Memory, Playing Pool, and Aiming
- Thread starter BC21
- Start date
How to get better experience?
Of course the more quality time spent on a subject the higher ability/expertise one will have.
What if there were a tool that produced a better experience and thus built a database of correct shot pictures faster than when not using that tool?
I do not use the term ghostball nor use a reference to a ghostball. It is alway a spot on the table where the CB needs to be. Using the spot on the table is outside the box since so few use it or accept it, like yourself.
I dont give a shit how someone determines where that spot is.
There is a difference in HAMB and a structured training program and focused practice sessions.
I would never tell some how to determine where to put the CB. I would setup practice drills that would help them to develop a feel for where for that is. How they visualize that spot is totally up to them figure out. Hmmmm way out the box.......
Thats the system I would teach.......proper practiced structured to the students level and needs and not push a certain aiming method on them, like this poologoly nonsense.
yes
what is interesting
is the billiard books use the diamond aim point not a spot on the table for their systems
and adjust equally if not on the mirror spot( technically they use 0.75 diamonds but 1.0 works on a pool table )
The short form of this is the more I practice the luckier I get.
Take carom breakouts for example. When I was younger I felt that I was just trying to get lucky when trying to break up clusters. Then I had the fortune to spend time around Bustamante and observed how easily he seemed to play into clusters "naturally" and almost always get the shot he wanted.
I then understood that that one can look at clusters differently, not as roadblocks to be demolished but instead as puzzles to be solved.
From that day I started practicing with clusters and in competition I get "luckier" as well.
yes ....
Lol....set up practice drills... In other words, tell a newby this: "Shoot these shots until you get good at it... just shoot the cue ball to where you think it needs to be to pocket the ball. Keep guessing until you get good at it."
That is hamb.
It's not that I don't "accept" different aiming methods. It's a simple matter of what works best for me, or for someone I might be trying to help. I will show them several methods that I know of, but I will always tell them to pay attention to the ob, as far as where their center cb aim line is in reference to the ob itself. Whether the player feels more comfortable with contact point aiming or ghostball aiming or whatever, a good habit is to give your mind more visual references associated with the shot. That's not "pushing" Poolology. This thread isn't about Poolology. It's about pushing people to apply more handles to the memories they're storing, the neural networks they're building/creating. The more handles (sensory inputs) that we attach to our experiences the more easily and accurately those experiences can be recalled.
Poolology is just a method to help determine a fractional aim line without having to guess like the traditional 5 lines fractional method requires. As far as getting a feel for aiming, it makes it pretty easy to develop by simply paying attention to what you're seeing in reference to cb-ob relationships.
I've seen players hold their cue tip on the spot where the cb needs to be, then move back around so that their tip stays on the spot but their cue is aligned over the cb. I tell them that's a great way to find the spot, and the aim line, but I also tell them to look beyond that spot and reference the ob itself, to look at where that aim line crosses the ob or how far out from the outer surface that line is from the ob. Because this visual reference is stronger and more defined, easier to keep in focus than some invisible spot on the cloth.
Last edited:
I would bet high that duckie can't accurate put his finger on the ghost ball center more than 50% of the time with 100 different shots. Not his finger, not good pool cue tip either.
In fact I would bet that most people on az can't do it consistently.
What I do think that people can do is have a general sense of where that spot is and even though they are not accurately on it they get close enough for a range of shots. Shots outside that range get much more inconsistent for them by virtue of the act of just guessing where the gb center is.
But, they don't attribute misses to faulty aim, they attribute it to form, not enough brute-force practice on particular shots, pressure, etc... Everything but aiming.
Now, that said, my main point is that it is just as inconsistent to try and eyeball the center of a 2*4 when you need two equal pieces as it is when trying to eyeball the center of an invisible sphere from five feet away on a large flat surface.
So if that premise is true then it follows that a person would have a hard time building a library of images that are actually accurate.
Personally, I find the whole concept of shot pictures to be sketchy anyway. It's another way to say that imagination based on past events is a good basis for addressing a task in front of you.
For context let's take Dr. Dave's center table paths. He showed that any time a ball enters the rail at 45 degrees then it will be on a path either to the left or right of center table and not on a scratch line.
This is an objective constant. No "shot pictures" needed. I didn't know this until I came across it and immediately put it into practice. 25 years of drills and hitting a million balls never revealed this principle to me.
So if i think back to all the times in my life when I have sent a cueball around the table and scratched prior to learning the 45 degree rule I have to think that most of not all of them could have been avoided by the application of a clear objective reference that works exactly as described.
In other words my "shot pictures" for 25 years were full of scratches and this increased anxiety and decreased the odds of a successful result.
I think we need to get away from the idea that pool is only a "feel" activity. Certainly touch and judgement are attributes that are core to playing well. But that judgment can absolutely be enhanced with knowledge of objective methods and principles. Which is to say that learning this knowledge and how to apply it absolutely shortens the learning curve and builds a stronger foundation.
In fact I would bet that most people on az can't do it consistently.
What I do think that people can do is have a general sense of where that spot is and even though they are not accurately on it they get close enough for a range of shots. Shots outside that range get much more inconsistent for them by virtue of the act of just guessing where the gb center is.
But, they don't attribute misses to faulty aim, they attribute it to form, not enough brute-force practice on particular shots, pressure, etc... Everything but aiming.
Now, that said, my main point is that it is just as inconsistent to try and eyeball the center of a 2*4 when you need two equal pieces as it is when trying to eyeball the center of an invisible sphere from five feet away on a large flat surface.
So if that premise is true then it follows that a person would have a hard time building a library of images that are actually accurate.
Personally, I find the whole concept of shot pictures to be sketchy anyway. It's another way to say that imagination based on past events is a good basis for addressing a task in front of you.
For context let's take Dr. Dave's center table paths. He showed that any time a ball enters the rail at 45 degrees then it will be on a path either to the left or right of center table and not on a scratch line.
This is an objective constant. No "shot pictures" needed. I didn't know this until I came across it and immediately put it into practice. 25 years of drills and hitting a million balls never revealed this principle to me.
So if i think back to all the times in my life when I have sent a cueball around the table and scratched prior to learning the 45 degree rule I have to think that most of not all of them could have been avoided by the application of a clear objective reference that works exactly as described.
In other words my "shot pictures" for 25 years were full of scratches and this increased anxiety and decreased the odds of a successful result.
I think we need to get away from the idea that pool is only a "feel" activity. Certainly touch and judgement are attributes that are core to playing well. But that judgment can absolutely be enhanced with knowledge of objective methods and principles. Which is to say that learning this knowledge and how to apply it absolutely shortens the learning curve and builds a stronger foundation.
I'm sure everybody would agree with this. Ralph Eckert has said that pro's use reference shots for position play all the time.
Well stated.
As the old heads used to say, a 'thousand years ago', when you'd finally catch a gear...….."Now you're gambling...Now you're gambling"
(that meant you were playing stronger percentages. It was the highest of compliments)
I know ralph personally. Whatever he has said is unlikely to be known to everyone.
However a reference shot is not a picture formed by brute force practice of every shot to get a library of successful images.
Instead it is a shot from place to place that can be used to help the shooter figure out similar shots along a similar path.
In other words a toolkit of objective references that the player uses to determine no-spin paths from which conscious application of spin/speed combinations are likely to produce the desired deviations from those memorized references.
And, while I have a deep respect for Ralph Eckert and his skills, without gathering video/audio/written evidence he has no more idea what the pros are "using" all the time than you do. Of course he does have a lifetime of experience at the elite level so he is communicating from that level and so his information is likely to be very helpful whether or not pros use it or similar "all the time" or not.
In this video for example he says that the object ball goes to the same place when the cueball/object ball are any where on a parallel line between a certain pair of diamonds. This is an example of knowledge that reveals an objective constant. Armed with that knowledge a player doesn't have to shoot every position 500x to know where the cueball is going when the shot lies in that reference zone.
But the question for me is whether there is are better ways to figure cue ball paths than what ralph is describing?
A way that doesn't require memorization of position references but instead requires the learning of precise constants that apply broadly.
Yes such ways exist.
They are found here.
How to Play Pool - Dr. Dave Pool Info
Instructional videos, articles, and tutorials for learning how to play and teach pool. All secret tips of billiards are revealed.
billiards.colostate.edu
What I like about the Eckert references, in these videos, is that he is showing what lines a rolling ball will take that are predictable.I know ralph personally. Whatever he has said is unlikely to be known to everyone.
However a reference shot is not a picture formed by brute force practice of every shot to get a library of successful images.
Instead it is a shot from place to place that can be used to help the shooter figure out similar shots along a similar path.
In other words a toolkit of objective references that the player uses to determine no-spin paths from which conscious application of spin/speed combinations are likely to produce the desired deviations from those memorized references.
And, while I have a deep respect for Ralph Eckert and his skills, without gathering video/audio/written evidence he has no more idea what the pros are "using" all the time than you do. Of course he does have a lifetime of experience at the elite level so he is communicating from that level and so his information is likely to be very helpful whether or not pros use it or similar "all the time" or not.
In this video for example he says that the object ball goes to the same place when the cueball/object ball are any where on a parallel line between a certain pair of diamonds. This is an example of knowledge that reveals an objective constant. Armed with that knowledge a player doesn't have to shoot every position 500x to know where the cueball is going when the shot lies in that reference zone.
But the question for me is whether there is are better ways to figure cue ball paths than what ralph is describing?
A way that doesn't require memorization of position references but instead requires the learning of precise constants that apply broadly.
Yes such ways exist.
They are found here.
How to Play Pool - Dr. Dave Pool Info
Instructional videos, articles, and tutorials for learning how to play and teach pool. All secret tips of billiards are revealed.
His parallel shots, each equidistant from the rail, may each require a different cut angle but the final target at the second rail is the same.
By using it as a reference, if you know the second rail track off even one of the family or shots, the equidistant cousins all track to the same spot, on the second rail.
Most reference lines, predicting paths, off the rail, use running english.
The plain ball paths are a refreshing change, especially with repeating principle insights.
You lost me already. I am simply saying Ralph showed several reference shots that he said professional players use as needed. One of those is the video you posted.
But it's true. Every skillful task you do is accomplished based on past events/experience performing that task, even if past experience is rooted in guesswork or imagination.
The more input your brain receives during an event or task (sensory inputs such as sight, sound, smell, touch, emotion, etc...), the more accurately you'll be able to recall that event or task the next time you do it. And the more senses we can attach to events or experiences the more "handles" there are for pulling the memories of those events back up when needed. The more you do it, the more your brain fine tunes the process and the more easily it recognizes and recalls the details related to whatever task you're performing.
That's why simply watching pool on tv, or playing pool on a computer game or a phone app, can improve certain elements of your game. It allows your mind to soak up cb-ob relationships when it comes to pocketing balls, and it helps build good visualization skills for observing how the balls react on the table in given situations.
That said, nothing is recalled perfectly. When performing a task, the mind associates present conditions (what we see, feel, hear, whatever...) with past conditions (based on experience). Our senses trigger the pulling of the handles attached to those past experiences/memories.
Basically, the brain searches for anything in the past that resembles the present task, then the appropriate neural networks that we've created for that task fire up and we perform the task.
Your absolutely right and it goes beyond just seeing the pocketing angles and subsequent ball paths. We get a glimpse inside the mind of good player pattern play. How leaving yourself a decent cutting angle can mean less power needed to get from one end of the table to the other. How short paths to position work better overall. How coming off multiple rails down the target line may be better sometimes than a short path. How taking what the table gives you makes sense to players who have skill levels to try something else, but don’t. About not shooting until a commitment is made. About getting up when you are unsure or uncommitted. And more, some of them intangible, like Earl commentaries, not just the players actions.
No it's not true in the sense that people in pool like to say it.
I fully agree that the past informs the present.
Which means that inconsistent aiming produces inconsistent results and inadequate "success" memories to draw from.
Yes, I know that I lost you.
Correct, but the mind of a normal person (one who has no frontal lobe damage or disorder) eventually irons out inconsistencies through repetition. In other words, regardless of the process or method you use to acquire a certain skill, your mind will eventually figure it out with enough repetition and trial and error. Some methods allow this to happen faster than others, but all methods require focused conscious attention in order to work through successful and unsuccessful efforts. Without focused attention, learning from experience takes a long time, and it may not ever develop into the skill level you desire.
Here's a fun story to show how we learn....Let's say you move into a new house that has a basement. You've never had a basement, so you're excited to have a place to store a few things. You grab a box or two from the kitchen and start down into the basement. You take 3 steps and smack your forehead on a beam, which immediately hurts like hell and calls for several choice words to be directed at the beam. Meanwhile, the boxes tumble down the steps. You place a hand over the sore place on your forehead, then duck and go on down and pick up the boxes and put them away.
You go back upstairs, ducking to avoid the beam. You grab a water and pop some ibuprofen, rubbing that sore forehead. The house phone rings. It's your wife. She wants to know why you didn't answer your cellphone. You tell her it must be in the basement. She wants to know if you can pick the kids up from school and meet her at the Olive Garden for an early dinner. Your head is pounding, but you say yes.
You hang up you check your watch and see that you have to leave now in order to pick up the kids. You look at all the boxes scattered over the kitchen floor and resting on the countertops, then turn and head back to the basement for your cellphone.
You start wondering when you're going to find the time to finsh putting all those boxes away. You hit the stairs and walk right into that beam again, and it hurts even worse now because the same sore spot has been smashed a second time. You get a little a dizzy because it hurts so much, then you cuss it out really well and tell yourself how stupid you are.
But you're not stupid. This is a new experience. And in order to learn you must make a conscious effort to pay attention to the beam every time. By doing this you can avoid hitting the beam. And through the repetition of deliberately/consciously avoiding the beam, you will create a new learning experience that will eventually allow you to avoid the beam without having to think about it anymore. In fact, once that becomes automatic, if you ever have that beam moved you will still duck to avoid it, even if it's not there anymore, at least until you relearn that you don't have to duck.
Last edited:
