This just in... Click for the video.
Sharivari on aiming....
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
I watched it and a recent video from Doctor Dave about not using an aiming system. Firstly, they both made their fame with aiming systems on their YouTube channels. Secondly, I think it would be more true to say that Pros do use an aiming system but it is so ingrained in them through practice that it is automatic and not as noticeable as it would be with a ham fisted amateur like myself.
Maybe I just ignore aiming system stuff, but I don't think either one has emphasized aiming systems.
Oikawa
Well-known member
A lot of this discussion about aiming systems is also about the semantics of what constitutes an aiming system.
For example, my whole PSR is very deliberate and carefully decided, but the part where I actually align myself for the cut angle is done with a deliberate focus on "moving sideways to where the shot image of OB/CB overlap feels right". If someone's definition of an aiming system is a PSR where you follow a strict set of rules to achieve your result, what I do would be an aiming system. However, most would probably say that this is not an aiming system, since the actual aiming is done by a feeling of what "looks right".
Now, what if instead of just going to "where it feels right", I had, for example, a pre-determined set of 20 possible aiming points, and for each shot, I chose one of those 20 aiming points based on my intuitive prediction of which one is correct, and aligned myself into them, with conscious effort? Would this still not be an aiming system, because there is an intuitive process involved in choosing the prediction?
Something like CTE is surely an aiming system, I'm sure no-one argues with that.
Is there a well-defined definition of what is and what isn't an aiming system? Where's the limit?
To say how many pros use or don't use an aiming system, could have a very different answer depending on this definition.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
IMO aiming systems are good when learning and maybe if you're having an "off" day. Other than that if you've been playing for a few years, you ought to be able to see when a shot looks correct just by walking around and looking at it.
A similar concept: You don't have to know the diamond system to be deadly at kicking, but it's a good thing to know if the shot looks off for whatever reason.
A similar concept: You don't have to know the diamond system to be deadly at kicking, but it's a good thing to know if the shot looks off for whatever reason.
Some very good points made about aiming. This is exactly why the Poolology aiming system is designed to help players recognize shots quicker than old-school trial and error (HAMB), or, as Sharivari says, you begin to know how to aim after hitting thousands of shots. I say you can learn a hell of lot quicker than that.
The goal of using Poolology is to get the player seeing the shots and knowing how to hit them without having to hit thousands of balls. The end result is the player won't be using the system anymore for every shot, because the shots will be known.
I believe Sharivari is bit wrong about aiming systems. They are just tools to help players develop a good eye/feel for shooting shots. Eventually, you just see and do, no specific aiming system used, other than ingrained knowledge and visual memory.
The goal of using Poolology is to get the player seeing the shots and knowing how to hit them without having to hit thousands of balls. The end result is the player won't be using the system anymore for every shot, because the shots will be known.
I believe Sharivari is bit wrong about aiming systems. They are just tools to help players develop a good eye/feel for shooting shots. Eventually, you just see and do, no specific aiming system used, other than ingrained knowledge and visual memory.
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't find poology any simpler than visualizing the shots by tangent line or thick/thin contact.
For cue ball or speed control, you just visualize the tangent line and the amount of contact. No aiming system gets rid of that .
Some fake using aiming systems in their videos when they really are actually using visualization .
No apology necessary. Poolology isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for developing aiming skills. But for many players out there it certainly does help speed up aiming development.
Knowing for certain whether or not a particular cb-ob relationship is a dead halfball shot is a major improvement/advantage over old-school fractional guesswork. In other words, instead of THINKING it looks like a halfball shot, you KNOW it's a halfball shot. This knowing makes it easier to judge/tweak shots anywhere close to a halfball aim.
Oikawa
Well-known member
Apologies for going off-topic, but just thought I'd like to hear your opinion on this method for calculating the angle for any shot anywhere on the table. I assume you either know a lot about Poolology, or created it. That's why I ask you. You say Poolology lets you know objectively if a shot is a half-ball shot, so I'm curious if it's faster or slower, and more or less accurate than this method I'm showing. Have you heard of/used any system similar to this one among your research into Poolology?
It uses the cue to measure two angles relative to the table (in case of a normal pot, the CB->ghostball and OB->pocket angles)
The observation that makes this work well is that by extending the diamond markings inwards towards the inner edge of the cushion, the table is actually just two perfect squares. So using one of those two squares, you can then measure angles easily and accurately with your cue and some visualization to get the values.
In the example of the image, you would find out a value of 2.5 which, if you have memorized the associations between angles and ball overlaps (which can be quickly derived and memorized from the sin function of sin values between 0 and 90), you'd know would be just slightly above 2.4 (half ball hit), and therefore have an objective knowledge of the ball overlap to shoot at (ignoring other variables like throw), just like you say Poolology gives you.
Again, apologies for offtopic. Didn't want to make a new topic for this, since it's pretty useless practically in my opinion. Just a neat way of doing objective measurements if you need to do them for whatever reason. Works for any shot type, any two angles you want, just a simple geometrical measurement method. Usually takes like 10-20 seconds to do the measurements, depending on the required precision. Then after that to convert the value to be used in aiming, depends on how you do it and how fast/accurately you can convert that to a ball overlap, but it can be as fast as 2-5 seconds.
Last edited:
I've never seen this method. Looks pretty neat, but if the gb is part of the equation then it's a bit flawed. I mean, you're arriving at the solution by using the solution.
Poolology does not rely on ghostball. With Poolology, that ob is sitting on a value of 26. The cb-ob centerline points to 15 on the end rail (1.5 diamonds from the pocket). If cb-ob line pointed at 13 it would be a dead halfball aim. (13 is half of 26)
I'd say it's close enough to probably still be pocketed using a halfball aim. If not, then just a millimeter thinner than halfball. And all of this took less than 10sec to see and figure out.
That’s pretty interesting. Took me a while of studying your diagram to “get” it, but I haven't run across that method before. Would like to see a list of the ratios from 0 to 90° maybe every 5 degrees if you have it handy - memorizing those seems to be key.
Did you discover it on your own? If so, you should “name it and frame it.” If not, where did you learn it?
Fair point, but might using the approximate GB position be “close enough” given we’re already estimating to the nearest 1/10th of a diamond, and perhaps even better than not using GB and having measurements break down when CB-OB distance gets very short?
Oikawa
Well-known member
I figured it out on my own a few years ago. Was looking for the easiest way of calculating any angle on the table, and came up with it. It's mostly useless in games, I rarely use it in a clutch for close cuts or tough banks. But it's a handy tool when you need to measure a shot on the practice table for whatever purpose.
Turning that angle value into an aimable overlap target on the OB is a completely separate process, but when you combine those two (get angle, convert angle to aimable overlap), it creates a crude and mathematically universal and simple aiming system.
The values I have memorized for the cuts are:
value from system -> required overlap rounded to .2 precision (cut angle in degrees, rounded to nearest whole number)
0 -> 0 (0°)
1 -> 2 (11°)
2 -> 3.8 (23°)
3 -> 5.6 (34°)
4 -> 7 (45°)
5 -> 8.4 (56°)
6 -> 9.2 (68°)
7 -> 9.8 (79°)
8 -> 10 (90°)
The output value of that table (between 0 and 10) is the mathematically calculated overlap for that angle. 0 is full hit, 2.5 is halfway between full and half, 5 is half ball hit, 10 is barely missing the ball, and so on.
So for example, if the angle measurement system gives me a value of 2.4, I know that 2 is 3.8 and 3 is 5.6. If I interpolate linearly, I'd get about 4.5. To shoot at a 4.5 would mean shooting at 9/10th of the way from the middle of the CB to the edge of the CB. The real value is not exactly that (due to the sine function not being linear), but for practical purposes, it's typically close enough. You can theoretically use this method as accurately as you want, but for any practical purposes, rounding things to .1 or .2 should always be enough. It's not like you can deliberately aim into 200 different parts of the OB anyway.
Last edited:
Oikawa
Well-known member
Your method definitely sounds more practical. Good job on figuring it out.
The reason why assuming GB location isn't an issue, is that the amount of error you'd get for slightly misjudging it is small enough to be irrelevant for the outcome. You'd get similar degrees of error either way from not being millimeter perfect in your measurements, and rounding the diamond values to nearest .1 instead of .01 or smth more precise. Any typical pot would still go in with those tiny errors, if you otherwise follow the system accurately, to a .1 degree of precision, and have an even somewhat reasonable GB guess.
There's also an interesting self-correcting property regarding the GB guess using this method: If you face the shot line, measure and predict the GB to be at, for example, a diamond value of 2.5 (a half ball hit), then do the measurements, and end up with exactly 2.5 as the answer, you know you are spot on. But if you, for example, got a value of 2, you'd know the real value lies below 2.5. With some experience you can start deducting how much the value is off based on this error as well. So it gives you an error-margin and a direction for adjusting a flawed assumption. In theory, you could iterate the method multiple times in a row, each time going towards the direction this self-correction points you towards, getting closer and closer to the true value. But this is obviously not practical. Just a fun idea.
Last edited:
Thanks for providing further details. @dr_dave should add this to his website with a credit to you - not sure if he already has a section for systems to calculate a shot angle, but if not I think it would be a good thing. Could also describe the basics of Poology and Bob’s method of using a 58” cue stick and the distance in inches between the butt end when its on the OB-pocket line and on the shot line.
Here's a shortcut for estimating CB/OB major overlaps (1/4, 1/2 & 3/4) using simple ratios of CB>OB distance and CB offset from straight on.
pj
chgo
My point was this: If you can be that accurate with a gb estimate, then there is your aim, no need for any measurements or estimated lines trying to pinpoint a value in the middle of the table, like that "1.7" value shown in the diagram.
Also, being off by a couple of millimeters on the gb estimate (or a couple of millimeters on the value you estimate in the middle area of the table) could easily be enough to miss the shot.
But, to each their own. Aiming a personal journey, and we tend to do whatever we like along the way. Keep what works easily and accurately, discard what doesn't work so easily and accurately.
Did you see my video on this topic that came out two weeks before Sharivari's? I guess great minds think alike:
