John's post reminded me of something I wrote a long time ago:
I think when it comes to shot conceptualization many players think they know what's going to happen on a given shot when they really don't. After all, this is a game of hypothesis. You look at the shot and hypothesize that if you hit the ball at a certain point, with a certain spin, with a certain speed, one ball will go in the pocket and the other will land on a given spot on the table for another shot. You get down and shoot and test your hypothesis. If a player thinks they do know exactly what's going to happen on any given shot, they should immediately waltz over to the billiard table, or just throw a couple of balls on a pool table, and try a little straight rail. Many players may be shocked to discover what they don't know.
I think any player can make the cue travel on a perfectly straight track several different ways. Put another way, you can produce a perfectly straight stroke using a wide variety of stroke mechanics -- different stances, bridges, grips, head heights, crooked or bent bridge arms, grip arm alignments, etc. But it has to be a straight (or even crooked stroke for that matter) that produces the desired/expected results for your hypothesis. I think that's part of the secret.
Sooo, I guess you have to find the setup that makes the balls do what you expect them to do and then be able to reliably reproduce that setup on every shot. If you expect the ball to come straight backwards on a draw shot, and it goes sideways, you have no basis upon which to learn. If you want and expect the cue ball to track perfectly straight on a follow shot and it goes sideways on you, the same problem exists. So your starting point has to be here.
Once you've got that, I think you eventually get to the point of "feeling" the shots by paying attention, using each shot to learn. IOW, using each shot as an experiment for which you first hypothesize about the expected results. You shoot the shot and then compare your results to your hypothesis. Then, the next time the same shot comes up, you develop a new hypothesis based upon your previous experiment. Something like: the last time I shot this shot the cue ball didn't take as wide an angle off the rail as I anticipated. So I'll cheat the pocket; use more english: use more speed; hit lower on the cue ball; whatever, and try and get that wider angle.
Then, several thousands and thousands of shots later, viola! You don't even have to think about making the ball
Lou Figueroa