Using "Center Ball" - is it good advice or a hidden disadvantage?

Just curious, have you ever tried TOI at all? Is your dismissal just based on what you think/believe should or shouldn't work? Not trying to start a flame war just wondering if you tried it.
He has a mental block about it, but I've shown patience, one of these days, when he's ready and willing he may have a TOI epiphany.
 
So let me see if I'm following correctly. The notion of TOI is that you're attempting to limit potential errors in stroke by limiting the possibilities to only varying amounts of CB spin, (subsequently squirt)..? That's why the TOOutside would perform the same function.

So assuming the above is true, then I always play with least a TOWhatever. Unless of course I require a dead ball hit. I play the game with a focus on averages. However my application of the TOW has no bearing on making the OB, only ensuring I come out good on the next one.
 
So let me see if I'm following correctly. The notion of TOI is that you're attempting to limit potential errors in stroke by limiting the possibilities to only varying amounts of CB spin, (subsequently squirt)..?
Yes. It's based on a false distinction between squirt errors that are actually identical - it doesn't matter on which part of the cue ball they happen. On the good side, it encourages paying close attention to where you hit the CB and where the object ball hits the pocket, both critically important for precision play.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
So let me see if I'm following correctly. The notion of TOI is that you're attempting to limit potential errors in stroke by limiting the possibilities to only varying amounts of CB spin, (subsequently squirt)..? That's why the TOOutside would perform the same function.

So assuming the above is true, then I always play with least a TOWhatever. Unless of course I require a dead ball hit. I play the game with a focus on averages. However my application of the TOW has no bearing on making the OB, only ensuring I come out good on the next one.
The TOI isn't an aiming system, it's an overall playing system, although it does have a powerful aiming component. To make any shot on the table it's critical to have a consistent foundation (stance) so that every shot has the same basic foundation. I use Center to Center or Center to Edge as my alignment baseline on every shot.

Then, let's say you have a slight angle, you would align Center cueball, to Center object ball (exactly like it's straight in) and if the desired angle is to the right you would target your tip slightly to the right of center. If the angle you need is slightly to the left you would target the cue ball slightly to the left.

The angle you generate is NOT because of deflection/squirt, it's from the visual perception of connecting the spot on the cue ball to the center, and if it does deflect/squirt it's ALWAYS in a predictable direction which will ALWAYS over-cut the object ball slightly. This enables the shooter to aim to the inside of the pocket (right side when cutting the ball to the left) and force the ball into the center by using the "POP" stroke I've mentioned several times.

The POP happens from reaching the highest acceleration EXACTLY at the moment of contact. This is similar to POPPING a whip or towel, but with a smooth tempo.

There is a to more to the Touch of Inside, and that's the basics of how it's done, the result is the cueball "floats" with no spin after contact, the road players used to say "he's got it on a string," these are both ways to describe the effect of the Touch of Inside. I've played Efren several times and we both have similar responses with the cueball, although our physical form looks different.

When the cueball comes off the shot with no spin it's more predictable and rarely gets away from the shooter like it does with excessive spin. Instead of spin we are able to target and of the 3 parts of the pocket (inside, center, outside) which enables the angle to be altered more than you might expect until you experiment with it.

The Game is the Teacher
 
Assuming that's supposed to mean "misses to the left or right", it's the same no matter what CB spot you're trying to hit. Hitting too far left = CB goes too far right; hitting too far right = CB goes too far left.

This isn't rocket surgery.

pj
chgo
Ok can I call you dunce? At center ball, the error zone encompasses left and right english or did I miss some arithmetic?
 
Then, let's say you have a slight angle, you would align Center cueball, to Center object ball (exactly like it's straight in) and if the desired angle is to the right you would target your tip slightly to the right of center. If the angle you need is slightly to the left you would target the cue ball slightly to the left.

The angle you generate is NOT because of deflection/squirt, it's from the visual perception of connecting the spot on the cue ball to the center, and if it does deflect/squirt it's ALWAYS in a predictable direction which will ALWAYS over-cut the object ball slightly. This enables the shooter to aim to the inside of the pocket (right side when cutting the ball to the left) and force the ball into the center by using the "POP" stroke I've mentioned several times.
So you're saying that when using the TOI system, the rules of CB squirt, and OB throw don't exist..? ...or is it your CB targeting correction is so minor that the CB is not perceptively effected by an off center striking...?

I'll argue that even a relatively straight stroke based on solid fundamentals can repeatedly strike close enough to center CB to manifest the same zero squirt, and throw. Speaking for myself, I can hit dead ball 99% of the time. I can see this system working well for those that have a wavy stroke, and like to chicken wing into the CB. Those with a bad stroke introduce timing into the shot equation to achieve a desired CB strike. I find that typical these types of players are streaky, and when their timing is off, they play horribly.
 
As I thought it would this thread got interesting! Some preconceived ideas, I recognize them well because at one time or another I have had most or all of them. Before getting to the heart of things I need to mention everything electronic at my home is giving trouble, probably a massive surge. Computer, router, modem, all flaky. Computer is dying, I'm looking now. Anyway, I just didn't want to give the appearance of hit and run if I disappeared.

Fun facts, I discovered when I was out of stroke I hit a gnat's ass(scientific term) left and about an eighth inch high of where I mean to. This led me to wonder about other people and I put it to the test without saying what I was doing. Just set up a moderately hard shot and told them where I wanted them to hit the cue ball. Everyone, about twenty players from C to shortstop or A at the hall, was very consistent about how far off target they were, and all but two were off target! One was a C- player, the other a banger that played a few times a year. The difference, they both looked at the cue ball last! I did for about three weeks once and found it made no difference in my game. Takes awhile to adjust, then no big deal either way.

We need to be aware of the center point of the cue ball, the real center point that always rests directly above the contact point. While we work on the outside of the ball, the relationship that matters is how the hit relates to the contact point of the ball on the table and the center point of the cue ball. When we start relating to these points, we gain a better understanding of shots. Since there is a practically endless variety of shots on a pool table we have to extrapolate from what we know so knowledge is indeed power.

Two errors I have read over and over in this thread is the idea there is something horrible about crossing the centerline of the cueball and that the sweet spot remains the same size. The largest sweet spot is hitting dead center. The further to the edge of the cue ball, the smaller the sweet spot. If we hit with the same margin of error dead center or one tip out, the margin of error will have far more effect one tip out. Once past the centerball sweet spot, the error always has more effect erring to the outside of the cue ball than erring to the inside. Two different sized coins or anything round should make this apparent if there isn't a pool table or software handy.

Another error, there is something horrible about crossing centerline of the cue ball! Seems intuitive, we are getting left or right spin, sounds like opposites. Well, for starters, that biggest sweet spot, a hit a little to one side will probably have zero effect. When it does have an effect the tiny amounts of spin have a small effect. This is easily proven on a table or with software. A hit a sixteenth of an inch either side of center rarely results in a missed ball or missed shape.

CJ, you never have defined TOI or what you mean by it being twist rather than spin. In one thread you seem to say it has an effect on the cue ball, in another you are saying it eliminates one error since touch of inside has the same effect as a center ball hit. Of course this raises some questions since the distance from a touch of inside to center is exactly the same as from center to a touch of inside. You use words very well both verbal and written but you seem to be inconsistent here, I'm sure not deliberately or in an attempt to mislead. Like PJ, I much appreciate having you here. I find myself in disagreement with some things, in agreement with most. One issue is that there is more than one road to Rome, and more than one way to succeed at pool.

When reading your stuff, I try to watch for the little things, almost asides. Angles are the magic to making pool easy but until a person is good enough to get angles it is hard to make them see that. We did once have five distinct pocket areas or zones as you say in those old tables, far right and left, right and left halfway to center, and center. Tighter pockets might have reduced that to three angles, I don't see them as distinctly as I once did. I also understand the value of putting all of your error on one side to make the pocket play bigger. If you know you often miss a shot to one side if you don't make it, it makes sense to aim to barely make the shot in the other side of the pocket.

Congratulations on starting an interesting thread! I do appreciate the dual difficulties in explaining given the limitations of the written word and not wanting to give away the same thing you are selling.

Time for me to go struggle along with my low deflection shaft and centerball for awhile! :)

Hu
 
So you're saying that when using the TOI system, the rules of CB squirt, and OB throw don't exist..? ...or is it your CB targeting correction is so minor that the CB is not perceptively effected by an off center striking...?

I'll argue that even a relatively straight stroke based on solid fundamentals can repeatedly strike close enough to center CB to manifest the same zero squirt, and throw. Speaking for myself, I can hit dead ball 99% of the time. I can see this system working well for those that have a wavy stroke, and like to chicken wing into the CB. Those with a bad stroke introduce timing into the shot equation to achieve a desired CB strike. I find that typical these types of players are streaky, and when their timing is off, they play horribly.
Of course deflection and throw exist, the essential knowledge is how to make them work FOR you, not against you. And yes, the way I make contact with the cue ball reduces negative results if I don't hit the cue ball exactly where I'm aiming. For example, when I stroke most of my shots, the cueball leaves the surface of the table slightly so there's no friction to amplify misses in the form of deflection or swerve.

There are several elements to playing at a world class level and I go over most of these categories in my instructional material, it's more effective to explain them while demonstrating on a pool table. I just gave a 4 hours lesson at a man's house who wanted to know and understand the most advanced techniques.

We spent the first hour discussing what he had been told and read/saw his entire life - one by one I showed and explained how specifically what he had absorbed wasn't necessarily wrong, but how he would need to change his paradigm of the game to play at the level he aspired. Then, had him perform each one the way I suggested, after another hour I saw him light up because he started to have the revelation necessary to make the changes. He will never look at the game, or how others play the same way again, that's for certain - once you know it can never be taken away.

The biggest challenge most player have is overcoming their past programming so new information can be absorbed, processed and utilized. I usually tell my students to put everything they know on a shelf and let me explain how every aspect of the game is done at my level and how it all fits together like a finely tailored suit. As we progress and learn it's like climbing mountain, our perception is enhanced the higher we climb.

Then I add (when we are finished) you are certainly welcome to reach back on that shelf and continue what you were doing before. I say this and mean it, however, I already know once someone becomes familiar with a much more effective way perform they will be quickly develop a foundation they can build on for the rest of their life.

I can speak for many of the top professionals, if we didn't have this foundation our dedication would diminish, we know we will continue to improve as long as we are physically and mentally able to perform. Shane VB, (one of the greatest of all time) is a good example, he told me since 2006 he's improved his stroking mechanics 4 times and probably continues to progress in several other areas.

As long as I'm frequenting this forum I'll do my best to answer questions and describe in writing (to the best of my abilities) how you can achieve what I just described. I ask that you be willing to "put on the shelf" what you think you know about the game of pocket billiards and allow me to steer you to a more rewarding path. I'm certain this can happen with anyone that is truly searching for the knowledge to break through a level they are currently stuck on.

What you learn will be almost backwards from what you have been told through the years. so don't expect to catch on in a few minutes, speaking from experience it takes practice, patience and passion to change old habits, and if you want the knowledge I'll be more than happy to oblige....I've been on both ends as a teacher and student, training with experts in Golf, Tennis, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Naturalistic and Holistic medicine, Hypnosis, in Martial Arts I've participated in 1700+ hours of private and group training.

The satisfaction I find most rewarding in life is learning, teaching and competing, there is nothing better than seeing myself or others open up doors that lead to a more rewarding life, especially to enhance the enjoyment of self expression and physical/mental/Spiritual development.

The Game is the Teacher
 
As I thought it would this thread got interesting! Some preconceived ideas, I recognize them well because at one time or another I have had most or all of them. Before getting to the heart of things I need to mention everything electronic at my home is giving trouble, probably a massive surge. Computer, router, modem, all flaky. Computer is dying, I'm looking now. Anyway, I just didn't want to give the appearance of hit and run if I disappeared.

Two errors I have read over and over in this thread is the idea there is something horrible about crossing the centerline of the cueball and that the sweet spot remains the same size. The largest sweet spot is hitting dead center. The further to the edge of the cue ball, the smaller the sweet spot. If we hit with the same margin of error dead center or one tip out, the margin of error will have far more effect one tip out. Once past the centerball sweet spot, the error always has more effect erring to the outside of the cue ball than erring to the inside. Two different sized coins or anything round should make this apparent if there isn't a pool table or software handy.

Another error, there is something horrible about crossing centerline of the cue ball! Seems intuitive, we are getting left or right spin, sounds like opposites. Well, for starters, that biggest sweet spot, a hit a little to one side will probably have zero effect. When it does have an effect the tiny amounts of spin have a small effect. This is easily proven on a table or with software. A hit a sixteenth of an inch either side of center rarely results in a missed ball or missed shape.



Hu

Gotta respond to this. One of the premises discussed here is achieving a favorable object ball vector through the pocket. This notion I presume, presumes the vast range of equipment and climates that a pro player has to negotiate; presumably successfully. I'll leave that for CJ to defend.

My take on this involves multiplexing a stream of information through the shot that will allow it to negotiate the pocket as efficiently and consistently as possible. In that regard any error is bad info which _can_ hang the algorithm so to speak. If that much is true then there must be zones which are more error tolerant. To include the left/rightness of center ball and that it IS a thing, look at a straight in 0 or 180 degree shot. Suppose you need to be a hair one way or another or worse have to follow or draw one way or another. You're already in a blind zone and as I see it you have the choice of using the force (see Yoda) or adding a smidge of side.
 
Gotta respond to this. One of the premises discussed here is achieving a favorable object ball vector through the pocket. This notion I presume, presumes the vast range of equipment and climates that a pro player has to negotiate; presumably successfully. I'll leave that for CJ to defend.

My take on this involves multiplexing a stream of information through the shot that will allow it to negotiate the pocket as efficiently and consistently as possible. In that regard any error is bad info which _can_ hang the algorithm so to speak. If that much is true then there must be zones which are more error tolerant. To include the left/rightness of center ball and that it IS a thing, look at a straight in 0 or 180 degree shot. Suppose you need to be a hair one way or another or worse have to follow or draw one way or another. You're already in a blind zone and as I see it you have the choice of using the force (see Yoda) or adding a smidge of side.
This is a good point to look at a bit closer!

One of the examples I show players I show to "cheat" the pocket by being able to connect to one of the three zones (left side, middle, right side), if someone can't do this at will they are going to be facing many challenging situations. The shot I'll set up is a long, straight, and show how I can draw or follow and force the cueball off the line of the shot. To do this I align Center/Center and when go down a "Hair" to the right or left which forces the cueball the other way slightly. This is only possible when your stroke is precise so it's a great way to test. yourself.

Today I went a gentleman's house that had a Diamond in ideal condition and 4" pockets. I set up the long, straight in shot and from my vantage point it didn't look like the pocket was any bigger than the ball.....it was unnerving at first, especially because I had told him I was going to draw the ball back to the end rail 5" to the left, and then 5" to the right of the shot line.

I over cut the first two by a slim margin, then made the next two accomplishing the 5" alteration....I can't imagine someone could do this by changing their visual contact point target.

Some of the strongest parts of the Touch of Inside or Touch of Outside are difficult to explain because it's inverted from what most players have always done and read about. For instance, most players will aim the center of the cueball at a contact point, or ghost ball, or fraction of the object ball and that does have merit, although on long shots it's difficult to see or imagine this imaginary target. What I do is Align to the shot a consistent way and aim a specific part of the CUE BALL because it's usually the same distance from my eyes.

Another thing I suggest is to your aiming ABOVE the shot before you go down to shoot. Then, pay close attention to getting your hand set firmly and your tip precisely where you want to contact the cueball. After you get set as well as possible THEN give the object ball a look, but not necessarily at a particular part, at this point it's advisable to FEEL the connection between the cue ball (or your tip/shaft) and the object ball. You can do this if you're aiming system is effective because once you have it aimed above the shot visually there's no reason you have to keep aiming visually when down on the shot.

You'll hear a lot of champions talk about a "Feel for the Pocket" or they will describe how they aim as Touch or Instinctual. That's because it is for them, and it is for me too. Especially if you want to maximize your cue ball control it's best to diminish your visual sense intentionally when down in the shooting position, this will automatically increase your feel and touch.

This is how the human mind works, when one of our senses is lost, or diminished the others will get better. Blind people are proven to have a better feel, touch and hearing.....deaf people will be visually more focused (to read lips for instance) and also have an improved feel and touch.

Using this understanding of the mind can give you an advantage when you focus on seeing the shot standing up, feeling the shot when in the shooting position and hearing the shot hit the pocket. One of the greatest bankers in the county told me one time his secret to banking was imagining the sound of the ball hitting the pocket and then making it happen......years later I found out he only had one eye....makes sense!

The Game is the Teacher
 
Gotta respond to this. One of the premises discussed here is achieving a favorable object ball vector through the pocket. This notion I presume, presumes the vast range of equipment and climates that a pro player has to negotiate; presumably successfully. I'll leave that for CJ to defend.

My take on this involves multiplexing a stream of information through the shot that will allow it to negotiate the pocket as efficiently and consistently as possible. In that regard any error is bad info which _can_ hang the algorithm so to speak. If that much is true then there must be zones which are more error tolerant. To include the left/rightness of center ball and that it IS a thing, look at a straight in 0 or 180 degree shot. Suppose you need to be a hair one way or another or worse have to follow or draw one way or another. You're already in a blind zone and as I see it you have the choice of using the force (see Yoda) or adding a smidge of side.

Just in case of any confusion, I am talking center of cue ball, not object ball. As long as you are inside the sweet spot, there is no error. Tolerance would be another way to say it. A fairly rough fit component might have a tolerance of .000" to plus .005". Anywhere in this range works and is acceptable to the customer. The part cut at plus .005" and the one cut at .000" serve the same purpose. the "sweet spot" or "margin of error" is like tolerance of that part, it is going to work anywhere in that area, it doesn't matter where in that area we hit.

I am a bit lost with the idea of wandering around, center ball we have the top of the cue ball, the bottom, or the contact patch. Different people use each. We are built to find top and bottom easily, we also find edges easily.

I whacked away a bunch of my reply to you and to 7Stud because CJ put up a great post largely covering the same ground I did while I was typing and he did start the thread!

There is an old cliche about doing your thinking standing and your shooting down on the shot. One of the most valuable things is getting that verbal part of your brain to shut up! The balls haven't moved since you were standing, neither have the pockets.

Hu
 
CJ, you never have defined TOI or what you mean by it being twist rather than spin.

That's true, and I'll be glad to clarify, it is slang and I could have been more clear, it's a term generally used in bank pool.

When I say SPIN my definition is the cue ball turning one rotation or more, when I say TWIST, it's referring to the cue ball rotating less than one rotation. You've probable heard players say "I twisted that bank to shorten it up," another way of saying "holding a bank" - when I TWIST the cue ball it has more of an effect of the object ball, when I SPIN the cue ball it doesn't, I've never seen great bank pool players spin the cueball to hold a bank, they "twist if in".

When I use 'The Touch of Inside' the cue ball twists slightly, and that puts what I call "pocket acceptance spin" on the object ball which does encourage the shots that hit the rail coming in to go better than using a touch of outside.

A common misunderstanding about 'The Touch of Inside' is it's Inside English and it is not,
although it does have a slight "twist" - it's virtually impossible to his a longer shot without some kind of spin, even when hitting the exact center of the cueball.
 
When I say SPIN my definition is the cue ball turning one rotation or more, when I say TWIST, it's referring to the cue ball rotating less than one rotation. You've probable heard players say "I twisted that bank to shorten it up," another way of saying "holding a bank" - when I TWIST the cue ball it has more of an effect of the object ball, when I SPIN the cue ball it doesn't, I've never seen great bank pool players spin the cueball to hold a bank, they "twist if in".
And yet we know that maximum CB-to-OB spin transfer (and therefore maximum bank shortening) occurs with half of maximum side spin on the CB - much more than you're describing.
...it's virtually impossible to his a longer shot without some kind of spin, even when hitting the exact center of the cueball.
Please enlighten us how hitting "the exact center of the cueball" produces side spin.

It seems your talent is so great even the laws of physics can't resist you... :)

pj
chgo
 
Just in case of any confusion, I am talking center of cue ball, not object ball. As long as you are inside the sweet spot, there is no error. Tolerance would be another way to say it. A fairly rough fit component might have a tolerance of .000" to plus .005". Anywhere in this range works and is acceptable to the customer. The part cut at plus .005" and the one cut at .000" serve the same purpose. the "sweet spot" or "margin of error" is like tolerance of that part, it is going to work anywhere in that area, it doesn't matter where in that area we hit.

I am a bit lost with the idea of wandering around, center ball we have the top of the cue ball, the bottom, or the contact patch. Different people use each. We are built to find top and bottom easily, we also find edges easily.

I whacked away a bunch of my reply to you and to 7Stud because CJ put up a great post largely covering the same ground I did while I was typing and he did start the thread!

There is an old cliche about doing your thinking standing and your shooting down on the shot. One of the most valuable things is getting that verbal part of your brain to shut up! The balls haven't moved since you were standing, neither have the pockets.

Hu

That's true, and I'll be glad to clarify, it is slang and I could have been more clear, it's a term generally used in bank pool.

When I say SPIN my definition is the cue ball turning one rotation or more, when I say TWIST, it's referring to the cue ball rotating less than one rotation. You've probable heard players say "I twisted that bank to shorten it up," another way of saying "holding a bank" - when I TWIST the cue ball it has more of an effect of the object ball, when I SPIN the cue ball it doesn't, I've never seen great bank pool players spin the cueball to hold a bank, they "twist if in".

When I use 'The Touch of Inside' the cue ball twists slightly, and that puts what I call "pocket acceptance spin" on the object ball which does encourage the shots that hit the rail coming in to go better than using a touch of outside.

A common misunderstanding about 'The Touch of Inside' is it's Inside English and it is not, although it does have a slight "twist" - it's virtually impossible to his a longer shot without some kind of spin, even when hitting the exact center of the cueball.

Thanks! It does clear up some things. When I was young and in my natural prime I used speed and angles primarily. Worked up and down the centerline often with just a hair off center hit, inside or outside. Needing to use over a half tip of sidespin was rare especially on the short track. I might use it when the table was wide open making the shot on the last ball or two tap ins but it wasn't really necessary.

Hu
 
Thanks! It does clear up some things. When I was young and in my natural prime I used speed and angles primarily. Worked up and down the centerline often with just a hair off center hit, inside or outside. Needing to use over a half tip of sidespin was rare especially on the short track. I might use it when the table was wide open making the shot on the last ball or two tap ins but it wasn't really necessary.

Hu
Was watching Matlock play banks in Olathe a few yrs back. He made a couple that i would have bet pretty good would not go. I asked Dave later and he said 'Brother, i twisted her in'. He took me aside and explained pretty much just what CJ said. BTW, Dave was DCC banks champ in '05 beating banks legend Brumback.
 
Was watching Matlock play banks in Olathe a few yrs back. He made a couple that i would have bet pretty good would not go. I asked Dave later and he said 'Brother, i twisted her in'. He took me aside and explained pretty much just what CJ said. BTW, Dave was DCC banks champ in '05 beating banks legend Brumback.

I have been an admirer of Dave's play for a lot of years. Him being perhaps the best on a bar table for years and a monster on them for decades causes people to overlook his other play sometimes. He plays quite respectable on the big track and as you note, he is a very respectable banks shooter.

Just a side note, I am half-assed one rail banking, not that good three, and two rails I have been pretty lousy at. I'm noticing a lot more two rail banks falling with this new Cynergy shaft I have been playing with a month or so. Too soon to be sure it isn't just a fluke but interesting.

Hu
 
I have been an admirer of Dave's play for a lot of years. Him being perhaps the best on a bar table for years and a monster on them for decades causes people to overlook his other play sometimes. He plays quite respectable on the big track and as you note, he is a very respectable banks shooter.

Just a side note, I am half-assed one rail banking, not that good three, and two rails I have been pretty lousy at. I'm noticing a lot more two rail banks falling with this new Cynergy shaft I have been playing with a month or so. Too soon to be sure it isn't just a fluke but interesting.

Hu
Get a copy of Freddie B's book. Very good info on banks.
 
Get a copy of Freddie B's book. Very good info on banks.
I had one of them. It was helpful. Hurricanes, unplanned moves, stuff lost, stuff basically dumped into boxes and stored, I have no idea what I own or don't now. Hate to buy something I already own.

I have a home table now, even if just a barbox. Might have to start rebuilding my pool instructional material.

Hu
 
Back
Top