mental aspects

• "dead stroke," and being in the zone
• learning vs. intuition
• physics "understanding" sometimes provides insight
• technical knowledge is not enough

"dead stroke," and being in the zone

What does it mean to be in "dead stroke" or "in the zone?"

from JoeW:
The zone that most people try to describe is a state of altered consciousness more commonly known as self hypnosis in which the person is intensely focused, unaware of the environment and relaxed. For the most part they are thoroughly immersed in the topic and are non-judgmental. It is generally a very positive state in which the subconscious is directing most of the behavior.

You have been hypnotized many times. When you “get lost” in a good TV show or a good book. Someone calls your name and you don’t answer. They call your name again, louder and you say, “Sorry, I heard you but I wasn’t listening.” This is self hypnosis or the zone. A rose by any other name …

Contrary to some comments, intelligent, creative people are good subjects for hypnosis. Once learned, or over learned, the person can drop into or out of the state at will. Usually a triggering mechanism such as tapping one’s non-dominant foot can be used as a trigger.

Watch Reyes or Duell (sp?) when they are in a match. Notice that each man is extremely loose and seems to be nonchalant as they walk around the table. This looseness is indicative of a person who is “lost” in the moment. Some might call it a form of the zone – lite zone if you will.

To some extent the zone is made out to be nearly a mystical state that is sought but unobtainable with intent. This is not true and you can see a light zone in these two players if you watch closely when they are on about the third ball in a run.

The trick, if there is one, is that to get in the zone one must be non-judgmental (about self) and yet have the ability to analyze a table and then allow the body / subconscious to make the shot. For most people this means coming in and out of the zone as each shot is analyzed. This can be done but requires some effort.

It is better to over learn table analysis and then allow the subconscious to conduct the analysis and never leave the zone while playing. This takes a considerable amount of “trust” in one’s self and is therefore difficult.

If you watch the pros mentioned you will also see that they usually sit quietly on the side lines waiting for their next turn. In essence they are not doing anything that will pull them from the edge of this altered state of consciousness that is so helpful to excellent play. They are not robots but are using a different way to be aware of the world.

BTW, for those who think the sub-conscious is bunk, explain how your conscious mind calculates the cue ball return. I submit that you cannot tell me what you tell your muscles to get the X power to move a ball Y distance after it hits a rail with Z amount of side spin. These calculations are made by your subconscious. Simply put, you do not know how that side of you does it, but it can do it amazing well for a part of the mind that does not use language.

from JoeW:
I was out playing awhile ago and it occurred to me (partially based on the conversation here) that I often have something like a verbal dialog in my head when I think through a shot or series of shots. I guess that some people would call it “thinking” about a shot. I decided to try and stop “thinking” at least in words and just look at the shot and the next two balls (in a 9-Ball game) then shoot.

This technique seems to help with positional play. The subconscious seemed to have more control over the process. Now I wonder if some elements of playing in the zone or in dead stroke use this non-thinking cognitive process to play.

I suspect that it is worth a try for any who are interested. Try to just look at the table and the shot with no verbal dialog in your head. I do not have a good way to describe the process. It is something like being an observer of your own actions. I was surprised, first by the better than expected position on the next shot and next by the idea that twice (in about 20 shots) I played well to a position on the table that I would not normally play.

I also noted that the subconscious is better at deciding cue tip placement than my thoughts on the matter. I am too picky about the exact spot. The subconscious seems to be more aware of muscle control and tip placement as a unified concept. If I just let it happen the position was better. The subconscious also seems to be better able to compensate for squirt and throw. I did notice that my eyes tend to look more at the table and track where the cue ball will go. Perhaps this is where the “see the nap” idea comes from. When I “think,” I seem to be more focused on the lines and the angles.

In 30 minutes I have stumbled on a way to play that seems to be quite a bit better than my usual way. Of course any new technique produces an immediate good effect. This is known as the Hawthorn Effect for those who may remember from Intro to Psych class. None-the-less, the non-thinking routine does seem to enhance my game and may be a precursor to the zone.

From what I know about hypnosis, letting go of verbal dialog is definitely part of the process so it should help to set up or maybe even induce some sort of flow or zone like behavior.

learning vs. intuition

Are "intuition" and "knowledge" related?

from Patrick Johnson:
Your intuition (your "feel") doesn't just appear magically, you have to build it - and building it by learning and applying knowledge during practice (infusing experience with knowledge) is the most efficient and effective way.

from mikepage:
Some people insist they learn only by practice (repetition) and feel they are doing something fundamentally different from someone else who practices and also tries overtly to understand what is going on. I believe they are not doing something fundamentally different.

Here is my view of how we learn things. When you say to yourself, 'ah, I remember this shot,' or 'I know how to hit this,' or 'I need to hit this shot hard on this table to get around three rails,' think about where this 'intuitive' knowledge comes from. It comes from experience for sure. It comes from remembering things that have happened before in similar situations. But how do you go about 'remembering' the right things?

When you hit a ball and get a certain result (say the cueball rolls a certain distance) just what is it that you remember about the experience. I'm not talking about a conscious remembering, I'm talking about the development of intuition. Do you remember what you were wearing? Do you remember the day of the week? Do you remember who you're
playing? Do you remember what music was playing? Do you remember who's at the table next to you? Do you remember whether your shoes feel tight? Do you remember whether you're thirsty? Do you remember whether the balls are shiny? Do you remember whether you got to bed early the night before? .... There are countless potential pieces of information to catalog when you shoot that shot, and somehow in time we start to catalog many of the right things.

This process of learning *what* to catalog is about building a model of the situation. To separate the reams of (possibly) useless information from the useful information, we must create models of the world around us. This is not just what the analytical types do, this is what *everyone* does. It's the way we establish our world view, our concept of reality. When we get a feeling a table plays fast, there are definite characteristics of a physical model that are implied. It's implied that there is a "table speed" that is characteristic of all shots on that table that day. It's implied that soft-hit shots and hard-hit shots are both affected similarly. It's implied that the "speed" across the table is the same as the "speed" up and down the table. It's implied that if the cueball rolls fast, the object balls roll fast too, and on and on.

Some of these models we develop on our own; others we get from other people. A model can be wrong and still be useful in a practical sense. The model that the earth is flat is useful for compiling information and developing intuition so long as we don't travel too far. In pool, the model that to get draw, you have to accelerate through the ball or have a long follow through are for the most part useful--or at least not harmful.

The difficulty comes when you try to extend your knowledge to new situations. If your model is not consistent with the results, you won't catalog the right things, and learning will be retarded.

Here is an analogy: Take someone who has never driven a car
before--someone from a remote jungle tribe who had never even heard of a car. Give him a rear-wheel drive vehicle and let him drive in the snow and ice for thousands of hours. Don't let him see the car from the outside at all or even know it has wheels, let alone how many. In time he
will get very good at not getting stuck and at figuring out what he can get away with and what he can't. He will learn how to steer when he starts to skid in order to best regain control. He will learn by doing and develop an intuition. He also will, necessarily, have developed models that go along with this intuition. And those models will fit his experience pretty well.

Now, give this jungle tribesperson a *front wheel drive* vehicle. The person will have a hell of a time. Things won't seem to work right, but it won't make any sense. Thing'll just seem all screwed up. His models
will be useless. Learning about the new situation will be very difficult.

*IF* however, his model of the situation--from the beginning-- involved understanding the first car was rear-wheel drive, and that steering involved the front wheels, and if the person had this context while developing intuition and skills in the first place, then it will be much easier for him to extend his intuition to the front-wheel drive situation, where you have to steer in a different direction and do different things when you start to skid.

This is my long winded way to say that learning things about the physics of pool and about squirt and swerve, etc--for those of us who like to do it--just contribute for us to the development of our models that are inextricably linked to the development of our intuition. You can learn to
play pool very well without making any overt effort to understand what's going on. [Stay inside the car if you want to] But all else being equal, you will be better off the more effort you put into understanding what is
going on.

physics "understanding" sometimes provides insight

How can physics analyses help my pool game?

The purpose of the physics analyses and discussions isn't always just to help make your game better. Often, it is just to help develop a better understanding of what is going on with the physics. Now, sometimes that improved understanding can help lead to insight and technique advice that can help at the table. I think two good examples are the 30-degree rule and my series of articles dealing with throw. I think in both of these cases, the insight gained from the physics can go a long way to helping people develop and improve faster. Also, for some people (e.g., me), understanding can help improve confidence. Anytime I can back up my intuition with understanding, I usually have more confidence. That way, when I get down in my stance, I can better focus on confidently executing the shot, without having to subconsciously doubt my intuition.

Now, top players who have perfect intuition don't need to "understand" the 30-degree rule peace-sign technique, or how to achieve maximum throw, or the effects of inside vs. outside English, or rail cut-shot physics, because they instinctively know all of this stuff based on intuition and confidence built from years and years of successful practice and play. They "just know" where the balls will go on every shot. However, for everybody else, I think a little knowledge, understanding, and insight can help one improve faster and have more confidence.

technical knowledge is not enough

Can knowledge alone make somebody a great player?

Obviously not. Knowledge alone is not usually a deciding factor in a match between two really good players. They already know what they need to know to be top players (i.e., they already have lots of "knowledge"). Knowledge doesn't make somebody a good player, but I think it can dramatically speed up the learning process for many beginner to intermediate players. For example, if someone learns the 30-degree-rule peace-sign technique, he or she will immediately know where the CB will go for many shots. The alternative is to spend years building intuition to serve as a substitute for the knowledge. Most top players "just know" where the CB will go; but most beginner and intermediate players don't know, and they can benefit from the knowledge.

I remember when I first started using English many many years ago, every once in a while I would miss a shot even though I was sure I hit where I was aiming, and I would be shocked that I missed the shot. In hindsight, I think I missed many of those shots because I didn't fully understanding or have good intuition of the effects of squirt, swerve, and throw (especially throw, when playing on bar tables where the ball conditions were less than ideal), or I wasn't experienced enough to make better decisions concerning when and how English should be used. I appreciate your point of view, but I still think many intermediate players can benefit from improving their knowledge and understanding of the game.

Now, to get to the point where you can consistently run racks, you need to have lots of skills that can come only with lots of practice and play. To consistently run racks, one needs a repeatable stroke, great visualization and aiming, great speed control, good planning, good judgment, good mental focus, determination, etc! "Knowledge" and "understanding" alone do not provide these things.

from BigRigTom:
Some one earlier said that technical knowledge can only carry you so far, and that may be, but with out it you are really only guessing and MAN!!! you can guess a long time and still not get a lot of things right.
Practice is only fruitful if you are practicing the correct things......believe me...practicing and not knowing what you are doing wrong usually does more damage than good.
I suppose someone will say that you need to get professional instruction and I supppose in a perfect world they would be right but I don't know too many people who have gone that route and the couple that did had already wasted many years like I did before they realized it was a viable option or even desirable for that matter .... We all just need to remember that we can learn more if we keep an open mind and at the same time don't believe everything and everyone you hear because there is a lot of misinformation out there and usually it is free advise for the taking, worth just what you pay for it. If it works for you use it and if it don't ignore it.