Mathematical Aiming System

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, were you waiting until DM got banned before posting this system? Beware the sack of doorknobs!

Nah, I would've posted it anyway. Just came to me a couple of hours ago.

Anyway, DM's harmless, even with a bag of doorknobs....so long as you do whatever he says

 

[rackmsuckr]

Truly I am not on your back...I am really enjoying getting into your mind. But I just wanted to mention that from the picture, no matter how you calculate, you have a good chance of drawing whitey into the side. lol

 

[Colin Colenso]

Hi Colin...jsp again. I spent the last 20 minutes here at work trying to derive your formula. Because of the complexity in calcuating your formula, I assumed that the equation would obtain an exact answer. But looking at your fomula again, this must be just an approximation. The units in your formula don't make any mathematical sense. Here is your equation again...

Distance of Movement = (sine of angle / length of shot in feet) x 15mm

You're solving for "distance of movement", which should have units of length. The other side of the equation must have the units of length as well, but the right side is unitless! The units for "Length of shot in feet" and 15mm cancel out, and all you have left are the units of "sine of angle", but that is unitless. Is there more to your formula that we're missing?

Oh...wait. Looking at your formula yet again, i'm thinking that 15 is just a constant of proportionality, and has nothing to do with an actual real dimension of 15mm. Okay, i think i understand now. Don't send this formula to a mathematician, cuz he'll have fits. A more mathematically sound way to express your formula is as follows:

Distance of Movement (mm) = [sine of angle / length of shot (feet)] x 15 (feet*mm)

Here, at least the units agree with each other. Okay...now let me see if I can derive this 15 number

Yes, I simplified the system and didn't even do the accurate trig to work out the 15mm constant. It may be a little more or less. But the basic math formula is feasably quite accurate.

The main problem would be the implementation. That people first have the challenge of aligning center CB to OB Contact Point and then estimating the adjustment of their bridge hand to within a millimeter of that specified for longer shots and wider angle shots.

An alternative system would be to simply calculate a distance from the contact point on the CB which to aim to, using the same basic math with an adjusted constant. Then the key would be to estimate within 1mm on a point on the OB or to the side of it. It's feasable if you have a good imagination of widths over various distances.

Both are potential good systems for putting your alignment in the ball park and then letting IJ make minor adjustments.

I do prefer the idea of looking for lines through the center of the CB rather that contact point to contact point or edge to center etc. That's kind of why I'm playing around with this system, looking for an easier prediction, visualization tool.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I just thought up a new aiming system which some may find useful. Not sure if anyone has proposed this method before, but it wouldn't suprise me if they had.
...

For a plot of all fullnesses versus cut angle, see:

http://www.sfbilliards.com/fract.pdf

I know a player who had all of the angles memorized for each 1/64th of fullness. He could also tell you the angle of the path of the cue ball relative to the cushions and the line of the object ball's path relative to the cushions.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Truly I am not on your back...I am really enjoying getting into your mind. But I just wanted to mention that from the picture, no matter how you calculate, you have a good chance of drawing whitey into the side. lol

haha, that was the first thing I noticed when I selected the image.

 

[rackmsuckr]

haha, that was the first thing I noticed when I selected the image.

Ok, so I am nitpicking, but on your signature, what does it mean to stay off your black? Is that the 8ball, or do you play chess, or did you mean back? Or have you been in China too long (as in Crash and 'blake light')

 

[Jimmy M.]

I know a player who had all of the angles memorized for each 1/64th of fullness. He could also tell you the angle of the path of the cue ball relative to the cushions and the line of the object ball's path relative to the cushions.

How did he play?

 

[Colin Colenso]

Do you have a job? Just wondering. Anyway, I don't have the calculator or compass or slide rule or anything, much less a ruler to measure mm. 1.7mm - how would I find that to adjust - take my 12.5 mm tip and divide from there???

Yeah, I work...lol. Organizing a pool league and some sports marketing. I didn't spend long on this...just a couple of hours

For judging the distances and angles, just takes a bit of practice I believe. Looking at a ruler a bit can help you judge 1mm or 3mm. When closer to 10mm use the cue width as a guide.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Ok, so I am nitpicking, but on your signature, what does it mean to stay off your black? Is that the 8ball, or do you play chess, or did you mean back? Or have you been in China too long (as in Crash and 'blake light')

It's from a dance music song, the original lyric begins 'Get of my back' as I recall. I was listening to the song...ok, dancing around like a dorky white boy, and thought it would make a cool reference to pool if I changed the words a little.

It's a warning to other players that the black ball is for ME!

The novelty is wearing off

 

[Bob Jewett]

How did he play?

About even with Varner at one pocket.

 

[TheOne]

It's from a dance music song, the original lyric begins 'Get of my back' as I recall. I was listening to the song...ok, dancing around like a dorky white boy, and thought it would make a cool reference to pool if I changed the words a little.

It's a warning to other players that the black ball is for ME!

The novelty is wearing off

On second thoughts colin, burn your cue, stop practising and take a longgggggg break from all things Billiards!

 

[Jimmy M.]

About even with Varner at one pocket.

Hmm. Was it Steve Cook? I'm just trying to think of someone who might have played one pocket at that speed.

 

[5aheadforpinks]

calculators and compass' outlawed..

I played a man one time in Mountain View CA, who used to use a compass on every shot to figure out where he needed to hit. I had to spot him two games in a race to five for the finals. They had told him he couldnt use a compass anymore a few weeks prior to me playing him; so instead

he would measure the angle by rolling his hand across the table.

He had his hand measured to know how many handwidths was what angle.
It was incredible to watch him do that on every shot, Id never seen anything like it and it was bugging me. He had me 4 to 2 before I got over his mystical invisible compass. And I won the next three games easy for the win...

Needless to say, anyone using a compass or measuring the shot with their hands... IS HORRIBLE!

 

[BRKNRUN]

I played a man one time in Mountain View CA, who used to use a compass on every shot to figure out where he needed to hit. I had to spot him two games in a race to five for the finals. They had told him he couldnt use a compass anymore a few weeks prior to me playing him; so instead

he would measure the angle by rolling his hand across the table.

He had his hand measured to know how many handwidths was what angle.
It was incredible to watch him do that on every shot, Id never seen anything like it and it was bugging me. He had me 4 to 2 before I got over his mystical invisible compass. And I won the next three games easy for the win...

Needless to say, anyone using a compass or measuring the shot with their hands... IS HORRIBLE!

I watched an Accu Stats tape once that had some guy that would put his head down right at eye level with the rail and would put both hands out and above his head and start making circles in the air with has hands. It was like he was summoning the "gods of feel" or something.

Who was that guy? ....I wonder if that was/is IMMSHURA

 

[TheConArtist]

I watched an Accu Stats tape once that had some guy that would put his head down right at eye level with the rail and would put both hands out and above his head and start making circles in the air with has hands. It was like he was summoning the "gods of feel" or something.

Who was that guy? ....I wonder if that was/is IMMSHURA

LMMAO that was the laugh of the day i needed. Thx BRKNRUN

 

[Colin Colenso]

I appreciate all the comments...I too find these characters amusing, and often in the sense that they are paralysed by their theories.

But sometime this analysis leads to success as Bob noted with his one pocket player.

I had a friend who took up pool in C division. He was known as pythagoras for his constant time consuming checking of all the angles.

Anyway, he topped that division his first season and progressed to B division and topped that and then to A division and topped that. Then he moved on to tournaments with the best in the state and nation competing and quickly became one of the most consistant high finishers in those events.

So sometimes the analytical and determined mind leads to great improvements.

But of course, as Nick Faldo or Ian Baker-Finch demonstrate, sometimes thinking about too much or things that are irrellevant to the key factors can lead to a paralysis by analysis...a lowering of performance.

My guess is that most successful pros have had many battles with aiming demons and have fought them with many many hours of practice.

 

[pinkisntwell]

I think Colin is pranking us.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I think Colin is pranking us.

Not pranking, just offering some food for thought for those interested in variations of aiming systems. I also believe that just thinking about these things and how all the angles relate allow me to better determing the causes of pocketing errors.

I did try the system today but found it tiresome and not as accurate as my normal game. It would get better with practice but I am pretty happy with the progress in my old tried and true aiming method. After a few weeks of regular sessions everything is coming together.

Stance and bending down to shot is feeling natural, smoother, more balanced, and my alignment to the angles is narrowing in to pretty good accuracy fairly consistantly.

I'll just keep working on this and play more and more and the consistancy should keep increasing and angle judgement keep improving.

The best way I could explain my own aiming system is that I look at the OB with the pocket in the corner of my eye. I basically just imagine the OB going in as I place my bridge and slide it smoothly until the line feels right.

 

[chefjeff]

Interesting stuff, Colin. I feel like such a moron sometimes....I'm as impressed by your graphics as by your formula.

I, too, have been thinking more about aiming systems lately, so I understand where you're going with all this. I even understand why. Yikes! Nerd alert! Nerd alert!

Remember my "system" in another thread that has only 4 angles? I incorrectly stated it works on 99.9% of shots. I'd say the correct number is closer to 95% of shots. I could be wrong as, only two months into it, my sample is still too small. But, it has to be close to that, give or take a few percentages.

So, if I can easily, quickly, and accurately aim 95% of my shots correctly, haven't I eliminated 95% of my aiming problems? Yes, I have, simply and accurately, and without excess effort. But what of the other 5%?

The other 5% of shots are covered by all the other aiming techniques: "feel," ghost ball, parallel, railroad, Colin's sine formula, whatever. Right?

So, my point of this post is to advocate using the simplest system you enjoy for 95% of shots and only use complex formulas/techniques for the remaining 5% that fall outside the norm. This would reduce fatigue and burnout, keep the formulas in familiar mathematical territory, yet allow maximum potting overall.

What do you think about that?

Jeff Livingston

 

[Colin Colenso]

Interesting stuff, Colin. I feel like such a moron sometimes....I'm as impressed by your graphics as by your formula.

I, too, have been thinking more about aiming systems lately, so I understand where you're going with all this. I even understand why. Yikes! Nerd alert! Nerd alert!

Remember my "system" in another thread that has only 4 angles? I incorrectly stated it works on 99.9% of shots. I'd say the correct number is closer to 95% of shots. I could be wrong as, only two months into it, my sample is still too small. But, it has to be close to that, give or take a few percentages.

So, if I can easily, quickly, and accurately aim 95% of my shots correctly, haven't I eliminated 95% of my aiming problems? Yes, I have, simply and accurately, and without excess effort. But what of the other 5%?

The other 5% of shots are covered by all the other aiming techniques: "feel," ghost ball, parallel, railroad, Colin's sine formula, whatever. Right?

So, my point of this post is to advocate using the simplest system you enjoy for 95% of shots and only use complex formulas/techniques for the remaining 5% that fall outside the norm. This would reduce fatigue and burnout, keep the formulas in familiar mathematical territory, yet allow maximum potting overall.

What do you think about that?

Jeff Livingston

Hi Jeff,
I've read so many posts about different aiming systems recently, forgive me if I can't recall exactly where you described yours.

If my recollection is correct, and I wouldn't bet on it, I think it was something like Fred's recently suggested system. ie. Line up to contact point on OB via a few points of various tip width on the CB. Right? I may be getting all confused now...lol

But basically I agree with you. We can use the various systems to help us with various types of shots.

If we don't really understand what should line up to what and when, and how squirt, throw and swerve, and hard vs soft rail banks and all the like physical effects work in relation to one another, we are left to memorizing a million variations of shots at various speeds and spins.

So I think analyzing and experimenting with the system helps us to make our game more adaptable, and to help us select the most appropriate systems that can allow better results, more consistantly over a wider range of shots.

Golly...that was a mouthfull