double-the-distance aiming method (PIM: Pocket Intersection Method)

SpiderWebComm said:

I'd like to hear from anyone in the world reading the thread who thinks CTE is geometrically incorrect - to prove why it is.

Click to expand...

Dave,

If you are serious about this, we would first need to clearly define what "geometrically correct" means, as applied to an "aiming system." I'll take a stab so others can help expand or improve the definition:

Vision, alignment, perception, judgment, feel, conscious or subconscious adjustments, stroke accuracy or consistency, etc. are not part of the test for "geometric consistency." Geometric consistency refers to the theory of the system, not the implementation of the system. As I and others have pointed out, some of the systems that are geometrically consistent in theory (e.g., bisect-pivot-and-shift aiming system and contact-point-to-contact-point or parallel-lines system) aren't always easy to implement perfectly in practice (due to the long list of elements above). But this long list of "elements" present challenges to any system. The challenges of perception, vision, and alignment are ever-present at the pool table, regardless of the system one might be attempting to use.

Now, to judge whether or not your version of CTE is "geometrically consistent" or not, we would need a clear description of your version of CTE. I have heard and seen many versions of CTE over the years. Several descriptions, and one demonstration, of versions of CTE that have been offered over the years, can be found here:


None of these versions of CTE satisfy the definition of "geometrically consistent" above. I'm not saying your current version of CTE even closely resembles any of the posted versions, nor am I saying that none of the versions of CTE actually work "in practice" for some people. However, no version of CTE I have seen or heard to date can be described as geometrically consistent, IMO. I would still like to read a description of your version of CTE. How is your document coming? Weren't you working on something? Would you be willing to post a short and clear set of steps (with or without diagrams) that describes how you version of CTE works in theory? FYI, here are examples of the style of description (and illustration) that enable a "system" pass the test of "geometric consistency":

FYI, the version of double-the-distance described at the beginning of this thread is NOT "geometrically consistent." It breaks down as the balls get closer. Therefore, even "in theory," the system isn't perfect. Any system can break down in actual implementation.

I hope you don't take any offense with this post. I mean no disrespect whatsoever. I hope we can continue this discussion and better understand how your version of CTE works (in theory and in practice), whether or not it is "geometrically consistent."

Looking forward to your thoughts (and the thoughts of others),
Dave

jay helfert said:

I'm a little late to this thread, maybe because I'm not too big on "systems" in general. This particular one works quite well and is very accurate. Probably great for practice drills etc. There is only one problem. It is UNWORKABLE in game situations. Yes, that's what I said. Unworkable! Try using this system a few times in an actual game when you have a three quarters length table shot. You'll drive yourself crazy trying to find that perfect spot to hit the object ball. And any momentum you had will be lost as well, as you stare down at the faraway ball. Actually anything half a table or longer will be tough to figure accurately. And only slow you down.

My best guess is that if you tried to use this system exclusively on long shots, you'd miss more than you make. Up close to the object ball it's okay but still not the best way to play pool IMO. When you've been playing pool long enough (as most of you have) that little computer in your brain that has seen every shot thousands of times is your best ally. You know instinctively where to aim without needing to do any conscious calculating. sure you might take a look at the pocket on a tough cut shot just to get your bearings, but that's about it.

Sorry if I burst anyone's bubble but I guess that's how I roll. I've been banging pool balls a long time and I will always tell it like it is. This is one place I hold nothing back, especially when it comes to pool advice. See you down the road. Now can I get a gapper till next time. :grin:

Click to expand...

Great points! I think most people (even the "math guys") would agree with you. Like I have written several times in this thread, I think most of these systems are just curiosities and tools to help beginner players get in the "ball park." High-level pool is more about perception, feel, psychology, and consistency, all of which can develop completely only with lots of successful experience and practice.

Regards,
Dave

jay helfert said:

You're the man Dave! You said the magic word - FEEL! Although the other words you used are good also :wink:. In my as yet unpublished treatise on pool, I say early on that pool is a game of "touch and feel", not geometry. Everything changes dramatically depending upon speed of stroke, english applied and other variables. And I know now that you know that!

Click to expand...

You mean you don't think I'm am just a "math guy?"

I'm glad you now know that I also appreciate the "touchy-and-feely" part of pool. :wink:

I appreciate your post. I look forward to seeing your "treatise" some day.

Thanks,
Dave

SpiderWebComm said:

About 70% of what you have listed about CTE in your aiming system is inaccurate or incomplete.
... However, it's very very incomplete ... When someone like me reads that page, I shake my head because there's a lot that's not there

Click to expand...

Spidey,

I totally agree the posted CTE information is not "complete." If it were, we wouldn't have all of these questions and doubts. (BTW, for the record, none of that information is "mine" ... I have just provided links to and quotes from info provided by others.) Unfortunately, these are the only demonstrations and descriptions of CTE that have been offered to date, to my knowledge. You had posted some videos in the past, but you removed them (I assume because you thought they were not very "representative" of the system). If even you can't create a simple step-by-step description and/or video that demonstrates the system (and you seem to be a CTE expert), how can you expect PJ, me, or others (who you claim don't really know CTE) to write a description that you will be happy with? :frown: Neither PJ or myself have tried to describe CTE (as far as I know), because the information that has been posted by others, and the information shared to me by Hal, Stan, you, Ron, and others, has not been clear and complete enough (intentional or not) for me to provide a convincing description or demonstration.

I think if CTE is to be taken seriously, someone who truly knows CTE should explain to us in simple terms what it is. Whenever somebody tries to explain what it is (e.g., with the quotes here), you and others claim the information is incomplete or invalid. If that is the case, please provide us with better information!!! Without better information, it is pointless discussing something which has not been defined properly.

SpiderWebComm said:

Let me know your questions and I'll answer them.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Here is the only question I have, until I have a better understanding of what CTE really is:

Would you please be willing to post a short and clear set of steps (with or without diagrams and demonstrations) that describe what CTE really is?

I have asked this many times over the years of several people. I have quoted the only answers I have received. I am hoping you can finally settle this. I don't think I'm asking for much. I have spent many hours on the phone with CTE proponents, and I have read thousands of posts and private e-mails about CTE over the years, and I still don't know what CTE is (according to you). Please educate us. Please! I think I have put in my fair share of effort over the years. Now, I'm asking you to put out only a small amount of effort. FYI, here are examples of the style of description (and illustration) that I am hoping to see:

If you could provide a straightforward description of CTE, I'm sure many people would appreciate it. They might even be willing to learn more by paying an instructor to help them apply the information.

Please provide us with some concrete, accurate, and useful information. If you do, I would be more than happy to add to or replace the current info I have quoted.

Respectfully, seriously, and with strong interest,
Dave

TheConArtist said:

just aim the edge of the cueball to the objectball.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing the diagram. It looks like a variation of fractional ball aiming to me. As with most "systems," the tough part is judging the angle of the shot and perceiving in 3D what the diagrams show so well in 2D. Also, there are many shots that can be missed with only four lines of aim (without intuitive compensation and "feel" relative to the reference positions). Having said all of this, I still believe there are many benefits to systems like this, especially for beginners.

Regards,
Dave

SpiderWebComm said:

So, I'll ask again--- make a video or post some info on how you think this stuff works--- and I'll critique it.

Click to expand...

OK. It sounds like we need to start with something. Here is the best I can do at this point, with the limited information available. This is based mostly on the the info posted here (including the video from eezbank), and from what I have learned from Hal, Stan, you, and past threads over the years.


For a “thick hit” (a small cut angle less than 15 degrees) to the left:

1. Align the cue 1 tip to the right of the CB center through the right edge of the OB.
2. Place the bridge hand down with the cue exactly along this line, using a 10-12 inch bridge length.
3. Pivot the cue (without shifting the bridge at all, so the cue rotates about the fixed bridge-pivot point), until the cue is pointed directly through the center of the CB.
4. Stroke perfectly straight along this line.

For a “half-ball hit” (close to 30 degrees) to the left:

1. Align the cue through the center of the CB and through the right edge of the OB.
2. Place the bridge hand down with the cue exactly along this line. The bridge length can be anything for this shot since there is no pivot.
3. Stroke perfectly straight along this center-to-edge line.

For a “thin cut” (more than 45 degrees) to the left:

1. Align the cue 1 tip to the left of the CB center through the right edge of the OB.
2. Place the bridge hand down with the cue exactly along this line, using a 10-12 inch bridge length.
3. Pivot the cue (without shifting the bridge at all, so the cue rotates about the fixed bridge-pivot point), until the cue is pointed directly through the center of the CB.
4. Stroke perfectly straight along this line.

If you follow the procedures above exactly, you will make shots within certain limited ranges of angles. However, you will miss most shots outside of these limited ranges, unless the OB is very close to the pocket and/or the pockets are huge (so significant "pocket cheating" is possible). Now, you can make the procedures work if you compensate a little as the cut angle changes. For example, you can adjust your bridge length (this has a huge effect on the results of the pivot step per Diagram 4 in my December ‘08 BD article, which is included below), modify the starting tip position a little, pivot slightly less or slightly more relative to the CB center, and/or you can shift your bridge hand slightly during the pivot (e.g., by pivoting with your hips or body) to create a different effective pivot point farther back or closer up from the bridge. You can also “air pivot” where you make subtle changes to all of this stuff intuitively as you come down into the shot (in which case you place your bridge and cue along the required line of aim of the shot with center-ball alignment, without using the separate tip-offset-and-pivot steps). Then, the system can work perfectly for any shot at the table, provided you can judge, perceive, and apply the subtle differences from one shot to another (in which case you don’t need an aiming system).


Hopefully, this is enough of a start to create some useful discussion. I look forward to input from you and others so we can refine this procedure to have it better represent what you think CTE is.

Thank you for your time,
Dave

PS: I put a lot of time into this, so please respond in a constructive way (even if critically constructive), so we can make some progress. In other words, please contribute some of your knowledge and information.

Clark_the_Shark said:

Those things "missing" sound a lot like Colin Colenso's BHE stuff, which all depends on Pivot Point (which ends up being pretty complicated to compensate for during actual gameplay)

Click to expand...

Actually, English creates a whole new set of aiming issues. The version of CTE we are discussing here is concerned only with center-ball hits. Let's please keep the focus on that first, before we even mention English. FYI, Colin's methods, along with other approaches for compensating aim with English can be found here:


but let's not discuss those in this thread (not for now, anyway).

Thanks,
Dave