What would SAM do?

[RRfireblade]

I think Patrick Johnsons diagram is accurate. It represents an aiming systems weakest situation. (cue ball and object ball close together and far from the target). Thus the word "supplemental".
This does not make aiming systems useless or stupid. All methods of aiming including ghost ball or pure intuition are limited by the the players ability to incorporate and adapt them to thier own use.
I think some aiming systems make easy shots easier. (especially in pressure situations) If the object ball and target pocket happen to fall exact or within an obvious range of tolerance, which happens quite often, a half ball or quarter ball aim can be a very comforting visualisation to fall back on.
It seems to me that you can't have too many pictures of successful shots in your mind evan if no one system provides them all.

The issue there tho is they claim it doesn't even matter where the pocket is , as in Hals system , SAM being based off that. If your not figuring the exact pocket position into the formula , then how can you adjust for an off pocket number ? If you have the ability to identify the precise result of the CBs impact to the OB based on the system and make a conscious adjustment then are you really using the system ?

 

[klockdoc]

I think Patrick Johnsons diagram is accurate.

In my post # 6, I show a cue ball B at a point of a SAM #3 hit, which is a half-ball aim on Patrick's original 8 ball shot.

I then extended a brown line from the pocket to the center of the object ball showing a 30 degree cut. This line does not interfere with any of the lines drawn by Patrick.

So how are the angles of his original diagram correctly placed to identify with SAM positioning?...

 

[Bob Jewett]

True. As Scott Lee pointed out in the earlier thread. 1/2 ball aim is a 30 degree cut - 1/2 ball hit is a 45 degree cut.

As others have pointed out, this is a way of referring to the shots that is peculiar to SAM. Limited-fractional-ball-aiming, which is the group of aiming systems that SAM belongs to, has a long written history. So far as I know, never before has anyone used this very peculiar way of referring to fractional ball shots. Well, with one exception. Hal Mix, when referring to a shot where you send the center of the cue ball towards the edge of the object ball, called it a 1/3 full shot. His reasoning was that if you look at the overlap diagram, one part on the left is non-overlap, the center part is overlap and one part on the right is non-overlap. The three parts are equal.

The problem with someone developing their own, idiosyncratic and anti-historical way of referring to things is that they will confuse the discussion, just as the discussion has been confused here.

Two other points. The shot most people would call a 3/4-full shot does not have a cut angle of 15 degrees. The actual angle would be 14.48 degrees without throw, but is about 13 degrees if you include throw. Also, the 1/4-full hit is not 45 degrees. It is 48.59 degrees without throw and probably somewhere around 47 degrees with throw. It really doesn't make much difference what they are precisely, since you will adapt to them and you don't measure the cut angle with a protractor, but I think it's better to say, "about 15" and "about 45" to avoid saying something that's false.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If you have the ability to identify the precise result of the CBs impact to the OB based on the system and make a conscious adjustment then are you really using the system ?

I think the answer to this is yes - you're using the system to find the nearest "reference" alignment so that you only have to make a relatively small adjustment from that. It's like aiming centerball and then adjusting a smidge left or right for almost-straight shots. Other good analogies are using the diamonds to find "reference" bank/kick paths and then aiming (approximately) parallel to them or aiming centerball and then adjusting from there for squirt/swerve.

All of these methods are respectable ways of "narrowing the field" that work to make the estimation part of aiming more manageable. My question about SAM is to find out if this is a conscious part of the method or an unconscious one. Either way is also a respectable method that works - I just wonder which way SAM is taught.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

Patrick,

The terminology is unusual for most of us. However what you have to realize is that the terminology is what it is. You have to read what they say, not what you think they say. ...

Well, yes, but.... Fractional aiming has a very, very long history. It is described in lots of books from Kentfield to Hoppe to Holt to Byrne to the BCA Instructor's Training Manual. Literally millions of players talk about fractional aiming in more or less the same way. The SAM way seems to be different for no good reason. I think the people who teach it should either be careful to explain to their students that all the names of the cuts are different from the normal usage, or they should change what they call things to the standard way.

 

[klockdoc]

The issue there tho is they claim it doesn't even matter where the pocket is , as in Hals system , SAM being based off that. If your not figuring the exact pocket position into the formula , then how can you adjust for an off pocket number ? If you have the ability to identify the precise result of the CBs impact to the OB based on the system and make a conscious adjustment then are you really using the system ?

I thought this also the other day and questioned Subsonic2u about this in the other thread. I think the users of the Hal system were stating this incorrectly. Kind of what ShootingArts was saying above. We are reading something into that statement.

What I got from his explanation is it appears to me that Hal is using his system to locate the aiming point on the ball in relationship to the pocket. Then, once this is a known line of aim, he covers the pocket to eliminate the shooter from using it as an optical reference point and confusing the shot. JMO

I'm like you, there is no way that you can shoot a ball in a pocket that you have no reference point to intially.

 

[klockdoc]

The problem with someone developing their own, idiosyncratic and anti-historical way of referring to things is that they will confuse the discussion, just as the discussion has been confused here.

Two other points. The shot most people would call a 3/4-full shot does not have a cut angle of 15 degrees. The actual angle would be 14.48 degrees without throw, but is about 13 degrees if you include throw. Also, the 1/4-full hit is not 45 degrees. It is 48.59 degrees without throw and probably somewhere around 47 degrees with throw. It really doesn't make much difference what they are precisely, since you will adapt to them and you don't measure the cut angle with a protractor, but I think it's better to say, "about 15" and "about 45" to avoid saying something that's false.

Perhaps this statement should then be directed to the brochure creator for SAM diagram who indicates the exit angle for the #2 and #4 shot is 15 and 45 degrees respectfully.

Yes, I agree as from the studies of Dr. Dave that these are the correct angles you indicate. However, I think you are pulling hairs here as there is stated a 4 to 6 degree margin of error. JMO

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Quote:ShootingArts:
The terminology is unusual for most of us. However what you have to realize is that the terminology is what it is. You have to read what they say, not what you think they say. ...

Bob:
Well, yes, but.... Fractional aiming has a very, very long history. It is described in lots of books from Kentfield to Hoppe to Holt to Byrne to the BCA Instructor's Training Manual. Literally millions of players talk about fractional aiming in more or less the same way. The SAM way seems to be different for no good reason. I think the people who teach it should either be careful to explain to their students that all the names of the cuts are different from the normal usage, or they should change what they call things to the standard way.

And, just to be clear, while this is an interesting sidebar, it's irrelevant to my central question, which is:

No matter how you define or measure SAM's 6 angles, there are large gaps between them. Your target pocket will often be in one of the gaps rather than on one of SAM's angles, so what does SAM say to do in that situation, if anything? Or does SAM simply ignore the possibility so the shooter's subconscious is free to cope without confusing details?

I think all the possible answers to this question are respectable ways for a system to approach the situation for various types of users. I'm just wondering what SAM does.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

... as there is stated a 4 to 6 degree margin of error. ...

If that is what's stated, it's wrong for most shots. I did an analysis of it in another thread, and Dr. Dave drew a diagram of all the angle margins from all the locations on the table to a particular pocket. 4-6 degrees covers only a very small area around the pockets. Here is Dr. Dave's article:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2005/jan05.pdf

 

[scottycoyote]

I think Patrick Johnsons diagram is accurate. It represents an aiming systems weakest situation. (cue ball and object ball close together and far from the target). Thus the word "supplemental".
This does not make aiming systems useless or stupid. All methods of aiming including ghost ball or pure intuition are limited by the the players ability to incorporate and adapt them to thier own use.
I think some aiming systems make easy shots easier. (especially in pressure situations) If the object ball and target pocket happen to fall exact or within an obvious range of tolerance, which happens quite often, a half ball or quarter ball aim can be a very comforting visualisation to fall back on.
It seems to me that you can't have too many pictures of successful shots in your mind evan if no one system provides them all.

i have to disagree with you here, its those close ball situations where sam really helps me most. A shot where the cue ball is maybe a foot away from the object ball and when you are down on the shot there is no pocket in the background to aim towards, i can get my sam point and aim at it, the pocket doesnt even come into play anymore. My pocketing of balls in shots like that went way up once i started using sam.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

klockdoc:
... as there is stated a 4 to 6 degree margin of error. ...

Bob:
If that is what's stated, it's wrong for most shots. I did an analysis of it in another thread, and Dr. Dave drew a diagram of all the angle margins from all the locations on the table to a particular pocket. 4-6 degrees covers only a very small area around the pockets.

How do your and Dr. Dave's calculations differ from the simple approach of calculating the arc for, say, 2+ inches of play in a pocket at a given distance? I get less restrictive results. I understand that at different angles of approach the effective pocket opening is smaller, but I don't see the optimal angles of approach making much difference in Dr. Dave's diagrams.

pj
chgo

 

[Kent]

I attended RandyG?s school about one year ago. Here is one of the things I recall from the lesson on SAM (Randy, please chime in here if I am misrepresenting what you teach). Randy would line up a shot and say ?that?s a SAM 3.? The next shot he may say ?that?s a little less than a SAM 3 but more than a SAM 2.? I believe what he was teaching was to pick a known reference point that you focus on and then make minor adjustments from there. I have read many posts on this forum that discuss ways to focus. Some of them refer to picking a spot on the object ball. Picking a spot on a solid colored round surface can be difficult, but with SAM?s aiming method it narrows you in on a specific spot and then you make slight adjustments from that point. What I took away from the lesson was that it provided a way to help you focus on a point on the object ball. Again, Randy please correct me if I am misrepresenting your teaching.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I attended RandyG?s school about one year ago. Here is one of the things I recall from the lesson on SAM (Randy, please chime in here if I am misrepresenting what you teach). Randy would line up a shot and say ?that?s a SAM 3.? The next shot he may say ?that?s a little less than a SAM 3 but more than a SAM 2.? I believe what he was teaching was to pick a known reference point that you focus on and then make minor adjustments from there. I have read many posts on this forum that discuss ways to focus. Some of them refer to picking a spot on the object ball. Picking a spot on a solid colored round surface can be difficult, but with SAM?s aiming method it narrows you in on a specific spot and then you make slight adjustments from that point. What I took away from the lesson was that it provided a way to help you focus on a point on the object ball. Again, Randy please correct me if I am misrepresenting your teaching.

That's exactly the kind of answer I was looking for.

Thanks,

pj
chgo

 

[TommyT]

My Take on it

I would play it as a #3.

TommyT

 

[RBLilly]

I think Patrick Johnsons diagram is accurate. It represents an aiming systems weakest situation. (cue ball and object ball close together and far from the target). Thus the word "supplemental".
This does not make aiming systems useless or stupid. All methods of aiming including ghost ball or pure intuition are limited by the the players ability to incorporate and adapt them to thier own use.
I think some aiming systems make easy shots easier. (especially in pressure situations) If the object ball and target pocket happen to fall exact or within an obvious range of tolerance, which happens quite often, a half ball or quarter ball aim can be a very comforting visualisation to fall back on.
It seems to me that you can't have too many pictures of successful shots in your mind evan if no one system provides them all.

Yea and at pool school we shoot this shot several times over and over. SAM works on a 9' table in this situation. If you haven't used it and haven't been taught it how can you actually have an accurate idea on whether it works or not? I can tell you from experience it works well!

 

[Ballistic Billiards]

there's more

Since we know all of this... if our pocket is a SAM 1
and we're using maximum side spin how much adjustment is
needed based on the distance of the shot, the
deflection characteristics of the desired cue,
swerve, if the cue is not level and the cloth is
not like glass, the humidity, and of course,
glove tensile strength.

 

[RBLilly]

And, just to be clear, while this is an interesting sidebar, it's irrelevant to my central question, which is:

No matter how you define or measure SAM's 6 angles, there are large gaps between them. Your target pocket will often be in one of the gaps rather than on one of SAM's angles, so what does SAM say to do in that situation, if anything? Or does SAM simply ignore the possibility so the shooter's subconscious is free to cope without confusing details?

I think all the possible answers to this question are respectable ways for a system to approach the situation for various types of users. I'm just wondering what SAM does.

pj
chgo

There are no large gaps with SAM's 6 angles. Everyone assumes that until they actually use it and the light bulb goes off in their head. If you don't believe me set up a school with Randy G or with Scott Lee and actually learn it from the guys that teach it. If you are close enough to me I will teach it to anyone. I taught a guy this a few months ago, and he is shooting some great pool now.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

txplshrk:
There are no large gaps with SAM's 6 angles. Everyone assumes that until they actually use it and the light bulb goes off in their head. If you don't believe me set up a school with Randy G or with Scott Lee and actually learn it from the guys that teach it. If you are close enough to me I will teach it to anyone. I taught a guy this a few months ago, and he is shooting some great pool now.

I'll give it a go with Scott Lee sometime (I'm in Chicago, so Texas is a little to far for me to go), but even if it works for me there will be large gaps - that's an inescapable fact. Maybe the system actually uses more than 6 angles ("between SAM-2 and SAM-3", for instance), but otherwise it can't make the gaps go away - that's just an inescapable reality like 2+2=4. Or maybe we're just not communicating somehow.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

How do your and Dr. Dave's calculations differ from the simple approach of calculating the arc for, say, 2+ inches of play in a pocket at a given distance? I get less restrictive results. I understand that at different angles of approach the effective pocket opening is smaller, but I don't see the optimal angles of approach making much difference in Dr. Dave's diagrams.

pj
chgo

My calculation is simpler than Dr. Dave's. But it should also be understood that if your system has 2 inches of error (measured at the pocket) built in, you are unlikely to make the shot if your other errors are on the wrong side. Ideally the error built into the aiming system should be smaller than the error due to the player's stroke and setup. That was a major point Mike Page made in another thread. If your bridge is so floppy that you only like shots within 6 inches of the pocket, it is pointless to get a prefect aiming system, but if you plan to pot the pink into a bottom pocket on a 12x6, you need a system with a proportionally smaller error.

The nice thing about the corrected ghost ball aiming system is that there is no built-in error, but it is hard for many to visualize. (Ray Martin seems to have introduced the "ghost ball" under that term into written instruction, but he did not really advocate it for aiming -- it was mostly for caroms.)

 

[ShootingArts]

SAM is what they are chasing at the moment

Well, yes, but.... Fractional aiming has a very, very long history. It is described in lots of books from Kentfield to Hoppe to Holt to Byrne to the BCA Instructor's Training Manual. Literally millions of players talk about fractional aiming in more or less the same way. The SAM way seems to be different for no good reason. I think the people who teach it should either be careful to explain to their students that all the names of the cuts are different from the normal usage, or they should change what they call things to the standard way.

Bob,

We are completely in agreement about the terminology being different for no apparent reason. It also seems to me that the document I was working from was partially updated and poorly edited.

What I was trying to get across to the people trying to understand SAM is that it really doesn't matter that we don't like the terminology or think it is confusing. To have any hope of understanding SAM, we have to accept the terminology as it is used. If we want to rewrite SAM to suit standard terminology or ourselves later we can.

I have had to learn many software programs over the years including a handful of CAD programs and a handful of network programs. Without fail some new to me programs used the same command name for different commands or different names for the same command instead of what I was used to. I beat my head against a brick wall for weeks trying to learn some mission critical software. "Why don't they call it the same thing everybody else does?" "Why do I have to use three or four steps when it just takes one with the other software?" I was fighting the things I couldn't change about the software instead of accepting it as it was and learning it. When I finally accepted it was what it was and I had to deal with it I finally started making some real headway. If people want to understand SAM well enough to decide if it is valuable or not I think they are going to have to do the same thing I did, quit fighting what you can't change about it and work with what is there.

SAM aim points actually give a 15 degree ball path, 30 degree, 45 degree and so on simply because you calibrate your personal SAM points to give these results. I won't disagree with you that the fractional aim and contact points aren't precisely as described but again it doesn't matter. SAM seems to give a basic starting point so we aren't working quite as much by feel. Having watched RandyG teaching a one on one expert level class I also saw that it was a communication tool. SAM would probably be worth learning just for that if someone planned to go through the BCA training programs.

SAM, Joe Tucker, and The Beard all use different fractional divisions. All seem to have value but I see a nightmare in the making if I try to work with all three!

Hu

PS I mentioned in an earlier post that I would be doing some testing today. Isn't going to happen. I am getting bullseyed by tropical depression ten and have to button down for it.