Here's the plot with the 1/4-3/4 overlaps highlighted. (The cut angle degrees are approximated by eye.)
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Poolmanis Instructional Main Thread
- Thread starter Poolmanis
- Start date
pj
chgo
Ya know... I never considered myself an 'old school-ish' player. ...and maybe that not the right designation anyways.
However, every time threads start dipping their toes into the science of the game. I shake my head and wonder why people wouldn't rather just play the game and learn on the table, rather than chase the math.
Don't mean to crap on the science crowd. Just saying that some decent players don't even consider the tangent/carom/coriolis calculations or whatever when getting down on the shot.
I applaud the efforts and content none the less...
However, every time threads start dipping their toes into the science of the game. I shake my head and wonder why people wouldn't rather just play the game and learn on the table, rather than chase the math.
Don't mean to crap on the science crowd. Just saying that some decent players don't even consider the tangent/carom/coriolis calculations or whatever when getting down on the shot.
I applaud the efforts and content none the less...
What makes it an either-or choice? You could ask the same question about discussing pool on a pool forum.
pj
chgo
Isn’t much of an applause, though. If your logic is followed through, this whole forum is redundant
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fair enough...lol
I don't want to send Poolmanis's thread spiraling down the tubes, so I won't debate my thoughts here. Again, though... I'm not knocking the science.
I'll have to check this out tonight. I feel like aiming is something should know, even if I just use it as a reference and not a "how to" if that makes sense. I get lost in the weeds reading about aiming on paper (pixels?) only, so having someone performing it while explaining might help.
I have no idea how I aim, tbh. Whatever I do I'm sure fits into something that's been described before. Ghost ball? I visualize the contact point I think I need to hit on the OB, then walk into the line that goes from the center of the cue ball to that contact point, and go from there. I almost never consciously adjust for english, and I use standard maple shafts.
I remember someone posted an explainer of how we probably have mental "shot pictures" that we try to replicate when setting up, regardless of what system we think we use. That is probably the best description of how I aim.
Last edited:
The above is way too easy... You must complicate that right now.
I just literally watched a vid from Niels on his channel about aiming. I feel so validated...
I'm pretty sure that's how all aiming works, regardless of your "system" for getting close.
pj
chgo
It is pretty much still same what i do. I aimed "normal" way for years and I was making balls okay. After 7 year break from game (rheumatism made me quit) I was wondering how snooker pros are so consistent and I remembered old snooker book about half ball cut importance on colors. I just expanded same approach to other cut angles too. Only thing why I decided to try all aiming tricks and systems was because I was too much feel player that had really high gear and really weak B-Game. Nowadays I feel my game is a lot more solid on B-game too because I have little more systematic way to aim and practice aiming.
example : I know shot i have is little more than 45 degrees... I have strong visual picture how to aim 45 degree cuts from practice and study(with every english). I just aim hair thinner then than normally 45 degree cuts and go for it.
Hardest part was learn to estimate/calculate cut angles. And using kinda fractions give more info for your brain to proper speed and direction to cueball. So basically I switched my aiming because it does improve my cueball control too.
Everyone can learn aiming if they hit enough balls with thought and decent stroke. I just feel I spent too many years for that I could learn in year or 2 if I had this info I have now..
I estimated them from Bob's plot as 1/8 -20 degrees, 1/4 - 27 degrees, 3/8 - 32 degrees, 1/2 - 33.5 degrees, 5/8 - 33 degrees, 3/4 -27.5 degrees, 7/8 - 17 degrees.
Next question: If one formed an isosceles triangle from the center of the ghost ball, with one leg extending the shooting line path (i.e. extending the line from cue ball past the ghost ball), with equal legs of two diamonds (25"), the length of the base of the triangle would accurately predict how far off the shot line the cue ball would be at 2 diamonds after contact for a rolling cue ball. Is that correct?
And, if I'm understanding correctly, the base length at any given distance past the ghost ball along the shot line (1 diamond, 3 diamonds, etc.) would accurately predict the location of the cue ball at that distance from the shot. Do I have that right?
That would mean (if I understand you) that all CB carom angles would be equal to their cut angles but on the opposite side of the "shooting line path". We can see from Bob's plot above that's not the case - for instance, a 30° (half ball) cut has a CB carom angle of 34°. The thinnest cuts (close to 90°) have carom angles close to 0°.
Take a look at this recent thread (Rolling-Cue-Ball CAROM ANGLE SYSTEMS), and especially at Dr. Dave's page linked there, for good info on this topic.
pj
chgo
Nice addition to Bob's plot! FYI, for future reference, I've added it to the bottom of the page here:
Sorry, I think I asked the question in a confusing way. I've seen the Dr. Dave link. I'm asking a question that can probably be derived from his video if I was better at math. But, rather than determining the deflection angle, I'm trying to determine the distance the cue ball will be from the shot line at some predetermined point along the deflection line (in this case, 2 diamonds length) when that deflection angle is one of the 1/8 ball increments.
Take two examples. A half-ball hit has a cut angle of 30 degrees and a deflection angle of 34 degrees. Forming an isosceles triangle from the point of contact (center of ghost ball) forward, with one leg following the shooting line, with an angle of 34 degrees, and legs of 25" (2 diamonds), the base of the triangle should be the distance the cue ball is from the shooting line at 25". The online triangle calculator says the length of the base is 14.62", so 14.62" should be the distance the cue ball is from the shot line at 25" past point of contact for cue ball rolling at impact.
Similarly, a quarter-ball hit has a cut angle of 48.6 degrees and a deflection angle of 27 degrees. Forming that same triangle with a angle of 27 degrees would result in a base length of 11.6" at 25" past point of contact. So 11.6" should be the distance the cue ball is from the shot line at 25" past point of contact.
I'm asking if that method correctly predicts the location of the cue ball 25" after point of contact. I marked it up on Dr. Dave's angle template. I think what I'm asking must be true, but I've just asked in a way that overly complicated it.
Attachments
Last edited:
I think so too. You're essentially asking if the base of an isosceles triangle is equal to itself.
pj
chgo
I was really trying to check myself that the base length could be used to predict cue ball position. Along the way, I suspected it had to be true mathematically. And just to verify, 1 = 1, right?
JV...and ignoring the "math" is why they will always remain just 'decent' players, as opposed to great players.
Scott Lee
2019 PBIA Instructor of the Year
Director, SPF National Pool School Tour
I was asked Bustamante to shoot a halfball hit and go three rails. I have to explain it to him in Tagalog what a half ball hit is. he just ignored me. Was he just a decent player?
People can learn to play the game thousand different ways.
It is really hard to explain people how to aim if they don´t have great natural ability to "see" angles. Some players never learn them.
What I as teacher of game try to achieve is accurate and simple way to describe how to aim.
I tried to create aiming pictures what everyone see similar way. So far everyone picked those aiming guides almost instantly.
If player is not interested aim such way I teach them normally. I just claim I can shorten the way to be a pocketing machine considerably.
Also aiming with fractional knowledge gives players more ability to figure out right speed for next shot.
Again, goal is learn faster and better. Also goal is teach players to observe things with their own and learn.
You can learn proper speed of shot with enough repetition and practice but it is really long road(for most of people. There are players that have more natural ability to learn that too..)
Example : hair thinner than half ball with natural roll will make cueball and object ball travel same distance..
Last edited:
For those interested, the following videos covers lots of good advice like this for speed control:
And more can be found on the speed control resource page.
JC
Coos Cues
Usually when someone "introduces" themselves it includes what their name is and when they say they coached players they also name names.
The reasons for this is pretty obvious at least to me.