Memory, Playing Pool, and Aiming

[BC21]

I remember reading about a memory experiment performed with chess players sometime back in the 1970's. The skill range of players ranged from beginner to grand master.

It involved setting up pieces on a chessboard to simulated real game situations. Each chess player was given just a few seconds to study the board, then they'd leave the room and all the pieces would be removed from the board. When the chess players returned to the blank chessboard they would be asked to place the pieces back onto the board in accordance with what they could remember.

The beginning chess players could only get about 4 pieces correct, while the master players could remember where ALL the pieces went, and there were more than 20 pieces! One would think this is proof that master players have superior memory skills, or maybe photographic memories, when compared to beginner or average players, but here's where the study gets interesting...

The next step in the experiment worked exactly the same way, only this time the pieces were placed in random positions on the board instead of simulating real game situations. How do you think the masters did this time when compared to the beginners or average players?

They did no better. Just like the novice players, the master players could only get about 4 pieces correct.

It's because they don't have superior memory skills or super photographic genius abilities. They have superior experience, tons of visual memories depicting countless game situations and scenarios, all stored through thousands of hours of playing chess. When a master chess player looks at the pieces on a board in a real game situation, there is a massive visual database of memory that is used for reference, associating what they see with what they have already seen countless times. They do not have a database of memory for the random placement of peices.

Now you might be wondering what any of this has to do with playing pool or aiming pool shots.....

When we are learning how to play pool (how to read a rack, play position, pocket balls, etc...), we are building visual databases that our mind uses to associate what we see with what we have already seen and learned. This is how the conscious mind works with the subconscious neural networks that we've already hardwired and stored into memory. In other words....this is how we see and do. This is how pool players see the shot and know how to shoot it, regardless of what aiming method or system you use, prefer, or gravitate towards, you see and do based on what you've already seen and done (experience). Those with better experience play better pool.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Shot picture is from memory and knowledge .

 

[Imac007]

I remember reading about a memory experiment performed with chess players sometime back in the 1970's. The skill range of players ranged from beginner to grand master.

It involved setting up pieces on a chessboard to simulated real game situations. Each chess player was given just a few seconds to study the board, then they'd leave the room and all the pieces would be removed from the board. When the chess players returned to the blank chessboard they would be asked to place the pieces back onto the board in accordance with what they could remember.

The beginning chess players could only get about 4 pieces correct, while the master players could remember where ALL the pieces went, and there were more than 20 pieces! One would think this is proof that master players have superior memory skills, or maybe photographic memories, when compared to beginner or average players, but here's where the study gets interesting...

The next step in the experiment worked exactly the same way, only this time the pieces were placed in random positions on the board instead of simulating real game situations. How do you think the masters did this time when compared to the beginners or average players?

They did no better. Just like the novice players, the master players could only get about 4 pieces correct.

It's because they don't have superior memory skills or super photographic genius abilities. They have superior experience, tons of visual memories depicting countless game situations and scenarios, all stored through thousands of hours of playing chess. When a master chess player looks at the pieces on a board in a real game situation, there is a massive visual database of memory that is used for reference, associating what they see with what they have already seen countless times. They do not have a database of memory for the random placement of peices.

Now you might be wondering what any of this has to do with playing pool or aiming pool shots.....

When we are learning how to play pool (how to read a rack, play position, pocket balls, etc...), we are building visual databases that our mind uses to associate what we see with what we have already seen and learned. This is how the conscious mind works with the subconscious neural networks that we've already hardwired and stored into memory. In other words....this is how we see and do. This is how pool players see the shot and know how to shoot it, regardless of what aiming method or system you use, prefer, or gravitate towards, you see and do based on what you've already seen and done (experience). Those with better experience play better pool.

There is a snooker study that looked at differences between different levels of players.
What I took away from it had to do with situation recognition.
Better players know what to do in more situations.
They have fewer decisions to make because they have answers, not questions.
https://pdfslide.net/documents/visu...-differences-between-expert-intermediate.html

 

[duckie]

Just another point of view......I have been riding a motorcycle for many years. Situations that are harmless in a car, can be life threatening to a motorcycle cycle rider. Ive learned to recognize those situations and ride or drive accordingly to avoid any incidents.

My wifes driving makes me nuts. She doesnt realize the situation she is in is dangerous and does nothing to decrease the risk.

You can not beat experience, there is no replacement for experience. Reading a book might give you a understanding of something, but that is not the same thing as experience.

This is why quality table time is important. This is why a structured training program and practice is so important to gaining the necessary skills to play high level pool.

Heres a ratio for ya.....for every hour of competition you play, you need two hours of practice. You play 4 hours of competition means you will have done 8 hours of practice.

 

[bbb]

There is a snooker study that looked at differences between different levels of players.
What I took away from it had to do with situation recognition.
Better players know what to do in more situations.
They have fewer decisions to make because they have answers, not questions.
https://pdfslide.net/documents/visu...-differences-between-expert-intermediate.html

very true
good point

 

[lfigueroa]

I remember reading about a memory experiment performed with chess players sometime back in the 1970's. The skill range of players ranged from beginner to grand master.

It involved setting up pieces on a chessboard to simulated real game situations. Each chess player was given just a few seconds to study the board, then they'd leave the room and all the pieces would be removed from the board. When the chess players returned to the blank chessboard they would be asked to place the pieces back onto the board in accordance with what they could remember.

The beginning chess players could only get about 4 pieces correct, while the master players could remember where ALL the pieces went, and there were more than 20 pieces! One would think this is proof that master players have superior memory skills, or maybe photographic memories, when compared to beginner or average players, but here's where the study gets interesting...

The next step in the experiment worked exactly the same way, only this time the pieces were placed in random positions on the board instead of simulating real game situations. How do you think the masters did this time when compared to the beginners or average players?

They did no better. Just like the novice players, the master players could only get about 4 pieces correct.

It's because they don't have superior memory skills or super photographic genius abilities. They have superior experience, tons of visual memories depicting countless game situations and scenarios, all stored through thousands of hours of playing chess. When a master chess player looks at the pieces on a board in a real game situation, there is a massive visual database of memory that is used for reference, associating what they see with what they have already seen countless times. They do not have a database of memory for the random placement of peices.

Now you might be wondering what any of this has to do with playing pool or aiming pool shots.....

When we are learning how to play pool (how to read a rack, play position, pocket balls, etc...), we are building visual databases that our mind uses to associate what we see with what we have already seen and learned. This is how the conscious mind works with the subconscious neural networks that we've already hardwired and stored into memory. In other words....this is how we see and do. This is how pool players see the shot and know how to shoot it, regardless of what aiming method or system you use, prefer, or gravitate towards, you see and do based on what you've already seen and done (experience). Those with better experience play better pool.

You really see evidence of this in 1pocket.

An experienced player, having seen countless layouts, will approach the table and go right to the shot they've almost instantaneously decided on. They may pause to checkout an angle but they know what they want to shoot. The same is true of other games, be it 8ball, 9ball, or 14.1. An experienced player has seen all the layouts and shots and when they get down to shoot, they are referencing their internal data base and know how the shot has turnout for them before. They don't even need to think about their bridge setup because that's been subconsciously processed and decided on before they begin to get down on the shot.

The same is true of how they aim the shot.

Lou Figueroa

 

[BilliardsAbout]

I remember reading about a memory experiment performed with chess players sometime back in the 1970's. The skill range of players ranged from beginner to grand master.

It involved setting up pieces on a chessboard to simulated real game situations. Each chess player was given just a few seconds to study the board, then they'd leave the room and all the pieces would be removed from the board. When the chess players returned to the blank chessboard they would be asked to place the pieces back onto the board in accordance with what they could remember.

The beginning chess players could only get about 4 pieces correct, while the master players could remember where ALL the pieces went, and there were more than 20 pieces! One would think this is proof that master players have superior memory skills, or maybe photographic memories, when compared to beginner or average players, but here's where the study gets interesting...

The next step in the experiment worked exactly the same way, only this time the pieces were placed in random positions on the board instead of simulating real game situations. How do you think the masters did this time when compared to the beginners or average players?

They did no better. Just like the novice players, the master players could only get about 4 pieces correct.

It's because they don't have superior memory skills or super photographic genius abilities. They have superior experience, tons of visual memories depicting countless game situations and scenarios, all stored through thousands of hours of playing chess. When a master chess player looks at the pieces on a board in a real game situation, there is a massive visual database of memory that is used for reference, associating what they see with what they have already seen countless times. They do not have a database of memory for the random placement of peices.

Now you might be wondering what any of this has to do with playing pool or aiming pool shots.....

When we are learning how to play pool (how to read a rack, play position, pocket balls, etc...), we are building visual databases that our mind uses to associate what we see with what we have already seen and learned. This is how the conscious mind works with the subconscious neural networks that we've already hardwired and stored into memory. In other words....this is how we see and do. This is how pool players see the shot and know how to shoot it, regardless of what aiming method or system you use, prefer, or gravitate towards, you see and do based on what you've already seen and done (experience). Those with better experience play better pool.

That is true regarding memory and pool.

However, when I played on a chess team, we specifically worked to memorize positions (playing blindfolded). Consciously visualizing a pool runout or looking away from a challenging table situation during a match, visualizing, and returning to aiming can help!

 

[BC21]

That is true regarding memory and pool.

However, when I played on a chess team, we specifically worked to memorize positions (playing blindfolded). Consciously visualizing a pool runout or looking away from a challenging table situation during a match, visualizing, and returning to aiming can help!

Specifically working to memorize chess positions is a shortcut for building a visual database, rather than than relying on experience alone. With pool, that's what a good visual aiming system does, at least aiming systems that minimize guesswork. They provide shortcuts to building visual databases of shots without solely relying on experience.

 

[Imac007]

Specifically working to memorize chess positions is a shortcut for building a visual database, rather than than relying on experience alone. With pool, that's what a good visual aiming system does, at least aiming systems that minimize guesswork. They provide shortcuts to building visual databases of shots without solely relying on experience.

Years ago work with modeling successful strategies tackled spelling.
Sounding words out was commonly taught but was it what good spellers did?
They discovered that the best spellers visualized the word, sensed tracing the letters and then if the comparison was felt as right they had a sense of that rightness on the midline of the body.
When people sense doubt an interesting body clue is that they present with a cocked head.
People who agree have a squared head and their head nods, on the centerline.
Disagreement shows with a head moving back and forth, unconscious dissonance.
Balance is found on our midpoint.
Certainty can be a gut feeling, knowing in your heart of hearts, a truth based on a strong foundation.
Tipping points and swaying are words used to describe shifting points of perception.

Motor skills are hand/eye coordination.
Though I experience feel and feelings more in my unconscious, if a shot line is wrong my feel sense is off.
Dissonance is my feeling sense when I haven’t committed fully to a shot.
My certainty feel lies on my body centerline and often tells me when the visuals are wrong, or decisions are off.

 

[lfigueroa]

I recently read Derick DelGaudio’s book, “Amoralman.”

If you don’t know who he is, he’s probably one of the premier card mechanics in the world. You can catch his Broadway show “In & Of Itself” on Hulu.

Anywhos, in his book he relates a story of when he had been hired to deal in a swank private game and ensure the guy holding the game wins. One night some young online poker nerds show up.

DelGaudio says that poker players, over thousands of hands and years of play, develop a “sense” about the ebb snd flow of the cards. Online poker nerds gain this “sense” very quickly playing thousands of hands online. They see a number of hands it would take years sitting at an actual table to see.

As the game goes on and he deals a couple of altered hands one of the nerds says, “That’s not possible” and they pick up their hundred thousand and quit the game.

I think experienced pool players have the same subconscious “sense” about a huge variety of shots that allows them to aim without conscious thought.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Imac007]

Balance is found on our midpoint.

I think there is an argument to be made in favor of adding balance to our list of senses.
The bones in the inner ear are what is known as our vestibular or balance center.
Sometimes we learn a lot when people have trouble with a particular sense.
Patients who have balance problems due to vestibular disruption have trouble making decisions.
They are described as suffering from uncertainty.
We have words in our language devoted to each sense documented.
There are similar words denoting balance, verbs, adjectives and adverbs.

I think balance has a unifying element between and within other sensory modes.
A pro golfer when describing his hot putting game that day, attributed his success to the fact that his ball was going exactly on the line he intended.
That enabled him to focus on the exact pace needed for the putt.
That balance between line and pace is present on nearly every shot in pool.
However, on some shots line is more important than pace.
Each shot has its own combination of importance of aim line versus positional demands.
The scales of justice are depicted as a balancing act because everything is determined by situation or context.
The right balance of shot keys for each specific shot is expert behavior.
Experts fight automaticity.
They pull shot elements away from the unconscious into the glare of awareness.
Treating each shot as its own truly unique situation lets them see the subtle differences that often make a difference.
The balance of when to land the cue ball on a dime and it’s weight on the mind, or situationally just stroking the ball to land in a zone, pacing your mind for a longer match.
Everything is a balancing act from decision making, risk and reward, to shot complexity.
Balance often integrates all relevant sensory information, strategy and tactics into game plans.
It then weighs options based on a criteria of importance based on situational factors, beliefs, goals and purposes.

 

[BC21]

I think there is an argument to be made in favor of adding balance to our list of senses.
The bones in the inner ear are what is known as our vestibular or balance center.
Sometimes we learn a lot when people have trouble with a particular sense.
Patients who have balance problems due to vestibular disruption have trouble making decisions.
They are described as suffering from uncertainty.
We have words in our language devoted to each sense documented.
There are similar words denoting balance, verbs, adjectives and adverbs.

I think balance has a unifying element between and within other sensory modes.
A pro golfer when describing his hot putting game that day, attributed his success to the fact that his ball was going exactly on the line he intended.
That enabled him to focus on the exact pace needed for the putt.
That balance between line and pace is present on nearly every shot in pool.
However, on some shots line is more important than pace.
Each shot has its own combination of importance of aim line versus positional demands.
The scales of justice are depicted as a balancing act because everything is determined by situation or context.
The right balance of shot keys for each specific shot is expert behavior.
Experts fight automaticity.
They pull shot elements away from the unconscious into the glare of awareness.
Treating each shot as its own truly unique situation lets them see the subtle differences that often make a difference.
The balance of when to land the cue ball on a dime and it’s weight on the mind, or situationally just stroking the ball to land in a zone, pacing your mind for a longer match.
Everything is a balancing act from decision making, risk and reward, to shot complexity.
Balance often integrates all relevant sensory information, strategy and tactics into game plans.
It then weighs options based on a criteria of importance based on situational factors, beliefs, goals and purposes.

One interesting thing, when comparing the performance of qually talented or skilled players on a day by day basis, is that peak/perfect performance is attributed to a certain amount of luck. I'm not saying top performers perform well because they are lucky. I'm saying that two equally skilled and experienced players will have varying amounts of peak performance time based on the amount of luck they're getting.

The best thing a golfer or a pool player can say when asked what contributed to their amazing performance is this: "I had luck on my side." Because the next day their equally skilled/experienced opponent might outshine them.

When a pool player breaks and runs 6 racks of 8ball on a Diamond barbox, that player was playing at peak performance but also riding on the good side of luck. When a pro golfer sinks every 10ft putt in a tournament, it can be said that his putter was hot, or he can say he was just seeing the putts or whatever... but it's really just a matter of luck or coincidence. Soon enough his game will return to normal, where 10ft putts are made about 20 to 25% of the time. It's called regression to the mean.

With that said, I am the type who believes we often make our own luck by being observant and having the right attitude or balance of mind. Maybe someday research will find a link between our vestibular function (balance) and luck itself.

 

[duckie]

The Zone.......where no wrong move is done, where movement is at one with the moment, where thought experiences only whats is before you.

 

[Geosnookery]

There is a snooker study that looked at differences between different levels of players.
What I took away from it had to do with situation recognition.
Better players know what to do in more situations.
They have fewer decisions to make because they have answers, not questions.
https://pdfslide.net/documents/visu...-differences-between-expert-intermediate.html

Stephen Hendry, 7 time world Snooker champion, talks about this. He says the top players can visualize every ball on the table. He knows where every ball (not just object and cueball) will end up if a shot is executed perfectly. Equally important he knows where balls will end up ( risk assessment) if the shot is not perfect.

The point being they can concentrate completely, within reason, on the shot at hand. Almost robotic. No unfinished peripheral thoughts on other options.

I’ve played guitar for over 50 years and its similar. When younger it would take me days and days to learn some songs. Now I can look at the tabs or chords and play almost anything within a few minutes. I can focus exclusively on the moment.

 

[BC21]

Stephen Hendry, 7 time world Snooker champion, talks about this. He says the top players can visualize every ball on the table. He knows where every ball (not just object and cueball) will end up if a shot is executed perfectly. Equally important he knows where balls will end up ( risk assessment) if the shot is not perfect.

The point being they can concentrate completely, within reason, on the shot at hand. Almost robotic. No unfinished peripheral thoughts on other options.

I’ve played guitar for over 50 years and its similar. When younger it would take me days and days to learn some songs. Now I can look at the tabs or chords and play almost anything within a few minutes. I can focus exclusively on the moment.

Stephen Hendry's autobiography, "Me and the Table", is a great read!

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Experience & Practice help build mussel memory. But the one thing about Pool is every time you break a rack the result are different. Then you have tables that are all different. Take 10 tables that were just all recovered, in theory they should all play the same on day one. Six months down the road each are slightly different.

Maybe this is the attraction to Pool in chalanges your mind. There are so many Amining systems people use it baffles the mind. Find one you like, and work with it until you master it.

Have seen 3C played miss a shot by the width of a business card, guess their aim, or compinsation for tale was just millameter's off.

 

[Imac007]

Stephen Hendry, 7 time world Snooker champion, talks about this. He says the top players can visualize every ball on the table. He knows where every ball (not just object and cueball) will end up if a shot is executed perfectly. Equally important he knows where balls will end up ( risk assessment) if the shot is not perfect.

On a related topic, I get blank stares when the conversation comes around to kicking systems like the Plus system.
I ask if they know it is just a reference system that can be used in many ways.
Yesterday I had a cut into a side pocket and I used the plus system.
I know the first rail in the reference system is the end rail and the starting position is a diamond location on the long rail.
In this case I just rotated the system a quarter turn and saw that the path from the object ball to the first rail was about the same as a one to seven point travel line.
Of course it would need running top.
Calculating a seven diamond path from the second rail of course finds a rail half way there.
That said, seven diamonds from the original object ball location lays on a line extended across the table between the side pockets and out 4 more diamonds, a table width past the rail.
It’s not that hard to estimate the second rail contact and see the line from there to that table width away location.
That gives a pretty accurate path to the third rail and likely path to the fourth.
I was aiming for position on a ball on the opposite end short rail.
I navigated a port between two balls to perfect position.
Using this and other systems as starting references isn’t an art, it’s McGyver, using what you already know more creatively.

 

[bbb]

On a related topic, I get blank stares when the conversation comes around to kicking systems like the Plus system.
I ask if they know it is just a reference system that can be used in many ways.
Yesterday I had a cut into a side pocket and I used the plus system.
I know the first rail in the reference system is the end rail and the starting position is a diamond location on the long rail.
In this case I just rotated the system a quarter turn and saw that the path from the object ball to the first rail was about the same as a one to seven point travel line.
Of course is would need running top.
Calculating a seven diamond path from the second rail of course finds a rail half way there.
That said, seven diamonds from the original object ball location lays on a line extended across the table between the side pockets and out 4 more diamonds, a table width past the rail.
It’s not that hard to estimate the second rail contact and see the line from there to that table width away location.
That gives a pretty accurate path to the third rail and likely path to the fourth.
I was aiming for position on a ball on the opposite end short rail.
I navigated a port between two balls to perfect position.
Using this and other systems as starting references isn’t an art, it’s McGyver, using what you already know more creatively.

there probably is a billiard system that would easier to use than extrapolate that (perhaps the corner 5 since you are hitting the long rail first)
but
great creativity and planning...

 

[Imac007]

Using this and other systems as starting references isn’t an art, it’s McGyver, using what you already know more creatively.

Ralph Eckert has some reference line videos on YouTube.
His reference line video 2 is about when you are shooting at a object ball located in the center box at the table end.
Imagine a box, one diamond off the rails and one diamond short of table center.
Place the cue ball in a similar box in the other end.
The cut into a pocket takes the cue ball into the short rail first using a rolling center ball.
Eckert noted that where the cue crossed the head string was roughly where the cue ball returns.
I rotate that reference line a quarter table for the plain ball path off center pocket cuts.
The head string on a nine foot table is about 75 inches from the opposite short rail or roughly a width and a half of the table.
Of course, turning the idea a quarter turn find the opposite side rail interfering with the path about a quarter table from its destination on the original lengthwise shot.
On this shot I find the cue line and stand a half table width off the rail on that line.
You have a basic idea of where the plain cue ball hits the end rail.
From that point the cue ball will travel right at you.
This works good for shape, for breakouts on that rail, and for finding the contact point on the third rail plus the line to the fourth.
I get blank stares when I reveal this too.
Eckert shows a reference line cutting a ball 45° into the side and contacting the end cushion.
He uses a plain ball there too.
Now think about what happens if you using inside english (running side] and calculate the ball path using the plus system.
Table center is a starting point of two diamonds and the short rail target with follow is at the 3 location. A line down the table center is the reference now instead of the side rail.
Three diamonds towards the end rail down the center crosses at about one diamond off the end rail.
The track from rail two to three should be easy to estimate.
This is an example of combining ideas from reference tools.
More blank stares or am I finding some nods of understanding?

 

[bbb]

Ralph Eckert has some reference line videos on YouTube.
His reference line video 2 is about when you are shooting at a object ball located in the center box at the table end.
Imagine a box, one diamond off the rails and one diamond short of table center.
Place the cue ball in a similar box in the other end.
The cut into a pocket takes the cue ball into the short rail first using a rolling center ball.
Eckert noted that where the cue crossed the head string was roughly where the cue ball returns.
I rotate that reference line a quarter table for the plain ball path off center pocket cuts.
The head string on a nine foot table is about 75 inches from the opposite short rail or roughly a width and a half of the table.
Of course, turning the idea a quarter turn find the opposite side rail interfering with the path about a quarter table from its destination on the original lengthwise shot.
On this shot I find the cue line and stand a half table width off the rail on that line.
You have a basic idea of where the plain cue ball hits the end rail.
From that point the cue ball will travel right at you.
This works good for shape, for breakouts on that rail, and for finding the contact point on the third rail plus the line to the fourth.
I get blank stares when I reveal this too.
Eckert shows a reference line cutting a ball 45° into the side and contacting the end cushion.
He uses a plain ball there too.
Now think about what happens if you using inside english (running side] and calculate the ball path using the plus system.
Table center is a starting point of two diamonds and the short rail target with follow is at the 3 location. A line down the table center is the reference now instead of the side rail.
Three diamonds towards the end rail down the center crosses at about one diamond off the end rail.
The track from rail two to three should be easy to estimate.
This is an example of combining ideas from reference tools.
More blank stares or am I finding some nods of understanding?

a diagram would help
of the shot and cue ball path

ChalkySticks Pad

ChalkySticks Pad is an advanced billiards / pool diagramming tool. Recreate any pool situation on a variety of different table types and share with others.

pad.chalkysticks.com