From "aim by feel" to "aim at a point"

H

HaveFunGuys

New member
Hi everyone, first post here.
I started playing pool again after 30 years but I only have available 3-4 hours per week.
Playing by "feel" so far but with only 4 hours per week I'm not going to advance (little?, a lot?) this way so I want to try something else, after all it's the fun we all seek in the game.
All (?) aiming systems involve aiming at a point, lets say on the ball (for simplicity,<30 degrees) and then many of them shot at that point. I tried this for a very limited time without success. I found it difficult to spot/shoot at eg 1/4 of the radius from the center of the object ball. I assume it needs much more practice since many guys here shoot this way successfully.
So my first question is are you satisfied shooting this way? I'm not seeking detailed answers but something like this: It's ok for me/I shoot well this way/Not perfect-easy but I'm ok/ tried it for 100hours with no success etc. Just the general impression.
My second question is for those that coming from "feel" aiming and tried "shooting at a point on the ball" aiming, did you get it right? was it easy? How many hours did you spent before success/failure? I want to estimate roughly what to expect (everyone is different but you got what I mean). Thanks
 
I am not an instructor, but I do have a reasonable amount of experience with aiming at a specific point after estimating the cut angle. I suggest this link (https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/cut/estimating-angle/) if you wish to pursue aiming of this type. My method is on this page, credited to Dead Crab (my former AZbilliards name).

Conveniently, the aim point for cut shots is one millimeter off the center line per degree of cut angle. It is more like 0.8 mm per degree past 30 degrees, but this actually helps compensate for throw, so if you aim a 40 degree cut 10 mm past the cue ball edge (~40mm off center) the ball will probably go. In short, if you get good at estimating the cut angle, you can get good at finding the correct aim point, and will make a lot of balls because of it.

Having said this, my confidence in aiming has not made me a good player. I sometimes think of myself as the king of the seven ball run, because this is about how far good aiming took me. What I have learned is that stroke and cue ball control are more important. With limited time to invest, I would suggest you concentrate on building a stable stroke. When you have developed a stable stroke, you may want to experiment with aiming based on cut angle estimation. When you get good at that, start playing six ball, which will help you focus on cue ball control.
 
HaveFunGuys said:
Hi everyone, first post here.
I started playing pool again after 30 years but I only have available 3-4 hours per week.
Playing by "feel" so far but with only 4 hours per week I'm not going to advance (little?, a lot?) this way so I want to try something else, after all it's the fun we all seek in the game.
All (?) aiming systems involve aiming at a point, lets say on the ball (for simplicity,<30 degrees) and then many of them shot at that point. I tried this for a very limited time without success. I found it difficult to spot/shoot at eg 1/4 of the radius from the center of the object ball. I assume it needs much more practice since many guys here shoot this way successfully.
So my first question is are you satisfied shooting this way? I'm not seeking detailed answers but something like this: It's ok for me/I shoot well this way/Not perfect-easy but I'm ok/ tried it for 100hours with no success etc. Just the general impression.
My second question is for those that coming from "feel" aiming and tried "shooting at a point on the ball" aiming, did you get it right? was it easy? How many hours did you spent before success/failure? I want to estimate roughly what to expect (everyone is different but you got what I mean). Thanks
Click to expand...
I believe ALL aiming is "feel". With that said, I am more consistent when I have a point or line of aim to focus on, whatever feels most accurate.

Whether you're using a system that guides you to a specific fractional aim point, or a system where you imagine/visualize a ghostball or parallel lines or contact points or a "half-tip offset" or "perception" or "tick" ... they all require a check-and-balance (mental recognition) between what you're looking at and what you know or think you know about the shot. When you do it for every shot, time and time again, you are actually developing a "feel" (mental recognition) for pocketing balls.
 
BC21 said:
.... a specific fractional aim point, .... a ghostball or parallel lines or contact points or a "half-tip offset" or "perception" or "tick" ...
Click to expand...
Just a few words to describe so many ways ...
BC21 said:
When you do it for every shot, time and time again, you are actually developing a "feel" (mental recognition) for pocketing balls.
Click to expand...
This is the goal, the "feel", the end of the road, now is time for the first steps ...

Not Dead Ted said:
Conveniently, the aim point for cut shots is one millimeter off the center line per degree of cut angle. It is more like 0.8 mm per degree past 30 degrees, but this actually helps compensate for throw, so if you aim a 40 degree cut 10 mm past the cue ball edge (~40mm off center) the ball will probably go. In short, if you get good at estimating the cut angle, you can get good at finding the correct aim point, and will make a lot of balls because of it.
Click to expand...
1mm for 1degree, interesting . I'm thinking it more like as percentage of the radius , 10degrees: 1/3of the radius (33%) but I guess is another way. Any advice/tips how to apply it for aiming points outside the OB (>30degrees)? Comparing it to the width of the ferrule as a reference (when you are down on the shot) is a way that comes to my mind.
I gave it another try this weekend (aim at a specific point) and results weren't so bad as my first try, I got the impression "it can be done with practice". I liked it. Calculating the angle and then finding the aim point is the way that I will probably explore.
Not Dead Ted said:
Having said this, my confidence in aiming has not made me a good player. I sometimes think of myself as the king of the seven ball run, because this is about how far good aiming took me. What I have learned is that stroke and cue ball control are more important. With limited time to invest, I would suggest you concentrate on building a stable stroke. When you have developed a stable stroke, you may want to experiment with aiming based on cut angle estimation. When you get good at that, start playing six ball, which will help you focus on cue ball control.
Click to expand...
well said, exactly what I learned about myself in the last month. I took an RDS test drill (for the first time) to evaluate my level : humiliating compared to what "I thought it was". Positioning is very important for those tests (as is in actual game). The road is as you described it:
stance, stroke, pocketing, cue ball control. Playing with six/seven balls for the drill was enlightening! With six/seven balls well spread on the table pocketing is "easy" (not if some kind of order must be kept) but since balls are away from each other positioning is very important/difficult.

have fun guys


 
Welcome, HFG

When you describe "shooting at a point on the ball", I'm assuming you mean *directly*, as you would with "fractional" aiming. However, I would also think that using a "contact point" system is still picking a point, but it involves making contact with a reciprocal point on the cue ball. Either way, what was your (practice) process?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
heater451 said:
Welcome, HFG

When you describe "shooting at a point on the ball", I'm assuming you mean *directly*, as you would with "fractional" aiming. However, I would also think that using a "contact point" system is still picking a point, but it involves making contact with a reciprocal point on the cue ball. Either way, what was your (practice) process?
Click to expand...
You're right, I wasn't clear enough, I see the ball as 2d vertical circle and aim at a point on it, at the horizontal line that crosses it's middle (from upper/lower point of the circle). This way the "contact point" system can also be considered as "aiming at a point" as you also say.
For the test I picked 3-4 known cut angles, I figured out their aim point (how far from center/edge at the OB was) and shoot eg 10 shoots each, 4diamonds OB-pocket and from 1.5 (and 3) diamonds distance CB-OB, the later was much difficult. It was just the first "touch" shooting this way and overall I found it achievable. When I procced further I will let you know.
 
HaveFunGuys said:
You're right, I wasn't clear enough, I see the ball as 2d vertical circle and aim at a point on it, at the horizontal line that crosses it's middle (from upper/lower point of the circle). This way the "contact point" system can also be considered as "aiming at a point" as you also say.
For the test I picked 3-4 known cut angles, I figured out their aim point (how far from center/edge at the OB was) and shoot eg 10 shoots each, 4diamonds OB-pocket and from 1.5 (and 3) diamonds distance CB-OB, the later was much difficult. It was just the first "touch" shooting this way and overall I found it achievable. When I procced further I will let you know.
Click to expand...
If it hasn't already been said you might be a good candidate for Poolology -- an aiming method developed by BC21, Brian. It is very easy to learn and you'll be pocketing balls with it in 5 minutes after learning how it works. You can order it online for a few $.
 
Estimating mm can be aided by knowing the diameter of some common objects, and in your imagination, superimposing them on the object ball. For example: 1 mm is the thickness of a coin, 3mm is an eighth of an inch ( I think of my commonly used 1/8 drill bit), 5mm is the diameter of an eraser on a standard pencil, 6mm is a quarter inch (again, I know a 1/4" drill bit when I see one), my cue ferrule is 13 mm, a penny is 20 mm in diameter.

You can also get a feel for the size of the crescent wedge between the cue ball edge and the table (this is what I mostly do).

For off-ball targets, you can either eyeball it, as above. Or, you can find the offset as in this example:

For a 45 degree cut to the left: Estimate the point on the CB 15 mm to left of CB center. Using your cue tip planted at this offset, aim the cue to the OB right edge, then parallel shift your cue so that it points to CB center. If all went well, it should be aimed thru CB center to a point 15mm to the right of the OB edge.

These things work pretty well up to about 50 degrees cut angle, beyond which overlapping the contact point is probably better.

As others have noted, this will get you in the ballpark, with compensation for throw, ect needed.
 
Not Dead Ted said:
For a 45 degree cut to the left: Estimate the point on the CB 15 mm to left of CB center. Using your cue tip planted at this offset, aim the cue to the OB right edge, then parallel shift your cue so that it points to CB center. If all went well, it should be aimed thru CB center to a point 15mm to the right of the OB edge.
Click to expand...

I know about this approach, I figured it out by myself this last month and I'm testing it, works ok if you focus and be patient.
I read using "similar" ways but I haven't found this exact one.

Not Dead Ted said:
You can also get a feel for the size of the crescent wedge between the cue ball edge and the table (this is what I mostly do).
Click to expand...
English is not my native language so I have problems understanding this, maybe explaining it more? a diagram maybe? (you're good at this:cool:)
 
The crescent shape I was referring to is the area bounded by the table, the cue ball, and a vertical line at the aim point offset. You can work these out for different cut angles. Works for me between 8 and 24 degrees. Less than 8 and there isn't enough visible gap between the felt and cue ball. Just another visual aid. The crude diagram below is roughly what it looks like for a 20 degree cut.
crescent.jpg
 
heater451 said:
When you describe "shooting at a point on the ball", I'm assuming you mean *directly*, as you would with "fractional" aiming.
Click to expand...
There are only a few well-defined "points" with fractional aiming - the major fractions on the OB (1/4, 1/2, 3/4, etc.). These are used as "reference alignments" from which to estimate the vast majority of actual shot alignments that fall somewhere between them.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
There are only a few well-defined "points" with fractional aiming - the major fractions on the OB (1/4, 1/2, 3/4, etc.). These are used as "reference alignments" from which to estimate the vast majority of actual shot alignments that fall somewhere between them.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
That is what I was referring to, without listing them. Plus, once I start thinking about cuts outside of the 1/2-ball, then I also start questioning whether the contact/impact point is still an aim point--but the aim/shot line is parallel to the centerline of the cue ball, which then leads to the "equal distance"/"overlap" aiming systems....even typing this reply out has my head running!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top