What is a good aiming system?

[Patrick Johnson]

Here's a chart showing the number of cut angles necessary to make all possible shots from various distances into pockets of various sizes. Using this chart we can figure out what percentage of all possible shots will go from various distances using certain systems.

Excellent idea. I might expand on this idea in a future article. I'll be sure to give you credit for giving me the idea.

Regards,
Dave

My math isn't exact for this (but I think close enough to get the right whole number of cut angles per 1/4 ball). If you PM me an email address I'll send you the spreadsheet and an explanation of my methodology so you can refine the math if you like.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

My math isn't exact for this (but I think close enough to get the right whole number of cut angles per 1/4 ball). If you PM me an email address I'll send you the spreadsheet and an explanation of my methodology so you can refine the math if you like.

Thanks for the offer, but I'll use MathCAD to combine my "margin of error" (TP 3.4) and "pocket size" analyses (TP 3.5-3.8) with my "line of aim" analysis (TP A.13). Maybe I'll overlay contour-line plots on some table diagrams.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Bob Jewett]

... In other words, the minimum number of system-defined cut angles you need in order to cover all possible shots from that distance.

I've re-labeled the chart above to correct this confusion. ...

It should also be noted that the numbers in the table use the entire pocket, and that if you want a system that will get the cue ball to the middle half of the effective pocket you will need twice as many angles. (I assume that you are using the whole pocket; it didn't seem to be stated explicitly.) That is, some players might prefer a system that allows some errors from other sources, and doesn't give over all of the margin of error to the aiming system.

 

[dr_dave]

It should also be noted that the numbers in the table use the entire pocket, and that if you want a system that will get the cue ball to the middle half of the effective pocket you will need twice as many angles. (I assume that you are using the whole pocket; it didn't seem to be stated explicitly.) That is, some players might prefer a system that allows some errors from other sources, and doesn't give over all of the margin of error to the aiming system.

Excellent point.

Pool is tough.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It should also be noted that the numbers in the table use the entire pocket, and that if you want a system that will get the cue ball to the middle half of the effective pocket you will need twice as many angles. (I assume that you are using the whole pocket; it didn't seem to be stated explicitly.) That is, some players might prefer a system that allows some errors from other sources, and doesn't give over all of the margin of error to the aiming system.

You're right, I allow the whole pocket - I almost mentioned your caveat about that, but thought it might be too much info. I also didn't average the pocket size from various approach angles and for corner and side pockets, which would also increase the number of cut angles necessary, but might make it seem as if I was stretching to cast systems in a negative light.

The take-home message is that this chart is generous to systems.

pj
chgo

 

[Jimmy M.]

mliaulinit stdeon stxei...

Ray

Jr pna fgneg bhe bja frperg nvzvat flfgrz ynathntr, lbh xabj. Bs pbhefr, jr qvqa'g ernyyl fgneg vg, ohg jr pna fgvyy gnxr perqvg, evtug?!

P.S. If anyone has any questions, call Ray.

 

[dr_dave]

I see the light!

Jr pna fgneg bhe bja frperg nvzvat flfgrz ynathntr, lbh xabj. Bs pbhefr, jr qvqa'g ernyyl fgneg vg, ohg jr pna fgvyy gnxr perqvg, evtug?!

Thank you. Now I finally understand how all of the aiming systems in the world work. I don't think I'll ever miss a shot again.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

mliaulinit stdeon stxei...

Ray

Jr pna fgneg bhe bja frperg nvzvat flfgrz ynathntr, lbh xabj. Bs pbhefr, jr qvqa'g ernyyl fgneg vg, ohg jr pna fgvyy gnxr perqvg, evtug?!

P.S. If anyone has any questions, call Ray.

First I have to ask: are you guys by any chance carrying books titled "How to Serve Humanity"?

pj
chgo

 

[Jimmy M.]

First I have to ask: are you guys by any chance carrying books titled "How to Serve Humanity"?

pj
chgo

No, but I'm actually working on a book titled "How to Serve ..." ... well, I'll just leave you guys in suspense until its highly anticipated release date. It should be released around the same time as Jay's book.

 

[Dave Nelson]

"At times I don't feel confident that I am aiming at the right place on the object ball. What works best for you and where can I get the info to practice it?"

Hey friend, if it's any comfort to you, you are not alone. Aiming at the right place is crucial. The pros do it, birds do it , bees do it, why the hell cannot I do it? Lets do it, lets sink some balls.

Dave Nelson

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Aiming at the right place is crucial. The pros do it, birds do it , bees do it,

...even educated trees do it.

pj <- meaning cues, of course
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

finding actual contact points

Patrick,

Anything that contradicts your false statement isn't automatically combative, it is simply laying the facts on the table. As your chart shows, the easier the shot is, the more often it falls. Plain and simple, your own chart and findings contradict your statement that you have repeated over and over in this thread that easy shots are as low percentage of shots as hard shots using an aiming system. With the publication of your chart you have ceded that point so we can finally move on.

The aiming system I used finds the two actual contact points, aligns them, and then you shoot through center cue ball to pocket the object ball. It doesn't adjust for throw and it doesn't compensate for the effects of applying side. What it does is give a rock solid starting point if it is used properly. The number of choices at this point is one. When you add variables or if throw will be great enough to not pocket a ball adjustment is needed. Not sure what system this is, I didn't ask.

Testing for myself on a fairly loose table, I found that almost all shots in a real play situation are made using this system with absolutely no compensations used. I would have made many of these shots with no system at all but that wasn't the point. I deliberately used the system and didn't use the compensations that I would normally use to pocket balls. Even when I added top, bottom, and/or side, I did not compensate.

Because I was trying to get into position to make the next ball as easily as possible and because of the margins of error designed into pool tables, the system worked very well in actual play despite it's flaws. Fixed aim point systems work far better in actual play than your theory indicates they will for the same reasons. Shots are not evenly or even randomly spread on the playing surface during actual play. Ignoring the fact that the person shooting is trying to set up the next shot makes all of the success ratio calculations using raw numbers invalid for actual play. We can't lose sight of the fact that the people who believe in systems believe in them because of actual results on a table. No amount of math will convince them differently when the balls are falling.

Hu

Playing pool as it's normally played isn't really a test that tells us much. We don't really know if the system is 90% effective or you are (with or without the system). And even if we do know which it is, we don't know why the system is effective, which is really what this is all about. We already know that systems work (I say it in just about every post) - we're discussing how they work.



So you know what I mean about controls. Did you control your test so that we could tell whether it's the system or your skills that are working? How about so we can tell how the system works (with or without adjustments)?



Finally, you've said what you mean by "easy". I was assuming you meant another definition (cut angle, as you said). I've done some thinking about the distance issue and can shed some light here.

Here's a chart showing the number of cut angles necessary to make all possible shots from various distances into pockets of various sizes. Using this chart we can figure out what percentage of all possible shots will go from various distances using certain systems.

View attachment 75548

So, for instance, a Fractional Aiming system that defines 5 cut angles (full, 3/4-ball, 1/2-ball, 1/4-ball, thin) will cover the following percentages of shots into a 5-inch pocket:

From 6 inches: 5/3 = >100% (some overlap)
From 12 inches: 5/7 = 71%
From 24 inches: 5/14 = 36%
From 36 inches: 5/21 = 24%
From 48 inches: 5/27 = 19%

You can see that this system only covers all shots without adjustments when the OB is less than 12 inches from the pocket (I think it's really less than 9 inches). By the time the OB is 2 feet from the pocket the system only covers about 1/3 of all shots. So common Fractional Aiming systems obviously must include some adjustment for the vast majority of shots in an actual game. Even Joe Tucker's system, with 10 cut angles per 1/4 ball (the most that I know of), only covers all the shots if the shot distance is less than 18 inches (into a 5-inch pocket). To his credit, Joe teaches his students to adjust with "in between" angles to cover the rest of the shots at greater distances.

This same principle applies in different ways to all systems - because all systems define a relatively small number of ways to align shots (cut angles). That's their purpose: to simplify that process by reducing the possibilities from infinite to something more manageable.

Which system did you test? How does it reduce the number of choices the player must make?

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

................

 

[BigCat]

First I have to ask: are you guys by any chance carrying books titled "How to Serve Humanity"?

pj
chgo

I actually don't carry any books with me. It's a digital world... and at any one random point in time I have a veritable plethora of electronic devices on me (usually just my laptop though). But not books... those are all at home.

And, in case you were wondering as to the contents of my first post (I'm assuming you are, otherwise you would not pose the question you did)... it's an anagram in response to Jimmy M.'s post about the super-duper-secret society of HH and friends. It states:

Illuminati doesn't exist.

Have a pleasant day,
Ray

 

[Jimmy M.]

And, in case you were wondering as to the contents of my first post (I'm assuming you are, otherwise you would not pose the question you did)... it's an anagram in response to Jimmy M.'s post about the super-duper-secret society of HH and friends. It states:

Illuminati doesn't exist.

Have a pleasant day,
Ray

Anagrams are entirely too complicated for me. I just used rot13. The majority of our audience takes a half-hour to cook minute rice anyway, so I assumed they'd never figure it out.

Unless they called you, of course. I would like to appoint you as Grand Pumba of our aiming system/secret society (meaning, you have to field all phone calls). We'll iron out the details some time soon.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

[skip more combative stuff]

The aiming system I used finds the two actual contact points, aligns them, and then you shoot through center cue ball to pocket the object ball.

Unless you're leaving a lot out, that isn't an aiming system. So I guess we weren't talking about the same thing at all. Thanks anyway.

pj
chgo

 

[BigCat]

Anagrams are entirely too complicated for me. I just used rot13. The majority of our audience takes a half-hour to cook minute rice anyway, so I assumed they'd never figure it out.

Unless they called you, of course. I would like to appoint you as Grand Pumba of our aiming system/secret society (meaning, you have to field all phone calls). We'll iron out the details some time soon.

Agreed.

We'll use a series of encryption methods and tools to tightly hold on to our secret "nvzvat flfgrz".

It will be the coup de grace for our collective opponents. I will handle any and all phone calls regarding this system. Simpley reach me at 0100100000000101010101000010011000000001.

And FWIW, the aiming system that I find most effective is bdmsdq sn dcfd zmc eqzbshnmzk zhlhmf bnlahmdc.

Ray

 

[Fast Lenny]

I use the P&H aiming system,that is poke and hope!

 

[Jimmy M.]

Agreed.

We'll use a series of encryption methods and tools to tightly hold on to our secret "nvzvat flfgrz".

It will be the coup de grace for our collective opponents. I will handle any and all phone calls regarding this system. Simpley reach me at 0100100000000101010101000010011000000001.

And FWIW, the aiming system that I find most effective is bdmsdq sn dcfd zmc eqzbshnmzk zhlhmf bnlahmdc.

Ray

01110011011011110111010101101110011001000111001100100000011011000110100101101011011001010010000001100001001000000111000001101100011000010110111000100001

V arrq nabgure orre!

 

[ShootingArts]

evading again

Unless you're leaving a lot out, that isn't an aiming system. So I guess we weren't talking about the same thing at all. Thanks anyway.

pj
chgo

PJ,

Of course I left things out. I told what the aiming system did, not how it did it. I presented an aiming system and reviewed it's strengths and weaknesses. Because it isn't a fixed point system you can't use math to attempt to prove it invalid. Therefore you disregard it as an aiming system. You make a joke of the compliments Mike Page and Dr. Dave paid you earlier in this thread.

Hu