Hal Houle

[ShootingArts]

gonna try to find a way to show this better

You are kind of half way there to what I found to be true. 30 degrees plus the correction created by your new perspective indeed continues to pocket the ball long after it seems it wouldn't. The comparatively short distances and the working width of pockets are part of the reason the systems work better than I would expect them to. Possibly because we are working with straight lines and a curved surface the automatic correction is not 100% accurate and the closer you get to the outer ranges of the angles that can be pocketed with one aim point the further to the edge of the pocket each ball will hit.

If we look at it mathematically with center pocket being a single infinitely small point then only one positioning of the two balls with a precise half ball hit allows us to perfectly hit the center point of that pocket with the center point of the object ball. However a much wider range will still appear to hit center pocket and a wider range yet continues to pocket balls.

Hu

If you haven't used this before, you can play around with the cuetable cut angle calculator:

http://cuetable.com/project/CueTableCutAngleCal.html

I just chose those angles because they're about the farthest from either side that you might use a SAM 3, if a 3 is approximately a 30 deg cut.

Think of it this way: forget about the pocket for a second. If you shoot a half-ball hit, it will do a 30 deg cut everytime, right? Of course the contact point is changing if you move the cue ball, but how could a half ball hit continue to hit the correct contact point for the center of a given pocket? As the cuetable shows, it would no longer be a half-ball hit once you move the CB from a 30 deg angle.

 

[dr_dave]

Patrick,

I did a similar analysis many years ago. All of the results are summarized here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#fractional​

Here are the highlights:

- To be able to pocket an object ball into a pocket about 3 feet away, with an average angle to the pocket, and for any cut angle, the required number of aiming lines is about 19!

- If you consider cut shots only within a typical range (e.g., 7.5 to 52.5 degrees), and use only three equally spaced lines of aim (e.g., the Hal 15, 30, and 45 degree aims):

• If the object ball is less than a foot from the pocket, every shot can be pocketed with the three lines of aim.
• If the object ball is more than two feet from the pocket, less than 50% of all cut shots in the limited range can be pocketed with only three lines of aim.

Regards,
Dave

I calculate that with 5-inch pockets and straight + 8 more cut angles (0, 7.2, 14.5, 22, 30, 38.7, 48.6, 61 & 90ish degrees) you'll be able to sink the following percentage of shots from various distances:

from 1 foot = 91% of shots
from 2 feet = 45% of shots
from 3 feet = 30% of shots
from 4 feet = 23% of shots
from 5 feet = 18% of shots
from 6 feet = 15% of shots

Here's the number of cut angles (including 0 degrees) needed to sink all shots from each of those distances into a 5-inch pocket:

from 1 foot = 10 cut angles
from 2 feet = 19 cut angles
from 3 feet = 28 cut angles
from 4 feet = 37 cut angles
from 5 feet = 46 cut angles
from 6 feet = 56 cut angles

pj <- too much caffeine
chgo

EDIT: CORRECTED FIGURES FOR 1/4 CIRCUMFERENCE (FROM 1/2 CIRCUMFERENCE).

 

[Patrick Johnson]

having a correct line to compensate from is a huge start

This is the central principle of these systems. I don't know why it's such a controversial fact.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

Patrick,

I did a similar analysis many years ago. All of the results are summarized here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#fractional​

Here are the highlights:

- To be able to pocket an object ball into a pocket about 3 feet away, with an average angle to the pocket, and for any cut angle, the required number of aiming lines is about 19!

- If you consider cut shots only within a typical range (e.g., 7.5 to 52.5 degrees), and use only three equally spaced lines of aim (e.g., the Hal 15, 30, and 45 degree aims):

• If the object ball is less than a foot from the pocket, every shot can be pocketed with the three lines of aim.
• If the object ball is more than two feet from the pocket, less than 50% of all cut shots in the limited range can be pocketed with only three lines of aim.

Regards,
Dave

Good stuff Dave. But ideally, the cut angles and therefore the number of cut angles should be irrelevent...as is the case for the huge majority of shots by using the Pro One system. Not only do you not need to know the angle...you don't even have to look at the POCKET in order to determine the angle.

The system produces an nearly infinite variation on aim lines...because the ball is round and the bridge hand can be positioned anywhere around the circumference!

So the questions is...Is there a way to determine the correct placement of the bridge hand such that shooting with a properly aligned cue and a straight stroke through the center of the CB will result in the OB moving along a path leading to the pocket???

The answer to that question is YES...with VERY few exceptions...and when there are exceptions they are OBVIOUS and have routine, systematic adjustments...and when there IS no pocket (as when cb is frozen or close to a rail and ob is opposite of it) the system BANKS the ob with rather amazing precision.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

This is the central principle of these systems. I don't know why it's such a controversial fact.

pj
chgo

I don't either except that there are people like you who miss no opportunity to dismiss THE system in question as fundamentally flawed.

But I note for the record that you have DUCKED my direct challenge to post a detailed description of what YOU THINK the "system" is.

It is really quite ridiculous for you to criticize some undefined system as being flawed!

So again...how much time have you spent RECENTLY in discussing with Mr. Houle, the MOST CURRENT version of his Center to Edge and same question re: Stan Shuffett's Pro One evolution of that system???

And please post what those gentlemen taught you about their systems and then tell us what portions of their teachings are invalid.

Otherwise, stop criticizing systems that you can't even explain...unless merely for the purpose of comic relief.

(-:

Jim

 

[JimS]

This is the central principle of these systems. I don't know why it's such a controversial fact.

pj
chgo

I becomes controversial to me when a proponent of a particular system claims that every shot will be made if that system is used. At that point I get wary.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I agree that adjustments need to be made to make all shots, but if one can visualize the path lines of the 1/8 aims, the adjustments are easy.

Well, yeah, but that's a big if...

The fact that with the 1/8 increments, most shots can be aimed, with center cue ball, on the object ball or just outside of it is a very attractive quality of fractional aiming.

Of course dividing the ball into more increments reduces the estimating that's necessary, but it also works against the main principle of simplifying the aiming process. The balancing act is to reduce the number of fractions to the smallest number that still reduces the remaining estimation enough. I suppose 8 increments per 1/4 ball is a good compromise for some, but I bet it's too many for most who need this kind of system.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...there are people like you who miss no opportunity to dismiss THE system in question as fundamentally flawed.

That's untrue, Jim. I've always acknowledged the real value of these kinds of systems for those who use them. Like others here, I also like to explore exactly how systems work - beyond the anecdotal reports of their users' success with them. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that's your problem, not mine.

But I note for the record that you have DUCKED my direct challenge to post a detailed description of what YOU THINK the "system" is.

I'm not particularly interested in your "challenges", Jim (in fact I didn't notice that one), or any of the drama you seem to want to attach to these discussions. If this topic upsets you maybe you should avoid it.

pj
chgo

 

[CueAndMe]

The system produces an nearly infinite variation on aim lines...because the ball is round and the bridge hand can be positioned anywhere around the circumference!

So the questions is...Is there a way to determine the correct placement of the bridge hand such that shooting with a properly aligned cue and a straight stroke through the center of the CB will result in the OB moving along a path leading to the pocket???

The answer to that question is YES...with VERY few exceptions...and when there are exceptions they are OBVIOUS and have routine, systematic adjustments...and when there IS no pocket (as when cb is frozen or close to a rail and ob is opposite of it) the system BANKS the ob with rather amazing precision.

Regards,
Jim

Jim, I know you're passionate about the system and you may be pocketing balls from under the next table, but you don't tell us how it's done, so I don't understand how you can ask anyone to buy into it.

I also wonder if you realize just how much of a difference the slightest subconscious adjustment can make when lining up a shot. We're talking about millimeters changing angles enough to miss shots.

You used to think that the object ball contact points were where you needed to aim, and you later proved to yourself that subconsciously you adjusted your stroke to hit that contact point. You surprised yourself when you actually created a worthy test to determine if you were adjusting. You proved to yourself that the contact point is not where you send the center of the cueball.

Knowing that you've been wrong before, how can you be so adamant about this system without a proper test. You're not even sharing the system. You're just saying we're all wrong and Stan Shuffet has the answer. That's simply not good enough.

You say you don't care if no one here gets it, but you would have been gone a long time ago if you didn't care. So just share the technique already. You're an eloquent writer and spend too much time arguing when you could be taking that time to organize a beautiful post about a beautiful system.

Please just do it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I becomes controversial to me when a proponent of a particular system claims that every shot will be made if that system is used. At that point I get wary.

That's the part that's not controversial to me - I know it isn't true for any of these systems. What I don't get is why that's such a bitter pill for some of the system's users to swallow. It's not an insult to them or to their systems.

We seem to have to walk on eggs around some of them - it's like talking about their religion.

pj
chgo

 

[BRKNRUN]

Jim, I know you're passionate about the system and you may be pocketing balls from under the next table, but you don't tell us how it's done, so I don't understand how you can ask anyone to buy into it.

I also wonder if you realize just how much of a difference the slightest subconscious adjustment can make when lining up a shot. We're talking about millimeters changing angles enough to miss shots.

You used to think that the object ball contact points were where you needed to aim, and you later proved to yourself that subconsciously you adjusted your stroke to hit that contact point. You surprised yourself when you actually created a worthy test to determine if you were adjusting. You proved to yourself that the contact point is not where you send the center of the cueball.

Knowing that you've been wrong before, how can you be so adamant about this system without a proper test. You're not even sharing the system. You're just saying we're all wrong and Stan Shuffet has the answer. That's simply not good enough.

You say you don't care if no one here gets it, but you would have been gone a long time ago if you didn't care. So just share the technique already. You're an eloquent writer and spend too much time arguing when you could be taking that time to organize a beautiful post about a beautiful system.

Please just do it.

I agree...He probably is a person that could actually communicate they system via the written word...However he is also correct when he says that it is MUCH easier to show someone the system than it is to explain it.

I also agree with you other comments...I has been quite interesting to see his enthusiasm over the system he uses "Pro One" that apparanlty was devolped from a base system.

I could swear that in that past he had communicated that he did not like to pivot his cue for BHE as it took him away from a parallell set up...yet now he is using a pivot system...(apparantly quite effectively)

(I may have mis-read or mis-understood some of his prior posts...or perhaps I could be confusing him with someone else)

 

[Pushout]

So again...how much time have you spent RECENTLY in discussing with Mr. Houle, the MOST CURRENT version of his Center to Edge and same question re: Stan Shuffett's Pro One evolution of that system???

Jim

LOL!! If you've talked to Hal recently, you might already know that that hasn't and ain't gonna happen.

 

[ShootingArts]

I think the reverse may be true

I could swear that in that past he had communicated that he did not like to pivot his cue for BHE as it took him away from a parallell set up...yet now he is using a pivot system...(apparantly quite effectively)

(I may have mis-read or mis-understood some of his prior posts...or perhaps I could be confusing him with someone else)

I don't care for BHE myself because of pivoting after I am in alignment amongst other reasons. However I think the reverse may be true for the pivot systems like pro one. I think that they are pivoting into alignment, not out of it.

A clear explanation would be nice however most of us would like to make money using this system if it works. Seems only reasonable that Stan and his students don't give it away.

Hu

 

[BRKNRUN]

I don't care for BHE myself because of pivoting after I am in alignment amongst other reasons. However I think the reverse may be true for the pivot systems like pro one. I think that they are pivoting into alignment, not out of it.

A clear explanation would be nice however most of us would like to make money using this system if it works. Seems only reasonable that Stan and his students don't give it away.

Hu

I am not sure how that can be true...unless you pivot your whole body with the cue, or pre-pivot before you get down into the shot...(but BHE can be done as a pre-pivot set up also as Joe T has shown)......but I don't claim to uderstand the system anyway and use a different HH method in the first place.

Actually I do use a pivot method to aim for extreem cuts...I aim the 1/4 CB to edge of OB and then pivot the cue to center CB and it will knife cut the OB.....But that is also using a method the Spider Web promotes of pivoting your whole body not just the cue thus keeping the stroke straight.

As always....more research needed.

 

[av84fun]

That's untrue, Jim. I've always acknowledged the real value of these kinds of systems for those who use them. Like others here, I also like to explore exactly how systems work - beyond the anecdotal reports of their users' success with them. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that's your problem, not mine.



I'm not particularly interested in your "challenges", Jim (in fact I didn't notice that one), or any of the drama you seem to want to attach to these discussions. If this topic upsets you maybe you should avoid it.

pj
chgo

DUCK!

(-:

 

[av84fun]

I agree...He probably is a person that could actually communicate they system via the written word...However he is also correct when he says that it is MUCH easier to show someone the system than it is to explain it.

I also agree with you other comments...I has been quite interesting to see his enthusiasm over the system he uses "Pro One" that apparanlty was devolped from a base system.

I could swear that in that past he had communicated that he did not like to pivot his cue for BHE as it took him away from a parallell set up...yet now he is using a pivot system...(apparantly quite effectively)
(I may have mis-read or mis-understood some of his prior posts...or perhaps I could be confusing him with someone else)

I don't recall commenting about "parallell" aiming because that is a misnomer. Also, I have net delved deeply into BHE/FHE techniques until fairly recently so I doubt and certainly don't recall saying anything other than I know little about it.

However, the pivot to the center of the CB does not constitute what I understand to be either BHE or FHE. In fact, it seems to me that what the pivot does is to REMOVE BHE/FHE and square up the cue.

At least that's what it FEELS like to me.

The exception to that is when inside english is used and...yes...you pivot to beyond center ball...say right of center on a cut to the right and that cue orientation certainly DOES feel like I have applied BHE.

Other than that, the pivot FEELS to me like the cue is being squared up to the line of aim and therefore doesn't constitute BHE...at least within my understanding of that technique.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

Bluepepper, I must have missed your post quoted below but THANKS for your very kind compliment.

But I need to refer parties interested in the method I use to Stan Shuffett. I also understand from VERY reliable sources that Ron V. has a wealth of knowledge on this and other important topics.

I don't mind sharing individual tips/techniques that I've picked up along the way...most of which were widely known to others long before I finally got the clue...but I have to decline to write in any detail about instruction I've gotten from professional instructors who have developed sometimes unique techniques.

I jumped in to this and similar other threads only becase...as usual...they perpetuate GROSS misunderstandings of how the method works and because I know for a FACT that it does work quite brilliantly, I just wanted to make that opinion known and point all interested parties to where they can obtain the information for themselves.

I hope you and others understand my position on this. I just can't be involved in giving away the life's work of other people for free. They can if they want...I can't.

And THANKS again!!

Regards,
Jim

Originally Posted by bluepepper
Jim, I know you're passionate about the system and you may be pocketing balls from under the next table, but you don't tell us how it's done, so I don't understand how you can ask anyone to buy into it.

I also wonder if you realize just how much of a difference the slightest subconscious adjustment can make when lining up a shot. We're talking about millimeters changing angles enough to miss shots.

You used to think that the object ball contact points were where you needed to aim, and you later proved to yourself that subconsciously you adjusted your stroke to hit that contact point. You surprised yourself when you actually created a worthy test to determine if you were adjusting. You proved to yourself that the contact point is not where you send the center of the cueball.

Knowing that you've been wrong before, how can you be so adamant about this system without a proper test. You're not even sharing the system. You're just saying we're all wrong and Stan Shuffet has the answer. That's simply not good enough.

You say you don't care if no one here gets it, but you would have been gone a long time ago if you didn't care. So just share the technique already. You're an eloquent writer and spend too much time arguing when you could be taking that time to organize a beautiful post about a beautiful system.

Please just do it.

 

[av84fun]

LOL!! If you've talked to Hal recently, you might already know that that hasn't and ain't gonna happen.

I expect you are right.

(-:

Jim

 

[av84fun]

I don't care for BHE myself because of pivoting after I am in alignment amongst other reasons. However I think the reverse may be true for the pivot systems like pro one. I think that they are pivoting into alignment, not out of it.

A clear explanation would be nice however most of us would like to make money using this system if it works. Seems only reasonable that Stan and his students don't give it away.

Hu

You are EXACTLY right...as usual!

(-:

 

[av84fun]

That's untrue, Jim. I've always acknowledged the real value of these kinds of systems for those who use them. Like others here, I also like to explore exactly how systems work - beyond the anecdotal reports of their users' success with them. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that's your problem, not mine.



I'm not particularly interested in your "challenges", Jim (in fact I didn't notice that one), or any of the drama you seem to want to attach to these discussions. If this topic upsets you maybe you should avoid it.

pj
chgo

Oh...BS Patrick. Is this what you call acknowledging the "real value of these systems"????????

There are much more straightforward ways to aim. If you don't understand why you're doing it that way, then IMO it's overcomplicated.

pj
chgo

I'm with Colin, Blackjack, Dave, etc. Hal, his systems and those who defend them get flack because they deserve flack.

Hal deserves flack for (1) being an online curmudgeon simply for the joy of it (if being old is his excuse, why is he such a charmer to all who meet him?) and (2) refusing to share his systems openly and thereby perpetuating the "controversy" surrounding them. Frankly, I think he does all this purposely for the attention.

Hal's systems deserve flack because they can't work as described by Hal's defenders and Hal himself refuses to correct any misrepresentations made by his defenders, so we can only conclude that the systems themselves are flawed or Hal wants them to be misrepresented.

You are just DANCING because you've been called out to actually describe a system that you have criticized...but you can't because you don't even understand the dynamics of the CURRENT version of the systems in question.

And I'm not all bent out of of shape at all as you seem to think. Actually, I think your posts on this matter fall somewhere between sad and comical.

But that's OK. Charlie Chaplin made a career out of exactly that sort of public persona.

(-:

Jim