Pocket More Thin Cut Shots

[BC21]

I think you're oversimplifying the comparison. The contact point is never the "aim point".

pj
chgo

Of course it's never the aim point. It's the reference point that gets used to estimate either a parallel shift or an equal-opposite overlap. If the player is off by 1mm on that reference point, and they manage to do a perfect parallel shift or visual overlap, the shot will be off by 2°. Every 0.5mm contact point is 1°.

 

[Imac007]

No. A quarter ball hit is 1/4 of 57.15mm, which is 14.29mm. It is a 48.6° cut angle.



No. The last 14.29mm, not 7.15mm, covers the remaining 40° worth of angles.

But seriously, we can discount the last 10° or or so. Shooting 80° or thinner cuts is rare.
And when it does happen the ob is usually close to the pocket where there's a large margin for error.

Anyway, between a 1/4 ball hit (48.6°) and a 1/8 ball hit (61.0°) there are 12.4° of angles. Those angles are spread over a 7.15mm portion of the diameter of the ob. But they are not spread equally, because of the rededing suface dynamics that you mentioned. The first few 1mm increments thinner from the quarter reference end up being 1.5° changes in the shot angle. About halfway between the 7.15mm gap
every 1mm is about 1.7° worth of angles. As the reference gets closer to the 1/8, every mm is about a 2° change in shot angle.

None of this really matters though, as we are talking about shots that might come up 1 out of 20 or 30 times or less. I played a 9ball tournament today and maybe shot 2 shots that were thinner than a quarter ball hit, out of 30+ racks. If a player is continually having to cut 1/8 ball shots or thinner, I believe their position play needs more work than their aiming. Lol

You are right, I managed to go down this rabbit hole and somehow was off by a factor of 2.
The 40° of angles is divided over about 14.5mm of horizontal 2D measure.
The point was that the receding surface holds a lot of angles and being able to figure out a way to get at visual sense of them within the confines of the cue ball structure has benefits.
I agree that it should be a rare tool to pull for pocketing and only usually under optionless instances.
I find more use for it in safety play where a small flick of the object ball with a moderate pace cue ball can be very valuable.
At some point I plan to edit the comment and fix the math.
Thanks for the heads up.

 

[straightline]

Of course it's never the aim point. It's the reference point that gets used to estimate either a parallel shift or an equal-opposite overlap. If the player is off by 1mm on that reference point, and they manage to do a perfect parallel shift or visual overlap, the shot will be off by 2°. Every 0.5mm contact point is 1°.

The parallel shift happens by crossing the line of centers with the contact line. This always happens dead center or put another way the dead center crossing gives you the contact line to the front of the cue ball. Once the stick is so oriented, rolling it over to center ball gives you the parallel. Further and LOL, the object ball line and the cue line now intersect at THE BASE OF THE GHOST BALL.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Of course it's never the aim point.

But what you’re comparing it with is. They work differently. Apples and oranges.

pj
chgo

 

[The_JV]

Man... Pool is so complicated...

 

[bbb]

Just skim the object ball with the cue ball
KISS

 

[straightline]

Man... Pool is so complicated...

Talking pool is complicated
er...

 

[garczar]

On a real table it is a bit more challenging. There's a reason you don't see pro players whizzing in 70 to 90 degree cut shots. They don't want to lose. Lol.

Super thin cuts are low percentage shots for everyone. If anyone thinks their pocketing percentage on super thin cuts is 80% or better, they are likely overestimating their ability. Most of us simply don't shoot enough super thin shots to become that proficient with them. 50% is good. That's why even the best players in the world will play a safety rather than shoot a super thin cut. Sometimes there are no other options other than going for the shot, but that's rare.

Cool thread. Good info. Also makes me think of Louie Roberts. That cat could cut-the-paint-off the balls. At distance to boot. Great eyes and a lazer-true delivery. Such fun to watch. RIP LR.

 

[BC21]

The parallel shift happens by crossing the line of centers with the contact line. This always happens dead center or put another way the dead center crossing gives you the contact line to the front of the cue ball. Once the stick is so oriented, rolling it over to center ball gives you the parallel. Further and LOL, the object ball line and the cue line now intersect at THE BASE OF THE GHOST BALL.

I understand all of that. I also understand it's a very subjective process that requires experience and practice before a player begins to accurately estimate that parallel shift within the true confines of what you refer to as "contact geometry", because that geometry states that the contact point must be accurately hit within 0.5mm to 1mm in order to keep the ob within 1 to 2 degrees of the pocket.

 

[BC21]

The last thing I want to do is have people thinking of this stuff while they are playing. That is not my intention. And it is not my intention to bash or ridicule contact point aiming methods. I look at that point on some shots also. I am simply clarifying the amount of accuracy required in order to use certain aiming references.

And it doesn't matter if that reference is the actual aim line, like with ghostball center or fractional aiming, or if the reference is a contact point that is used to arrive at the actual aim line. They are all references used for aiming, and to be precise most shots need to be aimed accurately within 1 to 2 degrees or the ball won't hit the pocket.

What's truly amazing is that this mathematical jibberish defines what is actually happening when we pocket a ball using any of the three methods in my diagram. It doesn't matter if you've never really considered that you were pinpointing such a fine reference. The fact is, if you use the contact point method, and the balls hit the pockets, that is what your mind is inadvertantly doing -- using an aiming reference within a 0.5mm to 1mm accuracy. And that's pretty amazing.

My whole point with comparing cp's to fractions or ghostballs is to show the same incredible accuracy can easily be developed, despite the misconception that fractional aiming can't "identify" every shot angle. With fractional aim points the mind has twice as much space to work with when it comes to sending that ob to a pocket within 1 to 2 degrees of accuracy.

I will say with traditional fractional aiming it takes longer to reach that level of accuracy, because a player must learn to recognize when a shot is dead on a particular reference or just a little thin or thick or in-between. And I don't mean to make this an ad or pitch for Poolology, but when you have a method or system that provides a consistent and known aiming reference to work with, a player can develop a good feel or eye for cut shots rather quickly. Factoring in spin and position play, the end result still relies on HAMB.

 

[BC21]

But what you’re comparing it with is. They work differently. Apples and oranges.

pj
chgo

Lol....looks like Frenchy or ENGLISH is sending you emails also. He says the same thing. And I explain that it's all about aiming references used to arrive at an aim line to pocket the ball. That is not apples to oranges. It's aiming references to aiming references....apples to apples.

If you use an aiming reference point defined by the diameter of the ball, and aim directly at this point, every 1mm that you're off is about a 1° increment in the resulting shot angle.

If you use an aiming reference on the circumference of the ball, a contact point, and then can perfectly imagine an equal-opposite overlap surrounding that point, or perfectly perform a parallel shift referencing that point, every 0.5mm that your off on that reference point is a 1° incremental change in shot angle.

 

[Poolmanis]

People should just try damn thing. If it is not working good for them. Then move on. Otherwise, if it happens to work.. Then practice it and add new weapon to their arsenal. It is so simple.

 

[sixpack]

People should just try damn thing. If it is not working good for them. Then move on. Otherwise, if it happens to work.. Then practice it and add new weapon to their arsenal. It is so simple.

Easier to argue from a desk.

 

[straightline]

I understand all of that. I also understand it's a very subjective process that requires experience and practice before a player begins to accurately estimate that parallel shift within the true confines of what you refer to as "contact geometry", because that geometry states that the contact point must be accurately hit within 0.5mm to 1mm in order to keep the ob within 1 to 2 degrees of the pocket.

It's not particle physics. You shoot, you miss and on and on. If you can do 12 hrs a day at pool so much the better. The shot image is and will always be constant. You learn to conform. You start with short shots - ducks; and study them like they're long shots for all the marbles because it's not so much the proportions of the shot but the precise collision that counts. It's not some kind of super power. This precision is a result of accurate visualization and proper technique.

 

[BC21]

It's not particle physics. You shoot, you miss and on and on. If you can do 12 hrs a day at pool so much the better. The shot image is and will always be constant. You learn to conform. You start with short shots - ducks; and study them like they're long shots for all the marbles because it's not so much the proportions of the shot but the precise collision that counts. It's not some kind of super power. This precision is a result of accurate visualization and proper technique.

Oh but it is considered particle physics when others say fractions aren't accurate enough to identify shots. That's my main point. When people say fractional aiming has too many gaps, and a player can't possibly make the 1 to 2 millimeter adjustments needed to land on the aim line, I think to myself....if a player can't accurately discern a 1 to 2 millimeter aiming reference, how in the hell can they pinpoint a contact point within 0.5 to 1mm of accuracy?? Lol

 

[straightline]

Oh but it is considered particle physics when others say fractions aren't accurate enough to identify shots. That's my main point. When people say fractional aiming has too many gaps, and a player can't possibly make the 1 to 2 millimeter adjustments needed to land on the aim line, I think to myself....if a player can't accurately discern a 1 to 2 millimeter aiming reference, how in the hell can they pinpoint a contact point within 0.5 to 1mm of accuracy?? Lol

The contact points are a function of the shot lines crisscrossing the balls. If you really need to get in stroke you should also consider the cue ball exit parabolas or whatever those are called. The geometry derives the shooting line which is what you adjust per pool dynamics - and shoot.

With fractions, you need to estimate your subdivisions to determine where to aim. With contact geometry, you have a shot lattice keeping it true.

 

[Imac007]

Oh but it is considered particle physics when others say fractions aren't accurate enough to identify shots. That's my main point. When people say fractional aiming has too many gaps, and a player can't possibly make the 1 to 2 millimeter adjustments needed to land on the aim line, I think to myself....if a player can't accurately discern a 1 to 2 millimeter aiming reference, how in the hell can they pinpoint a contact point within 0.5 to 1mm of accuracy?? Lol

People need a reference.
Of course their tip measure uses mm.
A dollar coin is 2mm in depth.
An eighth of a 12mm tip is 1.5mm.
Trying to work with 1 or 2 mm over 3 feet when 2 mm is equal to 4° needs hyper awareness.
A 58” circle radius has a circumference of just over 360 inches which relates to about an inch a degree.
So a cues length shot to a pocket off by 4° is off by 4 inches.
I have a way of checking contact point awareness, go take a look.
From the cue ball I pick what I think is the point on the object bal diametrically opposite the target location, then holding that spot in mind I go and check if that was right.
After thousands of hours playing that checking game, I’m very accurate at assessing that point.

 

[BC21]

.....
With fractions, you need to estimate your subdivisions to determine where to aim. With contact geometry, you have a shot lattice keeping it true.

That goes along with my comparison of the three aiming methods and their references.

If someone learning with fractional aiming estimates a shot to be between a 3/4 and a 5/8 aim, they have a 7mm gap/subdivision to navigate within, which leaves them with three aiming options: Aim in the middle of the gap, aim slightly thicker than a 5/8, or aim slightly thinner than a 3/4. Using the tip/ferrule as a gauge is a good way to pinpoint the thinner or thicker aim lines, because an eighth of a tip is about 1.5mm. So the player must decide which of these options looks or feels right, and that is the aim line they use. Every 1mm off will be about a 1° difference in the shot result. The more the player uses this method the more consistent they become with accurately estimating those in-between shots, shots that don't fall exactly on one of the eighth of a ball references. And it's rediculous just how often a shot actually falls dead in line on one of those references.

With ghostball, the learning player looks at the contact point line to the pocket and then estimates where the ghostball center is. Then they keep that spot in their mind or vision while standing behind the cb. From there they aim the cb to this spot. If they pinpointed the contact point accurately (which from directly behind the ob is fairly easy is to do), and they pinpointed the ghostball spot accurately, they have their aim line. Every 1mm that they're off will cause about a 1° difference in the shot result.. This method also requires experience to become consistent with pinpointing that ghostball spot, but after enough experience the player will become more accurate and consistent with it.

With contact points, the learning player pinpoints the cp on the ob, then they keep that spot in their mind or vision while standing behind the cb. Then they either estimate what looks like an equal-opposite cb-ob overlap referencing the contact point, or they connect the dots (cb cp to ob cp), or they perform a parallel shift. If the player can do one of these methods consistently and accurately, then the entire aim line is based on that initial contact point reference. Every 1mm that they're off on the contact point will cause a 2° difference in the shot result. With experience the player either gets very good at pinpointing that 0.5mm contact point, or they get more consistent at estimating the overlaps or the shifts needed to make it work.

Any of these methods can help a player develop consistent aiming skills, and it's really just matter of personal preference, deciding which method works best. Once you determine which method clicks for you, your road to developing solid aiming skills will be much shorter.

 

[straightline]

You always cite mathematical error but that's not how shooting goes. I mean really, you don't miss ever right?

 

[BC21]

You always cite mathematical error but that's not how shooting goes. I mean really, you don't miss ever right?

It's not mathematical error. It's simply errors in estimating the correct aiming references. And that's exactly how shooting goes. We underestimate or overestimate the cut angle sometimes, or we don't compensate accurately for speed ot spin. So many misses are do to simple physical or visual errors. And the acceptable margin for errors can be defined mathematically.

And yes, lol, I miss. Everybody misses a shot here or there. But when you're on your on, and you might go a long while without missing a single shot.

And when you do that, it means your mind and body are so fine-tuned to the game that you are able to place the cb where it needs to be in order to pocket the ob, and whether you consciously realize it or not, this is often being done within 0.5mm to 1mm of accuracy. And that's pretty damn awesome.