Pocket More Thin Cut Shots

BC21

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I mentioned in another thread that I use the edge of the cb aimed at the ob contact point for thin to super thin cut shots, and it works very well. Naturally, a know-it-all immediately sent me an email telling me just how wrong I am. He is not an AZ billiards member, but he wanted me to change that post because the "false" information would have people trying the method and overcutting every thin cut shot.

I told him the difference between aiming cb edge to ob contact point, and aiming ghostball or contact point to contact point on really thin cuts is trivial and can be easily worked. But he did have a good point, considering that I didn't say what specific contact point to use. So instead of changing that post I'm going to share how to make this method work, which I should've done when I first mentioned it to avoid any potential drama.

This works great for cut shots around 70° or thinner. Simply aim to send the edge of the cb to the ob contact point, but not the contact point to center pocket. Instead, use an ob contact point that would result in hitting the shot too fat. How fat? Well, that's the easy part....

For every foot of distance between the ob and the pocket, aim at a contact point that sends the ob one inch thick/wide of center pocket. This one inch adjustment works well for 70° shots, and the adjustment decreases as the cut angle becomes more extreme. At 80° the adjustment is to aim for an ob contact point 1/2 inch thicker than center pocket for every foot of distance. You don't have to be exact, and it works quite well.

Super thin cuts aren't typically played enough to get a good feel or eye for pocketing the ball consistently. Try this method and see if it you have better success on really thin cut shots.

Here's an example: cut the 3 into the corner. It falls in the 70 to 75 degree range. The ob is about 5ft from the pocket, so aim cb edge to an ob contact point to send the ob 5 inches thick (1in for every foot of distance). The bright yellow ball is where the ob contact point should be aimed. Then simply aim cb edge to that contact point.

full
 
Last edited:
BC21 said:
Simply aim to send the edge of the cb to the ob contact point, but not the contact point to center pocket. Instead, use an ob contact point that would result in hitting the shot too fat.
Click to expand...
Sounds like "double the overlap" (a version of "double the offset" that centers the contact points between the balls' edges rather than between their centers)...?

pj
chgo
 
Sigel recommended to me that it is easier to pocket these thin shots if you line up your eye behind the edge of the cb while striking the cb in the middle. The idea is that you are looking down the line you want that edge to go rather than looking down the center line of the cb which is over an inch away. I can't say I hit them this way all the time but it does work. I think that is what you are recommending but adding the idea of a thicker hit because the edge of the cb isn't the right contact point in the first place and will result in an over cut. Worth a try!
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Sounds like "double the overlap" (a version of "double the offset" that centers the contact points between the balls' edges rather than between their centers)...?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

It's just a good way to use a solid reference, the cb edge, to line up a shot. But aiming the edge at the contact point for center pocket will overcut the ball every time. For a 70° cut shot the difference between aiming cp to cp and aiming edge of cb to cp is about 6°, an overcut of 6°. That 6°, when factoring in a little CIT, ends up requiring an adjustment of 1 inch at the pocket for about every foot of distance between ob and pocket. For an 80° cut the difference is less than 3°, so a 1/2 inch adjustment works. The example shot shows an adjustment of about 5 inches at the pocket, meaning you aim cb edge to the ob cp that sends it to that adjusted target (the yellow circle in the example).
 
Dan White said:
Sigel recommended to me that it is easier to pocket these thin shots if you line up your eye behind the edge of the cb while striking the cb in the middle. The idea is that you are looking down the line you want that edge to go rather than looking down the center line of the cb which is over an inch away. I can't say I hit them this way all the time but it does work. I think that is what you are recommending but adding the idea of a thicker hit because the edge of the cb isn't the right contact point in the first place and will result in an over cut. Worth a try!
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
I removed "without guessing" from the thread title. Honestly, my opinion is that estimating the contact point on thin cuts is pretty much guesswork most of the time.

If you try this method, the main thing to notice or pay attention to is this: The edge of the cb on thin cuts, like 70° or thinner, are 1/16 hits or thinner. From here you only have about 3.5mm of ob to utilize, as far as aiming the edge of the cb to a particular point. And an 80° cut requires slightly less than a 1mm overlap. This is why thin cuts are typically inconsistent and difficult to judge - it's a matter of aiming within a millimeter tolerance or less.
 
Last edited:
BC21 said:
I removed "without guessing" from the thread title. Honestly, my opinion is that estimating the contact point on thin cuts is pretty much guesswork most of the time.

If you try this method, the main thing to notice or pay attention to is this: The edge of the cb on thin cuts, like 70° or thinner, are 1/16 hits or thinner. From here you only have about 3.5mm of ob to utilize, as far as aiming the edge of the cb to a particular point. And an 80° cut requires slightly less than a 1mm overlap. This is why thin cuts are typically inconsistent and difficult to judge - it's a matter of aiming within a millimeter tolerance.
Click to expand...
There is a video by Florian on aiming systems.
His parallel aiming system description missed a step.
He lined up the contact points but failed to include the instruction to parallel shift to center ball.
He also made a statement about how this was very effective on thin cuts.
During execution it’s worthy to note that a firm stroke without stun works best.

As to the thick hit aim point I concur, starting from a fat aim, allays fears of missing the ball.
I became aware, from Dr. Dave‘s physics, of a cueing method using only about 1.5 mm of inside english, combined with a slightly thinner cut target than shown, has been highly successful on these shots.

By using Florian’s parallel aiming method aimed at the pocket center, not the opening, but directly at the rail recessed hole, for the diagrammed shot, as the contact point target, a parallel shift to center ball comes next.
That shot line would result in a fat hit.
On other angles the initial contact point to contact point line would be aligned to the undercut side of the pocket opening.
Using that line as a starting point, locate the half way point between the two balls on that line.
Using that as a pivot point for the tip, the butt is moved to the inside, so that the cue line now passes the cb core center about an eighth of a tip to the inside, use your awareness of where the tip actually contacts the ball.
That corrects the undercut and the addition of inside english lets you shoot the ball at all paces, capable of getting the ball to the pocket.
The ball is best shot with follow or draw, not a skidding cue ball.
Stroke straight through.
Your visual eye position can be over the cue.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Right - the real target is twice that far from the OB’s edge.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Yes, but for most people I'd guess it's very difficult to visualize on thin cuts, where the 10 degrees worth of shots (from 70° to 80°) are separated by only about a quarter of a millimeter.

Visualizing the cb-ob overlap is easier, at least for for me. Most thin cuts can be made by using an overlap between 1/8 and 1/16 of a ball. Cuts that are thinner than 70° are low percentage shots, but if you have to shoot one it's good to have a method that you know works well for you, or at least works more consistently than guessing.
 
How can I make these shots yet not use the method being described in this thread?

No so called CB edge, no contact point, no overlap.......yet I make these shots......with ease.

And take a pic of a thin cut shot and point at the CB edge.....
 
Players are attuned to shooting at the correct collision regardless of angle but only contact points establish that - the correct collision. Close up it's very easy to determine and shoot the reciprocal slivers required. From further out, the carom tangents serve as adequate if not quite as precise substitutes. Ball roll off and inaccurate stroking are far bigger factors in thin hits than any perceived inadequacy of simply lining up the points.
 
duckie said:
How can I make these shots yet not use the method being described in this thread?

No so called CB edge, no contact point, no overlap.......yet I make these shots......with ease.

And take a pic of a thin cut shot and point at the CB edge.....
Click to expand...

I guess because you are the best player here.

I'm not saying everyone should use this method. I'm saying if you consistently struggle with really thin cut shots, maybe you should try it to see if it improves your percentage.

We already know you're the type that can't see the ob edge or the cb edge, so I'm not wasting any time diving into that wormhole. Lol. This thread is intended for those who can comprehend what is meant when referring to the visible "edge" of a ball.
 
Last edited:
straightline said:
Players are attuned to shooting at the correct collision regardless of angle but only contact points establish that - the correct collision. Close up it's very easy to determine and shoot the reciprocal slivers required. From further out, the carom tangents serve as adequate if not quite as precise substitutes. Ball roll off and inaccurate stroking are far bigger factors in thin hits than any perceived inadequacy of simply lining up the points.
Click to expand...

The correct collision can be determined quite accurately without the use of contact points also.

Contact points and ghostball and fractional overlaps are all related, like cousins who don't have to depend on or each other very much. I mean, with visualizing the correct overlap one never has to even look at a contact. Same with ghostball after you use it enough.

In fact, I suspect that contact point aimers (after doing it long enough and becoming a proficient shot maker) don't really use the contact points so much because they visually recognize where the cb needs to be in relation to the ob. I'd say ghostball ends up the same way also. That's probably why, when asked, many of the best shot makers will say they don't know exactly how they aim, other than they just see the shots and know or recognize how to play them.

That visual recognition is likely in the form of cb-ob overlap, which is what the fractional method focuses on from the beginning. In the end, it's HAMB that gives us the ability to simply look at a shot and make it without having to pinpoint any ghostball or contact point or exact fractional aim line. We just know what cb-ob relationship is needed and we make that happen.
 
Last edited:
straightline said:
Perhaps but you have to filter for the hit whereas contact points ARE the hit.
Click to expand...

On paper, yes. But in reality the contact points are not that easily seen or defined, so there's some filtering that occurs with that as well, especial on thin cuts.
 
Here is a diagram of the situation. This makes it pretty clear that if you can visualize the lens-shaped overlap of the two balls (projected onto a flat surface), the contact point will be at the center of the lens and the edge of the cue ball (if you believe in edges on balls) will be as far to one side of the contact point as the edge of the object ball appears on the other side.

CropperCapture[716].png

CropperCapture[717].png
 
Bob Jewett said:
Here is a diagram of the situation. This makes it pretty clear that if you can visualize the lens-shaped overlap of the two balls (projected onto a flat surface), the contact point will be at the center of the lens and the edge of the cue ball (if you believe in edges on balls) will be as far to one side of the contact point as the edge of the object ball appears on the other side.

View attachment 601239
View attachment 601240
Click to expand...

Yes, the contact point is always in the middle of the overlap, or always in the middle between the fractional aim point/line and the center of the ob. Anyone can pinpoint the contact point from behind the ob, but I've always struggled with accurately keeping that contact point in focus once I get behind the cb. I find visualizing a specific fractional or portioned overlap to be much easier.

The overlap, or cb-ob relationship needed, is probably what the mind references most after doing any aiming system or method long enough to become proficient, because spatial skills are what drives visual associations. In other words, it's likely that even though ghostball users and contact point users use those aiming methods to learn how to aim, the cb-ob relationships/overlaps are always being seen and compared and associated to known shots.

So in the end a player can just look at a shot and know how to aim it without having to reference a ghostball or contact point. Their mind recognizes the needed overlap because the overlap was indirectly part of the mind's learning process the whole time they were using ghostball or contact points. With fractional aiming, however, overlaps are used directly to train the mind to recognize overlaps.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top