John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems

[Patrick Johnson]

Not wanting to argue. Maybe margin of error is the wrong phrase.

What is the proper phrase describing the results of a technique that doesn't change the quality of stroke, but increases pocketing percentage with most if not all misses on the over cut side of the pocket ?

I think the phrase is "wishful thinking". Hitting just one side of the cue ball doesn't do it - a stroke error misses just as often, by the same amounts and in the same directions (left or right of the intended target) no matter where you try to hit the CB.

Paying closer attention to where you hit the CB should improve the accuracy of your stroke, but that improvement isn't the result of your aiming method (and it still won't limit errors to one side of your target).

pj
chgo

 

[CJ Wiley]

Your Game is a direct representation of how many positive habits you have "packaged".

Not wanting to argue. Maybe margin of error is the wrong phrase.

What is the proper phrase describing the results of a technique that doesn't change the quality of stroke, but increases pocketing percentage with most if not all misses on the over cut side of the pocket ?

You have effectively put yourself in a situation that your accuracy will improve with acceleration. If a "straight ball" hitter relies on acceleration it will only amplify the range of their misses (left OR right). Utilizing the "Touch of Inside" the scenario changes where you will be more accurate when accelerating which is adding another positive habit. Your Game is a direct representation of how many positive habits you have "packaged".

Margin of error for a machine is something you can calculate in a simple formula because a machine has no "Touch". With a human being, margin of error is often effected by the chosen perception of reality. You will generate more "Touch" by adjusting how you choose to see a situation, or target, reducing unwanted variatables - this is another way to reduce margin of error.

As human beings we want to reduce "moving parts", and systematically put ourselves in a position to perform consistently. Hitting the primary target in pool {The Cue Ball} on the same side achieves this and enables us to stroke with more confidence. This confidence adds somthing to our pocket billiard games that is essential (in my opinion), A SENSE OF WELL BEING. This "sense" far outweighs any simple "margin of error" because it effects your whole Persona* and makes The Game MUCH more rewarding to the player. 'The Game is the Teacher'

* In the study of communication, persona is a term given to describe the versions of self that all individuals possess. Behaviors are selected according to the desired impression an individual wishes to create when interacting with other people. A person may inhabit various social roles through intentional or unintentional expression of behaviors and appearances that convey meanings maintaining these roles during social interactions.[1] Therefore, the persona one presents to other people varies according to the social environment the person is engaged with. In particular, the persona presented before others will differ from the persona an individual will present when he/she happens to be alone.

 

[duckie]

Hmmmmm, I wonder if those that gave Matt grief of his use of chin lock claiming that his use was not the accepted industry standard will do the same here.

The use of margin of error here is not the industry standard.

 

[CJ Wiley]

margin of error is the most widely misunderstood and misleading concept

Hmmmmm, I wonder if those that gave Matt grief of his use of chin lock claiming that his use was not the accepted industry standard will do the same here.

The use of margin of error here is not the industry standard.

I understand your point duckie, since it deals in something that we can't measure called "Human perception". I just believe, from my experience in a wide range of games and sports that margin of error is increased or decreased in relationship to how someone perceives the target. Even in statistics read below what they say about *margin of error.


* The margin of error is the most widely misunderstood and misleading concept in
statistics. It’s positively frightening to people who actually understand what it means to see
how it’s commonly used in the media, in conversation, sometimes even by other scientists!

The basic idea of it is very simple. Most of the time when we’re doing statistics, we’re doing statistics based on a sample – that is, the entire population we’re interested in is difficult to study; so what we try to do is pick a representative subset called a sample. If the subset is truly representative, then the statistics you generate using information gathered from the sample will be the same as information gathered from the population as a whole.

But life is never simple. We never have perfectly representative samples; in fact, it’s
impossible to select a perfectly representative sample. So we do our best to pick good
samples, and we use probability theory to work out a predication of how confident we can be that the
statistics from our sample are representative of the entire population. That’s basically what the
margin of error represents: how well we think that the selected sample will allow us to
predict things about the entire population.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Good reads.

Sloppy's post #1697 & CJ's post #1702 are good reads that are well stated with insight to 'unreal realities'. Who was it that siad, "I think so I am"?

 

[Neil]

Sloppy's post #1697 & CJ's post #1702 are good reads that are well stated with insight to 'unreal realities'. Who was it that siad, "I think so I am"?

Being new here, this may be new "news" to you. But, the same things have been said on here many, many, times before.

 

[Mikjary]

Sloppy's post #1697 & CJ's post #1702 are good reads that are well stated with insight to 'unreal realities'. Who was it that siad, "I think so I am"?

Descartes..."I think, therefore I am".

Best,
Mike

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

The use of margin of error here is not the industry standard.

Well, I didn't start using it, Duckie, I think Dr. Dave did in his book (great book, not knocking it at all). It is actually a statistical term that has to do with the probability of the prediction of an event being true. It is more relevant to the type of random scatter that might be predicted if one is trying for the exact center of the CB. It has nothing at all to do with pocketing geometry, no matter how much Pat wants that to be true.


Excuse me now because I'm gonna reach here a bit and compare the "margin of error" involved in trying to hit the ball just to the inside of center to that involved in playing a stringed musical instrument in tune.

Probably half the membership here has at least tried to strum a guitar at some point in there lives. If not, it's likely that you at least know it has metal bars across it called "frets", and that these bars are exactly one half step apart on the musical scale. Place your finger just behind the fret and the correct note sound out, perfectly in tune.

Now pick up a violin. It has no frets to place your finger behind. If you place your finger in the precise position, the note is in tune and sounds OK. If you fall a little short, the note will be flat and sound like shit. Reach too far up the fingerboard and it will be sharp and sound terrible as well. So how do you get it right on the money every single time like a professional player must?

Every first-rate player I have ever talked to (and I've been in the business for a very long time) "aims" just to the short (flat) side of perfect. Call it a "touch of inside" if you will. If they hit it just right, they immediately add vibrato to swell the sound intensity. If they hit it a little flat, they immediately vibrate the finger up into tune and it sounds good. If they note is even flatter they do the same thing, but you may hear a very slight slide up to pitch. If done correctly you will never notice it in the music. Call it a "three-zone note pocketing" system".

An interesting thing happens after some time practicing this technique. The real flat notes start to be fewer and farther between, while most of the notes fall ever so slightly flat and are corrected the same way so they all sound good. The rest of the time the finger land smack dab on the correct spot, which still "pockets" the note. Never does a good player land sharp of the proper spot after playing for several years. By "aiming low" they effectively eliminate the high side from their playing, and spend 99% of their time either hitting the note ever so slightly flat or hitting it spot on. Their mind eventually learns to avoid the sharp side entirely, and thus, increases the probability that they will land acceptably correct on the note.

Pretty cool Jedi mind trick, eh?

 

[ENGLISH!]

Descartes..."I think, therefore I am".

Best,
Mike

Thanks Mike. I butchered that. When I re-read it I said to myself. "maybe I'm not"

Best back @ U,

 

[justadub]

Descartes..."I think, therefore I am".

Best,
Mike

Justadub said "I drink, therefore I am"

:thumbup:

(And doesn't drink nearly as much as he says he does, heh)

 

[ronscuba]

I think the phrase is "wishful thinking". .....pj
chgo

Your response could be interpreted as an insult in an attempt to pick an online fight. Not sure if that is what you wanted, but your response is kind of obnoxious.

I did not mention a technique. I was just asking you what phrase you would use to describe the results.

As mentioned, high level and pro golfers use a similar technique to what CJ is using in pool. The golfers use the term margin of error all the time. Although golf and pool are not exactly the same, the theory of the techniques are similar enough that if the phrase margin of error is used in golf, it could also be used in pool.

If margin of error is the wrong term then in addition to pool players, a whole lot of golfers are using the wrong term too. Or, it could be a case of common use of a term vs. technical definition.

I cut my finger, do you have a band aid ? Sorry, don't have a band aid. All I have are a bunch of adhesive bandages. I don't have vaseline either. Just petroleum jelly. So if you ask me for vaseline, I don't have any.

 

[dr_dave]

The use of margin of error here is not the industry standard.

Well, I didn't start using it, Duckie, I think Dr. Dave did in his book (great book, not knocking it at all).

FYI, the usage in my book is based on the definition in my online pool glossary:

margin of error: a measure of how much angle, tip position, or speed error you can have, while still pocketing the object ball and getting position for the next shot.​

I think this definition is appropriate for pool players (even if some statisticians might not like it).

Regards,
Dave

 

[The Renfro]

I think Charlie Sheen must be posting here under several different screen names... If you think you are "Winning" when it's pretty obvious to those around you that you are not even close maybe it's time to go into AZ rehab or something.....

I fully expect that the same nits would try to argue golf with Nicklaus...

After all, the physics of hitting a golf ball is really simple to understand so they would be keyboard masters in a golf forum as well....

Anyone know if Hogan had an aiming arrow????


Post on C.J. ...

 

[AtLarge]

... Persona* ...

... *margin of error ...

CJ -- I'd appreciate your citing your source(s) when you quote material from elsewhere. Thanks.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Your response could be interpreted as an insult in an attempt to pick an online fight. Not sure if that is what you wanted, but your response is kind of obnoxious.

I did not mention a technique. I was just asking you what phrase you would use to describe the results.

So "a technique that doesn't change the quality of stroke, but increases pocketing percentage with most if not all misses on the over cut side of the pocket" isn't CJ's technique? Really?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about who's being obnoxious.

pj
chgo

 

[CJ Wiley]

I learned ALL OF THEM on the battlefield and in competition playing the REAL GAME

Your response could be interpreted as an insult in an attempt to pick an online fight. Not sure if that is what you wanted, but your response is kind of obnoxious.

I did not mention a technique. I was just asking you what phrase you would use to describe the results.

As mentioned, high level and pro golfers use a similar technique to what CJ is using in pool. The golfers use the term margin of error all the time. Although golf and pool are not exactly the same, the theory of the techniques are similar enough that if the phrase margin of error is used in golf, it could also be used in pool.

If margin of error is the wrong term then in addition to pool players, a whole lot of golfers are using the wrong term too. Or, it could be a case of common use of a term vs. technical definition.

I cut my finger, do you have a band aid ? Sorry, don't have a band aid. All I have are a bunch of adhesive bandages. I don't have vaseline either. Just petroleum jelly. So if you ask me for vaseline, I don't have any.

You are EXACTLY on target. Margin of error has been used in many circles that I've been in and it's usually in regards to increasing Zones. Mentally you can create zones, and increase margin of error by altering your perception.

Physically you can do it using spin, deflection, speed and in golf you can do it by using the wind, contour of the land/green and club selection. Pocket Billiards doesn't have 14 clubs or "elements" like wind and rain, however, there are many similarities.

The same can be said of Tennis and even the martial arts. I bring a mixture of these disiplines to the "forum table" and I'm really not sure why it disturbs anyone (pool terminology isn't the rule of thumb in the world), I'm just telling it like it is according to my experiences.

Would it be better to quote out of other books and off other web sites all the time? Someone mentioned boring. :boring2: I'm not sure how "original" my concepts are, I learned ALL OF THEM on the battlefield and in competition playing the REAL GAME of pool, not playing video games, reading web sites, magazines, etc.

 

[CJ Wiley]

The accelerating stroke makes the "Touch" of Inside work

So "a technique that doesn't change the quality of stroke, but increases pocketing percentage with most if not all misses on the over cut side of the pocket" isn't CJ's technique? Really?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about who's being obnoxious.

pj
chgo

The accelerating stroke makes the "Touch" of Inside work. If you don't accelerate, you are better off not doing it. I wish you could understand it without doing it, but I don't think it's possible.

For some reason you have to experience this to understand it and I've never trained anyone that is the exception to this rule. Just accelerating with a conventional method is a BAD idea and it leads to amplifying your mistakes. With this method it's essential. It's a totally different way to play pocket billiards than most people are aware of.

You don't have to understand it, you just have to experience it. I know that doesn't make sense, I'm not claiming that it does {make sense}. I'm just the messenger, giving you the messager of how it's done. You'll have to decide if it's right for you all by yourself, no one will ever be able to do it for you. 'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

FYI, the usage in my book is based on the definition in my online pool glossary:

margin of error: a measure of how much angle, tip position, or speed error you can have, while still pocketing the object ball and getting position for the next shot.​

I think this definition is appropriate for pool players (even if some statisticians might not like it).

Yeah, it's part of the vernacular with a lot of subjects, and I'm totally fine with it. Just don't go using invented terminology over on the "Ask the Instructor" forum. They burn witches at the stake over there. :wink:

What I'm not fine with is the notion that stroking errors are always randomly arrayed around the intended target area. That may be true with machines, but humans have intent and can steer the results... even unconsciously.

 

[CJ Wiley]

funny stuff. Human nature

I think Charlie Sheen must be posting here under several different screen names... If you think you are "Winning" when it's pretty obvious to those around you that you are not even close maybe it's time to go into AZ rehab or something.....

I fully expect that the same nits would try to argue golf with Nicklaus...

After all, the physics of hitting a golf ball is really simple to understand so they would be keyboard masters in a golf forum as well....

Anyone know if Hogan had an aiming arrow????


Post on C.J. ...

That's funny stuff. Human nature is predictable isn't it? :groucho:

 

[CJ Wiley]

apparent in playing zones for position. Pinpoint position that is

So "a technique that doesn't change the quality of stroke, but increases pocketing percentage with most if not all misses on the over cut side of the pocket" isn't CJ's technique? Really?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about who's being obnoxious.

pj
chgo

The "increased pocketing margin for error and the advantage of KNOWING why you don't make shots" is only a percetage of the total package. The other advantages come from discovering how the "no spin" cue ball reacts differently that the "helping english" cue ball. And this is where the advantage becomes apparent in playing zones for position. Pinpoint position that is. :wink: