proprioception is a fairly well understood thing at pro levels of both shooting & archery, and is where I first got exposed to the concepts.

As for whether proprioceptive senses can be further developed - it seems to be a very hard thing to measure, but from what I can understand most studies are showing fairly conclusively that the answer is yes. A simple google search for “proprioceptive training” will yields reams of info & performance programs across a wide variety of sports, arts, even music.

Below are some links about proprioception to address some of the OP’s questions about “feel” and how it plays a role in such activities. This info is not required to become proficient at anything, IMO it's just interesting to be aware of how these things work and my hope it that it would “bridge the gap” a bit between the hardcore CTE guys who are locked into the idea that CTE provides perfectly objective mechanisms to find & hit the shotline, involving no aspect of "feel" - and the naysayers like Patrick and Dan that don't see much value to these structured aiming systems, and/or are hung up on the question of how/why CTE can work well.

Proprioception references
  • WiKi page, proprioception 101
  • Interesting scientific study of proprioceptive acuity. Focuses on age related differences, but their methodology happens to study accuracy of manual aiming in relation to wrist movement, with obvious relevance to pool.
  • Article from olympicpistol.com is behind a paywall, but the title/topic alone is helpful - balance, proprioception & back workouts for pistol shooters in the context of Olympic and ISSF competitive shooting.
  • Science paper on "What Makes an Elite Shooter & Archer? The Critical Role of Interoceptive Attention"
  • Blog article from pro shooters/instructors on role of visual & proprioceptive approaches to high level shooting; archery & guns
  • Interview with pro Team USA shooter/instructor in shotgun/clays shooting - discusses what we would call pre-shot-routine and towards end of article discusses proprioceptive concepts in context of leading the target.
With all this info in mind (assuming you actually are willing to read and digest any of it) - do you somehow think CTE (or any other aiming system/approach) is somehow not affected by our proprioceptive sensory systems? If so, why?

It's really confusing why these concepts are viewed so skeptically/negatively by the hardcore CTE crowd. I would think any serious student of the game would be interested in these more modern & technical concepts that can be applied to pool. Especially for CTE seekers, as I believe fine tuning visualization & proprioceptive senses by using simplified visual references - is essentially the “how & why” behind CTE’s so called “visual intelligence” that is missing from the endless & senseless grand old CTE debate. The long running conflict (to me) seems to stem from the fact that the CTE "movement" emerged from these colorful, interesting, talented characters Hal & Stan who seem either ignorant or disbelieving of these concepts and who have instead painted this sort of mystical quality to CTE that it magically just works, and mostly leans on rather strange anecdotal stories of round barns, magical 3-angles, things “that weren’t supposed to be", etc. The parallels to quirky religious cults is really not a huge stretch...
 
Last edited:

phreaticus

Well-known member
[Post #2 of 2]

I’ve studied virtually all of the aiming systems out there including all forms of CTE, including simple Hal 3-angle, ProOne, Stan's old and new video series, the new book etc. Also including fractional aiming, poology, TOI, Joe Tucker's stuff, etc. I use CTE myself extensively, and over time have ended up at a blended version of CTE and CJ’s TOI stuff. My conclusion is that any structured way to visualize the balls will produce huge gains for most folks and that these methods can enhance (or better utilize) our natural proprioceptive processes thru all the visualization/aiming, PSR, stance, drop-in, & stroking sub processes of playing pool. I also believe centers & edges of the balls are definitely the best tools out of all these systems.

Another part missing from the CTE world IMO is a fundamental understanding of how our vision works. Our visual/cognitive processing system is entirely “concentric”; we naturally view & align to the centers and edges of things, our highest ocular acuity is our center vision. The edges of our eyeballs (peripheral vision) is highly tuned for contrast (edges). So IMO any system that uses center/edge ball visual references & techniques is more harmonized from the get-go with our natural visual & proprioceptive sensory systems. Much more so than say, trying to to visualize contact points, ghostballs, many discreet parallel aimpoints etc. This is not a slam on those systems, they clearly work also!

There is nothing wrong with needing the why/how as part of learning. Most analytical/engineering type folks process information this way, others have no need and learn just fine by simply digesting high level concepts & don't find the how/why background interesting or useful. Both are fine, why is that itself a contentious topic? I've found from all walks of life, when someone gets upset when questioned why/how - it really means they really don't know or understand the topic itself deep enough themselves to explain it. There is also nothing wrong with this - neither instructor nor student are required to know the how/why of something - in order to use and teach it effectively.

However, being able to articulate the how/why - and ability to break down complex topics efficiently - is usually a sign that someone is a true expert/master in the field, and they will usually be able to reach a much broader audience, more effectively. Or they will just say "I don't know" with no ego trip, but most pro level instructors are not humble enough to do this, which gives way to "instructoritis"... which is really just another form of confirmation bias.

Finally, some comments regarding CTE's relationship to fractional aiming. The vocal CTE proponents seem to ardently believe that these subjects are unrelated. For me, that distinction is just blatantly silly. CTE’s primary 3 angles/visuals are obviously simply a direct derivative of the relationships of imaginary lines using edges & centers of the balls - when using the basic 1/4 ball fractions. The following well known 1/4b diagram (courtesy of Dr. Dave) shows CTE's primary A/B/C aimpoints clear as day (red arrows are my addition to the diagram, to illustrate the point).

For me and I think others, the primary issue with learning CTE - is the concept of pivoting. I only soaked in "formal" CTE world for 3 months, but from what I can tell, pivoting is where CTE has really struggled & had to "evolve" over time; manual tip offsets, visual sweeps, left/right pivots to thin/thicken, also many blogs, articles etc from other CTE heads that got into shot circle concepts, also the close relationship with 90/90 etc... Latest iteration now uses a nebulous self-defined concept of invisible “ticks” on the CB and corresponding head offsets… (WTF?). I finally figured out pivoting, but it was frustrating and I had a very rough time teaching it to my daughter, and never was really satisfied with how mainstream CTE pivoting.

Over time, I found all of the pivoting stuff I be suboptimal & really not necessary. For me the TOI approach to visualization/alignment using CTC/CTE references and stance alignment to aim both eyes & my feet and to come down directly into the shotline as a function of fractional tip offsets that are seen & executed directly at the CB - to be a much more accurate & consistent system and this approach has been much easier to convey efficiently and informally to a few friends & kids. To be fair, CJ's materials on these topics was also a bit confusing and it took me non trivial time/effort to grok them. These are not fighting words, it's just my own honest experience.

SxTGjDNoGU0-QXkdWtiDdrBaRzauarKv2CIe7TWRtrq04-vuGOaHdUITRO2ZeSfQTZCmKpUXG9vtbV0jTilJs0B7Mttz1Z_ocO6JtfzVnwq454p74583TLUCd6J6ZXmEk-ptmCWlEUoDht7rSi5LSw


IMO, 1/8b fractions are a very simple enhancement to basic 1/4b/CTE visuals, and offers much more granularity with very little additional complexity or aim points. It's also quite useful to realize that 1 full tip (1/2”) also equals 1/4b, and 1/2 of a tip (1/4”) also roughly corresponds to 1/8 of a ball. Awareness of these facts enables visualizations of these fractions while allowing very minor sub angles to created very accurately with very little actual offset - by directly pivoting at the CB, or as one comes down directly on the shotline.

Essentially very fine angular adjustments are seen as fractions of a tip, vs fractions of the ball, and make the OB visuals even simpler than Houlian/Stan style A/B/C visuals. I also believe this approach is more aligned with our natural vision & proprioceptive systems, and easier to ingrain into one's subconscious over time. This gets into more of what CJ teaches in TOI world, by using only CTC & CTE as our primary visual references. For me CTE, fractional, shaft aiming & TOI worlds integrate beautifully but I can’t succinctly describe that in a few paragraphs.

The point is that I believe these systems all have very common DNA and overlapping elements (pun intended) - any/all can be used in different ways to great success. Isn’t this self evident from the many pros & non pros that use all of them to play high level pool? I think the only folks that don’t see this (or do but won’t admit it) are the guys with some vested interest in marketing their solution as THE best one 🤣

Some side notes, if folks want to compare 1/4b fractions (CTE aimpoints) to 1/8b or TOI aiming type offsets. Obviously, we're only dealing with 1/2 of the total aimpoints for any single 0-90 degree cut shot. So, in theory when looking at any pool shot, with CTE & 1/4b, you have a total of 5 primary visualization “lines” to choose from; center/full-ball, 3/4b, 1/2b, 1/4b and ETE.

Actually with CTE this isn't true, as they add in an extra one for 60+ degree cuts (which is actually an 1/8b fraction anyway), so really there is a pool of 6 clear distinct hard objective visual lines between the CB & OB in CTE. 1/8b fractions share these same exact lines, the only thing that is theoretically "extra" with 1/8 fractions is adding 3 more - 7/8, 5/8, and 3/8. In practice, this is not actully true. 7/8 is so minor a shift from full ball/CTC, its a super easy to visualize at any distance. 5/8 is real, and used a lot, 3/8 covers the angles between 1/4 (2/8) and 1/2b hit, but the 3D distortion of the ball this close to its edge, renders this fraction virtually indistinguishable from 1/2b view, and so 3/8 can just be ignored; ie a slightly “thickened” 1/2b/CTE visual does the trick).

So, really the only major practical difference is the new 7/8 and 5/8 fractions - these are in realm of thick 0-15 degree cuts, are very easy to see, and the increased granularity resolves much of the thick/thin pivoting gymnastics associated with using a single visual reference to cover a wider range of angles like CTE does. Also, more importantly, when using CJ's visualization method to make the 1/8b angles at the face of CB with very minor inside tip offsets - one is only ever looking at the center or edge of the OB, so really there are only 3 fractions ever really effectively created on the CB.

So, while the system seems more complex than CTE's aimpoints - in reality its a reduction in complexity and puts much more of our visual focus on the CB, while only ever looking at the center/edge of the OB. I personally add CTE's inside edge ref lines to my TOI style CTC/CTE refs, but these are only during PSR and used as secondary refs. In my mind the blend of both, is an enhancement & simplification for both systems.

In practice, my CTE/TOI aiming process goes something like this in PSR: 1) choose CTC or CTE (thick or thin cut), 2) choose one of three choices; 1/4, 1/2, or 1 inside tip offset from the initial chosen CTC or CTE alignment. 3) Come into this line, shoot. This means I’m only ever really hitting the CB using the same 3 core shots from a CB cueing perspective - they are just juxtaposed against either the center or edge of the OB (obviously spin adjustments not withstanding). Over time, it becomes a very efficient smooth analog process applied to just the basic 2 CTC or CTE visuals. I think this is why CJ’s materials used to teach 8 discreet angles, and later stuff seems to focus on the minor offsets from CTC/CTE. But, this is all my own interpretation of his system, not sure if he’s on board with my views or not.
I think none of the above will make any sense unless one has spent considerable time on the table with these systems, ie aiming nerds. But, this is the aiming forum, yes?

Very long rants(s), sorry. Probably a huge waste of my Fri afternoon, but I did try to answer the OP’s question(s) in good faith, & foster non combative discussion on the topic at hand. If nothing else, hopefully this provides at least some sort of balanced view point for folks that might be interested & willing to explore CTE concepts but are put off by all the weirdness, mystery & conflict.

Peace & love ✌️
 
Last edited:

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You know when your aiming system works, Ball drops in pocket you were aiming at.

If you in what I call the zone, you will run a rack.
Pockets are too loose to verify any system. I prefer visual coherence between what was intended and what actually transpired.
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well most amateurs have great, good, and craps days at Pool.

When everything click you are in winning zone.
Yes but it's the system that's in question. Like phreaticus' diagram above. No Indian required. It is a perfect representation of the intended information. If you take only that knowledge to the tables, the shots should work no problem but again, the pockets will be too imprecise and contaminate the results.
 

CocoboloCowboy

Cowboys are my hero's
Silver Member
Yes but it's the system that's in question. Like phreaticus' diagram above. No Indian required. It is a perfect representation of the intended information. If you take only that knowledge to the tables, the shots should work no problem but again, the pockets will be too imprecise and contaminate the results.


I have a system that I use is works when everything I do is correct. It fails when I have brain fart, and do not do everything 100 percent right.


Pool or an Sport can only be built on foundation of basic thing that must be rock solid.

Like level foundation build of concrete, and steel rebar.

If your foundation is build on sand the more you try and add the more the foundation that is not solid, just is your largest adversary.
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
How many cut angles does that define (assuming you perform each one accurately and consistently)? I’m guessing less than 20. Do you know how many need to be defined?

A spot shot into a 4.5” corner pocket needs 25 distinct cut angles defined. Farther away = more, up to 50+ for those pockets.. Smaller pockets = more than that.

pj
chgo
OMG, how many 1/8 segments do you think a ball could possibly have?
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
OMG, how many 1/8 segments do you think a ball could possibly have?
Actually, you’ve made me realize that I was thinking only of a left or right cut when I said 20, but I guess I need to take into account both cut directions, which doubles that. I’ve deleted my response to BC21.

In answer to your question, of course there are 32 1/8s around a ball’s circumference, half of which can be used to pocket a ball into a chosen pocket. OMG, how’d I do?

But I also have reservations about whether 1/8s + pivots can actually be feel-free aiming increments. I’ll save that question for another time.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
[Post #2 of 2]
Very long rants(s), sorry.
FYI, I have/had you on IGNORE and never saw this post or any posts you make along with a few other members. The way the feature works is that you have to be logged in and it's normally the first thing I do. If not logged in, you see all of the posts and individuals that are on ignore. Today I accidentally did that.
All I can say is GEEZUS KEYRICED!! I have never seen the likes and lengths of these two posts in all of my 16 years of being a member here!!

Above you posted "SORRY". Hey, as far as I'm concerned that's the one thing you SHOULDN'T HAVE posted! Kudos to you
for your PASSION! It certainly can't be faulted. You've obviously put a lot of thought and time at the table with a good number of different aiming systems and it surprises the hell out of me that you use CTE as one of your primary aiming systems
along with CJ's "Touch of Inside". Maybe you know or maybe not that the same haters and detractors of anything Hal and Stan developed are the same ones who attempt shredding CJ and his methods. However, prior to putting you on Ignore I've never seen you attempt to correct them (him) for their falsehoods and attacks. Why is that?
Probably a huge waste of my Fri afternoon, but I did try to answer the OP’s question(s) in good faith, & foster non combative discussion on the topic at hand. If nothing else, hopefully this provides at least some sort of balanced view point for folks that might be interested & willing to explore CTE concepts but are put off by all the weirdness, mystery & conflict.
Nice try and I appreciate your thoughts and efforts, but I highly doubt anything is going to change, especially with one specific person. How about YOU addressing all of the misconceptions and attacks on it and others instead of me since you use it yourself and seem well versed? You did a pretty damn good job here in these two posts but keep it up.

But no, you come on here and attack my posting style and what I said. Let's get something clear right up front and right now. I am NOT going to change or do anything differently in what I say and how I say it. I've been banned on here a few times over the years and so has he for a long period of time. When I joined AZ 16 years ago, like everyone else, you're a little uptight being the "new guy on the block" and there's more observation and feeling out than posting. But once I saw how Hal Houle was attacked and belittled and then a few years later, Stan...both of whom I got to know personally and loved, the werewolf in me came out and it's going to stay that way until somebody dies (me or them) or can STFU about this subject already.

If you want to help, do it by educating them as WE have tried to do for many years. That doesn't seem to work from us.
It gets totally twisted, ignored, and belittled to the point of absurdity. You don't find anything wrong, unusual, or abnormal
regarding that along with the length of time it's been going on, 25 years?!

In the whole scheme of things, you're a relative newbie with the number of posts made and time as a member. Settle in more and see for yourself how things play out and who does what and how.

If you're going to set your sights on me and turn a blind eye to the other side, we will NOT be having what you posted right below this post of mine. That's guaranteed. (But I do have hope for it) You're a very sharp guy. Are you a pro player, top amateur...money player...league player? You posted a ton of EXCELLENT stuff in those posts. Especially when you acknowledged the simplicity of use and accuracy with CENTERS and EDGES.

Peace & love ✌️
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Actually, you’ve made me realize that I was thinking only of a left or right cut when I said 20, but I guess I need to take into account both cut directions, which doubles that. I’ve deleted my response to BC21.

In answer to your question, of course there are 32 1/8s around a ball’s circumference, half of which can be used to pocket a ball into a chosen pocket. OMG, how’d I do?

But I also have reservations about whether 1/8s + pivots can actually be feel-free aiming increments. I’ll save that question for another time.

pj
chgo

Wouldn't those be 32nd's? Lol

1/8 of the circumference of a pool ball is 22.4 mm. There are 8 of them.

I know what you mean, just wanted to clarify that it's not the circumference being used - it's the visible width/diameter of the ball. That's the only way to visualize 1/8 increments in a practical and useful way. We can't use the circumference to measure 1/8s because the curvature distorts the increments (the 1/8s look smaller and smaller as we look farther away from the center of the ball).
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Wouldn't those be 32nd's? Lol

1/8 of the circumference of a pool ball is 22.4 mm. There are 8 of them.

I know what you mean, just wanted to clarify that it's not the circumference being used - it's the visible width/diameter of the ball. That's the only way to visualize 1/8 increments in a practical and useful way. We can't use the circumference to measure 1/8s because the curvature distorts the increments (the 1/8s look smaller and smaller as we look farther away from the center of the ball).
Thanks for clarifying that - I tried to answer the question in the terms it was asked (how many on a ball), to avoid confusion there.

As you say, for aiming purposes they're "visual 1/8s", dividing the visible radius of the ball into visually equal parts (dividing the visible diameter into 1/16s). Also as you say, each visual 1/8 encompasses more and more cut angles the farther from centerball they are (one reason I question the "no feel" accuracy of pivot-adjusting them to even smaller increments).

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Thanks for clarifying that - I answered the question in the terms it was asked (how many on a ball), to avoid confusion there.

As you say, for aiming purposes they're "visual 1/8s", dividing the visible radius of the ball into visually equal parts (dividing the visible diameter into 1/16s). Also as you say, each 1/8 encompasses more and more cut angles the farther from centerball they are (one reason I question the "no feel" accuracy of pivot-adjusting them to even smaller increments).

pj
chgo

Yeah, and I liked your deleted post about the 25 possible cut angles for a spot shot. 25 left cuts or 25 right cuts.

But honestly we can ignore super thin cuts and keep things more real and practical. I mean, the vast majority of shots we face fall between 0 and 60 degrees. That equates to 16 different cut angles to either of the nearest corner pockets for a ball setting on the foot spot. 16 left cuts or 16 right cuts.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Yeah, and I liked your deleted post about the 25 possible cut angles for a spot shot. 25 left cuts or 25 right cuts.
FYI, here's an illustration I posted some time ago about that. It shows that any system (used on a table with 4.5" corner pockets) needs to define at least 25 cut angles to work "without feel" - but even that doesn't take into account the increasing precision required as cuts get thinner.

pj
chgo

Contact Areas 25 per qtr ball.jpg
 
Last edited:

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
FYI, here's an illustration I posted some time ago about that. It shows that any system (used on a table with 4.5" corner pockets) needs to define at least 25 cut angles to work "without feel" - but even that doesn't take into account the increasing precision required as cuts get thinner.

pj
chgo

View attachment 652572
No comment on this diagram but if I had that shit going through my head every shot, I'd take up golf.
 

stumpie71

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Actually, you’ve made me realize that I was thinking only of a left or right cut when I said 20, but I guess I need to take into account both cut directions, which doubles that. I’ve deleted my response to BC21.

In answer to your question, of course there are 32 1/8s around a ball’s circumference, half of which can be used to pocket a ball into a chosen pocket. OMG, how’d I do?

But I also have reservations about whether 1/8s + pivots can actually be feel-free aiming increments. I’ll save that question for another time.

pj
chgo

56.48 1/8s around a pool ball and 14.12 per 90 degrees.
1.26 64ths per degree on the ball
Rounding up
 
Top