My day with Hal Houle and his aiming system

scottycoyote said:
while im by no means an expert on SAM, i have been using it very successfully for 2 years, so i cant vouch for why it works, i just know it does. One thing on the angles and the geometry, i too thought it didnt make sense how there are only those 6 angles (which is what i was taught), but then what did make sense was the fact that the pockets are twice as big (or almost twice as big in most cases) as the ball, which allows some degree of error on the aiming and still make the ball (i believe randy said it was 4 to 6 degrees allowable error). Im not here to debate the geometry, just offering that up as a tidbit that might help it make sense if its correct.
Click to expand...
MATH WARNING!! DO NOT PROCEED WITHOUT PROTECTIVE TIN FOIL HAT!!

I think the easy way to think of this is to remember that you've got 1/4 of the object ball's circumference to work with for any cut shot (the 1/2 you can see divided by 2 for either a left or right cut). This equals 90 degrees.

If there's a 6 degree margin of error (the high side of Cue Tech's estimate), then you can hit anywhere within a 6 degree section of that 90 degrees and make the shot (absolutely dead on plus 3 degrees either way). That's a bit less than a 1/8 inch area on the object ball.

Well, if you divide up 1/4 of the object ball's circumference (90 degrees) into 6 degree sections you get 15 contact areas (90/6) - so to send the object ball to every possible pocket location you need at least 15 angles, not just 6. (By the way, the math works the same way if you divide the OB's circumference into ~1/8 inch segments.)

The other thing about the margin of error is that it depends on the distance of the OB from the pocket (and on the size of the pocket, but that's less important). 4-6 degrees is the margin of error for most pocket sizes when the OB is about 4-6 feet from the pocket.

I think the average shot length in most pool games is more like 2-4 feet, so Cue Tech is being conservative with their margin of error estimate. But even for shots of 2-4 feet the margin of error is something like 5-12 degrees for most pockets, and even at the high end of that (for 2-foot shots) you need more than 6 angles.

In other words, the only kind of shot for which 6 angles is consistent with geometry is shots where the object ball is within about 1 foot of the pocket. This, of course, has been pointed out repeatedly over the years to those who say these "x angle" systems work without adjustment - but that usually has results similar to challenging somebody's religious beliefs (and maybe for similar reasons).

Again, let me say that I'm not criticizing the usefulness of these kinds of systems for those that prefer them, just offering the cold reality for anybody who's interested and for whatever it may be worth.

Peace to all my pool playing brethren and sistern,

pj
chgo

(Edited to highlight the "take home" message for those who don't want to wade through the math.)
 
Last edited:
Scott Lee said:
Pat...I'm not exactly difficult to find! LOL I have always had constructive discussions with you about anything regarding pool, whether we were playing or not. I don't even mind if you want to disagree...I just take offense when you try to paint a picture of us 'keeping secrets' that can only be answered by paying for a lesson. We can give you every little detail in writing, but it still doesn't have anywhere near the same effect as having a one-on-one opportunity to learn first hand. I've offered to work with you on numerous occasions. The ball's in your court! :D

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

Scott,

You have to make a living, as most everybody does these days, and it's very understandable that as you are in the business of giving high-level pool instruction that there are things which are complicated to put into words on an internet forum and need to be transmitted orally in person. Some things need to be shown and not described. I understand that.

However, absent even minimal description of the SAM methods about which much is spoken, to think that everybody will want to pay for something that isn't even really described is somewhat debatable.

There are those who have said that professional pool players figuratively "eat it up," the SAM or Hal Houle aiming systems, that is. Would you be so kind as to name some of those professionals, so that independent verification of the methods can be made?

One thing I've learned about aiming is that depending on the stroke, and where the cue ball will be struck, even directly on the vertical axis of the cue ball, different amounts of throw will be produced, and some adjustments are called for when aiming. Perhaps there's a bit of unintended english that gets involved, whatever. But aiming in those situations, at least for me, needs to be adjusted.

So then, do you know some pros who use Hal's or the SAM systems, and if so, who are they?

Thanks so much!

Flex
 
Flex...Please understand that there are MANY expert and pro players who seek out instruction. The majority are NOT like Louis Ulrich, who proudly proclaimed his work with Stan Shuffett. The ones who have worked with me have asked me to keep their names private, and I have to respect that. I am guessing that it might be the same with the pros who have worked with Randyg, but I don't know...you'd have to ask him. The other important issue is that SAM stands for Supplemental Aiming Method...meaning that it might be used in addition to something, or in place of another 'system'. It's all Randy and I use...and we use it all the time, with the exception of very thin cuts. That's more of an 'edge to edge' type of shot. I can show someone SAM in 20 minutes (but it really takes a couple of hours to really understand how it can benefit your game)...and I'll gladly show it to ANYONE, any time (for FREE). Whether they choose to believe it, or desire to use it themselves is an individual decision. The basics of SAM have been described here ad nauseum, and most people who have not been introduced to it simply dismiss it as 'hocus pocus' or some stronger name. That's okay...like I said in an earlier post on this thread, SAM will work for a majority of situations for many people. It will not work for you if you don't think it will! The mind is a incredibly intelligent and adaptable organ, when you keep it open! :D

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
Patrick Johnson said:
In other words, the only kind of shot for which 6 angles really works is shots where the object ball is within about 1 foot of the pocket.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Sorry Pat, but I have to respectfully disagree with you AGAIN! LOL :D SAM works on table length cuts, full table banks and lots of other shots.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
klockdoc said:
I am aiming the center of the cue ball at the edge of the object ball. I guess that this would in turn create a 30 degree cut, correct?
Click to expand...

klockdoc...You are correct. That is a 1/2 ball AIM, which results in a 30 degree cut (+ or -)...and is what we refer to as a SAM 3...aka the most common shot angle on the pool table. A 1/2 HIT would be a 45 degree cut...aka a Sam 4...not nearly as common as a 3, but still in the common group (15, 30 & 45).

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
Sorry Pat, but I have to respectfully disagree with you AGAIN! LOL SAM works on table length cuts, full table banks and lots of other shots.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

I probably should have said "the only shots for which 6 angles is consistent with geometry"... it clearly "works" for many players. I've edited my post accordingly. Thanks for the catch.

pj
chgo
 
Scott Lee said:
klockdoc...You are correct. That is a 1/2 ball AIM, which results in a 30 degree cut (+ or -)...and is what we refer to as a SAM 3...aka the most common shot angle on the pool table. A 1/2 HIT would be a 45 degree cut...aka a Sam 4...not nearly as common as a 3, but still in the common group (15, 30 & 45).

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

So Scott, maybe you can answer this for me then. To shoot a spot shot, you can put the CB on the line between the pocket in the kitchen and the spot. Then do a 1/2 ball AIM as you've described. Without english and a good stroke, you make the shot straight in the corner.

However, IF you move the CB a few inches off of this line and shoot it the same way, (center to edge) you will MISS the shot.

From what I can gather, the SAM method you mention, (which I still don't have a good description of) you should make both of these shots by aiming for the same type of hit. What is the difference between the SAM method and the 1/2 ball AIM in this scenario?

Thanks
RC
 
Flex said:
Scott,

You have to make a living, as most everybody does these days, and it's very understandable that as you are in the business of giving high-level pool instruction that there are things which are complicated to put into words on an internet forum and need to be transmitted orally in person. Some things need to be shown and not described. I understand that.

However, absent even minimal description of the SAM methods about which much is spoken, to think that everybody will want to pay for something that isn't even really described is somewhat debatable.

There are those who have said that professional pool players figuratively "eat it up," the SAM or Hal Houle aiming systems, that is. Would you be so kind as to name some of those professionals, so that independent verification of the methods can be made?

One thing I've learned about aiming is that depending on the stroke, and where the cue ball will be struck, even directly on the vertical axis of the cue ball, different amounts of throw will be produced, and some adjustments are called for when aiming. Perhaps there's a bit of unintended english that gets involved, whatever. But aiming in those situations, at least for me, needs to be adjusted.

So then, do you know some pros who use Hal's or the SAM systems, and if so, who are they?

Thanks so much!

Flex
Click to expand...

Hi Flex:

Our students are also issued a 6 page S.A.M. workbook.

Flex, I think most people use a combination of (mayby 2-3) aiming systems for normal play.....SPF=randyg
 
Repeat from the other aiming thread. How would you explain any of these systems in question in terms of these shots? First one is a half-ball aim, 30 degree cut. Second shot is now a 36 degree cut. If you are hitting center cue ball, how could a half-ball aim now cause a 36 degree cut to the center of the pocket? The answer given seems to be that "the contact point changes," but I don't see how that is an answer. Of course it will change the contact point if you're changing the angle, but does a half-ball aim send the ball at a 30 degree angle (+/- whatever exact angle) or not? Maybe I am misunderstanding, someone please explain if possible.

From the hints given, it seems that under Hal's system you are not hitting center cue ball. So you are relying on deflection to get to the correct contact point?

Picture3-1.png


Picture4.png
 
PKM said:
Repeat from the other aiming thread. How would you explain any of these systems in question in terms of these shots? First one is a half-ball aim, 30 degree cut. Second shot is now a 36 degree cut. If you are hitting center cue ball, how could a half-ball aim now cause a 36 degree cut to the center of the pocket? The answer given seems to be that "the contact point changes," but I don't see how that is an answer. Of course it will change the contact point if you're changing the angle, but does a half-ball aim send the ball at a 30 degree angle (+/- whatever exact angle) or not? Maybe I am misunderstanding, someone please explain if possible.

From the hints given, it seems that under Hal's system you are not hitting center cue ball. So you are relying on deflection to get to the correct contact point?
Click to expand...

IMO, I would guess the answer is the same reason both of these balls go with the same contact point aim on the object ball (and if I read the diagram correct , this would be a SAM #1),even though they are in different positions. One-straight in, the other a slight cut. The trust in the system and the sub-consciousness of the brain. [This shot is similar to the one in Bert Kinister tapes.]

CueTable Help

 
klockdoc said:
IMO, I would guess the answer is the same reason both of these balls go with the same contact point aim on the object ball (and if I read the diagram correct , this would be a SAM #1),even though they are in different positions. One-straight in, the other a slight cut. The trust in the system and the sub-consciousness of the brain. [This shot is similar to the one in Bert Kinister tapes.]
Click to expand...

Well if you're talking about sub-consciousness adjustments, then you're back to "feel" and using the aiming system as a reference. However I doubt that a change of that magnitude would be all subconscious, you know that you're aiming differently. Since SAM stands for "supplemental" that may be it's purpose (and may be useful). But it sounds like people are claiming more for it.
 
PKM said:
Well if you're talking about sub-consciousness adjustments, then you're back to "feel" and using the aiming system as a reference. However I doubt that a change of that magnitude would be all subconscious, you know that you're aiming differently. Since SAM stands for "supplemental" that may be it's purpose (and may be useful). But it sounds like people are claiming more for it.
Click to expand...

First off, I believe all systems, no matter which one you use, aiming or banking has to be part system/part feel. Some systems might be accurate on some shots, but, once you apply english, it has to go beyond geometrically accurate.

I hear what you are saying, but, they (Scott and Randy [or correct me if I'm wrong]) are comparing the SAM system to a similar system from Hal that he gave them permission to show people. Hal's system, at least on this thread is being portrayed as something that is not geometrically stable. Throughout the thread, people are stating that you have to have faith in the system. Some it works for, some it doesn't. I think it falls in the same concept that this shot does.

If not, then I have to refine my thinking process. JMO
 
I read where Hal's system uses the edge of the cue ball to aim at the point on the OB. I suffer from parallax and would rather aim the center of the CB at the points on the OB.
 
Hal system

I have also spent a day with Hal and have been given 2 lessons over the phone. His systems are so simple that once you've gotten a grasp of it he can help you or correct you over the phone. I don't know the math behind it but I do know that it works.

I also know that Hal is a friend and a gentleman. When we worked together he made me promise to share his information for free. I have shown it to many of my customers and friends and the ones that have taken the time to grasp it are playing much better.

There are many aiming systems that work. I know and use at least three.

Like many people here I was sceptical of Hal's. That was a mistake. I am now able to pocket balls almost at will and yes without even looking at the pockeet. The only time it doesn't work for me is when I don't execute correctly or when I don't trust it.

In the same amount of time it takes to critisize, someone could learn a new method and been better for it.

My fondness for Hal promted me to post here for the first time. I hope it's recieved in the spirit that it was written.
 
IMO, I would guess the answer is the same reason both of these balls go with the same contact point aim on the object ball (and if I read the diagram correct , this would be a SAM #1),even though they are in different positions. One-straight in, the other a slight cut. The trust in the system and the sub-consciousness of the brain. [This shot is similar to the one in Bert Kinister tapes.]
Click to expand...

So your saying they both go because of some subconscious aim or stroke adjustment, right? If you actually hit them both the same way without adjustment, then this is the result:

CueTable Help



Sorry to be so simplistic, but there's lots of confusion going around.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
So your saying they both go because of some subconscious aim or stroke adjustment, right? If you actually hit them both the same way without adjustment, then this is the result:

CueTable Help



Sorry to be so simplistic, but there's lots of confusion going around.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Although I think this may be what Hal means:

CueTable Help



I KID Hal! (Couldn't resist.)

pj
chgo
 
These aiming threads could go on forever like this. It seems like a little bit of progress has been made, but there just seems to be a communication gap for whatever reason between those "in the know" and those that have yet to see what the big deal is.

6 hits is just too few, IMO, (and also proven by geometry) to cover all shots. Sorry. One aim for ALL SHOTS just sounds too ridiculous. Sorry. I'm sure there is more to it than that, and it probably ends up being a trick statement, where if we found out what the heck it means, we would say, "well why didn't you just say that in the first place?". What I suspect is that there are 6 course SAM points, and those could be further divided into, for example, 24 sub-SAM points. Maybe the "one aim" (HAL system) means "the correct aim", ie., the single aim that is exactly dead straight in front of you after aligning your body and stance perfectly for the given shot. Perhaps it is as simple as that, but if it is, I wish it could be stated in those terms instead of terms that seem to be intentionally elusive. As a person who has an open mind, but at the same time is a bit skeptical, I have to admit it is frustrating.

The one system that I think is getting too little attention here is Joe Tucker's. Joe has jumped into these threads briefly a couple of times and he mentioned that his system has more contact points. I forgot how many, but even the main contact regions are divided into smaller ones, for example, spot #4.2, or however he calls it. Although Joe hasn't said much about his system here, he also hasn't said anything that made me say, "WTF is he talking about?".

I haven't tried Joe's system, nor do I know him personally or anything like that, but I have tried one of his other instructional products, which was great. I don't have the time to study an aiming system right now because I have too many areas of my game that are weaker than my aiming, so I would prefer to spend my time on those and come back later and check into aiming systems. However, if others are interested too, I'd be willing to chip in on Joe's system if it could be sent to someone like Pat Johnson or Bob Jewett for study and objective review.

Joe's website is http://www.joetucker.net/start.html . Click on "products" and then "Aiming by Numbers Method" and "Aiming by Numbers Workbook". It would only cost a few bucks each maybe if 10-20 people chipped in. Obviously, the reviewer shouldn't be able to simply post the entire system/materials online for us to steal, but if a known non-believer gave the thumbs up, then perhaps others non-believers would at least buy into the idea that it's worth checking out.

P.S. Sorry if my tone above was negative. It's not my intention to put down Hal's system nor the SAM system. It's just that it's not practical for some of us to seek these systems out, due to geographical and other constraints, whereas Joe's system can be easily purchased online. I would be interested sometime in considering the Cue Tech school for my fundamentals and other issues, but I just cannot justify the cost and time investments for SAM alone. If and when I am able to attend for my other learning objectives, I will gladly open my mind to SAM as a bonus. :)
 
Cuebacca said:
I haven't tried Joe's system, nor do I know him personally or anything like that, but I have tried one of his other instructional products, which was great. I don't have the time to study an aiming system right now because I have too many areas of my game that are weaker than my aiming, so I would prefer to spend my time on those and come back later and check into aiming systems. However, if others are interested too, I'd be willing to chip in on Joe's system if it could be sent to someone like Pat Johnson or Bob Jewett for study and objective review.
Click to expand...

Bob Jewett already wrote a positive review of Joe's system:
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2005-06.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top