Objective v/s Subjective aiming

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
To perform a task in an objective manner (whether it's shooting an OB into a pocket or climbing straight up the face of a rock cliff) means the process does not require personal opinion or individual judgement. If rock climbing is the task, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of hand-grabs and feet-placement combinations that one could use. Simply telling a person to use their hands, feet, and eyes to climb the cliff does not constitute an objective climbing method. Too much is left up to personal opinion/judgement, making the climb subject-dependent. In other words, it would be the climber's individual choices that gets him (or her) to the top. This is the subjective method.

Now let's apply the same logic to aiming pool shots. The rote method of learning to aim is purely subjective. Each player learns through their own renditions of trial and error. Ghostball is also subjective because it is nearly impossible for the average player to accurately visualize the center of an invisible ball with repeated consistency. Traditional fractional aiming by the quarters method is subjective due to the fact that choosing the appropriate aim point is purely based on individual interpretation of angles. However, a fractional aiming method that provides this information would be objective because there​ would be no individual interpretations. Pivot systems, which includes the CTE manual pivot method, are actually objective within specific shot parameters, then become subjective when shots fall outside of those parameters, forcing the player to estimate or guesstimate some sort of compensation or visual correction. Most players develop their own way of doing it. Just go surfing on YouTube for 30 minutes and you'll find numerous players doing their "own" version of CTE. That alone is proof that either the system is too complicated to learn as designed (like studying string theory), or it's purely subjective, dependent on personal perceptions/opinions.

This has been the aiming debate for as long as I can remember.....we hear "this system is objective, unlike these other systems that are not objective." Well, here's a good test for determining objectivity:

If a player can use a certain method to pocket a ball and get immediate results in a quick, simple, and accurate manner, within a few seconds, then show another player the same method, who then gets the same immediate results, the method is undeniably objective. It would be like numbering the rocks for hand-holds and feet-placements on a rock cliff so every climber has a guaranteed path to the top if they prefer to take it.

If you have to spend weeks or years trying to figure out a certain method, whether your shooting pool or climbing rocks, the method you're using is not objective.
That's why it's taking so long to learn, because the method is subject-dependent, better known as subjective.

What are your thoughts? Anyone?
 

tonythetiger583

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
To perform a task in an objective manner (whether it's shooting an OB into a pocket or climbing straight up the face of a rock cliff) means the process does not require personal opinion or individual judgement. If rock climbing is the task, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of hand-grabs and feet-placement combinations that one could use. Simply telling a person to use their hands, feet, and eyes to climb the cliff does not constitute an objective climbing method. Too much is left up to personal opinion/judgement, making the climb subject-dependent. In other words, it would be the climber's individual choices that gets him (or her) to the top. This is the subjective method.

Now let's apply the same logic to aiming pool shots. The rote method of learning to aim is purely subjective. Each player learns through their own renditions of trial and error. Ghostball is also subjective because it is nearly impossible for the average player to accurately visualize the center of an invisible ball with repeated consistency. Traditional fractional aiming by the quarters method is subjective due to the fact that choosing the appropriate aim point is purely based on individual interpretation of angles. However, a fractional aiming method that provides this information would be objective because there​ would be no individual interpretations. Pivot systems, which includes the CTE manual pivot method, are actually objective within specific shot parameters, then become subjective when shots fall outside of those parameters, forcing the player to estimate or guesstimate some sort of compensation or visual correction. Most players develop their own way of doing it. Just go surfing on YouTube for 30 minutes and you'll find numerous players doing their "own" version of CTE. That alone is proof that either the system is too complicated to learn as designed (like studying string theory), or it's purely subjective, dependent on personal perceptions/opinions.

This has been the aiming debate for as long as I can remember.....we hear "this system is objective, unlike these other systems that are not objective." Well, here's a good test for determining objectivity:

If a player can use a certain method to pocket a ball and get immediate results in a quick, simple, and accurate manner, within a few seconds, then show another player the same method, who then gets the same immediate results, the method is undeniably objective. It would be like numbering the rocks for hand-holds and feet-placements on a rock cliff so every climber has a guaranteed path to the top if they prefer to take it.

If you have to spend weeks or years trying to figure out a certain method, whether your shooting pool or climbing rocks, the method you're using is not objective.
That's why it's taking so long to learn, because the method is subject-dependent, better known as subjective.

What are your thoughts? Anyone?


It's really hard to say with CTE. I think it takes weeks to years to figure out how to use cte, because there is a such a specific way of doing it. I think there is only one true way to execute a shot with cte.

Your personal pivots might be different depending on your eye dominance (example: I sweep left with the cue favoring my dominant eye 60/40 and my right sweeps favor my dominant eye almost entirely). Once you have your sweeps down in relation to your personal vision center, it should be the same every time.

I think when a person says "CTE My Way", they're either doing it incorrectly, or they're trying to consolidate the system in a way that applies to their vision center without knowing it.

I came up with countless "my way" adjustments before I stumbled upon the visual sweeps for my physiology. I can say that the "my way" adjustments would always work, sort of, but they always felt rough, whereas the actual sweep feels much more precise.

What stan describes as left and right sweep where your eye pull to the right or left and your body follows is correct. But learning that correct amount based on your vision is quite personal.

I'm not sure if it's subjective so much as more complicated to categorize. I think you could probably map out the range of vision centers between the right eye and left eye and how that relates to how a person should have their cue oriented under their chin.

Like I think if you were to learn cte from stan, the major difference would be that he could identify your vision center, and say for example: you are a category one which means such and such. So for left sweeps your cue should be angled like so under your chin every time. And I'm sure with his expertise he could identify the optimal personal cue position for each specific student.

So to in summary, I think acquiring the visuals is objective ( ex: you line up edge to a and center to edge) and the sweeps are objective (you always sweep by the same amount regardless of the shot), but the tricky thing is that learning the sweep is done on a person by person basis. Once that person learns their correct visual sweep in relation to themselves and memorize how it looks and feels, they are to repeat it the same every time without variation.

So does that make it objective or subjective?

I think something could be complicated while still being objective.

edit: Random thought, I find there is much more consensus with acquiring the visuals, even though learning to recognize the visuals is also a major hurdle in CTE. All the "my way" people seem to acquire the visuals the same, it's usually the pivot that is being interpreted.
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
......

So does that make it objective or subjective?

I think something could be complicated while still being objective.

edit: Random thought, I find there is much more consensus with acquiring the visuals, even though learning to recognize the visuals is also a major hurdle in CTE. All the "my way" people seem to acquire the visuals the same, it's usually the pivot that is being interpreted.

I agree that something complicated can also be objective. This is because every task requires certain skills, basic a fundamentals that must be known and acquired. Like with the rock climbing analogy, if the hand-holds are numbered to make it a known path, a climber would still need to process the fundamentals of climbing in order to be proficient at following that path. I suppose this would be CTE. Basic fundamentals of playing pool is not enough. A player needs to acquire an additional skill (specific visual interpretation) to make it objective.
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
To perform a task in an objective manner (whether it's shooting an OB into a pocket or climbing straight up the face of a rock cliff) means the process does not require personal opinion or individual judgement. If rock climbing is the task, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of hand-grabs and feet-placement combinations that one could use. Simply telling a person to use their hands, feet, and eyes to climb the cliff does not constitute an objective climbing method. Too much is left up to personal opinion/judgement, making the climb subject-dependent. In other words, it would be the climber's individual choices that gets him (or her) to the top. This is the subjective method.

Now let's apply the same logic to aiming pool shots. The rote method of learning to aim is purely subjective. Each player learns through their own renditions of trial and error. Ghostball is also subjective because it is nearly impossible for the average player to accurately visualize the center of an invisible ball with repeated consistency. Traditional fractional aiming by the quarters method is subjective due to the fact that choosing the appropriate aim point is purely based on individual interpretation of angles. However, a fractional aiming method that provides this information would be objective because there​ would be no individual interpretations. Pivot systems, which includes the CTE manual pivot method, are actually objective within specific shot parameters, then become subjective when shots fall outside of those parameters, forcing the player to estimate or guesstimate some sort of compensation or visual correction. Most players develop their own way of doing it. Just go surfing on YouTube for 30 minutes and you'll find numerous players doing their "own" version of CTE. That alone is proof that either the system is too complicated to learn as designed (like studying string theory), or it's purely subjective, dependent on personal perceptions/opinions.

This has been the aiming debate for as long as I can remember.....we hear "this system is objective, unlike these other systems that are not objective." Well, here's a good test for determining objectivity:

If a player can use a certain method to pocket a ball and get immediate results in a quick, simple, and accurate manner, within a few seconds, then show another player the same method, who then gets the same immediate results, the method is undeniably objective. It would be like numbering the rocks for hand-holds and feet-placements on a rock cliff so every climber has a guaranteed path to the top if they prefer to take it.

If you have to spend weeks or years trying to figure out a certain method, whether your shooting pool or climbing rocks, the method you're using is not objective.
That's why it's taking so long to learn, because the method is subject-dependent, better known as subjective.

What are your thoughts? Anyone?

Sounds to me like a long way of saying you think your system is better than CTE. Fractional aiming has been around a very long time, and I understand you have somehow mapped the table to come up with eventually being able to determine the best fraction for a given shot based on ball positions on the map. Having not actually seen your chart or map I really can't say it's better for an individual or not. It seems to me that either way you are still eventually forced to aim a certain portion of a sphere at another certain portion of a sphere some distance away, which doesn't particularly sound easier with one system or the other. I think with either the last real test is to visually recheck the ghost ball contact point just before pulling the trigger to make sure it looks right. That said, if a person can do this correctly then neither system is really needed is it? I have worked with Pro one quite a bit and am sure it works, when I do it correctly, but I cannot claim to always do it correctly, So what makes your method more repeatable than Pro One?
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Sounds to me like a long way of saying you think your system is better than CTE. Fractional aiming has been around a very long time, and I understand you have somehow mapped the table to come up with eventually being able to determine the best fraction for a given shot based on ball positions on the map. Having not actually seen your chart or map I really can't say it's better for an individual or not. It seems to me that either way you are still eventually forced to aim a certain portion of a sphere at another certain portion of a sphere some distance away, which doesn't particularly sound easier with one system or the other. I think with either the last real test is to visually recheck the ghost ball contact point just before pulling the trigger to make sure it looks right. That said, if a person can do this correctly then neither system is really needed is it? I have worked with Pro one quite a bit and am sure it works, when I do it correctly, but I cannot claim to always do it correctly, So what makes your method more repeatable than Pro One?


This thread is actually an attempt to clarify/define what it means to have an "objective" method of doing something. Sure I think my system is better than any other, just as Tony thinks SALUX is better, and Stan thinks CTE is better. If there's anything I've learned about pool players over the last 30+ years, it's that we are a proud and stubborn lot. Like good magicians, most pool players tend to keep their secrets to themselves in order to have an advantage over their opponents. We don't like to admit that we don't know or understand something. We don't want other players, besides close friends, to know we've purchased an instructional DVD or book. This isn't all pool players, but I've found it to be a solid generalization in most poolhalls I've visited.

Basically what happens when using ghostball, as well as pivot methods, is that players eventually develop an additional skill beyond the basic fundamentals of a solid bridge, good stance, and dependable stroke. They develop an instinct for aiming. This typically takes months to years before the effects are evident, which is why I've said it's basically a branch from the old rote tree.

Here's a test: Set an object ball on the center spot, then place the CB at least 2 ft away from the ball, lined straight into a corner pocket. Shoot this straight-in shot 20 times or so. If you make every shot (no rattling the pocket!) you have played enough pool to acquire the basic fundamentals needed to pocket any ball. Another player can point to a spot on the rail or on/near the OB , saying "aim here", and you'll be capable of doing it. With pivots and sweeps, you'll need more than good ol basic fundamentals. You'll need to develop specific visual perspectives that pertain to such systems, which can take months to years to achieve with proficiency, making the learning process very much rote-oriented.

Some players catch on quickly, while others not so quick. Time is the most valuable resource....if you find something that works, stick with it. If you continue to struggle trying to make something work, and you are confident in your fundamentals, there is an additional element, a subjective aspect to the method, and you'll need to invest a lot of time into learning it.
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Objectivity is EVERYTHING about knowing the CCB that makes the shot essentially into center pocket. Being in the ballpark is subjective. Fractional systems are subjective and virtually no one will argue that. It has been like that for a 100 years. Determine the fraction and adjust from there.
Hal Houle touted CTE as a CCB- center pocket system. I have always believed that and have experienced it but unfortunately my description of how to arrive at center cue ball has never perfectly suited me. I have always known that there were slight leaks but that never kept the system from working., One's vision has a way of doing the inexplicable. Closing any gaps and precisely explaining the phenomena of CTE has driven me to years and years of work in figuring CTE out.
CTE does not align a player to center pocket but to a slight overcut which is much better and that line can now be perfectly described and applied in 100% terms. That is the objectivity that fractions miserably fails with. Ballpark aiming is worthless at high levels. In CTE every shot is like a center cue ball shot for a zero angle.
All the details will be shown for free online and a book is on the way.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Objectivity is EVERYTHING about knowing the CCB that makes the shot essentially into CCB. Being in the ballpark is subjective. Fractional systems are subjective and virtually no one will argue that. It has been like that for a 100 years. Determine the fraction and adjust from there.
Hal Houle touted CTE as a CCB system. I have always believed that and have experienced but unfortunately my description of how to arrive at center has never perfectly suited me. I have always known that there were slight leaks but that kept the system from working., One's vision has a way of doing the inexplicable. Closing any gaps and precisely explaining the phenomena of CTE has driven to years and years of work in figuring CTE out.
CTE does not align a player to center pocket but to a slight overcut which is much better and that line can now be described and applied in 100% terms. That is the objectivity that fractions miserably fails with. Ballpark aiming is worthless at high levels. In CTE every shot is like a center cue ball shot for a zero angle.
All the details will be shown online and a book is on the way.

Stan Shuffett

I agree that TRADITIONAL Fractional aiming is NOT objective No doubt about it, as there is quite a bit of of guesswork or personal opinion involved in determine the appropriate angle. But isn't there an element of this in CTE? How does a player determine whether a shot requires A, B, or C?

The fractional system I introduce in Poolology is not traditional. It is not subjective because their is no guesswork, no need for players to develop their own versions of the system in order to get it to work. A solid grasp of basic fundamentals guarantees immediate results. It "stands apart from any other aiming method I've ever seen". I get these types of comments from players all around the world. So, with complete respect to Hal, and to you, the old view of fractional ball aiming is no longer up to date.
 

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
Since there are no objective aiming points.......all aiming systems are subjective.

It is possible to discuss objectively about something subjective, but that does not back what is being discussed objective.

When people must imagine objects..........refernce points for aiming.......that's subjective.

One system is not better than another. There are different levels of easy of use and limitations of each system.

One being better than another is very subjective.

I mean inner most left edge of the CB is nothing but subjective since spheres don't have edges.

Or is that really a 30 degree cut? Guessing what a angle is....purely subjective.

Pool can not be master by the use of systems. Pool requires safety play.....something I never seen discussed in aiming systems......it's always putting a ball in a pocket.......not ball placement. Hence why most systems discussed on here are very limited in use.

Oh and combos........never seen a drawing using fractional system on a three ball combo.

Oh....or even caroms.

Systems are a waste of time.
 

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
Since there are no objective aiming points.......all aiming systems are subjective.

It is possible to discuss objectively about something subjective, but that does not back what is being discussed objective.

When people must imagine objects..........refernce points for aiming.......that's subjective.

One system is not better than another. There are different levels of easy of use and limitations of each system.

One being better than another is very subjective.

I mean inner most left edge of the CB is nothing but subjective since spheres don't have edges.

Or is that really a 30 degree cut? Guessing what a angle is....purely subjective.

Pool can not be master by the use of systems. Pool requires safety play.....something I never seen discussed in aiming systems......it's always putting a ball in a pocket.......not ball placement. Hence why most systems discussed on here are very limited in use.

Oh and combos........never seen a drawing using fractional system on a three ball combo.

Oh....or even caroms.

Systems are a waste of time.

If systems are a waste of time, why are you here? What compels you to keep coming into an aiming forum and state absurd claims? Do you yell LEROY JENKINS when you walk into a pool hall?
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Since there are no objective aiming points.......all aiming systems are subjective.

It is possible to discuss objectively about something subjective, but that does not back what is being discussed objective.

When people must imagine objects..........refernce points for aiming.......that's subjective.

One system is not better than another. There are different levels of easy of use and limitations of each system.

One being better than another is very subjective.

I mean inner most left edge of the CB is nothing but subjective since spheres don't have edges.

Or is that really a 30 degree cut? Guessing what a angle is....purely subjective.

Pool can not be master by the use of systems. Pool requires safety play.....something I never seen discussed in aiming systems......it's always putting a ball in a pocket.......not ball placement. Hence why most systems discussed on here are very limited in use.

Oh and combos........never seen a drawing using fractional system on a three ball combo.

Oh....or even caroms.

Systems are a waste of time.

There is extremely limited objectivity from where you place your vision for aiming. It's when you get your nose out from behind CCB that a whole new dimension of seeing sphere to sphere relations is born. It is also from there that your vision can work in a way that you know nothing about. You don't know what you don't know. Techically, CTE is NOT even a system, it's just how to REALLY see the balls. The instruction is systemstic but the act of using CTE is as natural as rainwater for those that desire to learn it. Hal told me that I'd never get it. It's too odd! But I did! Now I am going to pass it along and I believe that most anyone can get it!

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I agree that TRADITIONAL Fractional aiming is NOT objective No doubt about it, as there is quite a bit of of guesswork or personal opinion involved in determine the appropriate angle. But isn't there an element of this in CTE? How does a player determine whether a shot requires A, B, or C?

The fractional system I introduce in Poolology is not traditional. It is not subjective because their is no guesswork, no need for players to develop their own versions of the system in order to get it to work. A solid grasp of basic fundamentals guarantees immediate results. It "stands apart from any other aiming method I've ever seen". I get these types of comments from players all around the world. So, with complete respect to Hal, and to you, the old view of fractional ball aiming is no longer up to date.

There is no mistaking it when a visual is correct or incorrect. CTE is a professional system for serious players. There is a requirement in developing the ability to categorize any given shot. That's not a system error. That comes with learning the system. CTE is nothing more than see and align....OBJECTIVELY.

Your initial choice might carry wonderful objectivity during the decision making phase but it all crumbles apart because your alignments work with the entire pocket and the player is forced to adjust into any final alignment(s). ( Sometimes your zone alignments will miss the entire pocket.). You have already agreed with this yourself.
You are sadly mistaken if you think your mapping of zones yields a CCB solution to center pocket. The reason your work does not catch any grief is that everyone readily knows it's a feel system. So, you are ihsppily n the clear with another feel system whether you like it or not. There will never be debates over your work because you yourself have already declared it as a feel-adjustment system. Your posts are here on this forum and you threw the towel in weeks ago without thinking it through. I commend for that because your system is chocful of feel.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
......

One [system] being better than another is very subjective.

I mean inner most left edge of the CB is nothing but subjective since spheres don't have edges.


.........

Yes, comparing or grading systems/methods that share the same goal is a matter of personal preference, very subjective.

As far as the "spheres have no edges" remarks, it's true with regards to Solid Geometry. But our eyes do not see objects in Solid Geometry form. They see in Plane Geometry shapes. When you stand and look at an object, any object, each eye captures a TWO-DIMENSIONAL image. The perspectives are slightly different, yet the images are 2D, regardless. These images then get sent to the back of your head as electrical signals for your brain to process. Your brain has no concept of a sphere or a cube, but it does its best to produce a 3D perception based on the 2D images your eyes provide. If you could snap a picture of the object (let's say it's a pool ball) and then print it out, you'd have a 2D image of a circle with defined outer edges and a center, very objective focal points. No need to over-complicate the process by pretending we see in true 3D, because we don't.
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
There is no mistaking it when a visual is correct. CTE is a professional system. There is a requirement to have the ability to categorize any given shot. That's not a system error. That comes with learning the system. CTE is nothing more than see and align....OBJECTIVELY.

Your initial choice might carry wonderful objectivity during the decision making phase but it all crumbles apart because your alignments work with the entire pocket and the player is forced to adjust into any final alignments. You have already agreed with this yourself.
You are sadly mistaken if you think your mapping of zones yields a CCB solution to center pocket. The reason your work does not catch any grief is that everyone readily knows it's a feel system. So, you are in the clear with another feel system. There will never be debates over your work because you yourself have already declared it as a feel-adjustment system. Your posts are here on this forum and you threw the towel in weeks ago without thinking it through. I commend for that because your system is chocful of feel.

Stan Shuffett

100% dead on. The system puts the ball in the hole. If half of the pocket is blocked, you have to feel the shot. That is common sense. No system, including CTE will get this type of shot accomplished without a sense of feel, and that's what fractional aiming develops - a sense of feel.

The reason I don't get hammered on the system is because it works, and it's simple. The fractional aim point is easily determined, then you align yourself for that focal point and shoot. Not much argument there.

I am the curious type, the over-thinker all too often, and I have to admit that I'm intrigued by your work with CTE and what you've discovered. I can't imagine devoting any time to learning it, but don't be shocked if I stand in line to buy the book just so I can understand it.
 

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
for the most part its been refreshing to have a discussion without flames
thanks to most who have posted
:thumbup::thumbup:
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
100% dead on. The system puts the ball in the hole. If half of the pocket is blocked, you have to feel the shot. That is common sense. No system, including CTE will get this type of shot accomplished without a sense of feel, and that's what fractional aiming develops - a sense of feel.

The reason I don't get hammered on the system is because it works, and it's simple. The fractional aim point is easily determined, then you align yourself for that focal point and shoot. Not much argument there.

I am the curious type, the over-thinker all too often, and I have to admit that I'm intrigued by your work with CTE and what you've discovered. I can't imagine devoting any time to learning it, but don't be shocked if I stand in line to buy the book just so I can understand it.

The point is is that the fraction player must adjust for every solution for determining CCB. That approach has been around for over 100 years. In CTE players align to a perfectly known, describable CCB or makes any adjustment off of the known CCB.
You won't have to get my book to see how it works. It will be online free to the world. WHY FREE? Because at the end of DVD 2, I said that I would post any new updates online. I am a man of my word!

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
The point is is that the fraction player must adjust for every solution for determining CCB. That approach has been around for over 100 years. In CTE players align to a perfectly known, describable CCB or makes any adjustment off of the known CCB.
You won't have to get my book to see how it works. It will be online free to the world. WHY FREE? Because at the end of DVD 2, I said that I would post any new updates online. I am a man of my word!

Stan Shuffett

A basic understanding of throw is required when pocketing a ball using any method. On shots that require a thin hit (1/4 ball or less) the amount of throw is do trivial that it doesn't matter. You mentioned how CTE automatically overcuts shots. I assume this offsets any collision-induced throw for shots near a 1/2 ball hit or thicker? If so, could this auto over-cut cause thinner shots to miss the pocket?

My "mapping" of the table provides for a heart-of-the-pocket fractional shot. If a player uses precise numbers, the ball goes center hole It's math. There is no adjustment needed unless you're spinning the cueball with english, and that's common regardless of what method one uses to pocket balls. The entire pocket is considered the target because virtually no player can be machine-accurate when striking the cue ball, which in turn affects the direction of the object ball. If a player approximates the values or hits a touch off, then the OB goes left or right of center pocket. Poorly estimating the values or miss-hitting the aim point would cause a missed shot. In that manner, using the system in your "own" way, it quickly becomes very subjective.

I'd still purchase your book, Stan, because​ I'm a book person.:grin:
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A basic understanding of throw is required when pocketing a ball using any method. On shots that require a thin hit (1/4 ball or less) the amount of throw is do trivial that it doesn't matter. You mentioned how CTE automatically overcuts shots. I assume this offsets any collision-induced throw for shots near a 1/2 ball hit or thicker? If so, could this auto over-cut cause thinner shots to miss the pocket?

My "mapping" of the table provides for a heart-of-the-pocket fractional shot. If a player uses precise numbers, the ball goes center hole It's math. There is no adjustment needed unless you're spinning the cueball with english, and that's common regardless of what method one uses to pocket balls. The entire pocket is considered the target because virtually no player can be machine-accurate when striking the cue ball, which in turn affects the direction of the object ball. If a player approximates the values or hits a touch off, then the OB goes left or right of center pocket. Poorly estimating the values or miss-hitting the aim point would cause a missed shot. In that manner, using the system in your "own" way, it quickly becomes very subjective.

I'd still purchase your book, Stan, because​ I'm a book person.:grin:

CTE leads to overcut alignments-period. That does mean that I can't deliberately stun an alignment into a miss because I can if I do choose. CTE is a system that promotes an objective CCB.......Any adjustments are made on that center.

Let me get this straight! Your zone system is an exact CCB system that takes the player to center pocket. You can't beat around the bush. CTE LEADS TO OVERCUT OBJECTIVE ALIGNMENTS!
What I suggest that you do is send your work to Dr.Dave, Bob Jewett and Patrick Johnson. Explain to them that your system is a no/guess- work heart of the pocket system and that you'd appreciate them confirming it as such. What takes the tip to CCB? The system or the person.....In fractional aiming with center pocket as the goal I am betting $25000 that it is the player's judgement that locates the center of the CB. Fractions represent angles. Angles are invisible and can not be seen or determined by one's vision.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
CTE leads to overcut alignments-period. That does mean that I can't deliberately stun an alignment into a miss because I can if I do choose. CTE is a system that promotes an objective CCB.......Any adjustments are made on that center.

Let me get this straight! Your zone system is an exact CCB system that takes the player to center pocket. You can't beat around the bush. CTE LEADS TO OVERCUT OBJECTIVE ALIGNMENTS!
What I suggest that you do is send your work to Dr.Dave, Bob Jewett and Patrick Johnson. Explain to them that your system is a no/guess- work heart of the pocket system and that you'd appreciate them confirming it as such. What takes the tip to CCB? The system or the person.....In fractional aiming with center pocket as the goal I am betting $25000 that it is the player's judgement that locates the center of the CB. Fractions represent angles. Angles are invisible and can not be seen or determined by one's vision.

Stan Shuffett

You won't get that bet from me! Lol. As I've already stated, hitting dead nuts center CB is near impossible to do with absolute consistency, regardless of whether or not a player learns via aiming system or rote. So betting on a perfect CCB stroke is a losing proposition right off the bat. I have no doubt that a cte pivot or sweep can bring a player's cue in line with CCB, but it surely doesn't mean that player is going to hit perfect CCB when he strokes the shot.

My zone values provide a player with the appropriate fractional aim point to send the OB into the heart of the pocket without guessing or using trial and error. Knowing the exact degree of the shot angle is irrelevant. Seeing the angle is everything, because those mental images eventually get embedded into a player's memory, filed away with their corresponding fractional aim points. Aiming systems should work like maps... some roads are well known while others are new, uncharted territory. At first you use the hell out of that map, then one day you notice you don't need it anymore.

Anyway, no bet here. Too many variables at play, which I openly discuss in the book. Poolology doesn't provide wonderous aiming abilities. It doesn't turn pool cues into magic wands. It simply puts the process of pocketing balls into a straight-forward format with no bells or whistles to lose sleep over.
 
Last edited:

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
To perform a task in an objective manner (whether it's shooting an OB into a pocket or climbing straight up the face of a rock cliff) means the process does not require personal opinion or individual judgement. If rock climbing is the task, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of hand-grabs and feet-placement combinations that one could use. Simply telling a person to use their hands, feet, and eyes to climb the cliff does not constitute an objective climbing method. Too much is left up to personal opinion/judgement, making the climb subject-dependent. In other words, it would be the climber's individual choices that gets him (or her) to the top. This is the subjective method.

Now let's apply the same logic to aiming pool shots. The rote method of learning to aim is purely subjective. Each player learns through their own renditions of trial and error. Ghostball is also subjective because it is nearly impossible for the average player to accurately visualize the center of an invisible ball with repeated consistency. Traditional fractional aiming by the quarters method is subjective due to the fact that choosing the appropriate aim point is purely based on individual interpretation of angles. However, a fractional aiming method that provides this information would be objective because there​ would be no individual interpretations. Pivot systems, which includes the CTE manual pivot method, are actually objective within specific shot parameters, then become subjective when shots fall outside of those parameters, forcing the player to estimate or guesstimate some sort of compensation or visual correction. Most players develop their own way of doing it. Just go surfing on YouTube for 30 minutes and you'll find numerous players doing their "own" version of CTE. That alone is proof that either the system is too complicated to learn as designed (like studying string theory), or it's purely subjective, dependent on personal perceptions/opinions.

This has been the aiming debate for as long as I can remember.....we hear "this system is objective, unlike these other systems that are not objective." Well, here's a good test for determining objectivity:

If a player can use a certain method to pocket a ball and get immediate results in a quick, simple, and accurate manner, within a few seconds, then show another player the same method, who then gets the same immediate results, the method is undeniably objective. It would be like numbering the rocks for hand-holds and feet-placements on a rock cliff so every climber has a guaranteed path to the top if they prefer to take it.

If you have to spend weeks or years trying to figure out a certain method, whether your shooting pool or climbing rocks, the method you're using is not objective.
That's why it's taking so long to learn, because the method is subject-dependent, better known as subjective.

What are your thoughts? Anyone?

You are going down a road you might not want to take. And that road is the "complaining" about the use of the word "objective". Before you go any farther down that road, it would greatly benefit you to do a study on the word. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. There is much debate about what is and what is not objective. What determines whether something is objective. About how something subjective becomes something objective.

That said, CTE is very objective. And, until you become a proficient user of it, you will never understand just how objective it actually is. Nor, until then, will you understand why you think it is subjective when it really isn't. To put it very simply, you, nor anyone else will begin to use CTE correctly until they actually look at it objectively. That means, they stop adding in what they currently think they know about aiming, and simply let go of all they know (called emptying the cup) and just follow the steps given as they are given.
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You won't get that bet from me! Lol. As I've already stated, hitting dead nuts center CB is near impossible to do with absolute consistency, regardless of whether or not a player learns via aiming system or rote. So betting on a perfect CCB stroke is a losing proposition right off the bat. I have no doubt that a cte pivot or sweep can bring a player's cue in line with CCB, but it surely doesn't mean that player is going to hit perfect CCB when he strokes the shot.

My zone values provide a player with the appropriate fractional aim point to send the OB into the heart of the pocket without guessing or using trial and error. Knowing the exact degree of the shot angle is irrelevant. Seeing the angle is everything, because those mental images eventually get embedded into a player's memory, filed away with their corresponding fractional aim points. Aiming systems should work like maps... some roads are well known while others are new, uncharted territory. At first you use the hell out of that map, then one day you notice you don't need it anymore.

Anyway, no bet here. Too many variables at play, which I openly discuss in the book. Poolology doesn't provide wonderous aiming abilities. It doesn't turn pool cues into magic wands. It simply puts the process of pocketing balls into a straight-forward format with no bells or whistles to lose sleep over.

Your thread is about objectivity and subjectibity. Fractional aiming, no matter how you slice it /is ultimately guess-work. You have suggested off and on that's its one or the other. Well, Close is not what the topic iis about on the objective side of the coin. A system takes the player (visually) to CCB or not and fractions do not do that without an insertion of one's judgement.

As far as your comments about contacting CCB, CTE has noting to do with stroke. CTE yields a visual center. Hitting that center or working with the given center is up to the player and how they want to operate. I like CCB as much much as possible because it's not iffy, but if I need to go off center I can base my spin off of a known center rather than a guessed center.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
Top