Unique Aiming System

Z

Zorro

Registered
On most shots I aim more or less by instinct, and on some by picturing the spot I need to hit at the back of the pocket, but I came across a system that was highly touted to be the best of all systems, although known by few. It went something like this:

For small angles, 1 degree to 15 degrees, aim center cueball to 1/4 object ball.

For angles between 15 and 30 degrees, aim 1/4 cue ball to parallel edge of object ball,

And for large angles (30 and more degrees) aim parallel edge of cue ball to edge of object ball.

Anyone ever heard of such a system? It's been so long since I was told this system that I may not have all the details correct, but that's the gist of it. I'm sure if you ever heard of it, you will recognize what I'm trying to say.

The system is allegedly used by some top players.
 
Here we go again.

Plenty of posts on this dead horse.:rolleyes: Seek and ye shall find.
 
There was a book out some time ago that reading this had me recall. I don't know if what you are explaining is the same thing or not but the book was called ( I think ) :( The Two Point Equal Portion System or something like that. I believe a guy named Chin wrote it.
 
Don Diego Vera : THE MAN YOU SEEK

Zorro said:
On most shots I aim more or less by instinct, and on some by picturing the spot I need to hit at the back of the pocket, but I came across a system that was highly touted to be the best of all systems, although known by few. It went something like this:

For small angles, 1 degree to 15 degrees, aim center cueball to 1/4 object ball.

For angles between 15 and 30 degrees, aim 1/4 cue ball to parallel edge of object ball,

And for large angles (30 and more degrees) aim parallel edge of cue ball to edge of object ball.

Anyone ever heard of such a system? It's been so long since I was told this system that I may not have all the details correct, but that's the gist of it. I'm sure if you ever heard of it, you will recognize what I'm trying to say.

The system is allegedly used by some top players.
Click to expand...
----------------

Don Diego,
The man you seek is called Hal Houle. He is the originator of this system and many people enjoy it and use it effectively. It is yours free for the asking. Hal is a legend of pool forums and was probably the closest friend Ralph Greenleaf ever had.

HOWEVER, you may have to post his name in a thread title and perhaps he or one of his followers MAY contact you incognito.

Warmest Regards,
JoeyA
 
Zorro said:
On most shots I aim more or less by instinct, and on some by picturing the spot I need to hit at the back of the pocket, but I came across a system that was highly touted to be the best of all systems, although known by few. It went something like this:

For small angles, 1 degree to 15 degrees, aim center cueball to 1/4 object ball.

For angles between 15 and 30 degrees, aim 1/4 cue ball to parallel edge of object ball,

And for large angles (30 and more degrees) aim parallel edge of cue ball to edge of object ball.

Anyone ever heard of such a system? It's been so long since I was told this system that I may not have all the details correct, but that's the gist of it. I'm sure if you ever heard of it, you will recognize what I'm trying to say.

The system is allegedly used by some top players.
Click to expand...
Looks like a mixture or misunderstanding of the standard fractional aiming method taught by snooker players of old. But normally:

For shots in the 30 degree range, that's the center to edge or half-ball aim. Very common in every decent instructor's syllabus. It's often called "The Golden Angle" (Greenleaf).

For the shots in the 15 degree range, that's normally the 1/4 ball aim, or the "center to quarter" aim. Hal Houle would say "quarter to center." That slight difference in terminology is how I know that whatever you're talking about isn't a Hal Houle system. And I've never heard Hal call a ball edge as "parallel edge."

Fred
 
3andstop said:
There was a book out some time ago that reading this had me recall. I don't know if what you are explaining is the same thing or not but the book was called ( I think ) :( The Two Point Equal Portion System or something like that. I believe a guy named Chin wrote it.
Click to expand...

This is a different system, similar to the various "double the distance" systems.

Fred
 
Just in case you haven't seen, I hope this tool can help you...

CueTable Cut-Angle Calculator
http://cuetable.com/project/CueTableCutAngleCalIntro.html

Drag the cue balll, the object ball or the target around to see a live updates of calculation listed below the table. If you find it useful please bookmark it and tell it to all your pool friends. Also, any suggestions always welcome :)
 
Last edited:
Zorro said:
... The system is allegedly used by some top players.
Click to expand...
There are lots and lots of aiming systems. As others have pointed out, a simplified fractional ball system is one of many, many systems. If you are really interested in systems, there are several books out that discuss nothing but systems, or largely discuss systems, or have useful discussions about several systems.

As for the claim that some top players or most top players use a particular system, I think this is mostly BS. Any system can only get you close to the pocket, and it's the years of experience that will actually put the ball into the pocket. Systems will get you within maybe 5 or 6 degrees of the correct angle, but you have to be much more accurate than that to play well. You can figure this out for yourself -- rather than believe yet another internet babbler -- by drawing careful diagrams and making a few simple tests.

If you want to read what a bunch of top players had to say about how they aim, see http://www.sfbilliards.com/PnB_aiming.pdf For some articles that discuss six or seven or a dozen aiming systems, including their faults, see http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/BD_articles.html

Here's a simple question that most system users can't answer: If the path of the center of the cue ball goes directly towards the edge of the object ball, what is the angle between the initial path of the cue ball and the path of the object ball? Hint: 30 degrees is almost never the correct answer.
 
3andstop said:
There was a book out some time ago that reading this had me recall. I don't know if what you are explaining is the same thing or not but the book was called ( I think ) :( The Two Point Equal Portion System or something like that. I believe a guy named Chin wrote it.
Click to expand...
"Billiards Accuracy" by Marvin Chin. It is occasionally available on eBay. Right now, I see three copies available on-line for $60 or more, but $25 is a more reasonable price. He has some interesting comments on aiming, but not $60 worth.
 
Cornerman said:
... For the shots in the 15 degree range, that's normally the 1/4 ball aim, or the "center to quarter" aim. ...
Click to expand...
Most authors who discuss fractional ball aiming would describe the fullness for a 15 degree cut as "three quarters full." A small detail is that the exact geometric angle for this cut is about 14.48 degrees rather than 15 degrees, and if you include friction, it will be more like 12-13 degrees.

If you aim for a "quarter ball hit" (which is sending the cue ball to a point that is a quarter ball "outside" the object ball), the geometric cut angle is 48.59 degrees. Mostly the exact geometry is irrelevant, since you will learn the pairings between fullnesses and angles with the various effects included.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Most authors who discuss fractional ball aiming would describe the fullness for a 15 degree cut as "three quarters full." A small detail is that the exact geometric angle for this cut is about 14.48 degrees rather than 15 degrees, and if you include friction, it will be more like 12-13 degrees..
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're right. I got all tangled up in the confusion of degrees.

3/4 it is.

Fred
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top