Poolology question
- Thread starter NYCnoob99
- Start date
Zero is straight into the pocket. The system is to help develop a feel/shot recognition for cut shots, not straight in or nearly straight in, so zero really doesn't come into play. If the ob is on 20 and the alignment points to half a diamond from the pocket (a value of 5), then it's a 3/4 ball shot. If the alignment points to a quarter of a diamond from the pocket, then it's a 7/8 shot.
Last edited:
The foundation of the system is circular. The blue dots in this pic show where the 0, 5, 10, and 15 alignment values truly are to indicate the proper cut for a center pocket shot. But using the diamonds is much easier than imagining a large circle as shown. It does make the 0 value and alignment values indicating thinner hits than about a 1/8 just a bit off.
It's really not a big deal. Using your pic or this example shot, if the alignment value were zero, according to the diamonds, it would be obvious that the ob is going to slightly miss the pocket. So you'd need to aim a touch thinner than straight in to make the shot, a cut less than 1/8 from straight in. Sometimes, depending on the angle, zero might be straight into the pocket, other times you have to use some common sense and realize it's not straight in. It's a system for helping with cut shots.
In this example, the ob could be anywhere on the circumference of the dotted line circle, and if the alignment line pointed to the 1st diamond (10) it would be a halfball shot. 5 would be a 3/4 ball shot, etc.... 0 would only be straight in (a full hit) if it looks straight in.
It's really not a big deal. Using your pic or this example shot, if the alignment value were zero, according to the diamonds, it would be obvious that the ob is going to slightly miss the pocket. So you'd need to aim a touch thinner than straight in to make the shot, a cut less than 1/8 from straight in. Sometimes, depending on the angle, zero might be straight into the pocket, other times you have to use some common sense and realize it's not straight in. It's a system for helping with cut shots.
In this example, the ob could be anywhere on the circumference of the dotted line circle, and if the alignment line pointed to the 1st diamond (10) it would be a halfball shot. 5 would be a 3/4 ball shot, etc.... 0 would only be straight in (a full hit) if it looks straight in.
Last edited:
The foundation of the system is circular. The blue dots in this pic show where the 0, 5, 10, and 15 alignment values truly are to indicate the proper cut for a center pocket shot. But using the diamonds is much easier than imagining a large circle as shown. It does make the 0 value and alignment values indicating thinner hits than about a 1/8 just a bit off.
It's really not a big deal. Using your pic or this example shot, if the alignment value were zero, according to the diamonds, it would be obvious that the ob is going to slightly miss the pocket. So you'd need to aim a touch thinner than straight in to make the shot, a cut less than 1/8 from straight in. Sometimes, depending on the angle, zero might be straight into the pocket, other times you have to use some common sense and realize it's not straight in. It's a system for helping with cut shots.
In this example, the ob could be anywhere on the circumference of the dotted line circle, and if the alignment line pointed to the 1st diamond (10) it would be a halfball shot. 5 would be a 3/4 ball shot, etc.... 0 would only be straight in (a full hit) if it looks straight in.
Thing is learning anything well is for most people a long process, the one thing that must be invested is time. Most people who are great at some sport, or sales, or medicine. Have time practicing their craft.
Yesterday I found our my Dermotoligist is retiring from medicine, she is hanging it up after 55 years as a doctor. The last 21 years at the VA. Herd experience will be hard to duplicate.
When she was a medical student, their we 90 in her class, she was one of two females. Times have changed.
What you're seeing is "perspective": closer things look larger. If you had taken the same pic from the other end the effect would be reversed (the second diamond from the pocket would seem wider than the first diamond).Thanks Brian. Can you help me understand given the different distances (see below), like it seems things stretch out closer to pocket which is throwing off visual perception. Where is 5?
pj
chgo
I agree. Any skill, especially complex skills, requires practice/experience in order to know it and perform it well with consistency.
That's why the HAMB method of aiming pool shots has typically been considered the only way to really get good at pocketing balls. But it takes a lot of trial and error, shooting a wide range of shots, before you finally begin to recognize the aim for certain shots, because you actually have to successfully repeat those shots enough times for your brain to automatically recognize them when they come up.
This could take several weeks or months at a few hours a day, or several years just playing a few hours on the weekends. Different people learn at different paces, but complex skills require plenty of successful repetition before a solid skill level is reached.
The system in Poolology gives you the aim line so you don't waste any time with trial and error, which can drastically reduce the time it takes to program your brain for automatic shot recognition. It provides a fast track option when compared to traditional fractional aiming or ghostball or any other aiming method that requires a lot of guesswork/estimation work.
not sure if this will help you
but the true diamond on the long rail and the short rail are shown in this pic of a billiard table...even tho poolology is based on the center of the pocket/corner (which on a billiard tabel is 2 dots close together and a different number in their systems) perhaps using the true diamond might help you
jmho
The foundation of the system is circular. The blue dots in this pic show where the 0, 5, 10, and 15 alignment values truly are to indicate the proper cut for a center pocket shot. But using the diamonds is much easier than imagining a large circle as shown. It does make the 0 value and alignment values indicating thinner hits than about a 1/8 just a bit off.
It's really not a big deal. Using your pic or this example shot, if the alignment value were zero, according to the diamonds, it would be obvious that the ob is going to slightly miss the pocket. So you'd need to aim a touch thinner than straight in to make the shot, a cut less than 1/8 from straight in. Sometimes, depending on the angle, zero might be straight into the pocket, other times you have to use some common sense and realize it's not straight in. It's a system for helping with cut shots.
In this example, the ob could be anywhere on the circumference of the dotted line circle, and if the alignment line pointed to the 1st diamond (10) it would be a halfball shot. 5 would be a 3/4 ball shot, etc.... 0 would only be straight in (a full hit) if it looks straight in.
Thanks, this is very helpful. Would you say that the "0" line issue is the only major issue with Poolology aiming (other than the ones you point out in the book as the gray areas)? I'd like to think that a 1/2 ball hit isn't really "slightly thinner" than a true half ball, and that I can trust it to be half a ball. Should all shots be slightly thinner than calculated in order to account for the 0 line not being straight in the corner pocket? Or is this somehow adjusted for already in the math?
Related but different question: does poolology already account for cut-induced throw? Should I be using gearing spin to make up for CIT, or do the poolology aim lines already account for CIT and are therefore a little thinner than necessary for cuts?
Thanks again for your help. Love the book!
Sorry, just saw these questions.
Yes, the zero is an issue. The system is meant for cut shots. If a player can't recognize when a shot is straight in or when it's a slight cut, like a 3 to 7 degree cut, then they'll probably struggle with any aiming method.
And no this doesn't affect the accuracy of a true halfball shot. If the system says it's a 1/2 ball shot (or a 7/8 or 3/4 or 5/8 or 3/8 or whatever...) then that's what it is. It breaks down as the line gets closer to zero and as the line gets closer to the 1/8 hit.
And yes the system accounts for normal CIT around 2 degrees. When shooting a stun shot you would have to compensate more than what the system is already designed to do.
Brian - is it correct to say that the throw accounted for is based on your table conditions when you came up with the system, and that only later does it pan out that the throw really is about the same for everybody?
In other words, Poolology puts you into an overcut alignment that takes care of CIT? :thumbup:
Yes. I tested and fine-tuned it on Simonis 860 cloth.
The system accounts for around 2° of throw, a typical value based on a rolling cb at impact. Use of draw, follow, outside english, or more speed can decrease the throw. Stun significantly increases it.
The Poolology system is a training tool to help players develop a good eye for recognizing cb-ob relationships. It does not miraculously eliminate CIT, though it does account for a typical amount of CIT. A player must still understand the basic principles of throw because the system doesn't alter or dismiss the actual physics of the game.
Could you have designed the system to show the non-thrown "geometric" aim line instead? If so, what was your reasoning for doing it your way?
I'm kinda torn between your way and showing the non-thrown line so the player will be fully aware of throw adjustments.
pj
chgo
I wanted a 1/2 ball shot to hit the pocket. It's that simple. A rolling cb will naturally make that 30° come out closer to 28°. That's a great reference -- what a rolling cb does. It's the same reason the 30° cb path off the ob is in reference to a naturally rolling cb. From this natural rolling cb reference, whether we're looking at cb departure angle or ob throw, one can then learn to manipulate the shot using different speeds or spin.
The "non-throw" line is not quite reality. I mean there is almost always throw, unless you shoot every shot with gearing english, which isn't practical. However, you can shoot most shots with a rolling cb, adding a little spin here and there, accounting for a little stun every now and then, and you'll have a better idea about how to adjust your aim by simply knowing what will happen with rolling cb action.
Yep, that's the baseline that probably needs the fewest adjustments. It's interesting (and useful) that it can be calibrated like that.
pj
chgo
Well, the system just happened to work out that way for the half table nearest the target pocket. Using the inscribed angle theorem worked great. But when straight lining the system to make it more user friendly, I had to start adjusting the lines after about 3 diamonds in order to make the numbers work. So my "calibration" method was simply readjusting the lines and creating 3 separate zones to bring it all in tune, at least as in tune as a circular design could get after transforming it into a linear design. But doing this made it possible to use the diamonds as references.
Interesting reading; amusingly compfuscated for me but you already know that. Please continue.