System .v.s. Experience

[chefjeff]

Nah... I was just curious how much faith system users had in their systems. I'm not incredibly old, but old enough not to bother attempting new tricks. Best thing I could do to increase my play, is table time. That said, I enjoy the ripples. It's the valleys between them I would prefer to fill in

I had Geno offer me a free skype 'lesson' a while back. During it he definitively proved my eye dominance, and brought to my attention small subconscious head movements I was making to correct for it. He then showed me exactly what to do to correct for it during my PSR. His suggestions worked perfectly, but it took me out of my rhythm I spent decades playing to, so I don't bother putting it into practice. For me, it's enough to have an understanding of why sometimes things seem 'off'. I don't see value in reconstructing my game for miniscule gains.

You've been to my thread on the 6 steps of the shot, right?

Try using specific ingredients in that to implement new stuff. It's the nuts for that.


Jeff Livingston

 

[cookie man]

I've said repeatedly that I don't have experience with systems, so there really wasn't any sleuth like deduction on your part here.

I 'think' that a system user has a preordained method for developing his aim/shot. If that's not the case then I'm struggling to understand what a system is. If a system is followed 'correctly' and all other variables are excluded, should not the subsequent shot result in a potted ball...? So assuming my stroke mechanics are fine, and that the presumption is I followed the system instructions correctly, how do I compute a miss...?

If everything is done 100% correctly you shouldn't have to compute a miss. Does this statement apply to systems or HAMB or both. Misses happen no matter how you do things, and when they do you should learn from them to improve.

 

[chefjeff]

Thanks for posting it. Even though it's not on topic

So if I follow what you're doing. All the "aim planes" are with a center CB strike, but the cue is pivoted to so that the tip is aimed at the specific spot on the OB...?

If I've got that right. How do you then compensate of CB english..? Is the amount of off center aim on the CB, applied as a +/- to the OB aim...?

The center of the cue goes through the center of the cue ball for all 6 shots with no side spin.

If using side, I pivot away from a straight hit by only one aiming point. That alone made a big improvement in my use of side. Say the shot is a 2 but I want outside spin on the cue ball. I aim at 1, set up my bridge that way. Then I pivot to 2, tweak my feet a bit if necessary and then I'm set. I stroke on THAT NEW PLANE at whatever speed allows me the proper spin, squirt, curve, etc. to work. That right there is your million balls hit knowledge.


Jeff Livingston

 

[BC21]

You asked me about my aiming system. Here goes, in spite of my reluctance to post any system here...

I have 6 planes of aim for about 95% of my shots. The 5% outside those 6 are found mostly via the parallel thingy, usually very thin cuts.

Straight on is zero....center of tip is at center of object ball and through the center of the cue ball.
Aim plane #1 The side of the cue tip at the center of ob through the center of cb.
Aim plane #2 is the only one without a specific spot to aim, that is, aimed halfway between the center of the ob and its edge.
Aim plane #3 is the outside edge of the cue at the edge of the ob.
Aim plane #4 is the halfball shot that everyone should know regardless of systems, where the center of the tip is at the edge of the ob.
Aim plane #5 is the inside edge of the tip at the edge of the object ball.

Those will make 95% of shots. Only 5 places of aim!...6 counting the straight on shot.

Learning how to shoot only 6 shots takes much less time than hitting a million balls. It also then really simplifies the playing process so that allows more time and energy to be used for strategy, pattern play, etc., a double win. It also can intimidate an opponent as you easily pot a ball in the middle of the table that requires a so-called back cut, for example. Just determine the aiming number and fire away: plunk!



OK, now take shots at me! Don't use an aiming system, though.


Jeff Livingston

Big thumbs up! This is an easy method. I call these references 7/8, 3/4, 5/8, 1/2, 3/8, etc... It doesn't matter if those exact fractions don't perfectly match the aim line. I mean, a true 3/8 or 5/8 is little different angle than what's created when aiming the left or right side of your tip/ferrule to the edge of the ob, but that doesn't matter. What matters is knowing which aiming reference to use and knowing how to hit it. Sometimes you have to fine tune, like aiming a quarter or even an eighth of a tip thinner or thicker, or use a touch of side spin to adjust it. It's really not that difficult when you're using your cue tip/ferrule as an aiming aide.

 

[The_JV]

The center of the cue goes through the center of the cue ball for all 6 shots with no side spin.

If using side, I pivot away from a straight hit by only one aiming point. That alone made a big improvement in my use of side. Say the shot is a 2 but I want outside spin on the cue ball. I aim at 1, set up my bridge that way. Then I pivot to 2, tweak my feet a bit if necessary and then I'm set. I stroke on THAT NEW PLANE at whatever speed allows me the proper spin, squirt, curve, etc. to work. That right there is your million balls hit knowledge.


Jeff Livingston

Wow.... I hope I don't trigger that regret for posting your system here but all I could think of when I read the bolded section, was the ridiculous amonut of heat I received from you and some other guy in your "6 steps" thread about making micro adjustments when down on the CB. However here you're telling me you shift your entire stance when down on the ball...?

 

[chefjeff]

Big thumbs up! This is an easy method. I call these references 7/8, 3/4, 5/8, 1/2, 3/8, etc... It doesn't matter if those exact fractions don't perfectly match the aim line. What matters is knowing the shot and knowing how to hit it. Sometimes you have to fine tune, like aiming a quarter or even an eighth of a tip thinner or thicker, or use a touch of side spin to adjust it. It's really not that difficult when you're using your cue tip/ferrule as an aiming aide.

Right. If an aim isn't exactly on the number (And that happens, really, almost never. 5% of the time, I'd guess. Maybe a half blocked pocket or something. Didn't Hal explain this re the number of pockets, geometry, and all that?), use another system to find the exact aiming plane or just adjust a bit from a number. The number is a standard to judge by and that helps soooooooooooo much for those crazy shots.

Notice I use the term, "plane" not "line" or "spot." The plane term really forces me to keep MY WHOLE BODY in that plane and to stroke in that plane. That's good. A line or spot is OK, too, but misses the full 3 dimensional aspects of the setup whereas a plane encompasses all the body parts. One of my shot thoughts before stroking is often, "keep the cue in plane." Aiming is done by then so just shoot away at the rehearsed pace. plunk. repeat.

That's the system. It can be learned in a few months if one is serious. A new player can grasp it immediately, too, but of course needs the table time to build his game to where he might want it.


Jeff Livingston

 

[BC21]

Wow.... I hope I don't trigger that regret for posting your system here but all I could think of when I read the bolded section, was the ridiculous amonut of heat I received from you and some other guy in your "6 steps" thread about making micro adjustments when down on the CB. However here you're telling me you shift your entire stance when down on the ball...?

Isn't that typical backhand english, align the shot then pivot the cue to apply english? Some players might realign their stance when they do this, but I'm not sure how common that is. A way around this is to visualize the aim line needed through center cb, then look at where you need to aim to account for the english. This adjusted aim line is the one you step into to build your stance.

 

[BC21]

Right. If an aim isn't exactly on the number (And that happens, really, almost never. 5% of the time, I'd guess. Maybe a half blocked pocket or something. Didn't Hal explain this re the number of pockets, geometry, and all that?), use another system to find the exact aiming plane or just adjust a bit from a number. The number is a standard to judge by and that helps soooooooooooo much for those crazy shots.

Notice I use the term, "plane" not "line" or "spot." The plane term really forces me to keep MY WHOLE BODY in that plane and to stroke in that plane. That's good. A line or spot is OK, too, but misses the full 3 dimensional aspects of the setup whereas a plane encompasses all the body parts. One of my shot thoughts before stroking is often, "keep the cue in plane." Aiming is done by then so just shoot away at the rehearsed pace. plunk. repeat.

That's the system. It can be learned in a few months if one is serious. A new player can grasp it immediately, too, but of course needs the table time to build his game to where he might want it.


Jeff Livingston

I refer to it as a vertical plane also, because your back foot usually steps into it and your bridge V and your grip hand and elbow are also in it, or on it.

What you're describing is exactly what I show in the Poolology book. Using your cue tip as a guage tool makes fractional aiming pretty easy.

 

[The_JV]

Isn't that typical backhand english, align the shot then pivot the cue to apply english? Some players might realign their stance when they do this, but I'm not sure how common that is. A way around this is to visualize the aim line needed through center cb, then look at where you need to aim to account for the english. This adjusted aim line is the one you step into to build your stance.

I'm of the thought that small adjustments are nearly always done when down on the ball. I'll exclude only the most basic and forgiving. Yet another reason why I'm pro HAMB vs system for sake of the this thread's discussion.

When I suggested this in Chef's 6 Steps thread, I went under fire for the notion that someone should alter their "aim" when down on the shot. I found interesting that micro adjustments in "aim" are apparently poor practice but shifting one's stance is totally fine...lol

 

[chefjeff]

Wow.... I hope I don't trigger that regret for posting your system here but all I could think of when I read the bolded section, was the ridiculous amonut of heat I received from you and some other guy in your "6 steps" thread about making micro adjustments when down on the CB. However here you're telling me you shift your entire stance when down on the ball...?

I didn't give you heat, I hope. I tried explaining it but you and RJ were going at it, if I remember. I was also trying to play moderator as I didn't want the thread abandoned by lurkers who don't want all the shit that was about to happen. It's my posting system.

I AIM WHILE STANDING UP, mentally incorporating any pivot before I go down on the shot. In the example, I'm shooting a 2 aim but start with lining up my initial stance at 1. My aim will be a 2 but my initial stance is a 1. I determine this while standing. I could aim with the pivot before I go down but then I am guessing at my side spin degree. That's what I used to do before creating this aiming technique. By aiming first to find the straight-in plane of the shot while still standing, then when using side I simply go to next higher or lower pivot plane number and get into my stance at that number, then pivot to the aiming plane so to have the side spin desired and will make the shot. I adjust my feet, ala Dr. Dave's advice in the April issued of BD. That usually involves merely wiggling my toes a bit to settle in. It's so simple that it seems the side won't work, but it does. Overuse of side or using too much side are no longer problems.

What I said in that thread: AIM while Standing; ADJUST TO THAT AIM when making the stance. But never, when down, change the shot's straight-in aiming plane that you first identified while standing. I stick to to that now.


Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

I refer to it as a vertical plane also, because your back foot usually steps into it and your bridge V and your grip hand and elbow are also in it, or on it.

What you're describing is exactly what I show in the Poolology book. Using your cue tip as a guage tool makes fractional aiming pretty easy.

For the OP: It took me only 1,000,000 shots and 35 years or so to figure it all out.

I should have read the book. I should have used an aiming system earlier.


Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

I'm of the thought that small adjustments are nearly always done when down on the ball. I'll exclude only the most basic and forgiving. Yet another reason why I'm pro HAMB vs system for sake of the this thread's discussion.

When I suggested this in Chef's 6 Steps thread, I went under fire for the notion that someone should alter their "aim" when down on the shot. I found interesting that micro adjustments in "aim" are apparently poor practice but shifting one's stance is totally fine...lol

It's fine to shift the stance when down for using side IF THE AIM WAS FIRST IDENTIFIED WHILE STANDING. The aiming plane doesn't change while down, it is simply (and that's the point) used as a guide to get the cue and body parts into the exact plane desired for the stroke.

Like I said there, you two were talking past each other, imho. You two could probably kick my ass on the table, too, so any advice I give is to be taken as MY process of playing, not necessarily as THE process of playing.


Jeff Livingston

 

[BC21]

I'm of the thought that small adjustments are nearly always done when down on the ball. I'll exclude only the most basic and forgiving. Yet another reason why I'm pro HAMB vs system for sake of the this thread's discussion.

When I suggested this in Chef's 6 Steps thread, I went under fire for the notion that someone should alter their "aim" when down on the shot. I found interesting that micro adjustments in "aim" are apparently poor practice but shifting one's stance is totally fine...lol

Seems to me that the aim must be checked while addressing the cb, checked with what you saw when you were standing up looking and at the shot. So the occassional fine tuning is probably normal. I have seen players get down on the shot and search for the aim line from there instead of while they are standing. It looks weird, the cue moving around, trying to lock in on what looks right. But I don't suppose it matters as long as the results are good.

Shifting the stance, for me anyway, was a no go. If I feel like I should change my footing or stance after I'm already down to shoot, I will stand up and reapproach the shot. I once had a bad habit of changing these things from cb address. For example, I would have a shot where all I wanted was to use a tip above center, and so I'd step into the shot with that intention. Then I'd change my mind and decide that a little inside spin would work better for holding the position I wanted, so I'd simply apply the spin and stroke the shot. Most of the time it worked out fine. But sometimes I would miss the shot, regardless of how easy it was. So I decided to start standing back up anytime I changed my mind or found myself feeling like my stance and stroke were not on the same page.

It took a lot of conscious effort and the help of a couple friends who'd always point out whenever I'd backslide into my old lazy way, but I was able to modify that habit, and now I don't even think about. I just do it. Proof that old dogs can learn new tricks!

 

[Dan White]

I agree. But I also figure that many small town weekend bangers and league players probably hit a million balls or more within 20 years of playing pool two or three nights a week. Not sure how long it takes before they start making 80 to 90 percent of the shots they shoot, if ever, but I'm sure they could reach that point much quicker if they had a system that let them know where to aim without relying on trial and error.

On the other hand a person like that is unlikely to seek out an aiming system!

 

[The_JV]

Like I said there, you two were talking past each other, imho. You two could probably kick my ass on the table, too, so any advice I give is to be taken as MY process of playing, not necessarily as THE process of playing.

That was my take on his responses as well...

Who can beat who doesn't really matter. However it is relative to the original intent of this thread.

I think the best player will utilize a system they have developed based on their particular HAMB experience. Pretty much exactly what you have done with your '6 Steps' approach

 

[chefjeff]

That was my take on his responses as well...

Who can beat who doesn't really matter. However it is relative to the original intent of this thread.

I think the best player will utilize a system they have developed based on their particular HAMB experience. Pretty much exactly what you have done with your '6 Steps' approach

It's 100% exactly what I did.

Every time I missed, it was because I left out or violated an ingredient. I then came home, wrote that one down on the list, incorporated it into my next shot and repeated that process 1 million times or so. My personal recipe has hundreds of pages of ingredient info I gleaned during that time. I decided recently to reduce it to its essence and post it here on azb.

Thanks for your input,


Jeff Livingston

 

[JB Cases]

Ok cool guys.... All the additional comments are totally welcome, but I have yet to read an answer to the actual question.

One more time..., and I'll try to make it clearer.

Short experience with the aid of an aiming system, or no aiming system and just HAMB. Which of those two options would you opt for if the match you were about to walk into really mattered. (<--- what matters to you is subjective and relative, so let you imagination set your personal bar)

I believe that I can answer this.

I would much rather have a short experience with a proven aiming system than to rely only on "feel".

Here is why.

I always have feel. Whatever experience I have built up using feel is available to me on EVERY shot I face. When I have a new good tool then I can use it as needed and if I don't feel comfortable then I can just go back to feel. However the more I use the tool, even if not yet an expert in the usage, the more experience I will gain as to when it can and should be used.

The system guy.
A system is an organized set of procedures combined to produce a particular outcome.
HAMB is an aphorism that says if you do something long enough you will learn something.
The outcome is specified in the expanded “hit a million balls”.
There is no intent in that statement other than hitting.
Add intent and then you can add trial and error at least.
In Outliers, a book by Malcolm Gladwell, he put a number on HAMB, 10,000 hours.
That number was based on research by Anders Ericsson, a cognitive psychologist who determined that on average expert performance required at least that much intensive experience to excel.
Gladwell took the research out of context according to Ericsson himself, saying it’s only one of many criteria for excellence, a starting point.
Paul McCartney, of the Beatles, who Gladwell cited as an example, echoed Ericsson.
He said there were dozens of bands in Hamburg, their HAMB venue, that put in the hours but it didn’t incubate their success.
https://www.goodlifeproject.com/podcast/anders-ericsson/

You are correct. Gladwell referenced a study that indicated that world class performers take about 10,000 hours to reach world class level. But the elite at world class have something more that they do which is called "deep practice" meaning that their time is spent going well above and beyond what is required for mastery of a skill into what shows up as extra-human Best of the best performance.

 

[chefjeff]

Thanks for posting it. Even though it's not on topic

So if I follow what you're doing. All the "aim planes" are with a center CB strike, but the cue is pivoted to so that the tip is aimed at the specific spot on the OB...?

If I've got that right. How do you then compensate of CB english..? Is the amount of off center aim on the CB, applied as a +/- to the OB aim...?

Let me try it again...

The aiming plane is still the same aim as it was standing up. The difference is that I start my set up to one aim off that plane then pivot to the original plane that makes the shot. That way, I get side spin and have a exact plane for my pool cue, too. It's all figured out while standing then implemented during the set up.

If I have a half ball hit, for example, that's a #4 aiming plane. Let's say I want side spin on it so when the cb hits the rail it goes where I want. I set up to the #3 aiming plane, pivot over to #4 aim and THAT is the plane for my eventual stroke. After the pivot, I do a teeny tiny feet tweak without moving the bridge, of course, during the adjustment.


Jeff Livingston

 

[JB Cases]

Here is the experiment.

Take two rank beginners and teach them textbook mechanics for the first two weeks with ZERO other instruction, including no instruction on aiming.

Then when they can stroke the cue properly one of them gets taught an aiming system. And let's say that the aiming system is CTE since there are those who say it's complicated.

Then put them each into separate rooms and give each of them a rule book. They are then required to practice for at least 4 hours a day with no instruction, no videos to watch. Just them and the pool table. That way the only difference is that one has an aiming system and the other has had no aiming instruction.

Each month you test their shot-making capability and run out capability using standard tests. But don't reveal their progress to the public.

After 12 months they play and all-around 8 ball, 9 ball, 14.1

Who do you want to bet on? Which one of those players would you think shows better performance metrics month to month?

Of course, such an experiment is unlikely to ever be carried out.

But if it were then I bet on the player with the aiming system and not a little either.

 

[Dan White]

Here is the experiment.

Take two rank beginners and teach them textbook mechanics for the first two weeks with ZERO other instruction, including no instruction on aiming.

Then when they can stroke the cue properly one of them gets taught an aiming system. And let's say that the aiming system is CTE since there are those who say it's complicated.

Then put them each into separate rooms and give each of them a rule book. They are then required to practice for at least 4 hours a day with no instruction, no videos to watch. Just them and the pool table. That way the only difference is that one has an aiming system and the other has had no aiming instruction.

Each month you test their shot-making capability and run out capability using standard tests. But don't reveal their progress to the public.

After 12 months they play and all-around 8 ball, 9 ball, 14.1

Who do you want to bet on? Which one of those players would you think shows better performance metrics month to month?

Of course, such an experiment is unlikely to ever be carried out.

But if it were then I bet on the player with the aiming system and not a little either.

I think the result is a total crap shoot. Some people are simply more gifted athletes than others and that is likely to be a far more significant variable than whether an aiming system is used. I'd also say, assuming both are reasonably coordinated, that if they are both somehow trained to have perfect strokes then the aiming system is meaningless. You can probably learn to aim every shot in a several weeks or maybe a couple of months if you have a perfect delivery. An aiming system could do wonders for someone who needs to be forced to slow down and have a consistent PSR. All IMO, of course.