System .v.s. Experience

[JB Cases]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE pay super close attention to the first ten minutes of this podcast.

Anders Ericsson: Dismantling the 10,000 Hour Rule

Anders Ericsson talks about decades of his research focused on the strategies of how to become extraordinary at pretty much anything.

www.goodlifeproject.com

ESPECIALLY at 8:36

Then come back and tell me that a systematic approach is inferior to simple repetition.

 

[Imac007]

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.

This circular logic is common.
Basically in decision making one perspective is that people decide largely on the basis of emotion and then justify with logic.
If challenged about their decisions their inclination is to dig in and defend their decisions based on logic.
I was the HAMB guy who developed my game through trial and error and trying to get a feel for parts of what I wanted to do.
It wasn’t until I immersed myself in a systematic way into dealing with each problem associated with aiming, from throw to speed, to cut angle, distance, draw, follow or stun, each had its challenges when it came to producing a single consistent treatment of aiming and delivering the cue that overcame those factors on the average shot, using only one method/process.
One way to handle shots not needing anything except follow, draw or stun, regardless of speed, distance or cut angle.
I also borrowed from Dr. Dave for most shots needing outside english, I use his gearing english.
This reduced the number of shots that were left to a handful, situation specific, much easier than the million, inferred in HAMB.
So yes I moved away from trial and error into the realm of problem solving and troubleshooting.
Eliminating problems proactively is part of what Joan Vickers identified, that the best did, by dealing with the uniqueness of situations.
There has been a mentality of doing the same things over and over again, in most methods, that gets inconsistent results once, throw, angle, distance, stun, draw or follow, and speed changes are introduced.
Using their methodology you need a different way of handling each variable or combination. There is the old adage of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of madness.
The problem is that traditional methods do a version of that and so do we when we try to apply a trial and error solution on one shot, to another shot at a different distance, or speed or cut angle, or a combination of those,
Each is a different perspective and as Einstein revealed, relative to the criteria and problems found there.
A systematic approach was needed to actually find principles and processes that were able to be carried from one context into the next to create situational consistency.
Instead of defending and justifying what I used to do, I made it part of a new way of going about my aiming methods.
Growing is just that, it’s not throwing out what works and can be used, it’s adding to the toolbox.

 

[JB Cases]

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.

Aiming systems are not simply PSRs.

You are 1000000000000000% wrong about stroking=aiming. The best stroke on the planet will miss when aimed wrong.

I so wish that I had the money and time to do these experiments.

It's funny Dan that when you want to prove a point you say to me to that "thought experiments" are enough to prove your point and when I posit an experiment you say, well it's a crap shoot. YOU NEVER EVER EVER EVER post anything about one would test aiming and just say well, it's just a matter of some people being born with a "pool gene" that determines their ability to increase their skills.

Like we have learned NOTHING OF VALUE in the past 200 years that works better than brute force repetion+(so-called) natural ability.

An aiming system does WONDERS for anyone who wants to learn to aim accurately. And aiming accurately does help to let the user stroke better by removing doubt about the aim.

Month after month I would bet that the aiming system user in my experiment would be putting up higher scores. Why?

Because they wouldn't need to do endless reps to learn shots. Once they learned HOW to correctly apply the system then they would only need to practice recognizing the right aiming "key" for the shot they face. In other words, they would be able to step up to any shot and aim correctly EVEN IF they had never practiced that particular shot before.

What does that mean practically? It means that they can spend their table time working on other aspects such as position and pattern play.

Yes, it should be expected that a competent human with a proper stroke could learn any given shot within some amount of time. But I think that a human using an aiming system can learn and master any given shot in far less attempts than someone who aims by feel even if that person has a perfect stroke.

The added advantage of having an aiming system is that it gives you the ability to figure shots out on the fly and have a decent chance of success. What do I mean by that? I mean that you come upon a shot that you are unfamiliar with during a match and you can use the system to aim it and see quickly whether it works or not and thus have a baseline to choose how to adjust if needed. On a personal level, this comes up often for me in match play. By knowing the perfect shot line I can then see the true tangent line and this allows me to adjust for spin/speed to play the position as needed.

I bet you would be shocked that some of the old-school elite players used systems. While the spectators, you and me, were marveling at their "natural ability" they had a tool that they had mastered that allowed them to make "amazing" shots from crazy positions.

 

[Imac007]

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.

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.

I think that, for too many players, their goal is to get to the unconscious-competence stage of learning.
They are capable, then, without real thought, of potting a ball.
But they fail to ask themselves, if this is the case, where that is the best action, just because you can does it mean you should, and without adjustment?
In my case, competence isn’t what I want, I want to go beyond being merely competent.
The metaphor of competence, being the foothills, to the steep climb of the mountains of expertise and insurmountable sheer cliff of perfection, seems appropriate.

 

[The_JV]

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'd say your experiment is a great premise for a different thread.

The variables for this conversation have already been laid out. They are as follows...:

The time the players get to hon their abilities is measured by either how long it takes them to become proficient at replicating the process of the aiming system, vs experience akin to HAMB.

 

[The_JV]

The added advantage of having an aiming system is that it gives you the ability to figure shots out on the fly and have a decent chance of success. What do I mean by that? I mean that you come upon a shot that you are unfamiliar with during a match and you can use the system to aim it and see quickly whether it works or not and thus have a baseline to choose how to adjust if needed.

So how does an aiming system prove out whether a shot is going to work or not prior to shooting it...? I thought the process was: Assess the shot, apply your system, address the CB, glory... I'm paraphrasing of course

If I follow the system correctly then how do I determine that I'm going to miss and thereby require correction..? How do I know how much to correct by if my system has already failed to get me where I near to be...? Sounds like a bunch HAMB experience in failed attempts to me.

What you've described above is the advantage of HAMB. After decades of HAMB, I would struggle to dream up a shot that I haven't taken a swing or two at before.

 

[BC21]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE pay super close attention to the first ten minutes of this podcast.

Anders Ericsson: Dismantling the 10,000 Hour Rule

Anders Ericsson talks about decades of his research focused on the strategies of how to become extraordinary at pretty much anything.

www.goodlifeproject.com

ESPECIALLY at 8:36

Then come back and tell me that a systematic approach is inferior to simple repetition.

Yeah, that 10,000 hr rule has been more or less debunked by several people already. Still a good read though (Outliers, by Gladwell). Learning is just too subjective to measure with any definitive limits or timeframes. It's different for everybody.

 

[BC21]

So how does an aiming system prove out whether a shot is going to work or not prior to shooting it...?

What you've described above is the advantage of HAMB. After decades of HAMB, I would struggle to dream up a shot that I haven't taken a swing or two at before.

I believe there are plenty of shots that just don't come up often enough for our brains to learn through experience/repetition. And there are shots we just might never see correctly every time. Our minds process what we do based on association, comparing what we want to do with what we've already done, and then choosing the best memories and neural networks that link the two together.

As awesome as that is, it's not always spot on. Some things just aren't as solid through experience as we'd like for them to be, so there are shots that become prime candidates for a good aiming system.

 

[The_JV]

I believe there are plenty of shots that just don't come up often enough for our brains to learn through experience/repetition. And there are shots we just might never see correctly every time. Our minds process what we do based on association, comparing what we want to do with what we've already done, and then choosing the best memories and neural networks that link the two together.

As awesome as that is, it's not always spot on. Some things just aren't as solid through experience as we'd like for them to be, so there are shots that become prime candidates for a good aiming system.

I know that one all too well...lol

 

[Dan White]

Aiming systems are not simply PSRs.

You are 1000000000000000% wrong about stroking=aiming. The best stroke on the planet will miss when aimed wrong.

I never said stroking = aiming. I said that if you have a perfect stroke then aiming is far easier to figure out. Our brain has to sift through all the shots missed due to a bad stroke and those missed due to bad aim. It is a source of confusion that slows learning. Real life example: I found some stroke idiosyncrasies that I was able to iron out. What this meant is that I now aim a tad fuller on a cut shot like for a straight ball break shot than I used to. If I let the old stroke creep in I will miss the ball fat but if I stroke correctly the ball goes in. My brain had to recalibrate what a good shot looked like due to my stroke improvement. I learned to compensate for a bad stroke movement by aiming thinner.

I so wish that I had the money and time to do these experiments.

It's funny Dan that when you want to prove a point you say to me to that "thought experiments" are enough to prove your point and when I posit an experiment you say, well it's a crap shoot. YOU NEVER EVER EVER EVER post anything about one would test aiming and just say well, it's just a matter of some people being born with a "pool gene" that determines their ability to increase their skills.

Not sure I'm following what you wrote in bold (typo?). Some things can be figured out with a thought experiment and others are helped with examples on the table. What do you think of my laser video in mohrt's thread?

Like we have learned NOTHING OF VALUE in the past 200 years that works better than brute force repetion+(so-called) natural ability.

An aiming system does WONDERS for anyone who wants to learn to aim accurately. And aiming accurately does help to let the user stroke better by removing doubt about the aim.

Month after month I would bet that the aiming system user in my experiment would be putting up higher scores. Why?

Because they wouldn't need to do endless reps to learn shots. Once they learned HOW to correctly apply the system then they would only need to practice recognizing the right aiming "key" for the shot they face. In other words, they would be able to step up to any shot and aim correctly EVEN IF they had never practiced that particular shot before.

What does that mean practically? It means that they can spend their table time working on other aspects such as position and pattern play.

Yes, it should be expected that a competent human with a proper stroke could learn any given shot within some amount of time. But I think that a human using an aiming system can learn and master any given shot in far less attempts than someone who aims by feel even if that person has a perfect stroke.

The added advantage of having an aiming system is that it gives you the ability to figure shots out on the fly and have a decent chance of success. What do I mean by that? I mean that you come upon a shot that you are unfamiliar with during a match and you can use the system to aim it and see quickly whether it works or not and thus have a baseline to choose how to adjust if needed. On a personal level, this comes up often for me in match play. By knowing the perfect shot line I can then see the true tangent line and this allows me to adjust for spin/speed to play the position as needed.

I bet you would be shocked that some of the old-school elite players used systems. While the spectators, you and me, were marveling at their "natural ability" they had a tool that they had mastered that allowed them to make "amazing" shots from crazy positions.

I'm going to make the blanket statement that you read my posts too quickly and then make all kinds of assumptions that I never said. Your experiment would never work because it would require two people of equal hand/eye coordination/athletic ability. That was a valid point. If you are making a thought experiment that two identical twins or clones are involved then that would eliminate my objection.

I think if one had an aiming system that actually directed the player to the correct fraction for pocketing the ball (like Poolology) then he, as a system player, would have an advantage. On the other hand, the advantage disappears over time because the non Poolology player of equal talent will eventually catch up. At that point they both "just see" the shot. You think CTE points the way to the pocket like Poolology does, but I disagree. That makes it essentially a PSR.

I'm all for systems that work. Most of the ones I use are for position play, not aiming, and they speed learning tremendously.

 

[JB Cases]

So how does an aiming system prove out whether a shot is going to work or not prior to shooting it...? I thought the process was: Assess the shot, apply your system, address the CB, glory... I'm paraphrasing of course

If I follow the system correctly then how do I determine that I'm going to miss and thereby require correction..? How do I know how much to correct by if my system has already failed to get me where I near to be...? Sounds like a bunch HAMB experience in failed attempts to me.

What you've described above is the advantage of HAMB. After decades of HAMB, I would struggle to dream up a shot that I haven't taken a swing or two at before.

Through learning the method and applying it correctly.

In other words I can set up a range of shots and test the method against it. If it checks out then I know that when I face a shot that I haven't specifically practiced I can cycle through the cte-perceptions to find the most likely correct one and when I get down into shot position I can either see that it is "on" OR (and this is super important) I can trust it through the fact that I have done similar shots elsewhere.

For example, the other day I was practicing severe mid-table back cuts on the bar table, and severe inside cuts. Then about 30 minutes later I was playing $50 one pocket and in the first game a shot came up that was a back cut of a similar nature. Now it was important that I make the cut and also know exactly where the cue ball was going. So using CTE I lined up the shot and once I had the center ball aim line I could then see the tangent - AND because of the trust I had in CTE - gained through practice applying the system, I was then able to shoot with just the right pocket speed and control the cueball to send it exactly where the tangent line showed it should go.

Prior to learning CTE these shots were really daunting and often resulted in bad misjudgements that sold out to the opponent. The trial and error portion in CTE aiming is ONLY in learning what the right perception is for what type of shot.

It's not that you haven't ever attempted a shot before. It is whether you have the actual skill built to be confident that you are on the right shot line and then can prove it. If the shot will cost you $1000 and in your HAMB life you have shot it a few times with inconsistent results how willing are you to pull the trigger on it? I, however, will shoot a shot for $1000 that I have never faced or tried IF I can apply a CTE visual perception to it that I am confident is correct.

No one on this forum who is not a systematic aimer and is my speed in fargo wants to do a shotmaking contest with me. Why not? surely there are folks here with 20+ years of hamb experience who are 600 speed players who thnk that they can go shot for shot with me. But they don't accept because in my opinion they know that they can't be as consistent in making the shots in the least number of attempts. They might have better nerves than me, they might have better form than me, but they are highly unlikely to be able to make the "tough" shots more consistently than I will.

I see this every day at the pool room. I face guys my speed and a little higher/lower and see the types of shots they struggle with and the shots they pass up because they don't KNOW how to hit it and which they are frankly afraid of. But I feel that I am getting stronger because the more that I focus on applying the aiming correctly the more successful I am with shots that spectators see as hard/tough/tricky etc.....

I know that people LOVE the romantic notion that table time is the ONLY way to get better. But the fact is that aiming systems have been used by higher level players for longer than I have been playing and part of why they are higher level is precisely because they know something that HAMB believers don't know. And that is that knowing how to precisely aim leads to higher accuracy in shotmaking and position play. AND when the position is short or long they can easily adjust to a bank or take a tougher shot without getting frustrated and jammed up.

I can't explain it really. Happy to BET HIGH if anyone wants to devise a way to test this where we can get aiming systems users and hamb believers to have a contest that will show that aiming method is the difference or not based on the results.

 

[JB Cases]

I never said stroking = aiming. I said that if you have a perfect stroke then aiming is far easier to figure out. Our brain has to sift through all the shots missed due to a bad stroke and those missed due to bad aim. It is a source of confusion that slows learning. Real life example: I found some stroke idiosyncrasies that I was able to iron out. What this meant is that I now aim a tad fuller on a cut shot like for a straight ball break shot than I used to. If I let the old stroke creep in I will miss the ball fat but if I stroke correctly the ball goes in. My brain had to recalibrate what a good shot looked like due to my stroke improvement. I learned to compensate for a bad stroke movement by aiming thinner.

Not sure I'm following what you wrote in bold (typo?). Some things can be figured out with a thought experiment and others are helped with examples on the table. What do you think of my laser video in mohrt's thread?

I'm going to make the blanket statement that you read my posts too quickly and then make all kinds of assumptions that I never said. Your experiment would never work because it would require two people of equal hand/eye coordination/athletic ability. That was a valid point. If you are making a thought experiment that two identical twins or clones are involved then that would eliminate my objection.

I think if one had an aiming system that actually directed the player to the correct fraction for pocketing the ball (like Poolology) then he, as a system player, would have an advantage. On the other hand, the advantage disappears over time because the non Poolology player of equal talent will eventually catch up. At that point they both "just see" the shot. You think CTE points the way to the pocket like Poolology does, but I disagree. That makes it essentially a PSR.

I'm all for systems that work. Most of the ones I use are for position play, not aiming, and they speed learning tremendously.

I bet that EVEN IF the CTE user in my experiment could be shown to have less hand/eye coordination than the feel aimer that the CTE user would STILL post better results and higher scores.

CTE doens't point to a pocket. Cte produces a shot line that is accurate. If poolology does than then it is different methods that achieve the same result.

Technically ALL activity PRIOR TO the actual striking of the cueball is pre-shot and if ANYTHING is done consistently the same then it is PART of a pre-shot "routine".

But here is my point. I could use CTE and identify the shot line and lay the cue on that line and you or anyone else with a straight stroke could pick up the cue and make the ball.

However if YOU did that without a precise aiming system then most likely the shooters would miss more often using your lines than mine. That's why the aiming system is not a PSR.

 

[JB Cases]

I never said stroking = aiming. I said that if you have a perfect stroke then aiming is far easier to figure out. Our brain has to sift through all the shots missed due to a bad stroke and those missed due to bad aim. It is a source of confusion that slows learning. Real life example: I found some stroke idiosyncrasies that I was able to iron out. What this meant is that I now aim a tad fuller on a cut shot like for a straight ball break shot than I used to. If I let the old stroke creep in I will miss the ball fat but if I stroke correctly the ball goes in. My brain had to recalibrate what a good shot looked like due to my stroke improvement. I learned to compensate for a bad stroke movement by aiming thinner.

Not sure I'm following what you wrote in bold (typo?). Some things can be figured out with a thought experiment and others are helped with examples on the table. What do you think of my laser video in mohrt's thread?

I'm going to make the blanket statement that you read my posts too quickly and then make all kinds of assumptions that I never said. Your experiment would never work because it would require two people of equal hand/eye coordination/athletic ability. That was a valid point. If you are making a thought experiment that two identical twins or clones are involved then that would eliminate my objection.

I think if one had an aiming system that actually directed the player to the correct fraction for pocketing the ball (like Poolology) then he, as a system player, would have an advantage. On the other hand, the advantage disappears over time because the non Poolology player of equal talent will eventually catch up. At that point they both "just see" the shot. You think CTE points the way to the pocket like Poolology does, but I disagree. That makes it essentially a PSR.

I'm all for systems that work. Most of the ones I use are for position play, not aiming, and they speed learning tremendously.

How do you know when you missed because of stroke vs aiming? With a good aiming system you KNOW because you have already validated that the aiming system works to get to the right shot line.

 

[JB Cases]

I never said stroking = aiming. I said that if you have a perfect stroke then aiming is far easier to figure out. Our brain has to sift through all the shots missed due to a bad stroke and those missed due to bad aim. It is a source of confusion that slows learning. Real life example: I found some stroke idiosyncrasies that I was able to iron out. What this meant is that I now aim a tad fuller on a cut shot like for a straight ball break shot than I used to. If I let the old stroke creep in I will miss the ball fat but if I stroke correctly the ball goes in. My brain had to recalibrate what a good shot looked like due to my stroke improvement. I learned to compensate for a bad stroke movement by aiming thinner.

And to use your example, IF you had a good aiming system then you wouldn't be compensating at all.

I fundamentally disagree with your assessment that the stroke is the problem causing you to miss. It was the aiming, too thin, versus the correct aim for that particular shot, "a tad fuller" that was the problem IMO.

A cte user wouldn't have that problem. Assuming your tad fuller aim is indeed the correct shot line then a CTE user would land on that line regardless of how good or bad their stroke is.

 

[duckie]

Share a little story.......many years, I injured my right thumb requiring a cast that kept me from moving it.

Didnt think much about it until I had to wipe my ass with my left hand for the first time ever in my life. I was in my 50’s.

It was so cumbersome and uncoordinated, so foreign. I had no muscle memory of wiping with my left hand as I did with my right.

If you do not understand the value of quality table time over a long period of time......you are a fool.

 

[Dan White]

I bet that EVEN IF the CTE user in my experiment could be shown to have less hand/eye coordination than the feel aimer that the CTE user would STILL post better results and higher scores.

CTE doens't point to a pocket. Cte produces a shot line that is accurate. If poolology does than then it is different methods that achieve the same result.

Technically ALL activity PRIOR TO the actual striking of the cueball is pre-shot and if ANYTHING is done consistently the same then it is PART of a pre-shot "routine".

But here is my point. I could use CTE and identify the shot line and lay the cue on that line and you or anyone else with a straight stroke could pick up the cue and make the ball.

However if YOU did that without a precise aiming system then most likely the shooters would miss more often using your lines than mine. That's why the aiming system is not a PSR.

You believe CTE provides the shot line for you and many of us don't. Poolology does it through straight forward mathematics, namely the inscribed angle theorem IIRC (correct me if that's wrong, Brian). There is no mystery. CTE has yet to show any logical foundation whatsoever other than "it works." I'm not trying to start another fight, I'm just explaining why some of us keep looking into how it actually works.

 

[Dan White]

And to use your example, IF you had a good aiming system then you wouldn't be compensating at all.

Such an aiming system would have to be able to show you the shot line with no experience in shooting balls. Poolology is the only system I know of that does that (maybe Joe Tucker, too?).

I fundamentally disagree with your assessment that the stroke is the problem causing you to miss. It was the aiming, too thin, versus the correct aim for that particular shot, "a tad fuller" that was the problem IMO.

OK, so your hunch is better informed than my years of experience with my own stroke? If so then I'll tip my hat to you. But, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Set up a shot with hole reinforcers. I could hit it soft and pocket the ball 100%. Now increase speed until I start missing. Did my aim change? No. Of course what happened is my stroke mechanics started to change and cause the cue to go out of alignment.

In the example of the thin hits I was pocketing the ball with the thin aim but when I corrected known stroke issues that alignment no longer worked. It was over cutting the ball.

A cte user wouldn't have that problem. Assuming your tad fuller aim is indeed the correct shot line then a CTE user would land on that line regardless of how good or bad their stroke is.

Yes, we know you believe that.

 

[JB Cases]

I think if one had an aiming system that actually directed the player to the correct fraction for pocketing the ball (like Poolology) then he, as a system player, would have an advantage. On the other hand, the advantage disappears over time because the non Poolology player of equal talent will eventually catch up. At that point they both "just see" the shot. You think CTE points the way to the pocket like Poolology does, but I disagree. That makes it essentially a PSR.

I'm all for systems that work. Most of the ones I use are for position play, not aiming, and they speed learning tremendously.

So an aiming system that lands the player on the correct shot line isn't giving the right fractional overlap?

Will they "eventually" catch up? Are you sure? What IF both players play exactly 1 million shots in exactly five years. Will the non-system user be all caught up? Why would you think that?

I mean if you want to do a numbers simulation then say that there are 1000 critical shots that every player must know. A hamb player might need to shoot each of those shots 200 times to REALLY have them burned into their memory. So that's 200,000 shots out of that million spent learning those shots.

A CTE user by contrast wouldn't have to do brute force repetition and could learn each of those shots in say 10 attempts max which means a 190% reduction in time spent learning the critical shots.

If every shot attempt took 2 minutes to complete then that's 20,000 minutes versus 400,000 minutes.

What could the CTE user do with those extra 380,0000 minutes to improve their skills?

Well, let's continue and say that there are 50 patterns that every good player must know. Each pattern takes 50 reps to master and each rep takes 10 minutes to set up and complete. So that's 25,000 minutes to learn those patterns.

Let's say that good players have to master combinations and caroms and it takes 100,000 minutes to do that. Less time if you have a system.

In fact you and I can do this on a live stream video. We can do "hard shots" and see which of us learns how to make those shots at a higher percentage faster. It is my opinion that on some of those shots you will likely never catch up to my level of consistency with them because you will primarily be guessing whereas I will be using a tool to precisely find the correct shot line. I might miss a couple because I chose the wrong visual or sweep but then once I have it I have it forever.

 

[The_JV]

I can trust it through the fact that I have done similar shots elsewhere.

AKA: HAMB...

I can't explain it really. Happy to BET HIGH if anyone wants to devise a way to test this where we can get aiming systems users and hamb believers to have a contest that will show that aiming method is the difference or not based on the results.

Can we please avoid the "bet big money" bullshit for sake of this thread.

 

[JB Cases]

You believe CTE provides the shot line for you and many of us don't. Poolology does it through straight forward mathematics, namely the inscribed angle theorem IIRC (correct me if that's wrong, Brian). There is no mystery. CTE has yet to show any logical foundation whatsoever other than "it works." I'm not trying to start another fight, I'm just explaining why some of us keep looking into how it actually works.

I don't care. The proof is ON THE TABLE. I don't care what you do or don't believe. I play pool for money and for my money CTE gets me the right shot line consistently.

Of course you want to argue about it. The point for me is that if someone tells me to do something, like Brian telling me to figure this and subtract that and the resulting fractional overlap is the shot line and I do it and I get on the shot line consistently then I don't CARE about the inscribed angle therom. Why not?

BECAUSE it doesn't matter.

If you tell me to imagine a phantom ball and I am able to get on the shot line accurately and consistently then I don't need to care if there is anything better or if there is an equation that covers it.

The point, FOR THIS DISCUSSION, is that a system user WILL, IN FACT, learn shots faster than a non-system user. Assuming that the system works by virtue of the shooter getting on the CORRECT shot line faster.

You want to talk about hamb, and muscle memory and teaching yourself to remember to "aim a little fuller" on this or that shot, which is ALL FEEL, and then tell me that CTE isn't accurate because you simply don't believe that it is while then trying to use poology as your example of a system that you believe is accurate and thus would give a user an advantage for a while until the feel player catches up. I don't get how you can't see that every method that produces consistently correct shot lines must be valid regardless of whether you believe in it or not.

Whether the inscribed angle theorem gets you close enough to the fraction that allows your brain to make whatever microadjustment might be needed or whether it's dead nuts perfect the point is that it's a tool that works and by virtue of it working it means that the user has a HUGE advantage over the feel player at all levels of competition. Because if you think of the number of shots taken in a tournament contrasted with the number of made shots and the number of missed shots and go from the premise that some percentage of the misses will be because of faulty aim and some will be stroke errors and some will be a mix of both, then it should be clear that a player with a straight stroke and a valid aiming system is LIKELY to have a lower percentage of shots missed due to faulty aiming. And the inverse to that is a higher percentage of shots made due to accurate aiming.

I told you that the proof is on the table. It's super easy to test.

set up a shot and use a laser line to mark the ghost ball center shot line to a gb template. Then remove the template and turn the laser off. Have the shooter put their cue down on the line they think is the shot line. If I say I use CTE and Brian uses Poolology and you use feel then it's highly likely that Brian and I will get on the right shot line far more consistently than you will.

And if so then that means we are likely to also then make more shots than you, win more than you, form better memories of successful shots faster than you, get into the zone faster than you, be in the right headspace to learn through observation more often than you....all because we aim better than you.

As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own beliefs but not to your own facts. The fact is that CTE produces the correct shot line just as well as poolology does by the virtue of the FACT that it produces the correct shot line every time and poolology can't possibly be better than that. That you choose not to believe that is not in any way material to the fact that a CTE user is getting on the shot line accurately and has every advantage that a system user has over a non-system user.

Experience (table time) is good. Experience using the right tools with the same table time is better.