How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

[Filibogado]

Something AtLarge said earlier in this thread comes to mind. I think it says a lot on the topic.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3522996&postcount=115

I totally 100% agree with this. My problem has always been my inability to position my eyes in the exact spot that they were the last time I made a successful shot. I am not able to consistently make the same repeatable visual angle from the top looking down. I believe its because my eyes are connected to my head, and my head is connected to my body, and the connecting joints are in perpetual motion and constantly flexing and twisting every which way. The closest aid to stable viewing I can think of is to shuffle my feet based on the feeling I had the last successful time, plant it on a definite piece of floor defined by my big toe or foot position, keep my hips from gyrating, anything physical that I can latch on to for support. I do not know if this is feel or not, but this is a PSR that I have to master to be successful in deploying CTE/Pro One, and so far the mental images are holding and being stored for later replay. It's starting to get automatic and I get this feeling that if I just keep plodding along and persevere, every CTE-related move will be stored in memory as a psychic image and will make my PSR and shooting fully automatic. I can feel it coming on, and there is no geometry or LaMas or Dr. Dave drawing that can explain it.

Fil

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'd like to move forward with the original intent of this thread: to talk about ways that the major fractional alignments (3/4 ball, 1/2 ball, 1/4 ball) can be used effectively in aiming.

The existing fractional methods tend to be either very simple, like Hal's 3-angle system that merely points out the fractions and leaves the rest to the shooter - or very "opaque", like pretty much all the rest that start with the fractions and add finishing steps that are difficult to understand/implement without special, sometimes expensive, instruction - that can also make aiming more of a mystery than it needs to be.

I have a feeling that most players fall through the huge crack between these two extremes. They need more than the mere knowledge that the fractions exist, but also need to be able to easily understand and implement the method - and to see clearly how it works so they can decide before trying it whether it's likely to help them.

In the next few days (gotta find the time) I'll post a description of one of these "Goldilocks" fractional methods. It's simple to understand completely without coming to my house for a lesson (please) or even trying it out at the table - you can probably evaluate right here at your monitor whether or not it will be useful for you. It adds simple, easily understood instructions to get from fractional alignments to final aim - without learning a new language or any "mystery moves".

I'll probably post it in a new thread, since this one has (inevitably) gone the way of all threads where "The System That Cannot Be Named" appears.

I call it "Aiming By Halves". See you there, if you're interested.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

1.) Can two different alignments and pivots be used to pocket the same shot (e.g., for a cut angle where a slightly thicker cut would suggest one alignment/pivot choice and a slightly thinner cut would suggest a different alignment/pivot choice)?

2.) If a single alignment/pivot selection can be used to pocket shots over a range of cut angles, what does the shooter do differently to achieve the different cut angles required within the range of shots?

I'll try to answer, hopefully to get this sort of back on track...

1) Typically no. However, if the shot is close enough to the pocket and within the transition areas it is possible to sneak it into the pocket using a different pivot/alignment. I know you might think this would happen all the time, but it's literally within a degree or two between the very thick/thick and thick/thin shots where this might come up, and with just a little experience it's usually obvious which one will work. Certainly for me when I was learning I might pick the wrong one and barely miss (I play on tighter equipment) then would try the other and make it center pocket.

2) You definitely would use the same alignment/pivot to tackle groups of shots within certain ranges of angles. I don't do anything differently to make them - so for example, a 20 degree shot might be aimed the same way as a 21, 22, 23, 24, etc. degree shot. What differs is only the relationship between the cueball and object ball and the resulting differences in perceiving the CTE line and aim points which results in a slightly different starting position or aim approach. The rest of the steps before and after, including the pivot, are identical.

When balls are close or beyond a certain distance there are some adjustments that are made because of the way we visualize the shots, but those are covered completely in the DVD and work quite well on the table. It is a very visual system, and just like with ghost ball you get better over time through practice knowing how to shoot which shots. I certainly don't even think about it anymore, it's automatic.

I hope I didn't misstate anything and I hope this helps as I intended, since my only goal in this is to help people understand CTE better if they want to and to have a civil conversation with the others about pros and cons vs. other aiming systems or approaches.

Scott,

Thank you for your well-thought-out answers to these important questions. I look forward to what other people think (especially CTE proponents, instructors, and users).

Here's a follow-up question for you and the others.

3.) If the same alignment and pivot is used to pocket shots requiring cut angles of 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 degrees (or even a bigger range), and the CB-OB relationship is identical for each of the shots, and the pocket is far away and tight, what is done differently in the procedure to create the different cut angles required? Obviously, across the length of the table, a 20 degree cut gives a very different result than a 24 degree cut. Over 9 feet, a 4 degree differences represents an error of more than 7 inches!

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

1.) Can two different alignments and pivots be used to pocket the same shot (e.g., for a cut angle where a slightly thicker cut would suggest one alignment/pivot choice and a slightly thinner cut would suggest a different alignment/pivot choice)?

The answer to this is yes for some shots and i do this sometimes on purpose.

2.) If a single alignment/pivot selection can be used to pocket shots over a range of cut angles, what does the shooter do differently to achieve the different cut angles required within the range of shots?

I have said cte/pro1 takes away as much feel (guesswork) as possible and is not a 100% free of feel for over a year or two now! Every time a ball or both balls move, you will have a new ctel and the aim line and that means you will move in at a different positions. With experience you will get a very good grasp of the cb,ob and the pocket and the better you get and the more you understand the system the more you will start seeing the shot or feeling the shot (i put that in for you guys ) this is how i can make any shot on the table including dr daves famous three shot thing.

Now i have said many times this is an evolving system! Whether it was intended to be that way, i dunno? I can tell you for the dr daves 3 shot drill, if you were to continue it across the table or any other ball positioning you can dream up. I would use my experience with cte/pro1 and the cb,ob and pocket location i learned from the system to make all shots. I will have adjusted from shot to shot. The system has taught me that.

Again this is an evolving system it will change with user experience for the last time!!! its not just about using lines like a robot and shooting, the system is a teacher/instructor in it-self and by far the best system out there!!

Thanks Champ. Those sound like reasonable (and mature) answers to me.

Regards,
Dave

 

[JoeyA]

I totally 100% agree with this. My problem has always been my inability to position my eyes in the exact spot that they were the last time I made a successful shot. I am not able to consistently make the same repeatable visual angle from the top looking down. I believe its because my eyes are connected to my head, and my head is connected to my body, and the connecting joints are in perpetual motion and constantly flexing and twisting every which way. The closest aid to stable viewing I can think of is to shuffle my feet based on the feeling I had the last successful time, plant it on a definite piece of floor defined by my big toe or foot position, keep my hips from gyrating, anything physical that I can latch on to for support. I do not know if this is feel or not, but this is a PSR that I have to master to be successful in deploying CTE/Pro One, and so far the mental images are holding and being stored for later replay. It's starting to get automatic and I get this feeling that if I just keep plodding along and persevere, every CTE-related move will be stored in memory as a psychic image and will make my PSR and shooting fully automatic. I can feel it coming on, and there is no geometry or LaMas or Dr. Dave drawing that can explain it.

Fil

Fil,
What you are describing is the evolution of your personal aiming while becoming proficient with CTE/Pro1.

Your alignment is becoming more consistent. Your precision in everything is improving. And yes, these visual images of the perfect sight picture are going to be burned into your mental imagery and you will continue to improve on seeing the perfect sight picture, until everything becomes automatic at its highest level.

You description in the first few sentences made me laugh because it is funny and true for many players. The structure of CTE/Pro1 is probably the biggest value of this "shooting system". Some people find it difficult to learn and it is more difficult to learn than say "ghost ball" because it involves so much more than just visualizing where the cue ball needs to hit the object ball. I found it difficult to learn at first because of what I call "the new language" (CTE, edge of cue ball to aiming reference point, manual pivoting versus air pivoting et cetera) The truth is that as you become proficient with CTE/Pro1 it is VERY EASY to use and you shoot just as fast with it as you do any other aiming system and in the end at the highest level of play, ite becomes an automatic procedure, similar to instinctive aiming, except with the familiarity and consistency of alignment, perfect sight picture, center of the cue ball, body movement, eye movement; all improved.

That being said, if you don't need to learn CTE/Pro1, don't learn it. It's not like it is the Holy Grail as some people are attempting to twist proponent's words. It's just a shooting system.

If you already have great alignment, great visual skills, loads of confidence, you've hit a million balls (HAMB) and you are pocketing balls quite well, don't bother with it. It's really that simple. It isn't for everyone but I've had fun learning it and it helped improve different aspects of my pre-shot routine.

 

[dr_dave]

2.) If a single alignment/pivot selection can be used to pocket shots over a range of cut angles, what does the shooter do differently to achieve the different cut angles required within the range of shots?

Something AtLarge said earlier in this thread comes to mind. I think it says a lot on the topic.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=3522996&postcount=115

Thanks Mohrt! I've quoted AtLarge's post below for the people who don't like clicking on links. I think this is a very appropriate and reasonable answer. In fact, because I thought this answer was so good, it was quoted (with additional context) on my CTE evaluation and analysis resource page after it was first posted on AZB.

Best regards,
Dave

... if you followed the threads last year after Stan released his CTE/Pro-One DVD, you should remember that the prescription for Stan's CTE is not all that is involved. Here's something I wrote at that time.

[Stan] is acknowledging that the basic set of prescriptions, if executed precisely the same way every time, would create only a small number of cut angles for a given CB-OB distance. So that issue should be settled. What, then, creates the additional cut angles; what turns a discrete method into a continuous method -- one with enough cut angles to pocket all shots? Where is the "feel" being introduced? Stan has now answered that question -- it is different eye positions for the same set of visuals. In other words, for any particular shot and alignment-menu choice, such as this:

CB-OB distance = 3 feet
cut to left
secondary alignment line to "B"
bridge length = 8"
cue offset = 1/2 tip
pivot from left to right​

multiple cut angles can be achieved by viewing the CTEL and secondary alignment line from different eye positions.

How does one know where to put his eyes? It is knowledge gained from experience. Stan did not acknowledge that this is "feel," but I'm sure many of us would view it that way, as feel in any aiming method is developed from experience in using the method.

So there we have it. Stan's manual CTE depends upon utilizing multiple eye positions within each of the basic 6 alignments. The feel or additional knowledge is not introduced by varying the offset, or by varying the bridge length (beyond what Stan prescribes), or by fudging the pivot -- it comes from knowing where to place the eyes while still somehow holding to the underlying pair of visuals for each of the prescriptions.

I hope this really puts an end to the squabbles. Manual CTE is not some voodoo hocus pocus. It is not geometric magic. There are no supernatural powers to align-&-pivot methods. It doesn't work because of numerology -- the table being 1x2 or 90 being the sum of 45, 30, and 15. It works by utilizing a small number of reference alignments that the player has learned to fine tune based on his explicit knowledge of where the pocket is and the appearance of the cut angle needed for the shot, i.e., his experience-based knowledge of the shot needed.​

 

[dr_dave]

Can I benefit from the purchase of Stan's system (or any other aiming system for that matter)?

IMO, maybe yes, and maybe no ... it depends on the individual. Aiming systems can certainly offer many benefits to some people.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Filibogado]

I call it "Aiming By Halves". See you there, if you're interested.

pj
chgo

I'm very definitely interested - thanks!

Fil

 

[dr_dave]

Originally, I aimed by simply finding the point on the OB that was opposite the intended target (not always a pocket, of course), and then finding the point on the CB that would come into that point on the OB "first". I would then adjust my body, bridge hand, cuestick, stroke, etc. to ultimately try to use the CB to swipe the OB with that point on CB that arrived "first". I am sure this approach is not novel, and probably even has a formal name. If it is a geometrically correct approach, I am not sure... I still revert to this from time-to-time on some shots, as it seems to work for me.

It's called contact-point-to-contact-point aiming, and, yes, it is geometrically sound. Stated just a bit differently -- find the intended contact point on the OB and aim to hit it with the equal but opposite point on the CB.

FYI, it is illustrated and described here:

contact-point-to-contact-point or parallel-lines system​

This, like double-the-distance or double-the-overlap aiming method, is a variation of ghost-ball aiming.

Systems like these can be useful in the DAM approach to aiming.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I'd like to move forward with the original intent of this thread: to talk about ways that the major fractional alignments (3/4 ball, 1/2 ball, 1/4 ball) can be used effectively in aiming.

The existing fractional methods tend to be either very simple, like Hal's 3-angle system that merely points out the fractions and leaves the rest to the shooter - or very "opaque", like pretty much all the rest that start with the fractions and add finishing steps that are difficult to understand/implement without special, sometimes expensive, instruction - that can also make aiming more of a mystery than it needs to be.

I have a feeling that most players fall through the huge crack between these two extremes. They need more than the mere knowledge that the fractions exist, but also need to be able to easily understand and implement the method - and to see clearly how it works so they can decide before trying it whether it's likely to help them.

In the next few days (gotta find the time) I'll post a description of one of these "Goldilocks" fractional methods. It's simple to understand completely without coming to my house for a lesson (please) or even trying it out at the table - you can probably evaluate right here at your monitor whether or not it will be useful for you. It adds simple, easily understood instructions to get from fractional alignments to final aim - without learning a new language or any "mystery moves".

I'll probably post it in a new thread, since this one has (inevitably) gone the way of all threads where "The System That Cannot Be Named" appears.

I call it "Aiming By Halves". See you there, if you're interested.

Good idea!

When you create the new thread, please post a link here so people who are interested can find it easily.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[stan shuffett]

Dr. Dave, you quote AtLarge's post as if I approve of the way he interpreted my comments at that time. Atlarge and I have discussed this 2 or 3 times. My use of experience was related to learning my system and not feel.
Plus, each cb ob relationship has precise, objective visuals that put the shooter's eye's 1/2 tip pivot away from a shot line. So, do not take that post and purposefully try to misrepresent what I teach just because it sounds good to you.
Stan

 

[SJDinPHX]

Fil,

That being said, if you don't need to learn CTE/Pro1, don't learn it. It's not like it is the Holy Grail as some people are attempting to twist proponent's words. It's just a shooting system.

If you already have great alignment, great visual skills, loads of confidence, you've hit a million balls (HAMB) and you are pocketing balls quite well, don't bother with it. It's really that simple. It isn't for everyone but I've had fun learning it and it helped improve different aspects of my pre-shot routine.

Hi Joey,

Just me again...I see you guys have nursed this discussion [sic] to over 800 posts. I would suggest that you just keep it going... Why start a new thead, 'EVER', on aiming systems ? They ALL say exactly the same thing, with exactly the same participants (unless they are banned, lol)...You will eventually surpass the "Funny GIF pics" thread, probably in about a week, or so..

I also notice, (in your above post) that you seem to be backing off your original views on 'ASS'...Does this mean you are finally coming to your senses regarding us "Naysayers"...:grin: :grin: :grin:

"Naysayer" McDuck <---Will probably miss your response, due to lack of interest..:boring:

 

[scottjen26]

Scott,

Thank you for your well-thought-out answers to these important questions. I look forward to what other people think (especially CTE proponents, instructors, and users).

Here's a follow-up question for you and the others.

3.) If the same alignment and pivot is used to pocket shots requiring cut angles of 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 degrees (or even a bigger range), and the CB-OB relationship is identical for each of the shots, and the pocket is far away and tight, what is done differently in the procedure to create the different cut angles required? Obviously, across the length of the table, a 20 degree cut gives a very different result than a 24 degree cut. Over 9 feet, a 4 degree differences represents an error of more than 7 inches!

Regards,
Dave

You're welcome. And no name calling was even used, imagine that...

I'm not sure what you mean by the CB-OB relationship being the same. If the cut angles are different, then the balls are in a different relative position, either laterally or distance-wise, in order to be able to account for the different cut angles. It is that difference that will result in a different visualization of the CTE line and the secondary aim lines, which results in a different initial position, which in turn results in a different post-pivot position and aim point, therefore allowing the ability to make all of those shots.

The system does NOT rely on the forgiveness of the pockets to make shots that are in between the defined aim lines, if it did and there were indeed only 6 or 12 positions then obviously a lot of shots could not be made, even with the inherent slop available in most shots. It is the visual relationship between the CB and OB that forces a different eventual aim line. Move the OB over an inch and you have a different CTE line and visualization of the shot.

As I posted a little while ago, I follow the same prescribed steps for all shots. Other than knowing which alignment/pivot is appropriate for the shot I'm shooting (which with very little practice it's obvious when you are right and wrong), there is no interpolation going on between defined cut angles or anything like that, I just find the CTE line and secondary aim lines, move into the shot along that path, perform the pivot and I find myself on the correct aim line for the shot. Still don't know how that works, but it does...
Scott

 

[JB Cases]

It's really simple. There are many ways to use these methods. Many flavors if you will. Many other systems that all lead to the shot line.

All the good ones reduce "feel" to almost zero but increases confidence to a much higher level.

Most people who watch Stan's dvd won't get it just by viewing it. You have to view it and REALLY study it and then look again and go to the table. It's a process. But when the light bulb goes on then it's clear how precise it is.

I just talked to Matt Carter at CueSight yesterday and was told that Stan's DVD is one of the best sellers that they have ever had. I asked him how many people have asked for their money back and he checked it in the database and said ZERO.

It's perception. Using the edge of the object ball is a reference that is UNMOVING. It's there all the time. The only thing that moves is the shooter. Therefore there are only two positions that the shooter can be in, wrong or right. If the shooter is in the wrong position then he can ONLY make the ball by steering it in or miss it by shooting with proper execution. Conversely if the shooter is on the right line then he can make it with proper execution and miss it by steering it off the line.

So how do you know that a system works?

Simple. Set up shots with known GB positions and use the system to get to the GB line. If it takes you easily to the GB line then it works. Once you are comfortable getting there from all CB positions to a known GB position then try it without marking the GB position.

No need to argue about it. Stan has put a ton of reference shots on his DVD to allow the shooter to have a bunch of shots to use to practice the visual alignments. So using those shots the shooter can easily pick up the right alignments and figure out which angles work for which set of alignments.

It's so freaking easy once you spend a little time with it. Each shot looks like this - find the edge - draw a line from the center of the cue ball to that edge - find a secondary line - ease over to that and get down into the shot. That's how it feels for every shot. Every shot. No exceptions. - it's literally bing-bang-boom no guessing, no agony, no feeling around in the dark......

And it doesn't matter what type of system you use as long as it does this for you. The proof is in the results. If you are able to make more shots, make "tougher" shots, and be more consistent then you have a system that works. If you are contantly unsure, constantly guessing, constantly fidgeting, then you either are not properly doing the system OR whatever you are trying to use does not work.

Which is why you TEST it against known GB lines. Every good system has to bring you to the GB line from any CB position. Then you don't need to guess. Follow the directions and if you don't get there then ask for more instruction or give it up.

Pretty simple really.

 

[champ2107]

Scott,



3.) If the same alignment and pivot is used to pocket shots requiring cut angles of 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 degrees (or even a bigger range), and the CB-OB relationship is identical for each of the shots, and the pocket is far away and tight, what is done differently in the procedure to create the different cut angles required? Obviously, across the length of the table, a 20 degree cut gives a very different result than a 24 degree cut. Over 9 feet, a 4 degree differences represents an error of more than 7 inches!

Regards,
Dave

as i said in my other post, my cte/pro1 experience with the cb,ob and pocket relation will tell me i have to make an adjustment or i will miss. I have said many a time in these threads before that you will have to pick out the correct ctel on certain shots and experience with the system will teach you this, you will now have a different visual and the body follows the eyes. Anything you read from me is my own experience with using cte/pro1 and not Stans. So dont put my words into his mouth.

now if i understood your question this would be my answer.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I'd like to move forward with the original intent of this thread: to talk about ways that the major fractional alignments (3/4 ball, 1/2 ball, 1/4 ball) can be used effectively in aiming.

The existing fractional methods tend to be either very simple, like Hal's 3-angle system that merely points out the fractions and leaves the rest to the shooter - or very "opaque", like pretty much all the rest that start with the fractions and add finishing steps that are difficult to understand/implement without special, sometimes expensive, instruction - that can also make aiming more of a mystery than it needs to be.

I have a feeling that most players fall through the huge crack between these two extremes. They need more than the mere knowledge that the fractions exist, but also need to be able to easily understand and implement the method - and to see clearly how it works so they can decide before trying it whether it's likely to help them.

In the next few days (gotta find the time) I'll post a description of one of these "Goldilocks" fractional methods. It's simple to understand completely without coming to my house for a lesson (please) or even trying it out at the table - you can probably evaluate right here at your monitor whether or not it will be useful for you. It adds simple, easily understood instructions to get from fractional alignments to final aim - without learning a new language or any "mystery moves".

I'll probably post it in a new thread, since this one has (inevitably) gone the way of all threads where "The System That Cannot Be Named" appears.

I call it "Aiming By Halves". See you there, if you're interested.

pj
chgo

Hal never had a 3-angle system. He told me he left the pivot out on purpose. He told Stan the same thing.

 

[mohrt]

It's really simple. There are many ways to use these methods. Many flavors if you will. Many other systems that all lead to the shot line.

All the good ones reduce "feel" to almost zero but increases confidence to a much higher level.

Most people who watch Stan's dvd won't get it just by viewing it. You have to view it and REALLY study it and then look again and go to the table. It's a process. But when the light bulb goes on then it's clear how precise it is.

I just talked to Matt Carter at CueSight yesterday and was told that Stan's DVD is one of the best sellers that they have ever had. I asked him how many people have asked for their money back and he checked it in the database and said ZERO.

It's perception. Using the edge of the object ball is a reference that is UNMOVING. It's there all the time. The only thing that moves is the shooter. Therefore there are only two positions that the shooter can be in, wrong or right. If the shooter is in the wrong position then he can ONLY make the ball by steering it in or miss it by shooting with proper execution. Conversely if the shooter is on the right line then he can make it with proper execution and miss it by steering it off the line.

So how do you know that a system works?

Simple. Set up shots with known GB positions and use the system to get to the GB line. If it takes you easily to the GB line then it works. Once you are comfortable getting there from all CB positions to a known GB position then try it without marking the GB position.

No need to argue about it. Stan has put a ton of reference shots on his DVD to allow the shooter to have a bunch of shots to use to practice the visual alignments. So using those shots the shooter can easily pick up the right alignments and figure out which angles work for which set of alignments.

It's so freaking easy once you spend a little time with it. Each shot looks like this - find the edge - draw a line from the center of the cue ball to that edge - find a secondary line - ease over to that and get down into the shot. That's how it feels for every shot. Every shot. No exceptions. - it's literally bing-bang-boom no guessing, no agony, no feeling around in the dark......

And it doesn't matter what type of system you use as long as it does this for you. The proof is in the results. If you are able to make more shots, make "tougher" shots, and be more consistent then you have a system that works. If you are contantly unsure, constantly guessing, constantly fidgeting, then you either are not properly doing the system OR whatever you are trying to use does not work.

Which is why you TEST it against known GB lines. Every good system has to bring you to the GB line from any CB position. Then you don't need to guess. Follow the directions and if you don't get there then ask for more instruction or give it up.

Pretty simple really.

JB,

Putting thoughts accurately into words can be a monumental task. You make it look easy This is extremely well put, I encourage others to read it carefully.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

scottjen26:
It is the visual relationship between the CB and OB that forces a different eventual aim line. Move the OB over an inch and you have a different CTE line and visualization of the shot.

Moving the OB an inch doesn't change the visual relationship between the CB and OB alone. You have to include the pocket in that visual relationship for such a change to make a difference.

To see what I mean, imagine the CB and OB sitting on flat ground that stretches to the horizon in all directions with no visible landmarks. Move the OB an inch left or right (without changing the distance between them) and you still have the same two points in space forming the same straight line. You can't tell the line has changed direction because there are no landmarks to tell you that.

But add a "pocket" somewhere behind the OB and moving the OB an inch left or right can be seen as a difference in the angle created by the three points (CB/OB/pocket) - or as a difference in the "direction" the CB/OB line is pointed.

You might say the pocket isn't needed to see this difference - you can see it from the way the CB/OB line relates to the rails (or because an experienced player just "knows"). But that's really the same thing as saying it's the pocket.

pj
chgo

 

[Filibogado]

Fil,
And yes, these visual images of the perfect sight picture are going to be burned into your mental imagery and you will continue to improve on seeing the perfect sight picture, until everything becomes automatic at its highest level.

The truth is that as you become proficient with CTE/Pro1 it is VERY EASY to use and you shoot just as fast with it as you do any other aiming system and in the end at the highest level of play, ite becomes an automatic procedure, similar to instinctive aiming, except with the familiarity and consistency of alignment, perfect sight picture, center of the cue ball, body movement, eye movement; all improved.

JoeyA:

I believe this is what is known as “déjà vu” (literally "already seen") Deja vu is the experience of feeling sure that one has already witnessed or experienced a current situation, even though the exact circumstances of the prior encounter are uncertain and were perhaps imagined. The experience of déjà vu is usually accompanied by a compelling sense of familiarity, and also a sense of "eeriness", "strangeness", "weirdness", or what Sigmund Freud calls "the uncanny". There is a firm sense that the experience has genuinely happened in the past and is caused by a person getting a brief glimpse of an object or situation (read “cue ball” or “object ball”) prior to full conscious perception, resulting in a sense of familiarity. Be forewarned, though, that there appears to be a clinical link between déjà vu and serious psychopathic disorders such as paranoid schizophrenia and bipolar manic/depressive behavior. Discussion of highly charged and emotional topics such as aiming could possibly bring on these attacks – lol!

Just kidding,

Fil

 

[champ2107]

Moving the OB an inch doesn't change the visual relationship between the CB and OB alone. You have to include the pocket in that visual relationship for such a change to make a difference.

To see what I mean, imagine the CB and OB sitting on flat ground that stretches to the horizon in all directions with no visible landmarks. Move the OB an inch left or right (without changing the distance between them) and you still have the same two points in space forming the same straight line. You can't tell the line has changed direction because there are no landmarks to tell you that.

But add a "pocket" somewhere behind the OB and moving the OB an inch left or right can be seen as a difference in the angle created by the three points (CB/OB/pocket) - or as a difference in the "direction" the CB/OB line is pointed.

You might say the pocket isn't needed to see this difference - you can see it from the way the CB/OB line relates to the rails (or because an experienced player just "knows"). But that's really the same thing as saying it's the pocket.

pj
chgo

the above bold is correct, i did not read the rest the post