S.A.M. Anyone use it? Does it really work?

[Brian in VA]

How was that out of line, because you have taken offense to it?
As I said earlier, nothing was directed at anyone in particular, just that it is an issue. It wasnt even directly aimed at the topic of SAM.
If you choose to turn a blind eye to the history of this game, meaning the greed involved. That is your business. I for one am tired of people milking the cow dry, and then complaining theres no more milk. I said the game is full of greedy people, and feel that is a true statement.
Greed has been the downfall of most of the mens professional organizations. Greed has been a large contributing factor in the publics image of hustlers and con men. Greed was what kept tips and "secret information" hidden for many years from new players..... So yes, the game has its share of greedy people.

Again, what I said about instuctors was not about being greedy money wise. It was about being greedy with information. Professional instruction is a needed learning tool, and you deserve to be paid for it. However, saying you have a holy grail of aiming system information..... but you have to take my class to learn it........ is not in the spirit of sharing information or growing the game.
If we want this game to grow...... first thing that needs to go is the greed. Second..... the egos.

Because I love the game, I love the sounds of the game, I love the feeling of the game.......... it means something to me.
Chuck

You say that the first thing that needs to go is the greed and yet your signature contains a line from a movie that has a lot to do with greed, the Hustler. That seems hypocritical to me and lessens the value of your comments to me.

You were out of line in the tone of your post, IMO, as I have yet (45 years) to come across any instructor in this game that didn't want to share information freely. Hustlers and gamblers, sure, but not instructors. Frankly, golf instructors are far tighter with their info.

If there was a Holy Grail aiming system, matches wouldn't have to be played because no one would ever miss. Fortunately, we're all human. And you still have to make the shot.

Brian in VA

 

[Scott Lee]

How was that out of line, because you have taken offense to it?
As I said earlier, nothing was directed at anyone in particular, just that it is an issue. It wasnt even directly aimed at the topic of SAM.
If you choose to turn a blind eye to the history of this game, meaning the greed involved. That is your business. I for one am tired of people milking the cow dry, and then complaining theres no more milk. I said the game is full of greedy people, and feel that is a true statement.
Greed has been the downfall of most of the mens professional organizations. Greed has been a large contributing factor in the publics image of hustlers and con men. Greed was what kept tips and "secret information" hidden for many years from new players..... So yes, the game has its share of greedy people.

Again, what I said about instuctors was not about being greedy money wise. It was about being greedy with information. Professional instruction is a needed learning tool, and you deserve to be paid for it. However, saying you have a holy grail of aiming system information..... but you have to take my class to learn it........ is not in the spirit of sharing information or growing the game.
If we want this game to grow...... first thing that needs to go is the greed. Second..... the egos.

Because I love the game, I love the sounds of the game, I love the feeling of the game.......... it means something to me.
Chuck

Turn a blind eye to the history? I think not...as you mentioned, the history (even current) is filled with charlatans and thieves. Instructors, for the most part, have never been part of that scenario. Randyg, myself, and several others who have been exposed to SAM, have repeatedly said that it is difficult to understand and/or explain on a forum. It's hard enough for some exposed to it in person. Others catch on right away.

I also love the game completely, and as such, choose to spend my life and career helping others to better understand how to improve their own pool games. MOST instructors are not 'greedy with information'. Most gamblers and hustlers ARE...for obvious reasons. Nobody said SAM was any kind of 'holy grail of aiming system information'. Where do you get that kind of statement? We've said over and over that it will work if you want it to, and won't if you don't. SAM works very well, for many players. No aiming system is a 'holy grail', and no system will work (even feel) if you don't have a repeatable stroke. That's REALLY what we teach. Other things (such as SAM) are applications to use with a repeatable stroke.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

 

[jsp]

The golden system that all other systems can be judged against is the "corrected ghost ball system." It has two problems: determining the correction and landing the cue ball at the corrected ghost ball. But if you can do that, it really is perfect.

True dat.

If you cannot mathematically derive the ghost ball system from another aiming system, then that other system is simply not mathematically and geometrically sound...period. I don't care what you say, the system would not be "perfect".

Though, i'm not saying that system can't "work" for you in terms of helping you pocket balls with greater regularity. But something else in terms of subconscious correction is fine-tuning the system. If that's the case, then the system really isn't all that. All it does it helps you find a decent starting point, and you have to adjust from there by experience and feel.

 

[Koop]

I'm bumping my question if you don't mind.

At the risk of keeping this going beyond the point I would like to discuss it on the internet, you are right and wrong in your assumption.
It is true that once you hit a certain point you need to change the cut on the ball but it is not determined by small, incremental, fractions.
Depending on which system you are using, it is one of either 2 or 3 shots, period. It is a matter of learning the system and practicing it. Once you have it down, you literally know the shot before you even reach the table.
Knowing and executing are two different animals but at least by knowing you can focus on the execution (i.e. straight stroke), something which I continually work on with my limited time to actually play.

As for playing by feel and hitting a million balls Hal said it best, in my opinion.
You are honing your errors to perfection.

Shoot straight and enjoy,
Koop

 

[Andrew Manning]

There's absolutely no end in sight to the argument of whether or not aiming "systems" (by which I mean algorithms for aiming involving classifying shots and deciding on an aim point based on a quantified scale of some sort, whether it be incremental or not, but as opposed to finding the exact point on the object ball opposite the pocket and hitting it with the cue ball, or just feeling and shooting) are geometrically valid or not. Honestly, I don't think the conversations are ever going to be fruitful.

There are analytical minds who want to know exactly how the mathematical minutiae of billiards work (myself included), and there are those who just want to get the job done on the table. I think aiming "systems" are only to be truly believed by the second category. I say this because aiming systems are only going to be useful to those who can hit the CB very accurately, which is to say those who have already put in time on the table. The "systems" have been proven to help these people judge how to put the balls in the holes.

Now when someone makes two cuts into the exact center of the pocket that differ in cut angle by 4 degrees, using the same "increment" prescribed by the system, the two types of people will either say "the cut angles differed by 4 degrees, but the system told him to aim to the same spot, therefore the system is inaccurate and the player has really created the correct cut angle through his own experience and knowledge", or will say "he made both shots, the system worked perfectly." I think both people are right, and it's anybody's guess which of them will have more success in pool. As mentioned frequently on this forum, the world's best players often have a very incomplete conscious understanding of what they're doing on the table.

When a player learns the system, is the system responsible for making balls, or the player? The contact point is infinitessimal, especially on long straight-ish shots, and the human stroke is imperfect. The human eye is also imperfect. Many of us can't even find the dead center of the CB sitting inches in front of us. None of our eyes are quick enough to watch a player shoot with the system and know if the player actually aimed where the system prescribed, or whether they just thought they did. When we aim at an OB, we only know if we hit the right spot based on whether the CB goes where we wanted. We don't see or have a vantage to accurately judge the actual contact. So if the ball goes in, it works. If the ball doesn't go in, it doesn't. The geometry is rendered entirely moot. The placebo effect on the student who thinks the system told him exactly where to aim, in my opinion, is at least as significant as whether or not the system really did tell him correctly.

So honestly, I think we should quit discussing them. Those who teach them and see them work, keep doing it; it works! Those who don't believe in them, you don't have to! Not believing in them is also a proven technique! I personally find them totally irrelevant. The object balls don't know what system you used. They all drop the same.

-Andrew

 

[RiverCity]

You say that the first thing that needs to go is the greed and yet your signature contains a line from a movie that has a lot to do with greed, the Hustler. That seems hypocritical to me and lessens the value of your comments to me.

Brian in VA

Im sorry you feel that way, but if greed is what you think the movie The Hustler was about.... you are mistaken. Quoting a line from one of the oldest, most revered movies containing pool...... doesnt make me hypocritical on this subject or any other either.

......MOST instructors are not 'greedy with information'. Most gamblers and hustlers ARE...for obvious reasons. Nobody said SAM was any kind of 'holy grail of aiming system information'. Where do you get that kind of statement? ........

If you look back at the original replies to Bob Jewetts request for information on this aiming system, he was told he would have to come take the class to learn it. Thats where I got a greedy with information, more than it was being touted as feeling about it.
As well respected as Bob Jewett is, and as well known for openingly sharing information as he is........ telling him he should come take the class is a bit of a joke and an insult as far as I am concerned.
I know the aiming system is not the end all be all of anything, and personally do not care what it is about. Professional courtesy, along with common courtesy go a long way in helping legitamize and further the sport to all involved, and in the long run the publics eye.
Chuck

 

[cbi1000]

I got in late...

I went to RandyG's pool school in January and i can say it was the best money i've EVER spent on my game.

The first 2.5 days is spent on improving your stroke. And then they introduce S.A.M. Now, when i was there i was the highest skilled player and i took to S.A.M very quickly while others needed more time. That being said i'm still learning and trusting S.A.M. I'm learning more and more about using english using S.A.M too.

S.A.M is working for me, i'm gaining more and more trust with it everyday and along with the improved stroke techniques that i learned from RandG and cast with lots of practice i feel my game is really taking off. I'm starting to play the better then i've ever played.

Thanks,

 

[Williebetmore]

I hope everyone realizes that randyg and Scott Lee did NOT start this thread in hopes of "touting" some system; the thread was started by a member seeking information. Of course, this is the best place to share information on pool.

I realize that describing this system may be difficult, but I totally reject the notion that it is impossible. A literate person who understands the system could definitely describe it for us. I hope someone will take the time to do so (though I understand if the expert's involved don't have the time to do so). Pool does NOT NEED MORE SECRETS, it needs fewer.

Perhaps a session on S.A.M. at next year's DCC would be in order, for those of us who can't get a handle on the system from the description I AM VERY HOPEFUL WILL FOLLOW THIS POST . Perhaps a session on Hal Houle's systems would also be fun - does anyone know how we could convince Hal to attend (perhaps kicking in for his travelling costs)?????

 

[Koop]

does anyone know how we could convince Hal to attend (perhaps kicking in for his travelling costs)?????

I could certainly ask him but I wouldn't bank on it.
He's getting up there in age and can't stand for very long periods of time.

 

[BYGJERRY]

Personally I feel that the hard part isn't explaining SAM, I mean OZ from cue-tech has a stack of analytical scamatics....which I do not even know what that means but trust me he has got them. To prove why and how it works. The problem isn't the explanation it's believing it. And seeing is believing. Cue-tech teaches a stroke that with dedication and practice will deliver your cue acurrately everytime the balls just get in the way.

 

[seymore15074]

The longer it takes to explain, the worse of a system it is. That is how I feel about it. Teach a beginner with any system that you want, they will eventually abandon it and just know where to hit the ball. Why waste the effort to explain a more elaborate method of finding the same contact point as any other system?

 

[Kent]

Everyone is Taking the Bait..Including Me.

Reading these posts has made me sad. I have taken RandyG's three day school and have great respect for Randy. I have been reading this forum for well over a year and if I had to pick one person that I feel provides the most techically correct/physics based answers it is Bob Jewett. Now I see Randy getting flamed and Bob replying with emotion rather than his usual factual based knowledge.

I am an engineer and SAM did not work for me. Perhaps the reason it did not work is because I read a post (I think it was one of Bob's) that cleary expalined how 5 distinct cut points on a ball simply will not allow any shot to be made. This is very simple math. As an engineer, if facts disprove something I guess I can't let my mind accept the concept as valid and probably don't give it a chance.

My opinion is that SAM is great for the beginner, but anyone who has been playning very long at all will not need to rely on SAM. I believe people who continue to use SAM likely use it as a guide and their mind compensates for the small corrections needed to pot the ball.

Also, in Randy's defense, his school is much more about teaching proper stroke, bridging, and eye movement than SAM. What he taught me is invaluable. However, it took me 6 months of hard work to make the new stroke mine, but without the new stroke I would have great difficulty making signifcant improvements in my game.

 

[RBLilly]

Images

These images come directly from CueTech Pool School.
I believe the Second image was directly done by Carl Oswald.
This should explain it for most people, but I wanted to make sure that everyone knows this info came from CueTech.

 

[RBLilly]

So!

Reading these posts has made me sad. I have taken RandyG's three day school and have great respect for Randy. I have been reading this forum for well over a year and if I had to pick one person that I feel provides the most techically correct/physics based answers it is Bob Jewett. Now I see Randy getting flamed and Bob replying with emotion rather than his usual factual based knowledge.

I am an engineer and SAM did not work for me. Perhaps the reason it did not work is because I read a post (I think it was one of Bob's) that cleary expalined how 5 distinct cut points on a ball simply will not allow any shot to be made. This is very simple math. As an engineer, if facts disprove something I guess I can't let my mind accept the concept as valid and probably don't give it a chance.

My opinion is that SAM is great for the beginner, but anyone who has been playning very long at all will not need to rely on SAM. I believe people who continue to use SAM likely use it as a guide and their mind compensates for the small corrections needed to pot the ball.

Also, in Randy's defense, his school is much more about teaching proper stroke, bridging, and eye movement than SAM. What he taught me is invaluable. However, it took me 6 months of hard work to make the new stroke mine, but without the new stroke I would have great difficulty making signifcant improvements in my game.

I am an engineer too, and trust me this method works. You just may be like some people and over anaylize it.

 

[thrasher789]

Just for clarification when I was going on and on about how hard it would be to put into words the system I was trying to refer to systems like the 'shishkabob' or 'holy grail system' which are completely different from S.A.M.

Bob you bring up some great points about teaching and instruction and I fully understand you are one of the most respected pool teachers around; but that said, if you ever meet up with Houle or Simpson or anyone who can teach you the 'Holy Grail' method of aiming I am almost positive you would find it very difficult to accurately convey how to do it strictly through writing and/or pictures, it really takes being there and seeing the exact mechanics of it to work.

For anyone who has never seen a system like this it just dones't make any sense, I still can't understand how it works but the fact is it does; it doesn't not involve picking an aiming point and the like, it really is a systematic and mathematical approack to aim that doens't seem realisitic until seen in person.

Houle traveled with Greenleaf for years and was amazed by his uncanny shot making ability which inspirted him to work for years on systems of aim, literally devoteing a large portion of his life to it, what he came up with was many many systems (some more practical than others) that really do work, work with an instructer who knows one or Hal himself and you will instantly be a beleiever.

 

[Dead Crab]

I don't buy into all sots falling into a few categories. However, if you want a system that covers "all" the angles for free, here it is:

1) Estimate the cut angle

2) The aiming point on the object ball is x mm off the object ball center (as viewed from the cue ball), where x=cut angle in degrees.

3) This applies at any cue ball - object ball distance over 7". Less than that, and you should use ghost ball aiming.

By this system:
10 degree cut: aim 1 cm off center
20 degree cut: aim 2 cm off center
ect.

Get a large sheet of paper and work through this. It is remarkably accurate.

Also an engineer, DC

 

[PKM]

if you ever meet up with Houle or Simpson or anyone who can teach you the 'Holy Grail' method of aiming I am almost positive you would find it very difficult to accurately convey how to do it strictly through writing and/or pictures, it really takes being there and seeing the exact mechanics of it to work.

So is there literally nothing you can say about it, without being at a table? I just don't see how any system can be that difficult to describe, we just saw that the essence of S.A.M. can be conveyed through the written word and pictures after all. If you don't want to because it is proprietary information, that's a different story.

 

[cigardave]

I've got a question... why on #2 thru #5 does the line that goes through the object ball (the line with the quarter-ball hash marks on it)... why does that line progressively change angle from #2 to #5???

I'll add... it doesn't stay in the same relationship with any of the other lines drawn (for example, it appears to change with the directional arrow of the object ball... but not in a linear manner)... can anybody explain why?

I'm a mechanical engineer as well but it's not apparent to me.

 

[thrasher789]

So is there literally nothing you can say about it, without being at a table? I just don't see how any system can be that difficult to describe, we just saw that the essence of S.A.M. can be conveyed through the written word and pictures after all.

I can't say anything for a couple reasons, first off it really is taht hard to explain, beleive me it will be common knowledge soon. Simpson said he is making a video about it which should be really good; moreover though when I learned the systems it was understood I wouldn't talk about how to do them, whether I agree with it or not isn't up to me but the fact is I promised I wouldn't give away any secrets and I gotta respect that I was taught them in the first place under that agreement.

 

[PKM]

I can't say anything for a couple reasons, first off it really is taht hard to explain, beleive me it will be common knowledge soon. Simpson said he is making a video about it which should be really good; moreover though when I learned the systems it was understood I wouldn't talk about how to do them, whether I agree with it or not isn't up to me but the fact is I promised I wouldn't give away any secrets and I gotta respect that I was taught them in the first place under that agreement.

That's cool, I'm not suggesting you are obligated to tell us about it. I just think if someone wanted to, they should be able to describe it. After all, you can draw 3-D pictures if you have to, I don't see how there's any information that can't be at least approximately conveyed on paper.