Hal's secrets?

Mike Page

unread,

Mar 22, 2004, 11:08:27 AM3/22/04

to

For the newer amongst you who have been reading about Hal Houle and his
systems, here is a description that is I believe in his own words. It
was posted here about 6.5 years ago. I've met Hal a few times. On the
first occasion I spoke to him for a while, and then I played on the
adjacent table while he schooled a couple people for several hours. The
description below is pretty much what he was saying to them, and he was
covering up the pockets and all that as well.

mike page
fargo

View: Complete Thread (14 articles)
Original FormatNewsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
Date: 1997/08/30

TRATUS1 wrote:
>
> I received the following "pool secret" via E-mail from 2 different people.
> Has anyone else received this secret? Has anyone tested the contents of the
> message for validity or is it just a bunch of bull?
> *
>
> "There are only 3 angles for any shot, on any size table. This includes;
> caroms, single rail banks, double rail banks, 1, 2, 3, and 4 rail banks,
> and double kiss banks. Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4 1Ž2
> x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is wide. The table
> corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to
> the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45 degrees. When you lay a
> cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond on the same end rail, you
> are forming an angle of 30 degrees. When you lay a cue from the side
> pocket to the first diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle
> of 15 degrees. When you add up these 3 angles, they total 90 degrees, which
> is the same angle formed by the table corners. The cue ball relation to
> object ball relation shot angle is always 15, 30, or 45 degrees. The
> solution is very simple. There are only 2 edges on the cue ball to aim
> with, and they are always exactly in the same place on the cue ball. There
> are only 3 exact spots on the object ball to aim to, and they are always
> exactly in the same place on the object ball. So, 2 edges on the cue ball,
> and 3 spots on the object ball; 2 x 3 = 6 which is the total number of
> table pockets. This means that, depending upon how the cue ball and object
> ball lie in relation to one another, you may either pocket the object ball
> directly into a pocket or bank it into any one of the remaining 5 pockets.
> Of course, the reverse is true. If the relationship of cue ball to object
> ball can only be a bank, so be it. There is never a need to look at a
> pocket or cushion while lining up the edge on the cue ball to the spot on
> the object ball. You have only those 3 angles Your only requirement is to
> recognize whether your shot is a 15, 30, or 45 degree angle. Recognizing
> those 3 angles can be accomplished in an instant by aiming the edge of the
> cue ball to one of the spots on the object ball. It will be obvious which
> object ball spot is correct. There will be no doubt. Any time either one of
> the 2 edges on the cue ball is aimed at any one of the 3 spots on the
> object ball, that object ball must go to a pocket. Choose the correct spot
> and the object ball will most certainly go to the chosen pocket. The top
> professional players in the game have always known about this professional
> aiming system, but they are a closed fraternity, and you are the enemy.
> Interested in where those spots are located?
> The 2 places on the cue
> ball are the left edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball
> to the left; and the right edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the
> object ball to the right. The 3 spots on the object ball are the quarters,
> and the center. The quarters and center of the object ball face straight at
> the edges of your cue ball, not facing toward the pocket. In other words,
> if you were on a work-bench at home, there would be no pocket, so you would
> just line up the edge of the cue ball straight to your target on the object
> ball. When you cut to the left for 15 degrees, aim the left cue ball edge
> at the object ball left quarter. When you cut to the left for 30 degrees,
> aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball center. When you cut to the
> left for 45 degrees, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball right
> quarter. When you cut to the right for 15 degrees, you aim the cue ball
> right edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for
> 30 degrees, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object center. When you
> cut to the right for 45 degrees, you aim the right cue ball edge to the
> object ball left quarter. If you'll just get down and aim your old way,
> you'll be close to where you should be aiming. Look to see (without
> changing your head or eye position) just where the cue ball edge is aiming
> at the object ball. You'll see that on every shot that the cue ball edge is
> always aiming at the same targets on the object ball. Remember, this system
> is for any shot on the table; banks, caroms, combinations, and so forth.
> The only shot remaining is the extreme cut for any shot over 45 degrees.
> Aim the cue ball edge to the eighth of the object ball (which is half of
> the quarter). Don't let the pocket influence you. Have a friend hold the
> ball tray between the object ball and the pocket, so you cannot see the
> pocket, and you'll see that those 3 angles will handle just about anything.
> Of course, you would have chosen the 15, 30, or 45 degree angle before your
> friend put the ball tray in place. It also makes it much more interesting
> if you don't tell your friend how you are pocketing the ball without seeing
> the pocket. Have some fun. For any questions, call me. Regards, POOL HAL"
>
> I welcome your comments.

Tony DeAngelo

unread,

Mar 22, 2004, 12:07:52 PM3/22/04

to

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
> For the newer amongst you who have been reading about Hal Houle and his
> systems, here is a description that is I believe in his own words. It
> was posted here about 6.5 years ago. I've met Hal a few times. On the
> first occasion I spoke to him for a while, and then I played on the
> adjacent table while he schooled a couple people for several hours. The
> description below is pretty much what he was saying to them, and he was
> covering up the pockets and all that as well.

This gives me a great idea for a HH training CB. After all, I still
have that inventor's submission kit...

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Mar 22, 2004, 12:31:48 PM3/22/04

to

This is the same thing I've read (and another one or two similar things
that are supposed to be from Hal). The first part is what I call Hal's
"numerological pep talk" -- if you're less polite than I (isn't
everybody?), you might call it numerological snake oil.

With even the most cursory look his "mathematical relationships" fall
apart. For instance, 2/3 of the angles on the table and the system's
cut angles are not as he says, and of course the fact that he uses 6 cut
angles and the table has 6 pockets is classic doubletalk. The table IS
twice as long as it is wide and DOES have 90-degree corners, but that's
just more irrelevant nonsense when you're talking about his aiming
system. You might as well say the sun rises in the east so the system
must work.

But I think it's nonsense with a purpose. This stuff is what I've
called Hal's "added value" for the old and well known "ball fractions"
aiming system -- the way I've supposed that he gives his students
confidence that the system can't fail. I still think it can be helpful
to some: those who don't immediately see this jabber for what it is and
need a system whose most important aspect is that they can believe it's
infallible. It's more religion than science, but I guess that's what
some players need.

To be fair, this may not be all that Hal teaches -- it's just all we've
seen or commented on here. But I'll go out on a limb and say that I
suspect that some version of the "numerological pep talk" is a feature
of whatever Hal teaches.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

Tony DeAngelo

unread,

Mar 22, 2004, 12:38:44 PM3/22/04

to

Patrick Johnson wrote:
> This is the same thing I've read (and another one or two similar things
> that are supposed to be from Hal). The first part is what I call Hal's
> "numerological pep talk" -- if you're less polite than I (isn't
> everybody?), you might call it numerological snake oil.

So you're saying we weren't all descended from alien astronauts? Then
how were the pyramids made?

Tony--> Remember "Chariots of the Gods?"

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Mar 22, 2004, 1:13:05 PM3/22/04

to

Tony DeAngelo wrote:

> So you're saying we weren't all descended from alien astronauts? Then
> how were the pyramids made?

Maybe we should give the Houle-igans time to buckle up and get their
helmets on before we get going too fast...

pj
chgo

lfigueroa

unread,

Mar 22, 2004, 4:29:44 PM3/22/04

to

good grief, who needs all THAT?! just blink three times.

Lou Figueroa

"Mike Page" <mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:mike.page-847BC...@news.supernews.com...

Jack Stein

unread,

Mar 22, 2004, 5:26:36 PM3/22/04

to

Patrick Johnson wrote:

> you might call it numerological snake oil.
>
> With even the most cursory look his "mathematical relationships" fall
> apart.

> classic doubletalk.

> just more irrelevant nonsense when you're talking about his aiming
> system.

>You might as well say the sun rises in the east so the system
> must work.

And then...

> I still think it can be helpful to some: those who don't immediately see this jabber
>for what it is and need a system whose most important aspect is that they can believe it's
> infallible. It's more religion than science, but I guess that's what
> some players need.

Am I the only one that find it amusing that you think some people need
an aiming system that you think is a joke, numerological snake oil and
irrelevant nonsense? I would not think ANYONE would NEED a system that
is all you say it is... I hope Hal is wearing a gas mask when he visits
you...

Hmmm, speaking of irrelevant nonsense..

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Mar 22, 2004, 5:44:38 PM3/22/04

to

Jack Stein wrote:

> ... I would not think ANYONE would NEED a system that is all you say it is

LOL. Who ever accused you of thinking?

Pat Johnson
Chicago

Steve Ellis

unread,

Mar 22, 2004, 5:51:35 PM3/22/04

to

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:29:44 GMT, "lfigueroa" <lfig...@att.net> wrote:

>good grief, who needs all THAT?! just blink three times.'

No, you mean put on the ruby slippers and click your heels 3 times.

JohnA(Kent,WA)

unread,

Mar 22, 2004, 7:08:05 PM3/22/04

to

"Steve Ellis" <rsp...@RemoveThiss-c-ellis.com> wrote in message
news:fcru50dfuisl0893e...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:29:44 GMT, "lfigueroa" <lfig...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >good grief, who needs all THAT?! just blink three times.'
>
> No, you mean put on the ruby slippers and click your heels 3 times.
>

Yeah I tried the ruby slippers once...but I'm so ugly my team mates said I should
have stayed in the closet.

--
JohnA(Kent,WA)

recoveryjones

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 12:07:00 AM3/23/04

to

Mike Page <mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message news:<mike.page-847BC...@news.supernews.com>...

> For the newer amongst you who have been reading about Hal Houle and his
> systems, here is a description that is I believe in his own words. It
> was posted here about 6.5 years ago. I've met Hal a few times. On the
> first occasion I spoke to him for a while, and then I played on the
> adjacent table while he schooled a couple people for several hours. The
> description below is pretty much what he was saying to them, and he was
> covering up the pockets and all that as well.
>
>
> mike page
> fargo

Hi Mike thanks for you post regarding Hal Houle's system, much
appreciated.I'm not amongst the sceptics regarding Hal Houle's
system.I really believe there is something to it and I'd really like
to be able to hook up with Hal some day to check it out.I have his
phone number and will probably have to have him explain it to me over
the phone as funds are on the low side because of an iminent(possibly
long) strike at my work anytime after April 1st.

I aim for the majority of my shots after looking at the pocket,
however, there are times IN PRACTICE when the balls are out in the
middle of the table where I haven't even had to look at the pocket and
just intuitivley knew where to hit it and have made the shot time and
time again.Having accomplished this (no pocket look)aiming on more
than one occasion gives me faith that there just might be something to
Hal's theories that I'd like to checkout a little further without
discounting what this man has to say.

FOR ME, I'd like to stay open-minded when someone is offering to teach
me something.Especially so when someone like Hal is offering to teach
it, absolutley FOR FREE, no strings attached. I've tried to teach
others some things and some are no-it-alls and have closed their
minds. Others have listened and added a new shot to their arsenal.
I've added new skills to my arsenal as well, by being teachable.RJ

John Barton

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 1:13:41 AM3/23/04

to

Well, at least we don't have to have to have the endless posts about how the
"system" is never described. I don't know about the math, I didn't learn
that part. I got the tin hat and I can make balls using what he showed me.

John

"Mike Page" <mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:mike.page-847BC...@news.supernews.com...

> For the newer amongst you who have been reading about Hal Houle and his
> systems, here is a description that is I believe in his own words. It
> was posted here about 6.5 years ago. I've met Hal a few times. On the
> first occasion I spoke to him for a while, and then I played on the
> adjacent table while he schooled a couple people for several hours. The
> description below is pretty much what he was saying to them, and he was
> covering up the pockets and all that as well.
>
>
> mike page
> fargo
>
>
> View: Complete Thread (14 articles)
> Original FormatNewsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
> Date: 1997/08/30
>
>
> TRATUS1 wrote:
> >
> > I received the following "pool secret" via E-mail from 2 different
people.
> > Has anyone else received this secret? Has anyone tested the contents of
the
> > message for validity or is it just a bunch of bull?
> > *
> >
> > "There are only 3 angles for any shot, on any size table. This includes;
> > caroms, single rail banks, double rail banks, 1, 2, 3, and 4 rail banks,
> > and double kiss banks. Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4

1Z2

Smorgass Bored

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 2:19:14 AM3/23/04

to

John Collins needs fashion help:

I don't know about the math, I didn't learn that part. I got the tin hat
and I can make balls using what he showed me.
John

(*<~ That's not tin, it's aluminum foil.

keepin it short & sweet..... imo

Doug
~>*(((>< Big fish eat Little fish ><)))*<~

JoeyA

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 10:45:16 AM3/23/04

to

I know you must be referring to the Figueroa aiming system but I am sorry
but I must have missed this part about the blinking. Can you tell me with
which eye or eyes that I should be blinking and which sequence.
Thanks in advance for your help.
JoeyA

"lfigueroa" <lfig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:cVI7c.7163$tY6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> 1Z2

Snoozy

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 11:46:55 AM3/23/04

to

Patrick Johnson wrote

> With even the most cursory look his "mathematical relationships" fall
> apart. For instance, 2/3 of the angles on the table and the system's
> cut angles are not as he says,

So 1/3 of the shots work like 'magic'... which is an improvement for
some people. And the other 2/3 shots come close. Because he says it
must work, then when you shoot one of the other 2/3 shots and miss by
just a little bit, then you may think it was your own fault, you just
didn't aim at that quarter spot quite right, so next time you make a
little adjustment... to get it right. Or you use the edge of the cue
ball to aim but to shoot you must parralel shift the cue to get to the
spot on the cue you actually must hit to get the leave you want so it
would be easy to get a little error in there. You would believe that
was your fault as well and next time make a little adjustment. After
a while those adjustments become subconscious and the system works a
little better. Or maybe you start thinking "this shot I use left edge
to left quarter and then add just a tad more". Or perhaps there is an
additional system that will then add these adjustments for you and he
just hasn't told us yet because we're not very nice people.

Bad Snoozy

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 12:00:13 PM3/23/04

to

Me:

>>With even the most cursory look his "mathematical relationships" fall
>>apart. For instance, 2/3 of the angles on the table and the system's
>>cut angles are not as he says,

Bad Snoozy:

> So 1/3 of the shots work like 'magic'...

Actually, that just means that 1/3 of the numerology junk isn't
blatantly untrue statements (the other 2/3 are like saying the sun rises
in the west). Regardless, NONE of the numerology junk has anything to
do with making shots (just like where the sun rises doesn't, even if you
get the direction right).

As for the actual ball fractions stuff (the actual objective "meat" of
the system), maybe up to half of those cuts will find pockets -- unless
you start counting banks, in which case I guess it doesn't matter where
you aim: if you hit it hard enough it will eventually go in somewhere.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

Tony DeAngelo

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 12:21:33 PM3/23/04

to

JoeyA wrote:
> I know you must be referring to the Figueroa aiming system but I am sorry
> but I must have missed this part about the blinking. Can you tell me with
> which eye or eyes that I should be blinking and which sequence.
> Thanks in advance for your help.
> JoeyA

Lou is so secretive. Point of business (as BB Thornton would say) you
only need to blink once. Very important! Must be preceeded by a rapid
folding of arms in front of body!

Tony---> Or wiggle your nose...

Glenn Deneweth

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 12:34:10 PM3/23/04

to

Patrick

>Regardless, NONE of the numerology junk has anything to
> do with making shots (just like where the sun rises doesn't, even if you
> get the direction right).

I have a very simply philosophy on this. If a person can't aim the
cueball at an object ball to sink that ball in a pocket, what makes anyone
think they can hit 1/3, 2/3 etc of the object ball to make it into the
pocket accurately using an aiming system. I believe if a person can not
look at an object ball and determine the correct 'spot' of contact... well
maybe they should take up shuffleboard. There is ONLY one way of getting it
right....and I think we all know what that is.

Glenn

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 2:10:47 PM3/23/04

to

Glenn Deneweth wrote:

> ... There is ONLY one way of getting it

> right....and I think we all know what that is.

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 5:15:46 PM3/23/04

to

>PJ

> Even if you don't think you use a "system", my guess is that you really
> do to one degree or another. Maybe more than one.

I use the system to get the ball in the pocket.... Is that to simplified?

Glenn

lfigueroa

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 5:41:54 PM3/23/04

to

Both eyes at the same time.

You're welcome.

Lou Figueroa

"JoeyA" <jo...@1Pofficespecialties.net> wrote in message
news:c3pl2o$rg4$1...@news.datasync.com...

lfigueroa

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 5:44:13 PM3/23/04

to

I agree. IMO, there really is no good aiming system other than to get down
on a shot and be able to say to yourself, "If I pull the trigger now, the
ball goes into the pocket." I'll even go a little further out on a limb and
say that aiming systems are really more of a crutch for a bad stroke. IOW,
if you can consistently produce the same stroke and alignment you just know
the ball is going to go -- you're not really aiming, you're just looking
at the ball and by making minor adjustments with your bridge and grip hands
you get to the point where everything looks right and you shoot. No ghost
ball, no fractions or edges of any ball. You just go.

Lou Figueroa

"dalecue" <pdg...@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:2508c.10712$tY6.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Shawn Armstrong

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 6:06:00 PM3/23/04

to

Lou,

I've always been considered a pretty good player in terms of shotmaking
ability, and I use a system. I think the problem with calling a routine a
"system" is that people start to think that it's etched in stone that it
works. I've learned Hal's system, and Chin's system, and the system I use
is more of a "confirmation" system. I eye the shot up from above in the
standing position. As soon as I've figured out the proper line the cueball
has to travel, I plant my back foot on that line. I make any conpensations
for english, or any sort of throw that might happen due to the cut angle.
Once I'm locked in, then I confirm by looking at the contact point on the OB
and really try to fine tune my focus. Then, I concentrate on the
straightest, most fluid stroke possible. I did this for over 6 months of
playing, and eventually the system became the way that I shoot. There has
to be some form of "ritual" or "system" that a good or advanced player
employs if he/she is to remain consistent, and at a competent level of play.
I'm not an advocate for anyone's aiming system. I think players should
concentrate on a "shooting system" instead of focusing all of their time and
energy learning any sort of aiming system. I decided to seek help from a
professional instructor, as my game wasn't progressing awhile back. He
ended up spending almost an entire day in helping me develop a shooting
ritual/system that helped me break through to the next level.

Shawn Armstrong

"lfigueroa" <lfig...@att.net> wrote in message

news:1538c.26250$PY1.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

lfigueroa

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 6:26:48 PM3/23/04

to

oh, I agree and that part was unsaid, only because I've advocating
developing a consistent pre-shot routine for so long here, I didn't want to
beat that horse again.

Lou Figueroa

"Shawn Armstrong" <shawn.armstrong@cogecodotca> wrote in message
news:sw38c.8680$R37....@read1.cgocable.net...

Glenn Deneweth

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 6:14:34 PM3/23/04

to

PJ says...

> I think you're oversimplifying. A very basic example is simply
> understanding the object ball contact point and where the cue ball has
> to be to contact it.

I've been thinking more about it, no I don't use and aiming system, unless
of course you count aiming the cue ball at the object ball into the corner
pocket. But I don't know the name of that system. I guess the question
to you Pat is, in all cases when someone shoots a ball into a pocket, are
they using an aiming system?

PJ also said....

> Even if you don't think you use a "system", my guess is that you really
> do to one degree or another. Maybe more than one.

Nope, I know only a couple of the systems (Not all) and I don't use any of
them. Especially the ghost ball. I do all my aiming from above, get down
and shoot, it's part of my PSR. I methodically approach each shot the same
way, and most importantly, I invision the shot happenning, cue ball movement
and so on. When I get down to shoot, I pay attention to everything,
especially how the cue stick felt hitting the cue ball, so if that's an
aiming system, then I would admit I use one, not sure what it's called
though. I have more steps in my PSR but I won't bore you with the
details... :-)

Glenn

lfigueroa

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 6:59:35 PM3/23/04

to

ah, "PSR." A new RSB acronym. I like it.

Lou Figueroa

"Glenn Deneweth" <gden...@ccogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:Jy38c.8539$n37.1...@read2.cgocable.net...

JoeBLow

unread,

Mar 23, 2004, 10:39:53 PM3/23/04

to

Jackass [Pat],

If you think that there is only one contact point, then you have finally
irreversibly labeled yourself as a complete dumbass (you were only 99.3% of
the way there previously).

"Patrick Johnson" <patrick.jo...@THIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:10612tv...@news.supernews.com...

Tony DeAngelo

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 1:16:17 AM3/24/04

to

lfigueroa wrote:
> ah, "PSR." A new RSB acronym. I like it.
>
> Lou Figueroa

I agree. Much better than the usual "STFU".

Glenn Deneweth

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 8:35:39 AM3/24/04

to

> ah, "PSR." A new RSB acronym. I like it.
>
> Lou Figueroa
>

My little contribution to history.

Glenn

Glenn Deneweth

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 8:49:07 AM3/24/04

to

>Lou

> oh, I agree and that part was unsaid, only because I've advocating
> developing a consistent pre-shot routine for so long here, I didn't want
to
> beat that horse again.

My game progressed very quickly when I started using a PSR. I've been
playing pool for 15 years, and was a pretty good player, as soon as I
started using a PSR, well I couldn't believe how fast I was advancing. I
have a few PSR's now. I have one for 9 ball, one for breaking, one of jump
shots etc.

To anyone else reading this that doesn't have a PSR (Pre-shot routine) start
working on one. Your game will improve, in fact I beleive it to be the only
way to really play the game, otherwise your just banging balls.

Glenn

Erik Jørgensen

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 9:10:07 AM3/24/04

to

* Glenn Deneweth (gden...@ccogeco.ca):

> To anyone else reading this that doesn't have a PSR (Pre-shot routine)
> start working on one. Your game will improve, in fact I beleive it to
> be the only way to really play the game, otherwise your just banging
> balls.

Care to expand on how you developed yours?

--
Erik «Macint0sh» Jørgensen, Norway

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 9:14:06 AM3/24/04

to

JoeBLow wrote:
> Jackass [Pat],
>
> If you think that there is only one contact point, then you have finally
> irreversibly labeled yourself as a complete dumbass (you were only 99.3% of
> the way there previously).

LOL.

Slow news day in Blowville, I'm guessing...

(Aren't they all?)
pj
chgo

Glenn Deneweth

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 9:58:08 AM3/24/04

to

Shawn had a pretty good explanation of his PSR. This is how I came up with
mine. A master player where I live started teaching pool, he introduced me
to the importance of a PSR. He gave me a print out of about 30 things I
should include in my PSR. I found this to be an absolutely crazy amount of
information to process on each shot. So I took that model and created my
own. It goes something like this, very similar to Shawn's, but I have a
very important step at the end that elevated my game in a big way.

(some of this stuff may sound stupid, but it's what I do)

Search for the Chalk
Chalk my stick while evaluating the table
Can I run out?

Yes - Determine shooting order of balls (This may include determining
what shape I need to obtain for particular balls)
Do I need to break out any trouble balls, if so how do I do so and at
what point

No - Determine at what point to shoot safe.

(during this exercise I am chalking or stroking the cue stick, getting a
feel for the stick)

Once I determine the shot I'm going to take, I step back, determine what
english I need to put on the cue ball, I line the shot up, and determine
exactly where I need the cue ball to be after the shot, I determine how hard
I need to shoot the cue ball. I envision the shot in my head, shooting it,
feeling what the cue stick is going to feel like hitting the cue ball etc.

At this point I place my right foot, then the left, and I go into my stance.
At this time, I already have aimed my shot from above, if at any time I find
my self adjusting my aim while I am already down, I stand back up and start
the process over. If anything out of the ordinary distracts me, I stand
back up.

I execute the shot when I am sure I am 100% satisfied.

I pay special attention to the stroke and remember everything that happened
during that shot. I feel the way the cue stick hits the ball, and monitor
where the cue ball went (This is very important) if anything goes wrong, I
can usually figure it out instantly and make adjustments in the future.

But doing the exact same thing, every time, I able to make slight changes
to my PSR to make it better. But more importantly I think, I was able to
increase my percentage of getting the exact shape I need. I use to try and
muscle the cue ball into position, now I let it flow there. If something
happens that I didn't expect, I try to remember for next time. Also, if you
are one of those people who lose a game, or do a bad shot that gets you
flustered, then this is your cure. Because your not playing your emotions
as much anymore, you are playing with your PSR, and you have confidence
because you know it works. It's the only way to play when under pressure...

Hope that wasn't too long winded.

Glenn

"Erik Jørgensen" <macint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94B69A4D8...@130.133.1.4...

Nat

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 12:55:09 PM3/24/04

to

GAWD! Whoever thinks Pat ain't too swift, needs help. :o)
nat

"JoeBLow" <joe...@noblow.net> wrote in message
news:3q78c.10434$Ft.3279@lakeread02...

Nat

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 1:16:11 PM3/24/04

to

Not "stupid" to me! I printed out and am puting it aon the wall of my
poolroom.
Thanks,
nat

Erik Jørgensen

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 1:41:45 PM3/24/04

to

* Glenn Deneweth (gden...@ccogeco.ca):

[ psr ]

Tap, tap. Good post, maket it worth wading though the flamewars.

bp

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 2:06:37 PM3/24/04

to

Also once you "get it right" (your aim) how do you hit the spot ?
I've always felt I could aim fine (some shots I see better than other)
but hitting the spot was my real difficulty.

>Glenn
>
>

dalecue

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 9:53:30 PM3/24/04

to

lfigueroa wrote in message <1538c.26250
$PY1.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

>I agree. IMO, there really is no good aiming system other than to get down
>on a shot and be able to say to yourself, "If I pull the trigger now, the
>ball goes into the pocket." I'll even go a little further out on a limb
and
>say that aiming systems are really more of a crutch for a bad stroke. IOW,
>if you can consistently produce the same stroke and alignment you just know
>the ball is going to go -- you're not really aiming, you're just looking
>at the ball and by making minor adjustments with your bridge and grip hands
>you get to the point where everything looks right and you shoot. No ghost
>ball, no fractions or edges of any ball. You just go.
>
>Lou Figueroa

these are very good points - as is the downthread idea of a pre-shot
routine - I personally split a PSR into a separate concept from aiming
tho my use of the term 'aiming' might be closer to what the Brits
refer to as 'sighting' - not that where you put your feet, and how you
get them there, etc, etc doesn't matter - but to me all that is PSR,
not aiming

I think the very important point the children-of-Hal miss is that a
'system' may be a good tool to help you LEARN how to pocket balls,
but it is not a good method for PLAYING - rather it is, as you said, a
crutch, which soon becomes a hinderance- and will limit your
improvement

bottom line: there is no Royal Road - you want to get to Carnige Hall
practice, practice, practice - period

also very important - your description of how you aim - in pop culture
psycobabble that is what is referd to as 'internalized' - no concious
thought is required because the routine is so ingrained that none
is necessary - at some point, it should be the same with a PSR

ask any really good player who has ever been 'in the zone'
IMHO they will tell you

you don't think about where to put your feet
you don't think about aiming the edge of the cue ball at 117/237ths
of the object ball
you don't think about anything

you just look - and you KNOW what to do - and you never miss

Dale<fun when it happens>

dalecue

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 10:01:35 PM3/24/04

to

Glenn Deneweth wrote in message ...

you have hit the nail squarely upon the head

Dale

>
>
>
>
>

dalecue

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 10:07:35 PM3/24/04

to

Patrick Johnson wrote in message <10618kj...@news.supernews.com>...

Dale adjust his Semantics Police uniform and strides to the podium
to state:

IMHO visualizing a ghost ball, as opposed to a contact point, or an
overlap area - do not constitute diferent aiming systems - and are not
aiming 'systems' at all

might be just a preference for terminology

Dale
>
>Pat Johnson
>Chicago
>

Jack Stein

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 10:39:30 PM3/24/04

to

Glenn Deneweth wrote:

>A master player where I live started teaching pool, he introduced me
> to the importance of a PSR.

Your routine sounds about the same as Jimmy Reids, which is what has
helped me out the most once I decided to work on it. What really got me
interested though was watching people screw up easy shots under
pressure, particularly the money ball. Plenty of very good players I
watched run the rack down to the last ball or two and then too often
screw up when it was easy, not so much when there was some difficulty.
(I was among them) What I noticed was the PSR seemed to change on the
easy shots at the end of a run. When I forced myself to mechanically go
through the PSR on the easy money ball (One naturally does it when the
degree of difficulty is high) I quit missing the easy ones.

> Because your not playing your emotions
> as much anymore, you are playing with your PSR, and you have
> confidence because you know it works. It's the only way to play when
> under pressure...

Excellent point worth repeating.

>To anyone else reading this that doesn't have a PSR (Pre-shot routine)
>start working on one. Your game will improve, in fact I beleive it to
>be the only way to really play the game, otherwise your just banging
>balls.

Tap Tap!
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

lfigueroa

unread,

Mar 25, 2004, 7:52:14 AM3/25/04

to

The internalization part takes time. A lot of time on the table.

Ferinstance, when I'm figuring position and where to hit the cue ball, I'm
usually thinking something like, "Hit it about there with about that much
stroke." But when I'm playing well, I notice that I will often get an
irresistible urge to just shoot the shot even though there's a conscious
part of my brain screaming "Wait a minute!!! You haven't thought this
through yet!!" But I'll go a head anyway and the ball drops and the cue
ball comes out just so. It's discombobulating the first few times this
happens, but then, as it keeps coming out just right, you just learn to
trust your instincts.

Lou Figueroa

"dalecue" <pdg...@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:KQr8c.33972$PY1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Mar 25, 2004, 9:34:54 AM3/25/04

to

dalecue wrote:

> IMHO visualizing a ghost ball, as opposed to a contact point, or an
> overlap area - do not constitute diferent aiming systems

They're different methods for reaching the same result, which is true
for all successful aiming methods. The question is whether any "method"
is a "system".

> - and are not aiming 'systems' at all

The point I'm making is that consistent "methods" are "systems", and
most players are probably more methodical than they think. The real
difference is in how consciously the methods are followed.

> might be just a preference for terminology

Terminology can obscure the truth as well as illuminate it. I'm trying
to show that there are similarities between all methods (systems),
particularly that they all include estimation to some degree and depend
on confidence in that estimation. In this way, they're all similar to
"systems" like Hal's, which seems to rely heavily on confidence
building. He builds confidence in the system itself rather than in the
estimation, which appeals to many. I don't think this is uncommon for
"geometrically incorrect" systems.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

Glenn Deneweth

unread,

Mar 25, 2004, 9:49:01 AM3/25/04

to

PJ

> The point I'm making is that consistent "methods" are "systems", and
> most players are probably more methodical than they think. The real
> difference is in how consciously the methods are followed.

Players on my team thought the same thing. Although, if that is true, then
anything we do in life would be consisdered a system. A system for walking,
running etc. So I guess it's really ones interrpretation of what they
believe the definition of an 'Aiming System' to be, so probably there is not
right or wrong answer here.

Glenn

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Mar 25, 2004, 10:09:40 AM3/25/04

to

Glenn Deneweth wrote:

> ... probably there is not right or wrong answer here.

I agree. I'm just trying to turn the stone to see more facets of the truth.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

David Malone

unread,

Mar 24, 2004, 10:07:35 AM3/24/04

to

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:58:08 -0500, "Glenn Deneweth"
<gden...@ccogeco.ca> wrote:

>It goes something like this, very similar to Shawn's, but I have a
>very important step at the end that elevated my game in a big way.

Reminder: put Glenn in the smaller flight of the round robin at the
next GWN with the other 'slow' players...

David "The Hamster" Malone

Shawn Armstrong

unread,

Mar 25, 2004, 2:41:56 PM3/25/04

to

Dave,

What, no invite for the other Canadian? I would have gone this year, but I
didn't know that the GWN was an open tournament for RSBers. I have seen the
same names appear for the past few years as entries, and figured it was a
private tournament. Can I reserve a spot for next year?

Shawn Armstrong

"David Malone" <mal...@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:4061a3dd....@ausnews.austin.ibm.com...

Adam Jacoby

unread,

Mar 25, 2004, 8:31:17 PM3/25/04

to

"Shawn Armstrong" <shawn.armstrong@cogecodotca> wrote in message

news:9JG8c.9046$R37....@read1.cgocable.net...

> Dave,
>
> What, no invite for the other Canadian? I would have gone this year, but
I
> didn't know that the GWN was an open tournament for RSBers. I have seen
the
> same names appear for the past few years as entries, and figured it was a
> private tournament. Can I reserve a spot for next year?
>
> Shawn Armstrong

Be careful Shawn, if you go up there and meet them, you just might get what
you deserve...

Shawn Armstrong

unread,

Mar 25, 2004, 9:59:33 PM3/25/04

to

Adam,

I think they hold the tourney at Coronation Billiards, which is about 30
minutes from home for me. If there's toom much waiting for me in terms of
"what I deserve", I can just turn around and go home. Besides, us Canadians
aren't violent people. We're the only country in the world that managed to
earn it's independence from the motherland by begging.

Shawn Armstrong

"Adam Jacoby" <jac...@REMOVEcharterTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:10671q4...@corp.supernews.com...

David Malone

unread,

Mar 26, 2004, 9:21:24 AM3/26/04

to

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:41:56 -0500, "Shawn Armstrong"
<shawn.armstrong@cogecodotca> wrote:

>What, no invite for the other Canadian? I would have gone this year, but I
>didn't know that the GWN was an open tournament for RSBers. I have seen the
>same names appear for the past few years as entries, and figured it was a
>private tournament. Can I reserve a spot for next year?

Shawn, it's an open tournament for ASP/RSB'ers so no reservations
required... plus we tend to have 2 or 3 a year so there'll likely be
another sometime this summer (maybe when Becky visits the folks in
Toronto). Glenn was supposed to play in the last one but didn't quite
make it - we usually have a few new players every tournament.

David "The Hamster" Malone

Glenn Deneweth

unread,

Mar 28, 2004, 8:15:00 PM3/28/04

to

>
> Shawn, it's an open tournament for ASP/RSB'ers so no reservations
> required... plus we tend to have 2 or 3 a year so there'll likely be
> another sometime this summer (maybe when Becky visits the folks in
> Toronto). Glenn was supposed to play in the last one but didn't quite
> make it - we usually have a few new players every tournament.
>
> David "The Hamster" Malone

I'm sorry I didn't make it, but business caught up with me. I will try and
make the next one.

Glenn

Joe

unread,

Mar 29, 2004, 7:43:01 AM3/29/04

to

Could you post those 30 PSR tips?

"Glenn Deneweth" <gden...@ccogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:muh8c.8768$R37....@read1.cgocable.net...

David Malone

unread,

Mar 29, 2004, 9:21:05 AM3/29/04

to

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:15:00 -0500, "Glenn Deneweth"
<gden...@ccogeco.ca> wrote:

>I'm sorry I didn't make it, but business caught up with me. I will try and
>make the next one.

I'm still waiting for a note from your mother, young man... detention
is a distinct possibility...

David "The Hamster" Malone

David Malone

unread,

Mar 29, 2004, 1:16:27 PM3/29/04

to

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:52:14 GMT, "lfigueroa" <lfig...@att.net>
wrote:

>It's discombobulating the first few times this
>happens, but then, as it keeps coming out just right, you just learn to
>trust your instincts.

My instincts are always accurate. For instance if I think to myself,
"there's a good chance I'll scratch in the side pocket if I do that so
I'd better make an adjustment..." I will INVARIABLY scratch in the
side pocket anyway. The brain is a powerful thing.

Now if I could only convince my brain that I won't scratch and will
make the shot instead, I'd be on to something.

David "The Hamster" Malone

Pat Hall

unread,

Mar 29, 2004, 2:02:34 PM3/29/04

to

O pro player once told me that on shots that look like they won't go but
will almost go if you just believe they will go and shoot them like they
will go then a surprising percent of them will actually go. Just got to
have a little faith I guess. Kind of mind over matter.

PatH

Nat

unread,

Mar 29, 2004, 4:57:47 PM3/29/04

to

> My instincts are always accurate. For instance if I think to myself,
> "there's a good chance I'll scratch in the side pocket if I do that so
> I'd better make an adjustment..." I will INVARIABLY scratch in the
> side pocket anyway. The brain is a powerful thing.

> David "The Hamster" Malone

WOW! You really made my day! I thought I was the only one who, considering a
shot, thinks "H'm, that's pretty close to a scratch." So then I shoot AND
SCRATCH!"

I then kick myself all around the room, swearing, "I''ve GOT to stop doing
that!"

Yeah, right.
nat

darren

unread,

Mar 31, 2004, 2:43:54 PM3/31/04

to

Patrick Johnson <patrick.jo...@THIScomcast.net> wrote in message news:<105u8of...@news.supernews.com>...
> This is the same thing I've read (and another one or two similar things
> that are supposed to be from Hal). The first part is what I call Hal's
> "numerological pep talk"
(snip)
> But I think it's nonsense with a purpose. This stuff is what I've
> called Hal's "added value" for the old and well known "ball fractions"
> aiming system -- the way I've supposed that he gives his students
> confidence that the system can't fail. I still think it can be helpful
> to some: those who don't immediately see this jabber for what it is and
> need a system whose most important aspect is that they can believe it's
> infallible. It's more religion than science, but I guess that's what
> some players need.

There is a lot of jabber and it is a fractions system. But i'm posting
only because i think (at least) one of Hal's approaches offers
something that i haven't seen recognized in any of the numerous
threads and posts about Hal's system(s). And i did find it useful.

At least, a little of what i learned from someone on this group a year
or two ago, indicates a method that is a lot more effective for people
who have trouble visualizing contact points or a ghost ball.

The way i heard it, you aim one of three points on the cueball at the
edge of the objectball. That's three cut angles, which i don't believe
make any ball on the table. But what the approach offers is a way to
line up the 3 shots keying off of different points/fractions of the
near object (the cueball) instead of points on a far round object
(the objectball).

Aiming the 3/4 section of the cueball at the edge of the objectball
instead of the center or whole of the cueball aimed at 3/4ths of the
objectball may sound like the same thing but it's easier for some to
see/visualize using the former. also, i can line my cue right through
3/4 of the cueball with greater confidence than i can point at 3/4ths
of the objectball.

at least, that's what i got out of it.
darren.

john.l

unread,

Aug 17, 2004, 5:32:51 PM8/17/04

to

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:08:27 -0600, Mike Page
<mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:

>For the newer amongst you who have been reading about Hal Houle and his
>systems, here is a description that is I believe in his own words. It
>was posted here about 6.5 years ago. I've met Hal a few times. On the
>first occasion I spoke to him for a while, and then I played on the
>adjacent table while he schooled a couple people for several hours. The
>description below is pretty much what he was saying to them, and he was
>covering up the pockets and all that as well.

Mike, I know this was posted some time ago, but when you saw Hal
demonstrating his system, was he getting his pupils to sink the balls
every time? or should I say most of the time?

Were his pupils ecstatic at the results?

I get difficulty in visualizing the aiming of an edge of the cue ball
with a point on the object ball. Was the cue aligned with the centre
of the object ball, but parallel to the line of aim when at the
address position?

Best wishes

John L

Mike Page

unread,

Aug 17, 2004, 5:35:23 PM8/17/04

to

In article <41257351...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
jo...@lewis.co.uk (john.l) wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:08:27 -0600, Mike Page
> <mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>
> >For the newer amongst you who have been reading about Hal Houle and his
> >systems, here is a description that is I believe in his own words. It
> >was posted here about 6.5 years ago. I've met Hal a few times. On the
> >first occasion I spoke to him for a while, and then I played on the
> >adjacent table while he schooled a couple people for several hours. The
> >description below is pretty much what he was saying to them, and he was
> >covering up the pockets and all that as well.
>
> Mike, I know this was posted some time ago, but when you saw Hal
> demonstrating his system, was he getting his pupils to sink the balls
> every time? or should I say most of the time?
>
> Were his pupils ecstatic at the results?

I was playing, and I wasn't paying attention to the details. I remember
them paying attention and seeming interested.

>
> I get difficulty in visualizing the aiming of an edge of the cue ball
> with a point on the object ball. Was the cue aligned with the centre
> of the object ball, but parallel to the line of aim when at the
> address position?

I'm the wrong person to ask. I haven't tried to decipher the code.

Jim Wyant

unread,

Aug 17, 2004, 6:35:48 PM8/17/04

to

On 8/17/04 5:35 PM, in article
mike.page-BA551...@news.supernews.com, "Mike Page"
<mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:

> In article <41257351...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> jo...@lewis.co.uk (john.l) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:08:27 -0600, Mike Page
>> <mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> For the newer amongst you who have been reading about Hal Houle and his
>>> systems, here is a description that is I believe in his own words. It
>>> was posted here about 6.5 years ago. I've met Hal a few times. On the
>>> first occasion I spoke to him for a while, and then I played on the
>>> adjacent table while he schooled a couple people for several hours. The
>>> description below is pretty much what he was saying to them, and he was
>>> covering up the pockets and all that as well.
>>
>> Mike, I know this was posted some time ago, but when you saw Hal
>> demonstrating his system, was he getting his pupils to sink the balls
>> every time? or should I say most of the time?
>>
>> Were his pupils ecstatic at the results?

I think incredulous was my first result. We're all cynics; anlaytical to a
fault. Even 2 years later, when my game is off and I start thinking about
what I'm doing wrong, generally it is because I've added too much complexity
and thought to an otherwise simple process.

>
> I was playing, and I wasn't paying attention to the details. I remember
> them paying attention and seeming interested.
>
>>
>> I get difficulty in visualizing the aiming of an edge of the cue ball
>> with a point on the object ball. Was the cue aligned with the centre
>> of the object ball, but parallel to the line of aim when at the
>> address position?
>
> I'm the wrong person to ask. I haven't tried to decipher the code.

It's hard to describe in words only, you need to agree on reference points
to anchor your discussion. The problem with trying to 'splain too much here
is the naysayers would rather take the discussion off-course and nit-pick
things than simply try it.

But, I'd be willing to bet that if you mention where you are at, somebody
with a decoder ring will email or post that they will meet up with you and
show you the ropes. I've done that on a number of occassions.

BTW, I have it on excellent authority that a very well known pool school is
now formally teaching these systems.

--Jim

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Aug 17, 2004, 7:07:33 PM8/17/04

to

Jim Wyant wrote:

> ... The problem with trying to 'splain too much here

> is the naysayers would rather take the discussion off-course and nit-pick
> things than simply try it.

Bullshit. The problem with trying to explain this here is that you
CAN'T. You want to sell this "nit-pickers" excuse so you won't have to
admit that you bought into a "system" that you don't understand, can't
describe, and is probably nonsense.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

Jim Wyant

unread,

Aug 17, 2004, 7:37:27 PM8/17/04

to

On 8/17/04 7:07 PM, in article hMednXfmzYo...@comcast.com, "Patrick
Johnson" <patrick.jo...@THIScomcast.net> wrote:

Bullshit. I understand it. I have shown it to several people, all of whom
got it, including a BCA Master Instructor. Every time I started to write
about it, YOU went on a nit's rampage, attacking the sentences and words
rather than focusing on the concepts. I quit writing about it at the
request of Hal Houle; I chose to honor that request at this time.

Your problem PJ, is that you like to act like an elitist....dry humor and
all. Amazing how you're willing to criticize what you won't invest the time
to experiment with / learn.

--Jim

Bob Jewett

unread,

Aug 17, 2004, 7:50:59 PM8/17/04

to

Jim Wyant <j.w...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> BTW, I have it on excellent authority that a very well known
> pool school is now formally teaching these systems.

Which one?

--

Bob Jewett
http://www.sfbilliards.com/

Bob Jewett

unread,

Aug 17, 2004, 7:53:30 PM8/17/04

to

Jim Wyant <j.w...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> ... I understand it. I have shown it to several people, all

> of whom got it, including a BCA Master Instructor.

Which Master Instructor? Since I didn't understand the
explanation you posted here, maybe I can get a different
take from him/her.

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Aug 17, 2004, 8:23:04 PM8/17/04

to

Jim Wyant wrote:

> ... Every time I started to write

> about it, YOU went on a nit's rampage, attacking the sentences and words
> rather than focusing on the concepts.

LOL. You've never described one coherent "concept" about this system.
Show us one and prove me wrong.

Just one.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

Jim Wyant

unread,

Aug 17, 2004, 9:24:43 PM8/17/04

to

On 8/17/04 8:23 PM, in article bdudnYcNw53...@comcast.com, "Patrick
Johnson" <patrick.jo...@THIScomcast.net> wrote:

Define coherent. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it isn't
coherent. It was clear enough that a number of readers here emailed me
about it. I had several follow up conversations and sent along some
diagrams I had constructed that Hal reviewed.

But as I said, Hal asked me not to feed the trolls any more. I have about
30 pages of write-ups, pages of diagrams, and about 6 hours of video. At
some point, if Hal doesn't commit this to paper, I will.

I'll be happy to "show" it anyone given they are willing to spend a couple
of hours. What they do with it after that is up to them.

--Jim

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Aug 17, 2004, 11:37:43 PM8/17/04

to

Me:
>>... You've never described one coherent "concept" about this system.

>>Show us one and prove me wrong.

Jim Clinton:
> Define coherent.

I understand. You brought this up but you're too busy teaching grateful
players the "concepts" to bother with backing up your accusations. Hey,
I bet you'd appreciate me finding one or two of your descriptions from
the past to help you prove your point. No problem, buddy. You just go
about your important business and I'll take care of it.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

Tom Bellhouse

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 8:14:49 AM8/18/04

to

Pat,

I got an email from Hal the other day, and after following it up, I've
made arrangements to meet him and see his method at work. I'm
objectively interested in his aiming system, and since he seems like a
good guy, it should be fun.

Here's my question: What specific questions would you like me to pose
to Hal that would help you learn more about his method of aiming? I'll
be glad to ask those questions and share the answers to those questions
with you and the group (with Hal's permission, of course.) I'm not
talking about a question like "How does it work?" I'm thinking that
there would be specific questions that you might ask him that would
better define the system he uses, and that would make an objective
evaluation of his methods possible.

I grew up playing with a couple of old men who occasionally gave me
hints about shotmaking. In most cases their account of how it worked
physically was dead wrong, but the results were right on. Maybe that's
the case here, maybe not. I'm taking an open-minded view.

Best regards,

Tom
===========

"Patrick Johnson" <patrick.jo...@THIScomcast.net> wrote in

message news:WqadnZjXA_q...@comcast.com...

Mike Page

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 8:38:55 AM8/18/04

to

In article <10927868...@emperor.labs.agilent.com>,
Bob Jewett <jew...@sfbilliards.com> wrote:

> Jim Wyant <j.w...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > ... I understand it. I have shown it to several people, all
> > of whom got it, including a BCA Master Instructor.
>
> Which Master Instructor? Since I didn't understand the
> explanation you posted here, maybe I can get a different
> take from him/her.

Don't hold your breath. I think that instructor is Tom Simpson. Here
is an exchange from last February:

**********************************
Jim W says,

> Case(s) In Point:
> -----------------
> Tom Simpson is a BCA Advanced Instructor (and close friend). I tried to
> explain it to Tom 2-3 times and it just didn't go anywhere. The next time
> we were on the table, within 10 minutes he was shaking his head and saying
> "I see it, I just don't understand why it works". Within 30 minutes we had
> to stop because it was "giving him a headache".
> [...]
>

I reply:

Hi Jim -

We haven't seen much of Tom in a while. I would be interested in
hearing his perspectives on some of this. When you see him, will you
tell him I said that?
**********************************

Mike Page

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 8:52:08 AM8/18/04

to

In article <10927866...@emperor.labs.agilent.com>,
Bob Jewett <jew...@sfbilliards.com> wrote:

> Jim Wyant <j.w...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > BTW, I have it on excellent authority that a very well known
> > pool school is now formally teaching these systems.
>
> Which one?

When I was in South Dakota last fall, I spoke to a fellow who had just
had that texas pool school (Randy G?) come to their poolroom for a
couple days. He told me lots of stuff they did. One of the things he
showed me was "aim & pivot backhand english." (I don't remember what he
called it). I don't think they were necessarily advocating it--just
showing them lots of things. This fellow was amazed when I pulled two
cues out of my bag: one for which bhe works like a charm on a shot of my
choice, and the other of which it's a disaster on the same shot.
"That's amazing!" he said. "I wonder if they know about that."

Another thing he mentioned that caught my attention had to do with three
angles. When I asked further, he said it was just a small part and that
they were shown these three angles and warned that of course these were
just convenient reference points--that you'd have to choose many
ball-ball orientations between to actually make shots....

I don't know if this is what JW is talking about.

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 9:58:03 AM8/18/04

to

Tom Bellhouse wrote:

> ... What specific questions would you like me to pose

> to Hal that would help you learn more about his method of aiming?

His "three angle" system claims that any object ball which isn't either
a straight shot or a "thin cut" can be made by cutting it at one of
three pre-determined angles: 14 degrees, 30 degrees or 49 degrees (he
calls these angles 15, 30 and 45, but no matter). The angles are made
by aiming the edge or center of the CB at an edge, quarter or center of
the OB. The alignments are made as follows:

- for a 14 degree left cut, you can aim the left edge of the CB at the
left quarter of the OB or you can aim the center of the CB at the right
quarter of the OB - these are both the same alignment.

- for a 30 degree left cut, you can aim the left edge of the CB at the
center of the OB or you can aim the center of the CB at the right edge
of the OB - these are both the same alignment.

- for a 49 degree left cut, you can aim the left edge of the CB at the
right quarter of the OB.

Reverse these directions for right cuts.

[I've made a graphic of these alignments, which you can see at Bob
Jewett's San Francisco Billiards Academy website:
http://www.sfbilliards.com/IndexXAiming.gif]

The question:

Ask Hal to show you that a 22-degree shot 3 feet from the pocket can be
made with his system (a shot right between the 14-degree and the
30-degree angles). And don't let him do his "cover the pocket and shoot
'til you make it" routine. Be a little scientific: set up a frozen OB
combo at the measured angle and shoot that.

When it's clear that you can't make the 22-degree, 3-foot shot with the
system, have Hal explain what you should do when you encounter that
otherwise easy shot. Not shoot it because the system doesn't cover it?
Play safe? Have your opponent cover the pocket and let you shoot the
shot over and over until your stars are aligned?

If I've misrepresented how the system works, let us know how. If you
plan to relate Hal's numerology or "rotating edges" ramblings, I advise
you to wear a wizard's hat.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

Dan White

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 10:50:13 AM8/18/04

to

"Tom Bellhouse" <alt...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:YKHUc.337$Oa6...@fe39.usenetserver.com...

> Pat,
>
> I got an email from Hal the other day, and after following it up, I've
> made arrangements to meet him and see his method at work. I'm
> objectively interested in his aiming system, and since he seems like a
> good guy, it should be fun.

>
> Here's my question: What specific questions would you like me to pose
> to Hal that would help you learn more about his method of aiming? I'll
> be glad to ask those questions and share the answers to those questions
> with you and the group (with Hal's permission, of course.) I'm not
> talking about a question like "How does it work?" I'm thinking that
> there would be specific questions that you might ask him that would
> better define the system he uses, and that would make an objective
> evaluation of his methods possible.

That's not the issue. Hal's system is very easy to understand. Hal just
prefers it not to be debated here. The only thing I can add to Pat's post
in this thread is you just forget about the cue orientation when you make
the shot. Just line up your eye behind the angles Pat mentions and fire
away. The cue angle isn't supposed to matter. Hal has several other
systems like "center to edge," but they all are supposed to achieve the same
thing through slightly different methods.

dwhite

Jtiche

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 11:05:15 AM8/18/04

to

I get the feeling the really greats in pool are like the really greats in every
other sport, Wayne Gretzky and Joe Montana come to mind. I don't think they
had reference points or made any conscious effort to aim anything, they just
had a feel for it that came natural. The puck went in the goal and the
football went into Jerry Rice's hand, beautiful to watch. You either gots it
or you don't. Everyone ain't gonna be another Francisco Bustamante so relax
and have fun. Its not like you're doing it for a living.

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 5:26:12 PM8/18/04

to

"dalecue" <pdg...@worldnet.spamex.net> wrote in message
news:KlPUc.222476$OB3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Dale,

Not to start a back-and-forth, but according to the rules that govern
<describe> the physical world, bees can't fly. Your position aassumes
that all the rules are known, and that you're looking for evidence of
those rules and discounting counter-evidence (or failing ot apply the
appropriate rules to the phenomenon, from the myriad rules and
relationships in the physical world that we know about.) You might
enjoy reading a guy named Karl Popper on the subject of the advancement
of science, if you're so inclined.

If somebody tells me that stuffing a bean in your nose before you shoot
will make you pocket balls, I doubt anybody would rush out and buy
beans. I wouldn't. But if I see 100 guys who previously couldn't shoot
a lick, now with beans in their noses and running rack after rack, I
might feel better about trying the bean technique myself.

I just don't think people should avoid new or different ideas just
because those don't fit their preconceptions. Like I said, keeping an
open mind doesn't hurt. I'll let you know what I think, and try to find
an answer to Pat's question in the process.

Best regards,

Tom

Bob Jewett

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 5:28:19 PM8/18/04

to

dalecue <pdg...@worldnet.spamex.net> wrote:

> balls being knocked into pockets is a real world example of the
> specific application of some of the rules that govern<describe>
> the workings of the physical world

> these rules are not open to interpretation

> the-followers-of-Hal don't seem to comprehend this rather simple fact

Well, yes, but.... My experience is that the majority of people
cannot make the connection between abstract geometry (such as a
half-ball hit) and what happens while they play pool. It may
be true that cut angle is a continuous function of the fullness
of hit, but most people have neither use for nor understanding of
a concept such as "function of".

For such people, I think it is not helpful to go into any more
detail in a system than is required to draw their attention to
the shot. It is not important what the system is as long as they
believe in it and it sort of gets them into the right ball park.
Their subconscious will do the rest, as it does for all players
who can play a lick, Iron Willie and Virtual Pool excepted.

Ask players what the cut angle is for a half-ball hit and the
majority (or a substantial minority) will say 45 degrees. This
is in spite of their having shot hundreds of half-ball hits and
hundreds of 45-degree cuts but never in the same shot. Many
people need an explanation of what a "right angle" is for the
kiss-line for position play -- people have even built special
fixtures for the pool table to illustrate two perpendicular
lines. Most people are not geometrians.

Aiming is as much psychology as it is physics. Arguing that the
physics of a system is wrong doesn't prevent the psychology from
working, one way or another. On the other hand, it's not clear
to my why people who know a system works for them psychologically
argue it to be valid physically. There's no point.

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 5:38:18 PM8/18/04

to

Dan White wrote:

> ... The talk about rotating edges and rotating centers has also been discussed.

> There's no more to it...that's it.

What's it? Nothing ever said here about it made even the most simple sense.

>>... I suggested using frozen OB/OB combinations

>>to be sure that no unconscious adjustment is taking place in the aim or
>>stroke, and the specified angle is being hit.

> I think the idea is not to worry about it. Just line it up like you already
> described, hit the cue ball in the center without thinking about it, and it
> is supposed to go in.

I think the idea is to forget about it so your subconscious can make the
necessary adjustments.

> ... I do have to say a Hall of Famer told me he aims at 1/2 ball,

> 1/4 ball or edge of ball. It was the first thing out of his mouth. He then
> followed up by saying that it really is just natural after awhile and you
> just know where you need to hit the ball.

Right, you "just know", like shooting by feel without any "system".
That's what I don't like about this "system": it's supposed to be doing
one thing, but it's doing another (or nothing). It may "work", but it
(or Hal) misleads you about what's actually happening.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 5:42:12 PM8/18/04

to

Tom Bellhouse wrote:

> ... according to the rules that govern

> <describe> the physical world, bees can't fly.

Sorry, but this is a well-known myth.

> If somebody tells me that stuffing a bean in your nose before you shoot
> will make you pocket balls, I doubt anybody would rush out and buy
> beans. I wouldn't. But if I see 100 guys who previously couldn't shoot
> a lick, now with beans in their noses and running rack after rack, I
> might feel better about trying the bean technique myself.
>
> I just don't think people should avoid new or different ideas just
> because those don't fit their preconceptions.

Sure, but I'm not sticking any beans in my nose until I see all these
guys running racks. So far, all I have is the beans-in-your nose story.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 7:48:19 PM8/18/04

to

On 8/18/04 11:05 AM, in article
20040818110515...@mb-m22.aol.com, "Jtiche" <jti...@aol.com>
wrote:

I think it's more a case of positive reinforcement. If Gretzky started out
missing every shot and pass, he would have been hard pressed to become
great. But if the early experiences just came together, it is easy to build
upon that positive reinforcement.

I have taken a couple of rank beginner golfers and showed them just the 2-3
things they needed to know to strike the ball effectively. Their stance,
swing and everything else pretty much sucked, but they could hit the ball
effectively, straight and reasonable length. After that, getting their
other mechanics into alignment to add to their length and control the ball
better was easy....because they already were executing the basics without
knowing all of the details behind it.

--Jim

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 8:36:52 PM8/18/04

to

Bob Jewett wrote:

> ... it's not clear

> to my why people who know a system works for them psychologically
> argue it to be valid physically.

That may be HOW it works for them psychologically. My guess is that
believing in the physical validity is essential to being successful with
Hal's "systems" - he makes a big point of their infallibility.

For players who are distracted by the inherent uncertainty of estimating
CB/OB alignments a little confidence might go a long way toward
unleashing their inner player.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

dalecue

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 8:55:00 PM8/18/04

to

these are pretty typical urban legends

1 flying bees are in no way in violation of the rules of aerodynamics

2. Hal's system is not new - nor correct

3. complicated as pool may seem - all that scary geomentry stuff -
it is not exactly cutting edge, and is well within the grasp of any
average high schoolstudent

try some other dodge

Dale

RIPP

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 11:13:24 PM8/18/04

to

Dale:

>
>2. Hal's system is not new - nor correct
>

You know this for a fact?

George

Ron Shepard

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 11:23:34 PM8/18/04

to

In article <10928644...@emperor.labs.agilent.com>,
Bob Jewett <jew...@sfbilliards.com> wrote:

> Ask players what the cut angle is for a half-ball hit and the
> majority (or a substantial minority) will say 45 degrees. This
> is in spite of their having shot hundreds of half-ball hits and
> hundreds of 45-degree cuts but never in the same shot.

Yep, read Ewa Laurence's latest BD article, and that's what she
says, half-ball hit equals 45 degrees.

Mike Sigel's latest BD article is yet another example of mind over
reality.

$.02 -Ron Shepard

dalecue

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 12:00:34 AM8/19/04

to

RIPP wrote in message <20040818231324...@mb-m02.aol.com>...

>Dale:
>>
>>2. Hal's system is not new - nor correct

I didn't stutter did I?

Dale

Patrick Johnson

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 12:00:57 AM8/19/04

to

Ron Shepard wrote:

> Yep, read Ewa Laurence's latest BD article, and that's what she
> says, half-ball hit equals 45 degrees.

She must be right, then - she's a pro who plays really well.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

-jeff

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 12:23:08 AM8/19/04

to

Jim Wyant wrote:

> I think the MOST IMPORTANT THING to remember about this topic is that Hal
> doesn't teach a 'system', he teaches several systemS. By his own advocacy,
> no single aiming system can work for all shots.
>
> If all you choose to learn is the three-dot system (please don't call it
> three angles, that is dead wrong), unless you have incredibly good cue ball
> control you will be shooting safes about 20% of the time.
> Why is that? Well, there are only 3 factors you can apply to a shot,
> direction, spin and speed. If direction (aim) is a constant (IOW, you're
> not shooting to miss), then you only have 2 variables to work with - spin
> and speed. And sometimes these are at odds with each other to achieve
> desired results.

Can you use the three-dot system to pocket any ball from any positon if
you are not concerned about positon play? Or are there limitations
inherent in the system that make it unsuitable for some shots regardless?

> So, that said, you need to learn at least 2 of the systems, and 3 is
> preferable. And you need to be cognizant of and accept your shortcomings
> and sometimes play safe, or throw away the systems. EG - 75+ degree cut
> shot, rail first rail-frozen cut shots, etc..
>
> If one chooses to categorize all the potentials into 1 system, it is easy to
> see the shortcomings. But consistently the debate in this group has been
> about Hal's System, not Hal's SystemS.

With multiple "systems", doesn't it just come down to just plain knowing
where to hit the ball? You look at the shot, have a vague idea of how
to make the ball, choose a system and then use the "system" to help you
line up an aim point that you had already found.

I've read pages and pages on this stuff through the Google archives and
some helpful e-mails, but none of it seems to have any concrete
descriptions or instructions in it. Something as simple as:

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~wei/pool/pooltable2.html

START(
%A[1B0%B[1B0%C[8B2%Dt9B5%E[3B1%F[6B1%GZ9A9%H[2B1%I[6B5%JK7F5
%KK7I0%LK7L1%MK8O1%NH6L0%OO0L1%Pa4V8
)END

What points/dots/fractions does somebody need to align to sink all those
balls into the upper left hand pocket?

-jeff

Dan White

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 12:51:40 AM8/19/04

to

"-jeff" <mun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:brGdnYGJcKO...@comcast.com...

With due respect, Jim isn't exactly correct, from what I have learned. I
learned 3 major systems, and it was clear from Hal that these achieved the
same thing, and were a matter of preference. There may be other systems
that handle some specific situations, but it is not necessary to learn these
in order to pocket most shots, according to the system. Most shots
(including 1,2,3 rail banks) except for extreme cuts can be made with the
system Pat Johnson has already stated in this post. Just add my comment to
hit the center of the cue ball and don't worry about where the cue is
pointing, and that is the system. There is nothing else to learn.
That...is...it. You shoot with your eye behind the line up between cue ball
and object ball that you have chosen, and just shoot. You will feel like
you are shooting offline compared to what you are looking at, but don't
worry about that. You choose the line up you need based on a little
experience with using it. For instance if it is a shallow cut then it is
obvious which line up you need. The pocket width is supposed to handle the
slop you will get in going from one line up to the next.

Now I've gone and said more than I meant too. sorry.

dwhite

Jim Wyant

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 2:00:29 AM8/19/04

to

On 8/19/04 12:23 AM, in article brGdnYGJcKO...@comcast.com, "-jeff"
<mun...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jim Wyant wrote:
>
>> I think the MOST IMPORTANT THING to remember about this topic is that Hal
>> doesn't teach a 'system', he teaches several systemS. By his own advocacy,
>> no single aiming system can work for all shots.
>>
>> If all you choose to learn is the three-dot system (please don't call it
>> three angles, that is dead wrong), unless you have incredibly good cue ball
>> control you will be shooting safes about 20% of the time.
>> Why is that? Well, there are only 3 factors you can apply to a shot,
>> direction, spin and speed. If direction (aim) is a constant (IOW, you're
>> not shooting to miss), then you only have 2 variables to work with - spin
>> and speed. And sometimes these are at odds with each other to achieve
>> desired results.
>
> Can you use the three-dot system to pocket any ball from any positon if
> you are not concerned about positon play? Or are there limitations
> inherent in the system that make it unsuitable for some shots regardless?

No. Read what I wrote in the following paragraph. The only exception to
this is if you want to use the three-dot system for banks as well (and yes,
it does apply). But at that point, you've just maximized the impact of spin
and speed plus added table conditions (rubber, cloth)....IOW, this is not
necessarily a good thing.

>> So, that said, you need to learn at least 2 of the systems, and 3 is
>> preferable. And you need to be cognizant of and accept your shortcomings
>> and sometimes play safe, or throw away the systems. EG - 75+ degree cut
>> shot, rail first rail-frozen cut shots, etc..
>>
>> If one chooses to categorize all the potentials into 1 system, it is easy to
>> see the shortcomings. But consistently the debate in this group has been
>> about Hal's System, not Hal's SystemS.
>
> With multiple "systems", doesn't it just come down to just plain knowing
> where to hit the ball? You look at the shot, have a vague idea of how
> to make the ball, choose a system and then use the "system" to help you
> line up an aim point that you had already found.

My approach is to take the one that I feel fits my game best, then generally
use that one unless situations dictate otherwise. EG - I have a tough cut
of reasonable distance that requires slow speed to get to where I want to be
(and therefore increase throw) but I need to apply inside English to get the
cue ball to the right place. Inside will increase throw, especially on a
slow shot. But outside will get me out of position, and increasing speed to
negate throw doesn't get me where I want to be, either. Hence I'll switch
to a different system, but one that still uses contact points, not
imagination.

The way I look at it is this. In order to put an OB into a pocket, the CB
must occupy the Ghostball Position (GP). Now, if my way of doing that is to
imagine the CB in the GP position, I have to deal with perception which
shifts as you move from a standing to a stance position. If the OB is 2'
away that perception is different than if it is 7' away. By using a system
that utilizes physical reference points, I increase my accuracy.

Maybe it doesn't work for some people. It does for me. It does for a
number of people I've shown it to, but I won't begin to say that they are
all using it.

At this point what I know is teaching this via writing is like teaching
someone to ride a motorcycle just using text descriptions. I'm not saying
it can't be done, but at some point you have to be able to experience it.
And until then, much of the logic of riding a motorcycle doesn't click in a
readers mind. It isn't hard, but you have to be able to extrapolate the
words into feeling.

> I've read pages and pages on this stuff through the Google archives and
> some helpful e-mails, but none of it seems to have any concrete
> descriptions or instructions in it. Something as simple as:

Quit reading this stuff. Hal has posted his number numerous times and all
he asks is that you be at a pool table when you call him. Or find somebody
near you with a secret decoder ring and spend some time with them.

--Jim

Message has been deleted

Tom Bellhouse

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 8:07:27 AM8/19/04

to

"dalecue" <pdg...@worldnet.spamex.net> wrote in message

news:ETSUc.474414$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> these are pretty typical urban legends
>
> 1 flying bees are in no way in violation of the rules of aerodynamics
>

Well, then substitute "angels."

> 2. Hal's system is not new - nor correct
>

Does it work for those who try it? Seems like the folks he has shown
his system to would have discovered for themselves that it didn't work.
I guess they like to miss?

> 3. complicated as pool may seem - all that scary geomentry stuff -
> it is not exactly cutting edge, and is well within the grasp of
any
> average high schoolstudent
>

When I was younger and playing 12-18 hours a day, I *never* thought in
terms of a system. It was "instinct." To make a ball, you shot the
ball to make it. Simple. As I have gotten older, uncertainty has
crept in. Following that is "paralysis by analysis." I sort of wish I
was still young and un-informed, as opposed to old and un-informed!

Tom <--- mind open, brain not falling out quite yet.