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

[thrasher789]

I'm glad your somewhat understanding of me not talking about it because I'm afraid people are gonna say "How can you know this information and not share? Its just not moral. ect." So thank you for your understanding.

The fact though is I really honestly don't know how to put it into words, it involves lining up in a specific way in correclation with the cue ball and object ball and then some specific shifts, depending on what kind of cut it is the line up is different and no matter what the shift feels unnatural, even if I could accurately describe how to do it it is very unlikely anyone would understand it enough to be able to do it and most people would probably try it, not get it to work, and throw it to the wind. :/

 

[barryc]

Sam

AHMEN Brother..,.randyg

I have been reading with interest the comments in regard to SAM. I have been to Randy's class and have experimented with it and use it on occasion. Essentially, it divides the object into 4 aiming portions or areas. (1) being center, (2) approx. half ball, (3) edge of ball and (4) outside edge of ball. Other similar systems use center ball, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 7/8, etc. The theory is, connecting one of these aiming segments will make any shot. I personaly don't think it's perfect (surprise, what is?) and I've tried it extensively with regulation billiard balls on a snooker table where aim needs to be exact. However, I've shown it to new and experienced shooters who have no other method and it seems to work better than the "guess" method they were using previously. Occasonally, much better. However, the real point is as follows. Instead of arguing who invented it, who uses it, who teaches it, if Einstien can prove it, the geometry and physics behind it, etc., what not just try it and see if it works? Essentially, gather your own data. If it works, it's on more tool in your pool tool box (not necessarily the "ONLY" one, sometimes you need a chisel and sometimes a saw) that you can use when other things aren't working. If it doesn't work for you, simply don't use it. The goal is to play better pool. If it doesn't work put some other tool in your tool box that does the job better, and one you have more faith in. It seems very simple to me, (a) try new things, (b) keep what works, (c) disregard what doesn't and then (d) look for more. Obviously no system can compensate for a dead straight stroke and perfect speed, something we'd all like to have and few of us do. Realistically, most of us never will on a consistent basis. I was formerly a competitive rifle/pistol shooter and nothing would compensate for perfect trigger control and perfect "hold". This is a "zone", something like deadstroke we all tried for but didn't always achieve.That didn't mean that the other techniques were of no value. Most of us were very good but not not "world class" shooters so we needed other things that would work in the place of pure talent. Often this didn't work out and raw talent prevailed, but occasonally it did work and I'd win. In any case these "other tools" helped prevent disaster. If SAM (properly explained) works use it, and if not, look elsewhere. Who the hell cares where it came from and who else uses it.

barryc

 

[TheConArtist]

Colin has put up some great 3D images of showing the Pivot system. Then there is the small ball system which i like to use for the 3/4 cut shots, while aiming the center of the cueball to the spot between the center and edge of the objectball on a right cut, you notice the right half of the cueball is aiming at the center of the objectball, and the left half of the cueball is aiming at the edge of the objectball. That is one of Hals systems that i first learned and still use to this day. For a half ball cut shot i like to use the edges to aim with, aiming the edge of the cueball to the center of the objectball, then aiming the contact point, the 3/4 then aiming my aim point which is the center of the cueball to the edge. I always double check the system with each part of the cueball. Personally speaking.

 

[Koop]

Colin has put up some great 3D images of showing the Pivot system. Then there is the small ball system which i like to use for the 3/4 cut shots, while aiming the center of the cueball to the spot between the center and edge of the objectball on a right cut, you notice the right half of the cueball is aiming at the center of the objectball, and the left half of the cueball is aiming at the edge of the objectball. That is one of Hals systems that i first learned and still use to this day. For a half ball cut shot i like to use the edges to aim with, aiming the edge of the cueball to the center of the objectball, then aiming the contact point, the 3/4 then aiming my aim point which is the center of the cueball to the edge. I always double check the system with each part of the cueball. Personally speaking.

I mainly use (center to half, center to edge, half to edge) with the occassional Shish-K-Bob sprinkled in.
However, on my next trip to visit Hal, we are spending the entire day or two devoted to one system, and that would be Hal's baby.

Take care buddy and nice shooting in the DM challenge,
Koop

 

[TheConArtist]

I mainly use (center to half, center to edge, half to edge) with the occassional Shish-K-Bob sprinkled in.
However, on my next trip to visit Hal, we are spending the entire day or two devoted to one system, and that would be Hal's baby.

Take care buddy and nice shooting in the DM challenge,
Koop

Aww the baby of all systems huh i would give anything to spend the day with Hal and go over his systems, although i do know some main ones of his Thanks to you, DM, and Fred. I rarely pivot the cue these days, the trick to the systems i use does with the eyes. The way i view the cueball is like this, a double image. Simply by relaxing my eyes and you can actually see the Small Ball as a solid, just my minor adjustment to one of Hals, and works like a charm. You must update me on the visit with Hal bro. Take Care.

 

[NaturalEnglish]

I have seen several quotes regarding Einstein and pool. Can ANYONE give a reference to a paper or article he wrote? I think its an urban legend.

 

[JDB]

I have seen several quotes regarding Einstein and pool. Can ANYONE give a reference to a paper or article he wrote? I think its an urban legend.

LOL...You're kidding, right??? Sometimes you have to connect the dots...

 

[Colin Colenso]

Then please explain it here so those of us not familiar with it can benefit.

Then it would lose its magical appeal...lol

It seems quite similar to the Houlian system which seems to be based on bogus physics. It can't be described diagramatically

Colin

 

[Scott Lee]

I have not seen the paper personally. I believe Randy has. IIRC it was published in 1918, is called "The Receding Spheres Theory", and is very technically worded. Bob Jewett would have a field day!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I have seen several quotes regarding Einstein and pool. Can ANYONE give a reference to a paper or article he wrote? I think its an urban legend.

 

[Big Bad Bern]

Having been to see Tom Simpson I learned his aiming methods, I can tell you why the shish kabob and holy grail system work. I spent considerable time working with these systems to find out why as I had a hard time just blindly putting my faith in something and hoping that it works.

Tom/Hal's systems work for a reason, which has nothing to do with vision and everything to do with alignment, but creating new shot pictures and trusting them in your head is a different story and can take a long time, but the systems work very well.

Bern

 

[thrasher789]

Tom/Hal's systems work for a reason, which has nothing to do with vision and everything to do with alignment, but creating new shot pictures and trusting them in your head is a different story and can take a long time, but the systems work very well.

Honestly, Tom says "trust is a must" and he means it. I constantly find myself going through the steps of the holy grail system only to make an adjustment at the end becuase I dont' trust it; sure enough I miss the shot and 10 out of 10 times if I had trusted the system it would have been gold.

 

[Scott Lee]

However, the real point is as follows. Instead of arguing who invented it, who uses it, who teaches it, if Einstien can prove it, the geometry and physics behind it, etc., what not just try it and see if it works? Essentially, gather your own data. If it works, it's on more tool in your pool tool box (not necessarily the "ONLY" one, sometimes you need a chisel and sometimes a saw) that you can use when other things aren't working. If it doesn't work for you, simply don't use it. The goal is to play better pool. If it doesn't work put some other tool in your tool box that does the job better, and one you have more faith in. It seems very simple to me, (a) try new things, (b) keep what works, (c) disregard what doesn't and then (d) look for more. Obviously no system can compensate for a dead straight stroke and perfect speed, something we'd all like to have and few of us do. Realistically, most of us never will on a consistent basis. I was formerly a competitive rifle/pistol shooter and nothing would compensate for perfect trigger control and perfect "hold". This is a "zone", something like deadstroke we all tried for but didn't always achieve.That didn't mean that the other techniques were of no value. Most of us were very good but not not "world class" shooters so we needed other things that would work in the place of pure talent. Often this didn't work out and raw talent prevailed, but occasonally it did work and I'd win. In any case these "other tools" helped prevent disaster. If SAM (properly explained) works use it, and if not, look elsewhere. Who the hell cares where it came from and who else uses it.

barryc

TAP TAP TAP! Well said...thanks barryc!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

 

[ShootingArts]

Testing

. However, the real point is as follows. Instead of arguing who invented it, who uses it, who teaches it, if Einstien can prove it, the geometry and physics behind it, etc., what not just try it and see if it works? Essentially, gather your own data. barryc

Good point so I just conducted a quick and dirty test. I am a preferred member over at poolcomps meaning that all of the tabs work on the practice table and I can set up and reset shots over and over making slight modifications and retesting. I also hit the cue ball in exactly the same place over and over if I accept the default, can hit with very close to the identical speed over and over, and have a stroke that would make Efren green if I could carry it over to a real table. The same algorithms run over and over so the same shot is endlessly repeatable if you just reset it. I doubt seriously that there is a pro in the world that can repeat the shots any more consistently.

The weakest point is my means of measuring. I stacked balls along the rails to position the cue ball in consistent places over and over. That means that my smallest unit of measurement was one object ball wide and I was measuring something in linier units that I would have preferred to measure in degrees. The cue ball adjustments were in clicks from the edge of the object ball and each primary setting(angle) was chosen to direct the object ball closest to the center of the pocket opening. When the object ball could no longer be pocketed from that setting I moved to a new primary setting that pocketed the ball nearly centered in the pocket and would still pocket the object ball from the first location the earlier primary setting would not. Testing various areas including the two extremes I found that the widest area on the rail that the object ball could be pocketed from was three balls wide, often only two. The length of railing that gave the practical angles for the shot was very close to forty balls long by my method of stacking balls as a unit of measure. (This worked well as they are easily jammed together. Only the ball that has been "grabbed" with the mouse will move and it is easily jammed against another ball which remains fixed in position.)

My qualifications to set up a test are fairly respectable, several years formal work in R&D, VP of a small R&D corporation, and a few more in the design engineering department of a nuclear power plant. I do understand limiting variables or acknowledging them so that readers can make valid decisions from the test report.

What I found was that there was some merit to the single point aiming systems. By my crude measurements I found that I would need about fifteen aiming points to shoot the object ball off of the spot from roughly 80-85 degrees one extreme to the other extreme, a tough cut but by no means impossible. This was tested using identical english and only two different speeds as the cueball speed to pocket the extreme angles was of course greater than the speed needed when better energy transfer was possible.

The good news is that twelve to fifteen aiming points pocketed the object ball. I wouldn't quibble if someone told me that the eleven aiming points used in SAM did also, although my measurements were consistent they were somewhat coarsely divided as already acknowledged.

Now for the bad news. Assuming an identical speed and spin so that we can use whatever speed and spin is needed to position the cue ball, all the system did was cheat the pocket. To only use the limited positions, I used the entire pocket, edge to edge. This means that for many shots the margin of error is near zero on one side without making aiming adjustments or compromising speed or spin needed to position the cue ball in order to pocket the object ball.

There are too many far more knowledgeable people including instructors and champions here for me to do it any way but most respectfully, but I must most respectfully suggest that it would seem the better practice to use many more contact points so that the object ball is normally directed towards the center of the effective opening of the pocket on every shot after applying the speed and spin needed to position the cue ball. Perfect execution of a shot is not possible for anyone 100% of the time so giving ourselves the greatest possible margin for error on every shot but the simplest seems to be the best option.

I will pay the closest attention if someone cares to explain the errors in my thinking or testing. Like I believe everyone here, I would love to find a simple method that gave me the best chance of success with every shot.

Thanks,
Hu

 

[randyg]

Good point so I just conducted a quick and dirty test. I am a preferred member over at poolcomps meaning that all of the tabs work on the practice table and I can set up and reset shots over and over making slight modifications and retesting. I also hit the cue ball in exactly the same place over and over if I accept the default, can hit with very close to the identical speed over and over, and have a stroke that would make Efren green if I could carry it over to a real table. The same algorithms run over and over so the same shot is endlessly repeatable if you just reset it. I doubt seriously that there is a pro in the world that can repeat the shots any more consistently.

The weakest point is my means of measuring. I stacked balls along the rails to position the cue ball in consistent places over and over. That means that my smallest unit of measurement was one object ball wide and I was measuring something in linier units that I would have preferred to measure in degrees. The cue ball adjustments were in clicks from the edge of the object ball and each primary setting(angle) was chosen to direct the object ball closest to the center of the pocket opening. When the object ball could no longer be pocketed from that setting I moved to a new primary setting that pocketed the ball nearly centered in the pocket and would still pocket the object ball from the first location the earlier primary setting would not. Testing various areas including the two extremes I found that the widest area on the rail that the object ball could be pocketed from was three balls wide, often only two. The length of railing that gave the practical angles for the shot was very close to forty balls long by my method of stacking balls as a unit of measure. (This worked well as they are easily jammed together. Only the ball that has been "grabbed" with the mouse will move and it is easily jammed against another ball which remains fixed in position.)

My qualifications to set up a test are fairly respectable, several years formal work in R&D, VP of a small R&D corporation, and a few more in the design engineering department of a nuclear power plant. I do understand limiting variables or acknowledging them so that readers can make valid decisions from the test report.

What I found was that there was some merit to the single point aiming systems. By my crude measurements I found that I would need about fifteen aiming points to shoot the object ball off of the spot from roughly 80-85 degrees one extreme to the other extreme, a tough cut but by no means impossible. This was tested using identical english and only two different speeds as the cueball speed to pocket the extreme angles was of course greater than the speed needed when better energy transfer was possible.

The good news is that twelve to fifteen aiming points pocketed the object ball. I wouldn't quibble if someone told me that the eleven aiming points used in SAM did also, although my measurements were consistent they were somewhat coarsely divided as already acknowledged.

Now for the bad news. Assuming an identical speed and spin so that we can use whatever speed and spin is needed to position the cue ball, all the system did was cheat the pocket. To only use the limited positions, I used the entire pocket, edge to edge. This means that for many shots the margin of error is near zero on one side without making aiming adjustments or compromising speed or spin needed to position the cue ball in order to pocket the object ball.

There are too many far more knowledgeable people including instructors and champions here for me to do it any way but most respectfully, but I must most respectfully suggest that it would seem the better practice to use many more contact points so that the object ball is normally directed towards the center of the effective opening of the pocket on every shot after applying the speed and spin needed to position the cue ball. Perfect execution of a shot is not possible for anyone 100% of the time so giving ourselves the greatest possible margin for error on every shot but the simplest seems to be the best option.

I will pay the closest attention if someone cares to explain the errors in my thinking or testing. Like I believe everyone here, I would love to find a simple method that gave me the best chance of success with every shot.

Thanks,
Hu

Hu: I hope we have the chance to spend some private time together when I arrive in New Orleans. I know you would like to attend our Pool School there, were we teach the S.A.M system. Hope to see you in Oct......SPF=randyg

 

[cuetechasaurus]

I have no need to name the pro's who have attended CUE-TECH, they can speak for themselves.

Bob Jewett is a good friend on mine. Re-read what I wrote and I said that maybe I would attend his school. Plan on it anyway, I learn from everyone. All BCA Instructors must attend some other BCA Instructors Schools.

Bob is a good Instructor whom I respect, but I will match my knowledge of teaching the game with any living human being.

As far as Bob playing "strong", I know that personally. Just because you didn't say what you meant to say is your mistake, not mine. Retort or not. I'm still waiting for the cash, I'll take the 7 if your backing Bob.

Once again "They don't know, what they don't know!"...thanks OZ


Good luck cuetechasaurus, talk later.....SPF=randyg

Oooh look at the woofing!!! You must be a big-time money player! I'll tell you what. With all your knowledge, and aiming systems, you must be a jam-up player!

The funny part is, I bet if any one of those Filipino players, like Orcullo, Corteza, Alcano offered you the 5-out, you'd chickenshit your way out of it.

Lemme guess, your response is gonna be "I have no need to play them".

Oh, but you were the one just barking about me putting up the cash, like you got some gamble in you. I guarantee I can get you that match with one of them. Not thru Jay (although he might be interested), I have a friend who is in contact with those guys on a regular basis. I'll sidebet with you too.

Kind of humiliating that someone can give you, a big time instructor, with an even bigger ego, such monstrous weight. Isn't it? I'm sure in your fantasies you think nobody in the world can give you that weight.

If you're interested, speak now or shut the hell up with your b.s. woofing.

Oh, one more thing. In knowledge of the game, EFREN REYES GIVES YOU THE FRIGGIN RAINBOW!!! LOL

"They don't know what they don't know"........Damn, you are so full of yourself it's pathetic.

 

[scottycoyote]

Oooh look at the woofing!!! You must be a big-time money player! I'll tell you what. With all your knowledge, and aiming systems, you must be a jam-up player!

The funny part is, I bet if any one of those Filipino players, like Orcullo, Corteza, Alcano offered you the 5-out, you'd chickenshit your way out of it.

Lemme guess, your response is gonna be "I have no need to play them".

Oh, but you were the one just barking about me putting up the cash, like you got some gamble in you. I guarantee I can get you that match with one of them. Not thru Jay (although he might be interested), I have a friend who is in contact with those guys on a regular basis. I'll sidebet with you too.

Kind of humiliating that someone can give you, a big time instructor, with an even bigger ego, such monstrous weight. Isn't it? I'm sure in your fantasies you think nobody in the world can give you that weight.

If you're interested, speak now or shut the hell up with your b.s. woofing.

Oh, one more thing. In knowledge of the game, EFREN REYES GIVES YOU THE FRIGGIN RAINBOW!!! LOL

"They don't know what they don't know"........Damn, you are so full of yourself it's pathetic.

hey youre the one who started the woofing for money, and your bet was bob would give him the 7 and youd back bob, and randy said he would take the bet.......now you want to bring in one of the top philipinos to play him instead......looks to me like youre the one who's chicken$hitting out now that he called your bluff.

 

[ShootingArts]

I hope we can meet too

Hu: I hope we have the chance to spend some private time together when I arrive in New Orleans. I know you would like to attend our Pool School there, were we teach the S.A.M system. Hope to see you in Oct......SPF=randyg

Randy,

I'm still not certain I can make the school yet but I would very much like to meet you and it is a near certainty that we can get together since I am only fifteen miles away from Buffalo's where your school is being held. Without greater knowledge of SAM, I have no way of knowing if it works or not. I simply ran a quick test of fixed point aiming using software to take shooter error and shooter automatic compensations out of the equation. Of course as noted my testing was less than perfect due to limitations in measurement.

Although it may turn out to be an unexpected benefit, SAM isn't why I am interested in your school anyway. While away from the tables for many years, major changes took place physically and with my eyes. When playing constantly we make running adjustments for such things and it is not as large an issue. Coming back with these issues puts me in a new world. Correcting stance and stroke and learning to readjust them myself when they falter are my primary interests.

A small chuckle: I briefly tested putting a pause at the end of the backstroke on simple shots. While it sometimes naturally occurs on difficult shots I found that I could not do it on simple shots. Much conditioning to smoothly transition from the back stroke to moving forward with minimum pause caused about an inch of forward creep when I tried to stop at the end of the stroke. Annoying to see that the subconscious would overrule my conscious desire to stop. Fortunately the pause can be practiced anywhere and I will have it as an option soon.

Looking forward to meeting you,
Hu

 

[thrasher789]

Oooh look at the woofing!!! You must be a big-time money player! I'll tell you what. With all your knowledge, and aiming systems, you must be a jam-up player!

The funny part is, I bet if any one of those Filipino players, like Orcullo, Corteza, Alcano offered you the 5-out, you'd chickenshit your way out of it.

Lemme guess, your response is gonna be "I have no need to play them".

Oh, but you were the one just barking about me putting up the cash, like you got some gamble in you. I guarantee I can get you that match with one of them. Not thru Jay (although he might be interested), I have a friend who is in contact with those guys on a regular basis. I'll sidebet with you too.

Kind of humiliating that someone can give you, a big time instructor, with an even bigger ego, such monstrous weight. Isn't it? I'm sure in your fantasies you think nobody in the world can give you that weight.

If you're interested, speak now or shut the hell up with your b.s. woofing.

Oh, one more thing. In knowledge of the game, EFREN REYES GIVES YOU THE FRIGGIN RAINBOW!!! LOL

"They don't know what they don't know"........Damn, you are so full of yourself it's pathetic.

Ironically I think you are argueing again'st aiming systems in this thread (though I may be wrong, I can't tell) but you go on to talk about him gambling with filipino's while a majority of them actually do use one of Hal's systems.

Quite awhile ago a filipino player (I'm talking in the 70's or 80's) came to america and learned from Houle, he took his knowledge back to the Philipens and the system is fairly commonly used by filipino players who grew up around other players who used and taught it.

 

[01rkclassic]

That's not true. He asked once that I recall, and we had a good long discussion over a table (I believe it was at Room With A Cue). Probably prior to 2002.


If that's what you've gotten from what I've said, we have failed to communicate. I commonly teach seven or eight aiming systems. I write about them frequently. (In places that are on-line and available for free.) But I also need to know their limitations. Most people cannot or will not look critically at things, and specifically at things they like or have made themselves.


But so far as I know, SAM is not one of Hal's systems. Does he say that it is? In any case, I believe that Hal's 70 years of experience has a lot more to do with him pocketing a lot of balls than the many systems he has. And frankly, I don't believe no ball missed in 13 hours. I just don't believe it. Must be a case of mesmerization.

13hrs without a miss would shatter Willie M's record of 526 balls easily,must have missed it when it happened!how many balls did he run?

 

[randyg]

Oooh look at the woofing!!! You must be a big-time money player! I'll tell you what. With all your knowledge, and aiming systems, you must be a jam-up player!

The funny part is, I bet if any one of those Filipino players, like Orcullo, Corteza, Alcano offered you the 5-out, you'd chickenshit your way out of it.

Lemme guess, your response is gonna be "I have no need to play them".

Oh, but you were the one just barking about me putting up the cash, like you got some gamble in you. I guarantee I can get you that match with one of them. Not thru Jay (although he might be interested), I have a friend who is in contact with those guys on a regular basis. I'll sidebet with you too.

Kind of humiliating that someone can give you, a big time instructor, with an even bigger ego, such monstrous weight. Isn't it? I'm sure in your fantasies you think nobody in the world can give you that weight.

If you're interested, speak now or shut the hell up with your b.s. woofing.

Oh, one more thing. In knowledge of the game, EFREN REYES GIVES YOU THE FRIGGIN RAINBOW!!! LOL

"They don't know what they don't know"........Damn, you are so full of yourself it's pathetic.

Are you back again?

I didn't realize Bob was Fillapino, Bob was the bet....right

I certainly don't play at that level, never have-never will.

Sounds like you opened your mouth and inserted your own foot. If you can't take the woofing, get out of the dog house.

I'm done....SPF=randyg