Well, in fairness, I didn't have that good of a success rate. You did. It's also very possible that you are also subconsciensely (sp) adjusting. Actually, me saying it has 'some merit', means it could be worth checking into for 'another arrow in the quiver'. Can never have too many arrows.
Odds are I may never use it. But it's still nice to have in memory, just in case.
I never covered english... you must use some outside to compensate for collision induced throw (for example, when the CB/OB were straight into each other at the 2nd diamond... you have to offset the inside english the collision imparts on the OB). That all comes with practice.
You're correct, it's an arrow in the quiver and good to know. Some people use it exclusively, some people use it as a cross-check. I don't even use the system.... but I'm not naive enough to say it's not accurate.
Whoa, sorry, I need to clarify, for whatever it's worth. For whatever reason, I first interpreted your instruction as hitting the center CB reflection into the right or left edge of the OB reflection.
When I do r/l edge reflection of CB to middle of reflection on OB, I double-kiss every time. It's a mess. When I do middle CB to right or left of OB, it works as in your video.
Whoa, sorry, I need to clarify, for whatever it's worth. For whatever reason, I first interpreted your instruction as hitting the center CB reflection into the right or left edge of the OB reflection.
When I do r/l edge reflection of CB to middle of reflection on OB, I double-kiss every time. It's a mess. When I do middle CB to right or left of OB, it works as in your video.
If you're double kissing, you're using the incorrect CB reflection edge. Setup the same shot and use the opposite edge of the CB reflection. CAN'T double kiss unless you're setting up a bank that can't go anyways.
Whoa, sorry, I need to clarify, for whatever it's worth. For whatever reason, I first interpreted your instruction as hitting the center CB reflection into the right or left edge of the OB reflection.
When I do r/l edge reflection of CB to middle of reflection on OB, I double-kiss every time. It's a mess. When I do middle CB to right or left of OB, it works as in your video.
Keep in mind, I didn't even 1-stroke... I didn't fine tune anything. I agree 50% banking gets you broke... but I 50%ed without even a practice stroke. If I was motivated and took the time to actually practice stroke, I could post a video with a WAY higher %.
There are better ways of banking than reflections, I just wanted to prove it's accurate. That was the first time I even used the system in over a year. When I used to bank with the lights all the time, and my speed was fine tuned, I made a lot of balls.
Center-to-edge banking or Ron Vitello's method spots this method the 5-out.
P.S. To only say there is "some" merit to it when I didn't even 1-stroke and never went a ball outside of the pocket isn't showing enough respect to the method... but whatever.
Thanks for the effort, but it doesn't really prove anything. Nobody, including you, can tell how you're really aiming those shots without some objective "controls" - physical limitations that make it impossible to do anything but what you intend to do. And hitting those shots so quickly actually works against you - it makes it more likely that you're aiming by feel and less likely that you're strictly using the system.
Here's an example of what I mean by controls:
After watching your video and (finally) learning exactly how you say these shots should be aimed, I went to my table and set up a couple of pairs of frozen object balls, aligned so that they bank dead into the side pocket, like in the following diagram. To be sure they were set up as dead banks, I marked the position of each combo with two of those little paper "donuts" and shot the banks over and over, adjusting the position of the donuts until the shots banked dead into the pocket every time.
So I had two typical cross-side bank shots set up with object balls (1 ball and 2 ball in the diagram) and "ghost cueballs" (balls "A" and "B" in the diagram) in perfect position, all tested and ready to shoot. Now all I had to do was leave the ghost balls in position (frozen to the object balls) and move the actual cue ball around to different positions, aiming it dead on at each of the ghost balls as if I was going to actually shoot the banks, and see if the light reflections on the actual cue ball and the object balls line up like you say.
The results: when aimed directly at the ghost balls, the edges of the reflection on the CB rarely lined up with the middle of the reflection on either OB. In many CB positions the alignment was way off and in most positions it was far enough to miss the shot.
From doing this simple experiment and watching how the CB/OB reflections line up as I moved the CB to different positions and aimed it at the ghost balls, I can see that the reflections move in such a way that aligning them the way you describe (one end of the CB reflection to the middle of the OB reflection) will get you in the general vicinity of the right aim for many shots. But I can also see that it's an "approximation" technique (like fractional ball aiming and probably like edge-and-pivot aiming) that clearly needs significant aim adjustments for most shots.
This doesn't mean the system is useless - mechanical aim approximations that must be fine-tuned by feel are a part of most, if not all, aiming systems. And it doesn't mean that the fine-tuning must be done "consciously" or even that the shooter must be aware that it's happening. It's just the objective facts about these kinds of systems that you can do with as you please, even ignore or deny them.
pj
chgo
P.S. Of course, the ghost ball's position would have to change slightly for different cut angles on these bank shots (because of throw and collision-induce sidespin), but it was very clear that the misalignment of the reflections was visibly greater than the misalignment of the ghost ball due to throw or sidespin. In other words, adjusting the aim for throw and sidespin didn't correct for the misalignment of the reflections.
Spider,
Like PJ I tried it as well. For starters I understand you think you've found something there but like PJ most where all over the place. I hit all my shots flat with medium speed. Most where not even close. The Engineer in me was intrigued so believe me I gave it a fair chance and was actually hoping you had something here.
As far as my banking skills you'll just have to take my word on this but I bank just fine...thanks. Come on. On my worse day I couldn't miss the shots you demonstrated by more than half a ball. The art in banking is not finding the angle. It's the english/pace/throw/shape (not to mention sometimes avoiding collisions) compensations that are required. I found your method only worked "some what" when the object ball was around the center-line of the table.
I'll give you props that you had the follow through to put up a video. I can hear your passion on the subject. Having said that you and I are a long way away from each other and me woofing at you is useless.
I'm going back to wrapping my head in foil again.
Nick
SpiderWebComm said:
I'm gonna make it clearer to the people wrapping tin foil around their heads and those who would rather diss something than to try it themselves.
FYI:
If an alien spacecraft from planet Serpo floated down above your house and shot a particle beam through your window and onto your pool table...assuming you didn't have any other lights on that would cause reflection "confusion"..... I'd be using their particle beam to bank balls up their ass....to death.
Anyways, I just made a video in my basement to show you guys how this works. I'm bored and thought I'd help the other guy peel the Reynolds Wrap off his head...the coast is clear, dude.
Give me 10 mins to upload the video to poolvids.com.... I'll paste the link here. I'm no Mike Page or Joe Tucker with internet instruction, but maybe this will help some of your games out. For those who think this stuff is a joke... just ignore it.
Spider,
Like PJ I tried it as well. For starters I understand you think you've found something there but like PJ most where all over the place. I hit all my shots flat with medium speed. Most where not even close. The Engineer in me was intrigued so believe me I gave it a fair chance and was actually hoping you had something here.
I don't think I found anything. That system MIGHT be 100 years old. Each "dot" of the system is somewhere other than center ball---so you're connecting two non-center points. I'm confident you're aligning incorrectly, PJ is too I'm sure. I'm not passionate about anything... like I said, I don't even use the system. I just happen to know it's accurate when executed properly, that's all.
Since you're the mac banker without it, no worries. I'm sure you're a good banker and i'm sure you can pocket 50+% with no practice strokes too with your system. Would love to see your video. Make sure you're wearing tin foil for full effect too.
I'm sure I could setup a camera and smoke in 10 banks. Miss a few...try again and the post up my best round. This would prove what? I have access to camera?
The fact that I can does not prove/disprove the hovering lights theory. I know it doesn't work and if I get a chance at work I will instruct one of my guys to make a CAD drawing of your "method" (as I understand it) complete with lights, table, human (you realize we are all different heights).
Maybe someone who knows how I play will testify on whether I know my stuff and can execute.
(QUOTE) Nick
I'm sure I could setup a camera and smoke in 10 banks.
Maybe someone who knows how I play will testify on whether I can execute.
you guys that are naturals (most great bankers are ) have no need of a system of any kind . some of us do, and have tried many different ones,as have I. as i've said before most align to almost the same spot, as does this one.since you have no need of it ,i can see why you can't understand it.
I think even "naturals" use systems, maybe without even knowing it in a lot of cases. But even for those who knowingly use systems there are different ways of doing it. One big difference is between "intuitive" and "analytical" system users.
"Intuitive" system users prefer to put their trust in the system and in their inate ability to adapt it for their use on the table without worrying about exactly what those adaptations may be - in fact, thinking about that may "get in the way" of their inate ability to do it. "It works for me" is all the analysis that matters to them.
"Analytical" system users want to know how far the system goes by itself and what adjustments they need to add to it - the system is valuable to them for narrowing down the "range of estimation", but they prefer to do their fine-tuning purposely and consciously.
I don't think either the "intuitive" or the "analytical" approach to using systems is objectively "better" than the other - each just works better for the players who prefer it. Both are perfectly legitimate ways of using systems and both acknowledge the legitimate value of systems - they just implement them in slightly different ways.
And when analytical players "test" one of these systems and conclude that adjustments are necessary, they're not really saying "this system doesn't work" or "you intuitive system users should really wise up". They're saying "by the way, for the analytical players like me, here's how far the system goes and where you need to get consciously involved".
There's no reason for either kind of system user to be argumentative about the existence of player-added system adjustments. We all know that no system is perfect and each player must adapt each system in his own way to physical reality and to his individual playing style.
When analytical system users imply that using systems intuitively is the wrong way, or when intuitive system users feel they must "defend" systems by denying their imperfections, or when non-system users imply that using systems at all is inferior, they're all wrong. I've been guilty of some of this from time to time, and I know I was wrong.
It's past time to blow all the smoke and heat off our discussions of systems and share our experiences and insights about them with our eyes open to their imperfections and our minds open to their value (and the various legitimate ways they can be used), and without all the kneejerk judgmental attitude - and I mean in both (or is that all three?) directions.
If you're double kissing, you're using the incorrect CB reflection edge. Setup the same shot and use the opposite edge of the CB reflection. CAN'T double kiss unless you're setting up a bank that can't go anyways.
I'll keep trying, but for now it really doesn't seem to work. I have a big long flourescent light above the table so the bar reflection is long and easy to see. I've tried both edges and the one that seems most reasonable double-kisses, and the other puts extreme spin on the CB and the OB ends up nowhere near the pocket. I hit the edge of the reflection on the CB and aim for the middle of the reflection on the OB. I've tried this several times... Every so often I say "let me try that again to make sure I'm doing it right" and I'm getting the same result.
OTOH, if I hit middle reflection on CB and aim for edge on OB, I get the same results you were getting in your video.
I think even "naturals" use systems, maybe without even knowing it in a lot of cases. But even for those who knowingly use systems there are different ways of doing it. One big difference is between "intuitive" and "analytical" system users.
"Intuitive" system users prefer to put their trust in the system and in their inate ability to adapt it for their use on the table without worrying about exactly what those adaptations may be - in fact, thinking about that may "get in the way" of their inate ability to do it. "It works for me" is all the analysis that matters to them.
"Analytical" system users want to know how far the system goes by itself and what adjustments they need to add to it - the system is valuable to them for narrowing down the "range of estimation", but they prefer to do their fine-tuning purposely and consciously.
I don't think either the "intuitive" or the "analytical" approach to using systems is objectively "better" than the other - each just works better for the players who prefer it. Both are perfectly legitimate ways of using systems and both acknowledge the legitimate value of systems - they just implement them in slightly different ways.
And when analytical players "test" one of these systems and conclude that adjustments are necessary, they're not really saying "this system doesn't work" or "you intuitive system users should really wise up". They're saying "by the way, for the analytical players like me, here's how far the system goes and where you need to get consciously involved".
There's no reason for either kind of system user to be argumentative about the existence of player-added system adjustments. We all know that no system is perfect and each player must adapt each system in his own way to physical reality and to his individual playing style.
When analytical system users imply that using systems intuitively is the wrong way, or when intuitive system users feel they must "defend" systems by denying their imperfections, or when non-system users imply that using systems at all is inferior, they're all wrong. I've been guilty of some of this from time to time, and I know I was wrong.
It's past time to blow all the smoke and heat off our discussions of systems and share our experiences and insights about them with our eyes open to their imperfections and our minds open to their value (and the various legitimate ways they can be used), and without all the kneejerk judgmental attitude - and I mean in both (or is that all three?) directions.
We all use some degree of "systems" and I'm telling you with all honesty that I tried to wrap my head around the method and it did not work for me. Take a look at Freddy's BWTB books and he describes a lot of methods which work. Check out the half ball per diamond bank back method. When I first read it I thought to myslf...."I can't see this working". Never the less it works wonderful in that 1"~6" range by a rail (as he details as well in his book. The art is in the small adjustments you make for pace/throw/table conditions.
I'm a former snooker player and play a lot of golf on 12 footers. Playing golf (like one pocket) exposes you to a lot of obscure banks. Snooker tables because of distances and tolerances really sharpens your technique. Banks also come out truer because the ball does not get pinched as much by rail facing.
Bottom line finding the contact point is not the problem. Like I've mentioned before it's the adjustments that make the difference. For me the table light method does not produce the correct reference point.
androd said:
(QUOTE) Nick
I'm sure I could setup a camera and smoke in 10 banks.
Maybe someone who knows how I play will testify on whether I can execute.
you guys that are naturals (most great bankers are ) have no need of a system of any kind . some of us do, and have tried many different ones,as have I. as i've said before most align to almost the same spot, as does this one.since you have no need of it ,i can see why you can't understand it.
I guess you could say it's just "feel". If you bank thousands of balls, you develop a feel for all the ways to hit the ball that will NOT go, and the very few ways that the ball WILL go. The video clip was one of my practice sessions where my "feel" was on, or else, like Efren says, "I got lucky". Sometimes it's very difficult to tell the difference.
OK I'm hanging around my local hall and tried the ball method again. I watched Spiders video twice (because I'm dense) and after staring at the seven ball for 20 minutes I have come up with the following:
1. Our local hall has 4 lights per table and thus I get 4 spots.
2. I see no relationship that works consistently for various pockets and ball positions.
3. As I move the farther away from center of table the error increases.
4. The girl behind the counter thinks I'm on tilt. Staring and talking to a single ball
5. I must be dense. Must be all the tin foil.
WARNING! For beginners/novices ONLY. Here is a good reference point for banks and kicks.
This of coarse is a starting point that still needs condition adjustments.
OK I'm hanging around my local hall and tried the ball method again. I watched Spiders video twice (because I'm dense) and after staring at the seven ball for 20 minutes I have come up with the following:
1. Our local hall has 4 lights per table and thus I get 4 spots.
2. I see no relationship that works consistently for various pockets and ball positions.
3. As I move the farther away from center of table the error increases.
4. The girl behind the counter thinks I'm on tilt. Staring and talking to a single ball
5. I must be dense. Must be all the tin foil.
WARNING! For beginners/novices ONLY. Here is a good reference point for banks and kicks.
I never said the system was flawless, I just said it was accurate, which it is.
I so wish I was in that poolroom where you were today so I could strut around like a peacock, bashing banks in w/ the reflection while you were talking to yourself. Just to impress the counter chick, I'd rotate systems....reflections, center-to-edge, Vitello's swivel, and twisting them in head-on with a hard pivot. Maybe I'd get her number.... I'm a good talker. Tell her I say HI
P.S. The diagram is really, really cool. I hope the beginners have a yard stick available to go through the steps to find the point on the rail to hit. Here's a tip for the beginners.... find the line from the corner through the middle diamond...extend that line to a wall, pick a spot and bank towards it - with a small pivot. Forget the yardstick, compass and protractor.
