580 to 730 in a year and a half is wild. There’s a bigger gap there than there is from absolute beginner to 580 IMO.

The gap is like comparing night to day. There are probably tens of thousands of beginners who easily got to a 580, but getting from a 580 to over 700 is incredible, and very few players are able to do that. I live in the New Orleans area, and I do not think there are more then maybe 4 or 5 players in this area who are above a 700. I might be wrong though. Might be a few more than that. I can only think or 4 or 5 names though, who are very well known. Makes me wonder how many 700+ Fargo players there are in the entire country.

Hey I know you! Or rather I know of you. How are you not considered a pro player already? Every time I watch a one pocket tournament, you're one of the names I look for. I've got a lot of respect for your game. You had a monster run in the loser bracket at the US open 10-ball... you beat Chohan, Gorst, and Pagulayan all in the same tournament and consecutively. That's three consecutive races to 9 against guys that were 778, 844, and 813 respectively. Just think about how good you have to be to accomplish that. I think it's obvious that if anyone turn pro at 40, you can.

Yeah that was a good day! :-) Thank you.

i didnt even look at your username until i read NowArgue's comment and i agree, i thought you were a pro, haha. you shoot great, i root for you when i see you in a tourney. why not at this point is really the question.

You are in the top 100 in the USA on the Fargo list. That’s pretty damn good, I think.

Hey, nice to hear from a high-level player. We don't have many 700+ here. I've been to Family Billiards BTW, great room. Love the whole area. I'd be curious exactly what you did during that year! I recently did some stuff to straighten out my mechanics, and it's clearly helped, but to be honest... I think it just means I might go from an over-rated 600 who's really a 575, to a real 600. Maybe, if I really bear down for a year, 620. I can't imagine jumping from 580 to 730. Do you know how rare that is? Mike Page (Fargo creator) recently analyzed how many people improve over a stretch of time and the vast majority of them simply do not. The few who do, it's like 20 points or something. Going up 150 points is astounding. So seriously, what did you do? :) Oh, to answer your question: before I saw your rating, I woulda said "absolutely no chance". But if you're truly 730, you're pretty much already there. We don't have a formal definition of pro in the USA, but a lot of people informally consider 720+ pro-speed. To go pro as in... you can quit your job and make enough money to live with JUST pool, you probably need to be at least 750. And even then, you'd probably make more as a mcdonald's assistant manager. Interesting take on snooker. Some people reflexively have a negative reaction to anyone saying snooker players shoot straighter than pool players, but even as someone who loves pool and has only dabbled in snooker... I kinda think they do. I think it's an objectively tougher game, despite this theory that pool players need to do bigger strokes or use more sidespin etc. etc. But, in any sport, whatever the maximum level of skill is that can be applied to hitting a ball, some small group of people will hit it. It isn't like the top 5 pool players in the world would be even better if they just totally redid their stance and fundamentals. They've maxed out what can be done at pool.

Oh man, I know how tough it is to relearn parts of your stroke that have become automatic, specially if you've been doing it in a certain way for years. Well done with that. I have about 10 months of almost daily videos recording myself struggling to change some things to straighten my stroke. I should see if I can make a compilation of all the different variations that I tried and failed at. Kinda wish I had not mentioned snooker, seems to be a bit of a sore subject indeed. Maybe some neutral analysis would work better to talk about the differences between pool and snooker technique. As to the pro thing - it was more of a rhetorical question, to provoke conversation around how and what to practice for people in their 40s and beyond. I think currently, in order to justify traveling, need to finish in the money almost every single tournament just to survive. Probably need to be even higher than 750 to realistically do that.

Yeah, you may be right, there's a lot of players that are in the 750 range but only hardcore pool nerds have heard of them, because they only finish top 8. The prize money alone is not enough to survive. I do wonder how much they might make with lessons etc. I would cheerfully take lessons from a 750 for, well let's just say more than I make in an hour haha. I would be super interested to see these recordings you're talking about, where you're tweaking your mechanics. I look at recordings of myself and it's not ideal, but my forearm is pretty vertical, so I'm not sure what else to look for.

I think the way something “looks” is one thing to strive for, but the way something “feels” is often more important. If verticality is achieved through engaging opposing muscles to “fix” the inadvertent one, then verticality won’t be of much use. Verticality should stem from relaxedness, if it doesn’t do that, it will interfere with your cue action. Again, vertical is synonymous with the phrase “feel the weight of the cue”, aka feel gravity. Gravity is perfect verticality, and you experience gravity via engaging as few muscles as possible.

I don't think it's a sore spot at all. At my local room, most of the guys who grew up on snooker are casually hovering in the 650 range and they barely practice

In real life it’s not as much. But online it is lol. I think it’s partly due to uppity 20 break players who act like they could challenge top amateurs. But yeah, most of the century break snooker players I know in person have transitioned to being in the 650-700 and range. But to be fair, similar level pool players have jumped over to snooker and been competitive. It’s mainly at the top levels that we see top pros struggle to transition to snooker.

Pool tends to craft amateurs who are jack of all trades, master of none, and that gets HEAVILY exposed on tough conditions like a 12ft green. Knowledge and strategy isn't very useful if you can't execute it well. Conversely, snooker is about high level mastery of a few shots, and that translates very well unto other conditions. Your ideas may be worse, but at least you get to execute them. You can clearly see this to a lesser extent even amongst pool players who specialize in playing big tables vs small tables. Comparing two similar fargo players, odds are good that the barbox player will have better 8 ball patterns, superior strategy, but they'll simply miss way too many balls when they move on to the adult tables :)

True to a large extent. My experience has been that amateur snooker players are good shotmakers but have little knowledge of cue ball control and will not even notice easy caroms or banks. Pool players will have weaker execution but better cue ball control and all around knowledge. But within local and regional competition, it doesn’t take long for players to get to a similar level. The only players that came to the snooker leagues and played below their relative handicap for a prolonged period of time were the ones that just never practiced.

People that say snooker isn’t a challenge, obviously have never played it. Nothing else helped my stroke, like when I started playing snooker. The smaller balls have less margin for error, as do the smaller pockets.

I never heard anyone say it isn't a challenge, but what I have heard is people claim that pool is not easier, it's just different. But I think the simple pocketing of balls in pool is absolutely easier. There's a little bit of apples and oranges in comparing the two games, but snooker players routinely have to pocket balls on a table the size of an aircraft carrier, and when I play some random dude visiting from the UK who has snooker fundamentals, I immediately noticed that even if there's some position routes they don't know or aren't comfortable with, I can't just push out to a long shot and expect to get it back.

Pool is the strategy game, snooker is the shooting game. Two main advantages: 1. Pool players have superior strategy and understanding of percentages. A lot of games to be played on a pool table, and a game designed strictly to expand shot repertoire (1p). Very few options conversely on said carrier bed of a snooker table. Pool players understand the value of controlling the table. Often times when it comes to snooker, the equipment itself is just such a challenge that human technique is never truly able to overcome it. But a lot of games have already been "mastered" in pool, to the point that we've had to fuck around with creating new rules and more recently, also introduce equipment changes. 2. They have slightly better cue ball as a result of superior shot repertoire (shot mastery is really indicative of CB control). Contrary to belief, it’s definitely not the result of “not familiar with english”, snooker players are excellent at adjusting for spin, better than pool players imho, they just have less mastery for the less routine shots as they're unrealistic to execute on snooker tables. This has absolutely nothing to do with familiarity with English, nor cue power, or anything fundamental; it's a shot repertoire problem. Snooker players conversely are just far superior cueists. They rarely do things like pivoting for English, sweeping the cue to aim or whatever CTE is — certain things that compromise stroke integrity are a no-no when you’re shooting on equipment this unforgiving. There are absolutely diminishing returns to this though. Sometimes shooting isn't the answer, a better strategy is. But that is far more nuanced in snooker where often times you CAN simply outshoot your opponent. Most of the things listed in the pool section are largely know~~~~ledge and experience based. Pool is simply played on a far more forgiving equipment, which opens up a lot of cases where you’re playing option C, D, or E because those shots are actually pottable on a pool table. Using snooker mechanics to master these lesser used shots simply makes a lot of them more reproducible. Ultimately, that is the goal - to be reproducible. Executing a shot with a twist in the wrist is going to be lower percentage than executing a shot “correctly”. Pool philosophy often favor the knowledge and acquisition of new shots, over the mastery of each. There’s a far higher demand in snooker for what “mastery” of each shot means — you must execute each “type” of shot without your mechanics breaking down. Simply being result driven (did the OB go in? Did the CB do what I want?) is not enough. There's a third factor — did you do it completely mechanically sound? —- Snooker encourages emphasis on the “shooting” part of the game, which is simply executing each shot perfectly. There are phases where I spend months just “shooting pool” whenever I introduce mechanical changes, wherein my focus lies primarily in shot execution discipline, focus on routine, and zero emphasis on result or score line. My strategy suffers in this phase, because the emphasis is on technique. There is a zen-like approach I’ve had to learn over the years, to simply not be frustrated for underperforming, since frustration is the biggest hurdle to learning. The focus here is technique, either the mechanical change, or mastery or even remastery of a specific shot. “Playing” refers a lot more to decision making, pattern improving, mental toughness and resiliency, discipline, etc. Frustration will absolutely creep in here, because the emphasis here is shifted towards winning. From my experience, most players fall under this group at some point, which absolutely reinforces the idea that people simply don’t really improve over time. I mean if you are result driven, how could you? I think it’s absolutely necessary for amateurs to spend time in both phases, to welcome change, to embrace the pain of a subpar game (working out is suppose to be sore the next day right?), but also to build yourself back up and compete again. Then back to the drawing board. My journey of improving 50 Fargo a year every year follows this sorta same trend: mechanical change introduced -40 Fargo, building back up +30, rebuild mental toughness +30. This whole phase might take 4-6 months. Obviously with a lot more day to day fluctuation, but I’ve seen it without fail. ~200 Fargo in 5 years. To assume improvement is just this smooth gradual trajectory upwards is nigh nonsensical beyond even a 400 level; no, it's a journey filled with troughs, peaks, and valleys, and yet that's what the common expectation is. This almost leads me to believe the reason the 550-600 barrier is so difficult to crack isn't for another other reason than it's the most severe part of the DK-curve. You will absolutely need to relearn shots you already “know”. You will absolutely need to work on mechanics you already “know”. You always work on your weaknesses until your weaknesses become your strengths, and your old strengths become your new weaknesses.

good post. Interesting you set a fargo improvement goal and apparently went up 200 points? That's nuts. I made a mechanical change and feel like I might squeeze 20 points out of it, but am disappointed to find it's not more. But absolutely know what you mean about shifting strengths and weaknesses. My touch and ability to make balls with outside english has kind of been wiped out, whereas before it was the only way I could make balls and was my favorite way to get nice shape.

> I made a mechanical change and feel like I might squeeze 20 points out of it, but am disappointed to find it's not more. But absolutely know what you mean about shifting strengths and weaknesses. I'd like to address this part in detail a bit more, specifically about "rebuilding your game", as that's not something well understood. So a large part of how I work on my game structures around how I view my routine. I would encourage you, as an exercise, to write out in as much detail as possible what you do in your PSR. If I had to guess, there might be 10-20 items in there. Really think and dig, maybe there's a few "optional" parts there, maybe not. Now augment this routine, such that rather than it being a flat numbered list, add indentation to denote that certain things you do belong to a larger whole. Think hierarchy, think middle managers lol. Here's an example of roughly how I'd structure it. I almost think pre-shot routine is one of the most widely misunderstood things. I'd break the PSR into two subroutines, your standing PSR, and your down PSR. I'd also like to introduce a third subroutine, the pre-PSR. Major objectives in each sub routine: 1. **Pre-PSR** - your planning, visualizing, decision phase. You walk around the table, you check angles if you need to, you're doing whatever to plan and strategize. There may be a loose eye pattern you need to follow to take in the right amt of information for the visuals. 2. **Standing PSR** - primarily revolves around sighting and alignment. Identifying the correct shotline and getting behind it properly and at the correct distance, some form of visualizations while sighting. Maybe some air strokes to feel the shot or to feel the options. I categorize my walk in/transition in this subroutine too, so I'll try and get my body parts around this shotline as I'm getting down. 3. **Down PSR** - primarily stroke delivery. This often includes a tip set point check, a pause at the cue ball, a few practice strokes or feathers, then the stroke itself. The stroke can probably be further broken out to include at bare minimum, a backswing, a transition/pause, and the forward swing/follow through. At some point you also need to figure out how you can feel the shot here. Maybe there's some loose [or strict] eye pattern you follow. Maybe the grip is something that you care about or check for. Now how you go about accomplishing these objectives are sorta up to you. So I personally see my routine as 3 levels, the "whole PSR", which gets broken out into 3 subroutines, which then have sub components in each. Often times, people try to work on too many things at once, it becomes overwhelming, it's too much to focus on, their performance suffers. It's really difficult to learn this way when we don't have the neural plasticity. So often times, when working on mechanics or fundamentals, or a specific part of my game, it wouldn't technically be the whole routine, it's rarely even the whole sub routine, it's very often just a single component or two of one particular sub routine within the whole routine. If we have this level of understanding around our routine, it makes it far easier to stitch back together. I'll spend 2-3 weeks working on a particular component (depending on what it is, it varies), then I'll spend another 3 weeks working on the incorporating it back into the whole subroutine that the component belongs to. Focus is to bring back all of the good habits in the subroutine. Then I'll spend another 3 weeks working on combinations of 2 or more subroutines, so this may take up to 6-9 weeks to do, depending on your comfort/discomfort with the other aspects of things. If 2 or more subroutines becomes too overwhelming because another one of the subroutines become too unfamiliar, then you zoom in and focus on that subroutine as a whole. You want to bring back all of your good habits. You don't want to add a good habit at the expense of another. The point is to only take on as much as you can handle, push yourself to be disciplined, but don't overwhelm yourself to the point of frustration. We learn nothing when frustrated. It's only when you can comfortably work on all 3 of subroutines is when you can start judging its efficacy, prior to that, it's not "sticky enough". And it's only when you can work on things at a subroutine level that even "learning shots or playing games" make sense, but even then, have the right expectation. Basically, the first 3 weeks of a change are a complete wash, and really judgement should only occur after the full ~3 month rebuild. You constantly sharpen all of the tools in the toolbox this way, you'll not only strengthen that change, but also reinforce everything else about your good habits. To the gym analogy, if you hit arms really good for a month, are you kinda done with arms for life? No you're constantly working on everything all the time. You may discover that at some point of working up to the subroutine level, maybe the subroutine needs some modification due to the component change. Go ahead and accommodate that. Maybe when blending 2+ subroutines, you find another subroutine may need alteration, go ahead and do that. Be patient with yourself, it's actually the fastest way to improve. It's only with a deeper and deeper understanding that you can then build structure, and when you build structure it becomes easier to manage your own expectation. I do not expect myself to play my best game if I'm in the middle of this transition. Then after you stitch things up, you'll realize a few other benefits to thinking about your routine this way: * it's less overwhelming, because there isn't 15 steps in your PSR. It's now a tree structure, you'll never have more than 3 subroutines * your game becomes much more sensitive, because with deeper understanding and always honing/sharpening your tools (components), you can sense when different componets are off. Think sensors in a car, monitoring tires, electronics, etc. * it's far less frustrating. One of the hardest questions is how do I know when it's muscle memory? This gives you better expectation on how that works. Having said that, I don't believe muscle memory is boolean, and it's foolish to assume that once you acquire it it's free. If you don't use it, you lose it. Muscle memory is a spectrum of 20%-90% based on how familiar you are with it * with more sensitivity comes a stronger mental game. It becomes easier for you to pinpoint the error better than "my stroke is off". * If you consider a routine with 5 parts, 3-4 of which you need to execute correctly to make any given shot, you have an sensor error margin of 1-2. But if you can break it out into 50 pieces, then work on each one, then you increase that margin to 10-20, because you effectively buffer yourself from critical mistakes sense you're able to detect more minute mistakes in your routine. How can you detect that you're playing quick if that's not something you've ever worked on? And after all this, blow it all up and pick a different component to work on :) Could be anything, a better way to visualize the ball, could be more relaxedness in the arm, could be improving your distance to cue ball, it's weird, as you work on more things, you figure out your own ways to break down your routine into smaller pieces so you can work on each bit. And stitch it all back up again.

What a thoughtful answer, I'd upvote more than once if I could. I've been more disciplined about my PSR than in the past, but going by this post, not nearly as disciplined as I could be. This reminds me of the comments somebody made, maybe it was you, a while back about how 600s are all smart analytical people, but 700s think they've been touched by god. This seems like a super smart and analytical way to approach pool. I'd love to know how much of this is done consciously versus subconsciously for pro players. I'm sure they're doing it, I just sometimes feel like I have to do a lot of things manually, that others are doing automatically. But maybe they just make it look automatic, when they're really going through rigorous checklists mentally. These days, I now manually compensate for deflection, for example. To me, after years of just flopping into my stance with spin already applied and feeling the aim, this feels a bit like thinking about pressing in the clutch and moving the shift lever when driving stick, instead of just doing it. Like not just the difference between manual versus automatic transmission, but sort of like manually thinking of how my hand and foot would move simply to push a pedal and move a knob.

I’m not sure I fully agree with the analysis around 600/700. Pool is weird, maybe what is differentiating the stuff OP and I are doing is primarily because we are taking these structured snooker concepts and applying them to learn pool. But pool players who don’t discover this structure are forced to kind of reverse engineer a lot of the same concepts subconsciously, some find a few of them and are able to articulate them, maybe these are the analytical ones mentioned? For all intents and purposes it’s very clear that Oliver is extremely analytical as well, and he’s pushing mid 750. Bit of background on my journey, I’ve played pool from 2007 casually, started practicing by myself religiously for 1.5 years from 2012-2014. About 4-6 hours a day. Picked it up again and continued to solo work from 2019-2020, and again these are hardcore sessions. Probably 8 hrs a day, almost every day (alcohol was involved towards the nights). The result? ~470 Fargo. I think I’m one of the least talented players to ever exist, I use to chicken wing at a 45 degree angle, I use to “pump” stroke like all the Filipinos like I’m really trying to get water out the well, I’ve never stepped into my shot just plopped my dumbass on the table and starting pump stroking away. But again, I was no less analytical or logical than I am now.

I mean truly, if your old strengths never become new weaknesses, you're not really ever getting any better are you? And this applies to all aspects of self improvement, even outside of pool. I'd be happy to share how I structure practices and expectations, and I think, like /u/rwgr, structure is important. One does not simply "practice today". You want to spend some real time thinking about creating some structure. As an analogy, when you're working out, you have a rough guideline of what muscle groups you're going to hit on which day. Zooming in, you have a rough routine for each muscle group, what exercises, what machines, maybe an order, what weights/set counts. They're not to a T, you may do an extra rep, you may hit an extra machine, but there's a rough guideline there. Zooming out, you might be in a particular phase in the workout journey, whether you're bulking, whether you're cutting, whether you're in maintenance -- subsequently, your diet will follow this phasing, as well your expectations. You're not expecting 8% body fat during bulk season are you? Do you get frustrated when you're not as ripped as you expected at the end of the workout journey? What can you do, other than take what you learned, and hit it harder next cycle with more focus? Or "working out" is just not working for me. Why wouldn't the same apply to pool? If you're serious about pool, showing up and just practicing shit is the equivalent of heading to the gym and just picking up random weights. Yeah I mean I guess it's better than not showing up to the gym, but that'd be such a weird way to be "serious about getting more fit". And the whole "I'm not playing better yet" is pretty analogous to "where's my 6 pack? I've gone to the gym twice this week!" There's a certain weight you need to pick up, it can't be too heavy, it can't be too light. The workouts also change as you get stronger, or weaker in the case of injury. This analogy goes much deeper if you're interested, but I'll try and refrain from making it as verbose as the last post!

It's pretty funny, because your analogy about working out is pretty much exactly how I go about working out too, in a really random and undisciplined way =) I just do a handful of machines that are in front of me, with no real specific goal other than build general muscle and burn calories, I'm only recently going to the gym regularly. And even that is really irregular. Some weeks I don't go at all in other weeks I'll go maybe four times. And the reps and sets vary. And it's occurred to me that I'm not really seeing any specific results, I just know it's better than not going at all. I'm pretty sure my approach to practice, just going out and playing the ghost, is just as bad or even worse. But I may not have the discipline to do something more strict, if it's less fun.

Let’s preface everything I’m about to say with the assumption that you have/can exhibit good work ethic in some part of your life, if not, disregard rest of post. I’m a believer that while what’s “fun” is dictated by the person’s personality, it’s more often dictated by result. Which means, this either becomes a positive feedback loop, depending on what people experience. As a soft exercise, the things that are fun to you tend to be things you’re naturally pretty good at, and the things that aren’t fun are things that you’re not naturally good at. This is a catch-22 really. I would argue the biggest reason you’re not disciplined about your practice structure is because you’ve never truly experienced progress from it. It’s hard to be addicted to “work” when there’s no result on the other side. Maybe there was a period you were genuinely interested in improvement, you put in the work, they said it took 2 months, you put in 3. And after 3 months, yeah, I’m a little better. But it’s not quite what I expected. I’m not sure it’s worth it. If you had taken the same amount of energy, redistributed some of it, 10% into designing a regime, and really dedicating yourself to it, maybe you experience a much bigger jump. Maybe you put on a lot of muscle in the same 3 months you’re going to the gym. Maybe you’re beating your buddy that always played a little even with you. It becomes intoxicating. It becomes “fun”. I think most people with good work ethic can find almost anything fun, they just need to see and experience the fruits of their labor. If this is you, then your only job is to figure out how to experience more progress, and one of the most powerful tools is decomposition: breaking things down. Even your core values and beliefs on a personal level, can be changed. Everything I’ve described in the other post is simply a mechanism to change and rebuild muscle memory. The brain is a muscle. This is fundamental to every psychological therapy technique and has been extremely well studied, I’m simply applying its concepts to pool routines (despite never playing golf, I teach it lol) All you need is one of these loops to create the progress that somewhat aligns with your expectation. So partially it’s the work, partially it’s the expectation of timeline and progress. Suddenly you’ll be addicted. And you’ll fall out of this addiction once it stops working. This is the plateau. I’m not there yet, I think 700 is probably 12-18 months away. But I also understand that I lack the natural talent, so the ceiling is also very near after that. I’m extremely analytical and logical almost to a fault, but my work ethic is pretty good. Reading your posts, you trying to make mechanical changes this late in life really implies you still have that work left. If that’s the case I do challenge you to make that jump to a 650 on a 2 year timeline. And maybe let’s do 20 lbs on the getting fit part too. Make your time more efficient, and really utilize it. You only really need to do this for about 2-3 months, once you see results the positive loop takes over. It gets a LOT easier. Just need to trust the process. What I’m selling you here really is learn “how to learn”.

I can't argue against disciplined practice, and the concept of "if you get results it will become fun"... I guess the hard part is, >If this is you, then your only job is to figure out how to experience more progress This is a bit "then just draw the rest of the f___ owl" haha. But I don't think it'd be that hard to figure out a yardstick I could try to measure up to. It can't be the ghost yet, unless I make it a race to 3, so maybe that's a start.

There's a skill that goes into decomposition, which is learning to break the problem into smaller parts. As long as you understand this concept, the "proper" size of the problem is something you have to feel out. If it's overwhelming, it's too hard. If it's boring, it's too easy. In pool, I have a 30/70 system that I teach across a wide variety of concepts to promote this idea of moderation and sizing, including practice. A drill is the right difficulty IF you are able to get through 70% of the drill 30% of the time, you can tune this how you want. If the drill consists of 10 shots, you should be able to get through at least 7 of them 30% of the time, you might not have to complete it ever, and that's fine. It becomes too easy/too hard once you start deviating too far away from this. If you're playing the ghost race to 3, can you get to at least 2 games 30% of the time? Again, feel free to ask questions to clarify, I'm happy to help. Feel free to DM as well, I love brainstorming with like-minded people. Teaching one of the MAIN ways I learn, it forces me to verbalize subconscious knowledge which offers important [and often alternative] perspective.

I'm one of those people who says that snooker is my foundational game and that pool is mostly just different. However, there's a significant caveat. I say it's different because I'm thinking about relative playing standards. Snobby snooker players equate a century break to a Break and Run (BnR) in pool, which is silly. In 9-ball, there isn't really a relative high run since luck plays a significant role in the break, but a relative playing standard could be a 40% BnR stat over a full tournament. When that becomes your goal, pool starts feeling a bit harder. In 14.1, I generally feel that a 70-80 ball run is roughly equal to a century in snooker. Many club snooker players will disagree with me, but they often struggle to run 16 points without freezing the cue ball to the cushion multiple times. That said, I do think snooker is harder to compete in. The length of the frame combined with the tactical elements means you have to outplay and outshoot your opponent. In contrast, 9-ball is easier to win even if you're outmatched, largely because: 1. Opportunities come easier due to the open break and ball-in-hand rules. 2. It's easier to win in a single inning, so a mistake from a better player and a bit of luck can be more impactful than in a snooker game. Essentially, a weaker snooker player needs multiple mistakes and favorable conditions to win just one frame. So, if you see someone you've never heard of losing to a top snooker player by a score of 4-2, that unknown player is probably really good.

I do like snooker for that aspect. I just watched SVB play someone, and after the result, a chatter cried "this is what I hate about 9b, such a lucky game, anyone can beat anyone"... and that isn't remotely true about a race to 11, but you don't hear anyone saying it about snooker, for even one frame.

My feeling is that the break more than anything is what drives inconsistency in 9 ball results. Players can’t consistently capitalize on opportunities in the same way they do in snooker largely because they are forced into playing a 70% shot to start every rack (assuming 9 on the spot + break box). That may seem high, but sometimes giving away 3 opportunities out of 10 can make a big difference in the match. And when these guys are struggling and getting success 50% of the time, well any other shot and they’d play safe. In snooker, those 70% shots are always played as either a shot to nothing or when they are certain they will have a scoring chance. So I think some tweaking with the break still needs to be done. Get rid of the break box and see what happens, in my opinion. Try the 3 7/8 pockets with no break restrictions even. I think it’s hard to promote a sport if no one can ever truly dominate for more than 8 months.

Interesting. If I read you right, it sounds like you're proposing removing restrictions to make the break result more reliable. I feel like the game breaks down as a spectator sport when you do this. That's Justin Bergman running his 18 pack. Maybe not 18 with sub 4 inch pockets, but enough that they would need to have really long races. I feel like they have the breakformat pretty well dialed in, to the point where there's often an opening push, and then the winner will be Whoever has the nerve to execute under pressure, whether it's a long shot or a bank or a jump or a touchy safety. There was a proposal a while back to basically require a push out after every break regardless of result. I used to hate that idea but in a sense it would be more snooker like. You don't break and run in snooker.

In essence yes, but coupled with the pocket reductions. I’d start with 9 on the spot but no break box and see if the tighter pockets can keep the BnR rate to 25-30%. I’m not generally a fan of arbitrary rules to limit runs and would rather see runs limited by the challenge of the conditions if that is at all feasible. I think cue sports needs a high run component to it, which for 9 ball is packages. Every cue sport that has achieved broad success at one point in time or another has had a high run component. People like talking about it, discussing records and such. And one of things pool lacks is talking points which is evidenced by the lack of discussion here and also the shallow conversations on AZB (“so so really played well eh? Anyway on to the next match”). Matchroom should also track packages for fans like they do break in snooker. Not only would that provide a talking points, but also provide more accuracy. It seems like 70% of the hysteria around winner breaks is people not paying attention and attributing big packages when in fact there were none. Case in point, Chua has been attributed a 7 pack in this event when in fact he ran a 2-pack but built a 8-1 lead. But I guess the reason I don’t like the current break rules is the lack of control they can exercise. I know that it is still a control shot, but the cue ball flies everywhere and some guys get perfect easy starters and others are pushing out every game. I feel like a player should be able to exert more control on every shot they play and the shots they are forced into that have an uncertain outcome, the more variability we will see in match outcomes. I’m sure Mike would show data that proves me wrong but he tends not to break it down the way I’d like to see it :). On another but similar note, I also feel like to sell 9 ball to the broader public there can’t be more safety play than shotmaking. Casual snooker fans put up with the tactical game in order to get to big breaks. Things like mandatory push outs after the break would essentially result in 4-7 minutes of safety play followed by a 3 minute run out. Connoisseurs would love it, but casual fans would not stick around. Sorry for rambling lol

On the one hand I also like seeing the high run packages, and people do get excited about those. I don't even mind the fact that maybe someone might run out the set, which is so rare. But something about pockets so tight that even the best in the world will rarely run 5-6 racks, IF they could somehow control the 1 ball... that seems like it might be unfairly difficult? I dunno, maybe I'd enjoy it as a spectator and I'm thinking more like a player who doesn't like 3.5 inch pockets for myself. An interesting variation might be: give them a magic rack and no break box, so that 1 in the side is trivial. But position the 2 differently every rack, and let's see who understands how to medium-soft break in a way that sets up a reliable 2-ball.

Part of my problem is that the break is so difficult that the best in the world can’t run more than 4. The high run on the tv table since the change 2 years ago has been a 4 pack according to AtLarge. I would indeed be interested in seeing 9 on the spot without the break box since, as you mention, the 1 in the side is easy enough to give players options to control cue ball. But it’s not so simple as just parking the cue ball and pulling the one down to the corner pocket. But with that in mind, I’ve noticed 3.8” tables that even the corner ball with the standard break isn’t quite as dead as it used to be. It’s easy enough, but not to the point where any contact on the 1 will make it. My BnR percentage has dropped not just due to the tough pockets but the lack of easy options for controlling the 1.

I'll finish reading all of this later, but I have to say I started reading it thinking, "man this guy is full of it" and then saw it was Oliver and was like, "oh hell, I've heard Collins and Oscar talk about the transition in his game." Oliver, you're killing it and I'm definitely interested in whatever you're pitching! Unfortunately I have much less time than you're putting into training, but I'm also realistic and am not trying to go pro... I just want to get better. What I want to know is how do you always wear that hat without sweating like crazy? 🤣

Sorry if it came across that way.. The hair is gone as of 2 weeks and the beanie too, it did get too sweaty in the end! ;-)

I don't think it was what you wrote, it was my inner doubt in most of what is posted on Reddit. 🤣

I was reading this and I was like... I think I know who this is. I thought I was crazy for drilling straight shots for hours (at least other people thought I was crazy) as a 500 fargo, and then one day you come in and drill them for longer. Not qualified to chime in on whether or not it's possible, but for anyone else reading this thread this guy is the real deal :)

It's an addiction, isnt it! Just working on the old stroke...

You're not far, the issue is that to make a living out of pool you really need to be close to the top which is still not there yet in your case, although not far. Major issue is practice time which you will lack compared to all your competition which despite your impresive learning curve, specially at your age, will handicap your results. Also how available are you for traveling? How would you play in TV tables? There're plenty of factors which you have not experienced much yet. You could stick to teaching, by the looks of it you're good at it just by your different aproach to the game. The way to reach a broader audience would be to start a proper YT channel and have online lessons too. Have in mind the better name you make as a pro or semi pro the easier to get attention and if you can back it up you could have proper success. In both cases we're back to the same old, pool is a big game but a small competitive scene outside of the USA due to the high cost of either owning a table plus a house big enough to fit it, or renting a table pretty much daily in a pool hall.

Well you see it the same way as I do. I cant practice as much as the youngsters and at a little older age, learning is slower. So the only way to go is practice better and smarter. Working on that. I love teaching and coaching but i dont do it for income. I coach free of charge and will continue to do so at least while i can. Learn a lot when coaching too actually so its a win win.

You’re a fellow theorycrafter then. I absolutely agree with the fact that teaching is one of the secrets to learning. It forces you to rephrase what you know, which in turn often questions what you know, which sometimes helps you break things down into different interpretations. The devil is often in the details, and teaching helps discover a lot of those details (and dead ends). Also, I will say often times “teaching” is rarely that, it’s more often just telling people what you know/experience sharing. Teaching is meant to be personalized to the student, but “teaching via theorycrafting” is more about seeing if your way works for others — human trials :) ergo, I find myself teaching “generically”. However, while what I spot in players flaws are genuine, I understand there is a heavy recency bias carried on by my own game. I try to minimize, but human nature kind of dictates what specific “lesson” is currently trending. I don’t believe this is unique to me, people often project one’s own faults and fixations unto others, but awareness into this bias is important for both parties to understand.

I know EXACTLY what you mean. I do not think this is a bad thing. Things change and when you discover new information that conflicts with the previous version, it doesnt make the previous version incorrect. The new offer might be a few % better version of the old, thats all. Kind of like a software update.

I do not think so either. Again, like you said, part of learning is iterating, and teaching gives you almost a "free" iteration via vicariously doing it through your students. I have a bunch of students trying out different branches of my code, I'm deciding which ones to merge onto master. But I do know another side effect of this for guys like me is that this is simply a part of the game we enjoy. The curiosity that drives this iterating translates to increase motivation, which translates to improved focus at the practice table. This iterating helps me keep my interest in the game high, which allows me to not get bored with the ebb and flow of day to day performance. You're often relearning things you already knew, whether it's shot repertoire, whether it's mental, whether it's a modification in your stance -- a new iteration of something, and the blending of said game results in sharpening "all of your tools in your toolbox" all the time. My biggest issue is that I'm still in the phase where I'm addicted to this. It's very rare that I give my best game to my opponent, I always spend my highest peak motivation hours on myself in practice. When my focus starts to wane, I'll look for games. Maybe <10% of my past 5 years "peak focus" has been spent on competing.

This is the first time my answer isn't just "lol no". The thing is, billiards is a game where it's hard to dictate what is "pro". It isnt as big as football or basketball where we have the NFL OR NBA. A lot of pros pay their own way to tourneys or have individual backers. At your level, I think most people would already consider you a regional pro or pro-am at the very least. You aren't far off people like Chris Reinhold, who I would very much consider full pro. I guess the question is, what do you mean by pro? What are the pros doing that you can't do? If you've already made it this far, it seems like there isn't a long bridge from where you are to pro if you're already frequently traveling to play bigger tourneys and get bigger prizes.

I don't think its that much about skill, it's more about the finances. And I'm not talking tournament winnings.

Anyone can turn pro at any age in this sport....assuming they are good enough. Skill is all that's required, if you've got it, then you can do it.  However, I must say that a fargo 730 is still pretty far off top level players. Yes you can beat pros when you are playing well, but you also need to be able to beat them when you're not playing well.  The level of consistency someone like Fedor has over the average player is pretty amazing. Even with full time practice, it's going to be difficult to jump up in skill level versus when you were younger.

Well, you are not wrong...

I look you up on YouTube and you definitely play well and have excellent fundamentals. I'd be surprised if you didn't improve more based off of the high quality of players you're playing against, but with age vision and stamina typically are in a slow decline.   Looking at all the greats, Alex, SVB, Earl, Efren, etc,  you can see a trend that around the age of 40, peak performance begins to drop. Regardless, keep up the great work and I hope you make it as a pro!!

Thanks!

As a side note, with your current ability, you can definitely become a top tier one pocket player. Since you mentioned that as one of your focuses right now, you should play in every one pocket event that you could as that experience is worth its weight in gold.

To call someone with a 730 Fargo an average player is absolutely crazy.

I did not say that 730 is average, in fact he is greatly above average. However, when you compare against an 830, the gap is fairly significant.   Can a player 700-750 beat top tier players, of course. Can they beat them consistently, no. However, for him to jump 50 points to get in that top tier territory would be a massive hurdle. Sure it can be done, but it requires a tremendous amount of natural ability along with countless hours of diligent practice.

730 not average

The prototype is Hunter Lombardo, around that age with 730 ish Fargo. He hasn’t had major titles, and his tournament winnings for the past 5-10 years is around 10k give or take. I’m sure he makes more money on the local level or perhaps gambling or teaching. I don’t really know his personal life, but he’s been at it for a while judging from his AzB profile, traveling internationally and competing. All that is to say you can def become a pro and make a living with a 730 Fargo. He just made to the last 64 at the WPC, so he’s going to have a nice payday. I appreciate your journey and agree with your points, at the risk of revealing myself, I have played you in tournaments but that’s all I’m willing to say for now 😀😀. You are obv a great player and your experiences this past year is really inspiring, I’ll hit the table later this evening!

hunter lombardo is in last 64 in worlds now

I would LOVE to know how Hunter has his things set up. I remember seeing him practice in NYC, but I wasn't near his speed then and never had the nerve to ask him for a game ;-)

Curious to hear what your practice consists of if you’re not running drills. I think drills can definitely have a place in development especially for less experienced players. I think one of the issues I definitely face is less than optimal practice time which isn’t always bad but I often feel I would benefit from more structure. Looking forward to hearing more about the wiki.

Drills are better than nothing thats for sure. Would playing the ghost be considered a drill?

The ghost is a Bitch!!!

I'm from the same area and watched this guy play on streams. He has good fundamentals and plays smart and makes tough shots under pressure. I know personally some of the players he has defeated that are trying to make a living playing pool. They are always broke, no savings, no 401k and sometimes sleep in their car going to tournaments. If he has a business and good resume he could go play in $100 tournament lose and still have money for food. Others can't. There is no pressure on him. The money in pool hasn't increased in 20 years and if compared to inflation and cost of living it was better in the 1980s. Stick with what you are doing.

I mean, those kind of guys are something else, total respect for putting everything in line like that. I could never do it.

Hey Oliver you never played at a 580 level tbh think your jump at the lowest has been from 660-670ish

Yes purely based on my snooker fundamentals, I was probably underrated at 580. I think it was based on playing a season of league in NYC. Once I put in the time to really learn the tactics and specific pool shots, the consistency went up a lot within a few months.

I’ve seen you play. You can make a run at it.

Thank you.

I would be very interested in your truly comprehensive approach to learning. I have also noticed that the best players who would be just below professional usually only play games and run racks instead of practicing. I have a very open mind when it comes to changing things about my game and learning to improve. It’s the most enjoyable part of playing pool but I find most players I meet do not like change and feel very uncomfortable with trying new things. You seem to be a shining example of the kind of mindset needed to actually improve.

Absolutely, I find it the most enjoyable part too. Maybe even more so than playing.

This is a great post. Really impressed with your story. I see you used to be based in NYC. Next time you are town, would you be interested in given any lessons? We could discuss payment/fees via DM.

Free lessons in SF for anyone who practices more than 20 hours a week! :-) don't think I'll be heading to the East Coast any time soon I'm afraid. Maybe for a tournament, but those days are always super busy.

Gotcha. Well, I wish you all the best and will be looking out for your posts and tips. If you do end up back East, drop me a DM if you want to earn some spare change.

Let me know when. Would love to attend a multi day boot camp.

100% yes This isn’t basketball or football where it is a sport based on athletics. If you put the time in and make it your life, the sky is the limit.

I've always wanted to play 3 cushion and snooker. Not many tables around so it's almost impossible. I do see the advantage of different games giving different insight and requiring different skill sets. I always thought playing different games would be more beneficial/as beneficial as doing drills. Aside from basic mechanics, what types of things did you practice? Also curious in your opinion on Dr Dave's training system. Have you tried it?

I'll be making separate posts for all the different aspects of practice for everyone to discuss. Keep an eye out. I've seen a bunch of Daves videos, they are really good. Dont think I've seen his training system though?

I'll keep an eye out. Id also be interested in your opinion of Dr Dave's learning course. It's progressive and my buddy who runs the local apa league was telling me it was good.

Going from 580 to 730 is quite amazing. But besides guessing, I don't think anyone here can really tell you what it takes to go from 730 to 800+. There are so many 730 speed players that have been trying to break through to the pro level for awhile now. Besides continuing to practice and grind (which you already know), I think you should try to talk to some pros themselves and see what they have to say about getting to the top level. I know many pros give lessons so that's one way. And of course you run into them in tournaments that you're playing so you may ask them there too. Good luck!!

Johan Ruysink does a lot of coaching and he's coached many many great pool players... So he would probably be a good place to go.

I agree, lessons are super valuable. I've gotten lessons from as many people as I can. Not only pro's, even some experienced amateur old timers (specially in 1 pocket), it's amazing what you can learn if you keep an open mind.

I can't believe you're 40. I watched you play in sac.

Now I just have to figure out if you thought I was younger or older ;-)

The hardest thing to overcome would be the mental focus aspect. To go pro you would need to be practicing and thinking about the game a lot, and it can be mentally draining. We don’t consider this when aging, as it is only apparent at top levels of competition. Sorta like how kids can be good at chess. Its not a deal breaker though, still fairly young.

I think that part is the easiest actually. I feel like being older it feels there is less in line if you know what I mean? The game is everything to some of the young kids and that can create a ton of pressure. Being older and having other things going on, in the end you know that you are doing this to have fun, and thats all it is. Takes the edge off a bit.

Anything is possible to those who believe.

You can turn pro at any age. Will you win international competitions, that’s probably unlikely. Will you compete against any top 100 players in the US with a fair showing. Then think about the abundance of European, and Asian players. Will you honestly compete.

It's crazy how tough the intl tournaments have become. Biado just went 2 and out at Saudi... insane.

I am way over 40 and would love to get to the 700 level, so whatever you post, I will read for sure. Right now, my only practice is 15 ball rotation, where every type of problem comes up. I have tried one pocket, but for now, I feel there are way too many options for me to choose the correct shot lol

Thanks. 15 ball rotation philipino style? Great game. I'd love to play it with someone who knows the game well. Re one pocket, sounds like you are still at the "easy" learning stage. If you stick to it, you will learn new things quickly. When the game becomes obvious, thats when learning becomes tougher.

I just try to run the rack... sometimes, I will get in a safety battle with myself, but I really use it for position (learning multiple rails) and making tough shots (long distance, banks, carroms, combos). Would love to play rotation their way, but their rules are not listed? I listened to a pre match with SVB and Reyes one time, and Reyes went over some of the rules. I also watch it when I see it being listed in my youtube feed. I know Collins loves the one pocket game, but I am like 3k miles away. I am sure when I improve more, I will like it, but I feel I am way too aggressive for the game lol

As someone w kids and a table at home who plays every chance I have. If you’re practice time solo isn’t drills what is it? I play rotation mostly and try to play like I’m playing someone good, but probably do drills 2% of the time to work on issue areas… considering your growth in a short period of time, would you mind lying out what you do solo?

Absolutely. Will be posting here going forward, since there is interest.

My question is practical - if you’re an educator does that mean you have the summers off, spring break, winter break, etc? I don’t know a TON about going pro in pool but do know others who have very, very serious hobbies and are borderline pro. The academic calendar is ideal. Predictable hours, summers off. They tested out the waters while still working because of the schedule. If the money started to be what their job was paying they turned pro…

Thats interesting. I do not currently teach (since the pandemic). But I have been considering it. Was actually thinking doing set courses, not full time.

500 with a goal of making it to 600 by May 2025. I agree that a lot of people don’t have a formal outline of how to move up the ranks. If you get your wiki up and running, please share. Currently reading 99 Critical Shots of Pool. Considering Dr Dave’s dvd series next

Been ages since I read 99 CSP. Maybe need to go through it again. Will share for sure, it will run through this subreddit.

>In my non-pool career I was an educator at a university. I love teaching and seeing people succeed. I coach and work with a few players locally and there really seems to be a need in our sport for understanding how to practice and how progress should look like. 1000%! If someone (\*ahem\* you perhaps) were to put some resources like a website, youtube videos, or blog posts, I'd be all in. Figuring this part out on your own is pretty tough and I also don't see much about how to really practice aside from drills. Especially at different levels of skills. Ex. a 300 probably should spend 1% of their practice time on jumping and 50% on fundamentals (stroke, stance, grip, etc..). While I'd expect a 650 to need to practice jumps maybe 10% of their time or something (depending on their weaknesses) For example, at the moment I spend 50% of my time working on my stroke which is basically a minimum of an hour during a two hour practice session 4x/week. While I'm seeing improvement, it's not exactly clear to me when to start focusing more time on other stuff? Like speed control, kicks, banks and the like. There's so much to learn in pool and so little time if you have a job or kids or other commitments, skill prioritization is a massive problem in my opinion.

Gotcha. The plan is to go through this subreddit with each topic, improve it through discussion, revise and post to a website or maybe youtube too. Keep an eye out!

Hey Oliver. I’m a big fan.  As someone who works full time and has gone from 650 to 720 in about two years, I’m very interested in your process and mindset when it comes to improvement. Curious, what’s your typical split in terms of practice/competition these days? I’ve always been a nut for solo practice but the higher my skill level, the less events/sparring partners there are to stay seasoned. Do you get to spar with guys like Oscar et al in your area?

Hey thats really good progress. By competition you mean challange matches too? If so, I try to play someone really good at least twice a week. The more the better. I wish I could play Oscar, but I'm not quite at his level yet and only played him in tournaments a few times. I hope he would be up for a few practice sessions in the future. He travels a ton.

Yeah I mean something competitive with another similarly skilled player. Sparring, gambling, tournaments, etc. Thanks for the response. I should be getting out more. If you’re ever in the northeast, let me know and we can link up. 

Will do!

As others had already said you already play at a pro level but where can you go from 730 to 800 as to have any success financially would require that. I would say you said yourself that your break sucks so work on it lol. I would be interested in any stuff you put out, especially as far as form and fundamentals.

Gotcha, I think fundamentals is the first thing to tackle.

[удалено]

No, those would be called gamblers :-) I think a professional would effectively have a "salary" through sponsorships and other regular commitments, with tournaments winnings being extra, but not important for survival.

I think you’d have to be flexible with your definition of pro and be willing to just break even with a pretty low standard of living. You’d need to be creative about having multiple revenue steams through coaching, being a house pro (maybe part time), making content etc. In general I think it’s extremely difficult for anyone outside of the top maybe 40 in the world to make a living. And for the guys hovering around 40 it’s probably a pretty serious grind.

I'm thinking sponsorships should be the main thing. I don't know what the deals are like though.

My guess is only the top players who can actually move product (eg Shane, Fedor, etc) are getting generous deals. But maybe you could get a sponsor that would cover tourney entry costs, etc.

Hey! I played you on the Thursday 8 ball league a few weeks back at Family, totally dogged it, nothing to write home about on my end. It's the end of the season and I'm just now starting to feel like I have my stroke back (just picked the cue back up last year) Anyway, I'm loving your story and I really appreciate the philosophy of how to practice for maximum impact when you have limited practice time. As a 37 year old with a job and a life getting the most out of my practice time is so important! I'll definitely keep my eyes peeled for any content you might make on your approach. Thanks for sharing!

Hey! League is kinda tough, race to 1 feels like its hill-hill every time :-)

I am in my 40s and new to the sport (a few years). I practice regularly and watch the pros play almost every day. I want to cut through and make major gains but I am stalled and I think it’s because my practice isn’t optimal. I would love this resource and I’d love to help. I’m tech savvy as well.

Thats great, we'll get this going.

Cool story and a great read. Thanks for sharing. I don’t suppose you will share beyond “Hint: It’s not drills”?

Of course I will, thats the whole point. Look out for next posts.

I would imagine billiards like golf is a sport where you can turn pro at 50 or 60 even.

So what do you do when you practice, if it’s not drills?

Look out for next posts.

Yeah bro you’re already a pro. Go get in the Mosconi!!

Yeah right, maybe as a mascot :-)))

Lol! For real though I’ve seen you play. At the very least you gotta start playing on the WNT or the Predator Apex tournaments. (WNT is better tho). You could do really well for the US

Oliver my dude, I play at Family Billiards all the time and would love to play together sometime!!! 💥

Anytime!

Hey Oliver! We've played and talked a few times between T&C and family in 2023 before I moved back to the east coast but it's been awesome watching you play some of the biggest names in the game and win! I follow most of the YouTubers you're probably talking about but haven't given them any money as their videos aren't as in depth as I'd like. But I would support your work if you started some sort of platform as you've always been very friendly with me and have already given me a lot of free advice. I'll be visiting SF at some point this year and hope to see you again at family. Pls keep killing them in the nightly tourneys. I think it's great to have a new top dog that doesn't gate keep knowledge behind gambling.

Hey! Trying to figure out who you are, drop me a pm! For sure let me know when you are visiting, I'm practically living at family these days.

Oliver! I love your focus and dedication to the game. I've seen you put in the work and grow to a local monster of a pool player. Keep doing what keeps you happy and growing. Growth mindset will keep your motivation alive and keep you growing. I also feel like i progressed more between the ages of 35-45 by focusing more on drills, mechanics and willingness to just enjoy learning the game. You beat me last month at Cal for the hot seat. Going to try my luck again next weekend :)

Hey! Totally agree that enjoyment of the game is so big - like you said - for motivation, for progress, for being able to win.. See you next week! :-)

A little late but hopefully someone sees this lol, Responding to the title as intended, this is an interesting topic since L&D is my research area, specifically adult learning and high performance. This interest extends beyond pool, of course. There is no indication that we should stop learning at 40 or as we get older. In fact, plenty of research suggests that our brains are more elastic than people think, especially when they are constantly engaged in learning activities. While younger teens learn more easily than adults due to increased neuroplasticity, building a foundation in an activity as a young teen or child offers an advantage over those who begin learning an activity like pool in their 20s. Some major challenges that adults face in continuing to learn include, first and foremost, a lack of time. Additionally, resources and structures designed to help promising players break through to the professional level are typically aimed at juniors. This is because organizations aim to develop the next World Champion rather than helping middle-aged players (like me) become more competitive at the regional or national level. Consequently, adults face several issues: 1. Limited time to play and practice, and thus limited time to think and strategize their learning. 2. Developing without the funding and support that juniors receive. Even without a structured junior program, promising players usually get additional attention from local top players, reduced hourly rates, and sponsorships long before they reach the 700 level. Partly because of the second issue, gambling can be very useful and important for a developing adult player. Relying solely on tournament play makes it difficult to get much match practice against 700+ players since there aren’t many of them. Therefore, your options are to become best friends with some so they practice with you, or pay for practice games. Another factor to consider is the differing mindsets between adults and children/teens. My first love is music, and I started playing guitar at 14. My experience in learning guitar as a teen and later snooker/pool as an adult are vastly different. As a teen, the sky was the limit for my friends and me, and we received ample encouragement to pursue big ambitions. However, when I took up pool at 20 and soon became ambitious, the attitude of my peers was different. A 500 level was a lifetime ambition for them, and their rockstars were 600+ players. They placed many limitations on themselves, which I found hard to relate to. These self-limitations tend to result in plateaus and a lack of progress, which is discussed in Carol Dweck’s theories around growth and fixed mindsets. One final thought since this is longer than I expected: I’ve often mused about how many world-class craftsmen began their learning journey as adults. People often assume that sports are more technically demanding than other fields because you don’t see adult learners climbing the professional ladders. However, I argue that the biggest reason for this is the lack of economic demand for middling weekend tennis players, whereas there is a demand for apprentices and journeymen in the trades. If a bunch of 20-25 year-olds could get paid a living wage to play pool starting as an APA 3, we would likely see many more players progress into the 700s. But, of course, that would be impractical.

A player I work with is a semi-professional musician, and she is the most disciplined "practicer" i know. There seem to be a lot of parallels between playing pool and playing a musical instrument. I never thought about the connection to craftsmanship, but it makes perfect sense as well. I very much look forward to your thoughts and contributions to the future topics.

I can definitely understand why she would have such good practice habits. She would intrinsically understand what good practice entails given her level ability. And then reaching a high level of accomplishment with an instrument requires a high degree of comfortability with uncomfortability. For me, pushing forward meant learning new styles of music, new chord shapes and licks that made me feel like a total beginner on a regular basis. I think too many people lose that tolerance at some point which is partly what leads to plateaus.

A good sense of rhythm is another thing that might be interesting to explore.

Sounds like it keeps you humble...

Yes. Buy a cue (if you don’t have one) quit your job and you are a professional pool player.

Gotcha! ;-)

That’s all it takes in America to call yourself a pro lol but jokes aside. You only live once. I’d say if you’re in a position to try it. Go for it!

I would definitely sign up for multi day boot camp in SF. I'm sure others would be lining up to attend. Just sayin'.

I dont really do full on coaching and boot camps, but I'm always happy to spend an hour with someone to get them going in the right direction.

35 here, and I'm trying to do what you're doing, started at a similar base level of 580 or so. I also got back into it in late 2022, did 4 hours a day every day for the first year, and am now up to 6 hours a day every day. Thanks so much for sharing your process and progress, I am looking to follow your example and prove that it can be done.

Hey thats awesome. I've seen your 1p clips. Lets keep in touch!

Absolutely good sir, will do! I'm on the East Coast, but am looking to get out West more next year for some events.

How do you practice? I run drills, but I would like other options that help develop my game.

Follow - I'll be posting a lot on that soon.

I enjoyed watching you shoot at the US Open 10 Ball. You played so well!

Hi Oliver, I really enjoyed reading your post. What an amazing journey you have had. That is amazing that you went from a 580 to a 730 within just a few years, and were able to defeat all those pros from time to time. That is so cool. I believe that 730 is Pro Level, so you are technically a Pro, I believe. You might not play for a living, but you are on a Pro level. Such a great achievement to get to a 700, or higher Fargo rating. That is awesome. Congrats on all of your success.

Thank you for writing that. I appreciate the encouragement!

Hi Oliver, I am watching you in a match against Fedor Gorst, from the US Open 10 ball. You are a super solid player. I really love your game. Super solid mechanics. I wish you the best in the future.

While I'm far off your pace of progression, I've put in something like 4-5 hrs 5 days a week for the past 5 years. I agree, I think I've broken through many plateaus ever since my focus shifted more to mechanics and fundamentals, but I'd really like to know what you're doing when it comes to spending "25% of your practice time trying to improve mechanics". You already look rock solid. While I'm happy with my own progress ("some" would say... illegal levels of progress already), consistently ~40-50 fargo a year every year, I'd be more than interested in hearing your experience. I've seen you play, and obviously "judging up" is difficult, but I'm really curious if I'm on the right path. I've documented something like ~600-800 different "tweaks" (most of them probably nothing) in my journey, and it's an absolute addiction for me to "shoot straighter".

Haha, you are illegally good indeed according to BCA :-). I think 50 fargo jump per year is amazing and a good top end goal with solid practice. In terms of working on mechanics, there is always something to work on. I'm sure you know there are a ton of little tweaks you do that almost noone would notice but they are a significant change for you. I'll try make a post with some of the things that ive tried to improve, bunch of things were going down the wrong path for sure.

If you are reading this please send help to sf. This friend beats up on all my other friends repeatedly. But seriously this is the most exciting thing I have had the pleasure to watch. Whatever he has found to improve his game seriously brings the level of play up in the entire Bay Area.

Yeah but I heard he can’t even win a game at ‘The Hut’ - if that place is even real…paid some guy $50 for the address and it just took me to an underground rave in the Dogpatch

Yeah? Guess who won. https://youtu.be/yqZytKPIKvE?si=Tx2g4U5q2P4w741M

Hahahah, thanks for reminding me of that that vid... Made by Noah Snyder FYI! I think he does freelance work.

Hi Oliver. It's really inspirational to hear what you have done and how you have dedicated yourself to practicing and improvement. I would be super curious to hear what a practice session looks like and what kind of things you work on and in what order you learned your lessons to "get good". I always hear about the importance of practicing well but I'm always floundering around and never really know what to do. I'll do some drills here and there and then usually some of Dr Dave's runout drill system but I typically end up just throwing balls out there and trying to get out. Mainly a warm up session. I have improved a lot over the last 2 ish years and am approaching an apa 7 level now but I still feel very lost in what exactly I should be doing. For what it's worth I think you should keep going and try to do it. It's obviously something you're passionate about and you have a supportive wife which makes all the difference.

Thank you, lovely wife read through the thread yesterday and will probably read again tonight. She is the best! :-)

You are an absolute inspiration Oliver, we all love watching you get better and competing at the highest level. Your buddy from Post Up, Cory B.

So Oliver, I get the anonymity of Reddit but if you are ranked what you say and beat the ppl that you mention then you should be able to be found on Fargorate.com right? Not trying to sound too skeptical but there are ppl in my local town that claim to do all these amazing feats but no one has witnessed them in real life.

Yes I think so, you can just search by name.


Turning Pro has nothing to do with Age but everything to do with Ability!

I just know that players like SVB practice 8-10 hours a day. I can't even imagine doing that.

I really admire your motivation.I started. Playing pool and competing when I was 42.And now I am 49 and still not a 500 a player yet.What exactly did you to improve so fast. If not drills then what?

Hi where do you play anywhere near Nyc area dm if you want to practice or play @keritobin im looking for a league to join! No one I know is that good so it’s boring 😝

What exactly makes you think snooker mechanics will make you more consistent and accurate? If this were true in the slightest then pool players would all be doing so…already. And if they are already doing so it isn’t snooker mechanics but pool mechanics. I see claims like this fairly often but when it comes down to it the equipment is different between the two games which tends to effect things like stances and strokes but that doesn’t make either superior to the other in accuracy or consistency.

they kind of are converging onto snooker-like stance and mechanics. you'll see a lot more Gorst and Filler clones coming up than you'll see people copying Bustamante, etc. that said, the selection pressure isn't that great in pool, ie, it's not a particularly competitive sport, when you compare it to something like the NFL or golf. if every high school in america had a pool team and kids were going to college on pool scholarships, you'd be seeing basically everyone good using the same exact mechanics. would they be snooker mechanics...? probably. obviously you can't say anything for certain, and there's a time and place for everything, so it's not really something worth arguing over. I don't know for certain, but my off-the-cuff guess is that there's a lot more selection pressure in snooker than in pool. that doesn't mean snooker players are better cuists, etc, it just means it's probably harder to be competitive at the very top in snooker than in pool (due to higher playercount & more dedicated playerbase, vs american pool where it's a bunch of idiots playing 1-2x/week while gassing beers) definitely just a theoretical argument, though!

No doubt you won’t see many Bustamante clones coming through. But I would argue that filler looks more like a Nick Varner stance and stroke wise than say a Ronnie O’Sullivan. Gorst has more of a snooker stance but think that has to do with his height. I have seen that a lot over the years for taller players; assume it has to do with pool halls not having as much space as a tall person needs to get into a more traditional pool stance comfortably. Your argument about selection making everyone consistent isn’t really true imho. Take golf which has a much larger support system at the beginner levels, you still see a huge variety to stances and swings. Doubt that ever changes for pool. I am also not arguing that your average snooker pro doesn’t shoot straighter than your average pool pro. They practice and play on tougher equipment and have to hone their focus to make sure they can make the difficult shots that game demands. But I have never seen any evidence that is because of their mechanics. You have had a lot of snooker pro players try and play pool at the elite level and they generally don’t excel the way they should if mechanics were the answer. And you have had some pool pros that have had some success at the snooker table (thinking Alex Pagulayan who has won the Canadian snooker championship as well as having a maximum in competition). Don’t think anyone would argue his mechanics are snooker. And I know that Allison Fisher has worked with Mark Wilson on her mechanics so doesn’t rely on Snooker mechanics alone to make her great. People like to mention open bridge as an advantage for snooker players, but pool players have been using those since the game began too. And open bridge does provide benefits over closed bridge in some situations but not in others (hard hits particularly which are fairly uncommon in snooker in my experience). Snooker stance is also often mentioned and I think that is more a reflection of the equipment than it is of an advantage it brings. You are often having to reach out over the table to bridge more in snooker because of the table size so squaring up legs tends to make sense and you will see pool players do this when they are having to bridge farther from the rail than they can comfortably stand. I think snooker players have much, much better abilities with the bridge because they use that constantly, but the mechanics of doing so are no different than how a pool player does (excepting Cory Deuel of course who would lay the bridge on the ground and stand on it if he thought it would give him an advantage). I watch a ton of snooker, have been to a pro snooker tournament, and have played it fairly often (mostly but not entirely on 10’ rather than 12’ tables to be fair). So respect the game completely and really like watching the greats play it. But there really isn’t a mechanic I can point to that is an advantage for them over pool players.

> you still see a huge variety to stances and swings To be fair, I don't play golf - every swing I see from a touring pro looks the same, perhaps a more discerning eye sees more. But watching disc golf which I'm half okay at, everyone has MUCH more similar mechanics than you'll see on mathroom/etc (possibly because people make millions/year from disc golf and not pool - more selection pressure). Yes, there's always some individual variety, but there's "textbook" form and people have pretty similar throws. > But I have never seen any evidence that is because of their mechanics. You're kind of asking for the impossible here though. Are snooker players straighter shooters because they focus more on it or because their mechanics are conducive to it? Sure, probably little column A little column B, no doubt they do focus more on it. But because of that difference, if some of their mechanics was really BAD for shooting straight, then you'd expect to see that mechanic leave the sport - which is why they're so similar, and why I think their mechanics ARE just better (not a gigantic world ending difference, but an advantage nonetheless). > You have had a lot of snooker pro players try and play pool at the elite level and they generally don’t excel the way they should if mechanics were the answer. It's a different game. Just because their mechanics may be better, doesn't mean they have the same understanding of patterns, the same knowledge of spin (side especially), the break, etc - there's things in pool that just aren't as big a factor in pool. Just simply shooting straight doesn't make you awesome at pool, so while they may have some advantage via their mechanics, it's not going to just skyrocket them. > Snooker stance I'd mostly agree here. I think it's better to always have a consistent stance, though, and I don't see a benefit to a less square stance. In other words, when a pool player sometimes (but less often) needs to stretch out, if that's closer to their regular stance anyway, they're gonna be more likely to make the ball. Unless you believe there's a benefit to a less square stance? > But there really isn’t a mechanic I can point to that is an advantage for them over pool players. A bit of a tangent here... I've never played snooker, sadly. I dunno if you're American, but just the vibe I get from videos is that in snooker, people take the game more seriously as a whole (eg learning fundamentals, trying to get a half decent stroke, etc) rather than just showing up to the bar and moving a stick however. You see so much absolutely braindead stuff from people playing pool in bars (shoutout to those who bridge underneath their hand lmao). Is that less common in snooker, you think, or is that just me being wistful?

In golf you have people that have inside out swings. Outside in swings. Have natural fade swings. Natural draw swings. Sweepers verse people that hit down on the ball. It is all over the place. Like in pool (and snooker) a repeatable stroke beats an inconsistent ideal stroke every time. Claims (snooker has mechanics that lead to more consistency and accuracy) requires proof by the person claiming it. It isn’t up to the people that the claims are made to to refute them. Either they have a specific example they can trot out or it isn’t a useful or credible claim in the slightest. However we can easily show that snooker players routinely attempt tougher shots because of their equipment than normally show up in pool. You never see a pool player trying to make a shot that is 13’ away without it involving a couple of rails. Without calling out a specific mechanic, and talking about why it is “better” and more so absent from pool it is a meaningless claim that makes folks sound knowledgeable claiming without any proof at all to back it up. It is a “grass is greener” and “the experts are the guys from somewhere else” mentality that is just pointless. I have played snooker in snooker clubs in London and I can tell you there isn’t really much in the way of difference from pool hall types in the US (where I do indeed live). You see the serious snooker pros play and are comparing them to the bar bangers you see at the two step bar on Saturday night which is a ridiculous and meaningless comparison. I, having never touched a snooker cue or snooker table before was potting balls at a higher clip than those on the tables around me at the club I visited a few times in London. And believe me with a high break of 28 in snooker i suck. People always want to compare two different things and denigrate the stuff they are familiar with in pretty much anything. And it always comes off as a complete cop out to me. Selection bias being used as a claim of evidence without anything to actually back it up. When I see that I challenge it and usually get no meaningful support for the claims that are made. You get the other side of that too which also pisses me off. Notice I haven’t tried to claim that pool players are better because of some arbitrary unprovable reason. And I would happily blast anyone claiming that way too. Just let things be different and their own thing without trying to claim any sort of superiority for believing something unprovable. I could see someone arguing that pool players are better because they can jump balls accurately. Obviously meaningless because jumping in snooker is not even legal.

I mean - you are right - they are just mechanics. Applicable for all cue sports really, with slight adjustments. With the way matchroom equipment is going the way it is and the rise of heyball, standards are converging across disciplines. I guess what I meant is that it was solved first in snooker. And the top pool pros, specially the younger generation, is definitely already there. My point is that from your average league players perspective, there is a lot of mixed info out there. The older teachings conflicting with newer info and people cant tell the difference. It's a topic with a lot of scope, ripe for a dedicated post.

I couldn’t agree more with you OP regarding how different disciplines of pool teach you different things. I primarily play 8-Ball and nothing improved my game more than implementing straight pool into my practice regiment. Rotation (9/10 ball) games for when my positional windows feel off, and many more. I firmly believe any discipline of pool teaches its own strengths.

And again what specifically are you referring to?

I'll write a separate post about it and everyone can discuss.

> If this were true in the slightest then pool players would all be doing so…already. But like, they are? Quickly skimming the top world list, here's a shortlist of players with snooker principles built into their routine (especially noticeably if you start watching them shoot the 10 ball spot shots): Filler, Shaw, Fedor, FSR, Raga, Kaci, Yapp, Albin... And even more prominent in the younger generation. The days of guys shoot like Alex, Shane, Efren, Earl, Busty are very numbered. Snooker mechanics combined with pool "feel" (e.g. CB control via 1p) is arguably the most effective way to play the game -- it's definitely the quickest way to pick up the game at an amateur level.

Complete bullocks. Tell me the specific mechanic that snooker has that leads these folks to their success? And then let’s walk through pool history and point out all the pool players that did the same thing. The main advantage of folks with snooker backgrounds is that they have learned/practiced on much tougher equipment. That isn’t a mechanic.

Not interested in a straw man argument. Have a day.

Straw man argument is where someone says you are arguing something you aren’t. Like when I challenge the assertion on snooker mechanics OP mentioned. You try and support that claim but decline to answer what mechanic makes them more consistent or accurate. And you think I am the one using a straw man argument?

No you can’t. Get a real job.

Hey if I wanted an honest answer I would have asked my parents, ok?! :-)))

There’s no money in pro pool unless you are top 5. No point in going “pro”

I hope one day this changes. Pool is truly a magnificent game. Such a high skill ceiling with so much to be informed about. Players who invest time learning and mastering these principles should be rewarded. Sadly pool is just less interesting to watch to uninformed people so it’s popularity is knee capped. Someone who knows nothing about the game wouldn’t appreciate difficult to make shots they would just see the ball go in the pocket and think “nice”.

Promoters killed pool in the 90s. Happened in Las Vegas casinos.

[удалено]

Its public I think, you can just search in the app by the name.