How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

[JB Cases]

I believe this is the right answer - but we interpret its meaning differently. I interpret it this way: Because the system user believes CTE is "exact", he can stop doubting his own "instinctive" ability to learn and repeat shot alignments by feel. Removing this nagging doubt allows him to "get out of the way" of his own innate (subconscious) ability.

Everyone does not have innate subconscious ability. We all have a sort of supercomputer in our heads but it has to be programmed through experience. However there are instructions which a person can be taught and follow right away which work to provide a shortcut to repetitive trial and error learning.

You don't get it and you never will.

Let me restate this for the thousandth time.

Aiming by system allows the shooter to get on a shot that they HAVE NOT practiced a thousand times and have a very very very good chance to make it. Aiming by "feel" on a shot that the shooter has never practiced means that the typically it's a very low percentage shot for them.

This is ALL the difference. It's everything Pat. Everything.

You aim by feel?

Ok then do you want to bet $100 a shot on this same shot in different positions on the table?

http://pool.bz/P/?@2AbHm4BCxA3CCYA4DAMd3EBJl4FBil4GBjO3HBKO4IAMA1PHFV2UbHm2UbCJ1kHFV2kaqV@

That would be all methods.

Not true.

Right. And this is where systems that claim to eliminate "feel" come in.

And the system do eliminate it for all practical purposes.

Still, most shooters learn to shoot "by feel" with complete confidence and reliability.

No, actually they don't shoot with complete confidence and reliability. If they did then there wouldn't be so much interest in these methods.

My purpose is to show what kind of system CTE is, not to "object to" its inexactness. All systems are inexact.

Who made you the guy who gets to show what "kind" of systems any system is? All systems are not inexact. You simply don't know how to apply it if you are not getting exact results.

You use words like "fidgeting and guessing", not me. I suppose you're trying to belittle other methods in comparison.

Not belittling, describing what I observe. I have a bunch of videos up, why don't you tell me WHERE in any shot on the videos that I am using "feel" to shoot with. Is is ok if I put up a video of your technique, aiming by feel as you describe it, and let people comment on it?

Yes, that's what I'm saying (although I think "guessing" is your word intended to cast aspersion).

Guessing is feel Pat. Either you KNOW something or you don't. If you don't then you feel something when it's an intangible thing. Aiming is very tangible. How do you describe your personal method of getting down and wiggling before you settle on a line? Why do you do this?

If it's "simply not true", then you can simply show how. That's the nature of clear system steps: they're clear.

Already done. The steps are clear. Just like with the jump cue I can show anyone how to do it in a few easy steps. However when they pick up the cue that does not mean that they can do it the way I do. Sometimes I have to completely alter their stroke to repair it before they can apply the EASY steps. Does that mean my steps to jump a ball are wrong? No, it means that the shooter has to learn to recognize their own bad habits and correct them BEFORE they can then get consistent on the jump shot.

Sure, and the same is true of CTE, other fractional systems, and shooting by feel.

Right, except that knowledge+practice trumps "feel" + practice. That's been true in EVERY sport in the world. Even the spelling bees are won by people who use systems to remember how to spell words. People who simply try to memorize every word by rote will never win a modern spelling bee. By the same token someone who tries to memorize every possible shot will find themselves lost more than they want to.

Same to you.

pj
chgo

Not quite. Unlike you I have proof where you don't.

 

[champ2107]

things are going a little fast and furious here so i will sit back for a bit.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

John:
there are instructions which a person can be taught and follow right away which work to provide a shortcut to repetitive trial and error learning.

Yes, and I agree that CTE and other fractional systems add such shortcuts with their "system alignments" to get the shooter closer to the final aim line. But none of them, including CTE, eliminate the need to adjust from these system alignments to the final aim line by feel (or "experience" or whatever you want to call it).

And, again, this isn't a "put down" of CTE or other fractional systems. This is exactly the kind of usefulness that I think these systems have for non-system users too.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Do you think everybody who aims by feel "fidgets"? Don't be sucked into using loaded terms because John and Spidey do it.

No, some people just consistently choose the wrong line "by feel". They get down and are fairly sure that are pretty right so they pull the trigger and miss.

This is true of all aiming methods.

No it's not. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. If GB or other similar estimation methods gave confidence then this whole debate about alternative ways would never have come up.

You guys keep saying that, but what I hear is "practice long enough to learn the shots by rote and it will seem like there's no feel involved".

That's because that is what you want to hear. Here is how I see it. Take ONE shot from each type of shot, thick cut, thin cut, very thin cut and practice THAT shot until you are certain to be able to use the system to get to the KNOWN GB position. Then once that is mastered you can use the system for any shot on the table EVEN IF you have never practiced the shot you are facing in your life. And you will have an excellent chance at making the shot even it if looks tough.

It doesn't make sense that there's no feel involved (although that's not easy for everybody to see) and nobody has ever been able to clearly describe the steps that supposedly replace feel - not even Stan on his own DVD. Until one of those facts change I'm not inclined to spend lots of time on a new system to replace my already functioning by-feel aiming.

Fine. If that is your PERSONAL decision. If you don't want to simply try it and see where it goes then that's totally up to you. But WHY do you spend so much time trying to turn others away from it because of your own doubts? I mean honestly if you had spent just 1% of the time learning it DESPITE your misgivings you would probably be a jedi master of aiming systems by now and a much better player than you already are. (don't jump on me Sean)

At the very least you would be able to speak from a position of experience rather than speculation.

Still, I think there are aspects of fractional systems like CTE that can be helpful even to "non-believers", and not just because they help with PSR. That's my point here.

Ok, thanks.

 

[Bambu]

Has there been any system testing done with robot arms? Not sure if that would be fair, but it sounds logical on the surface.

 

[JB Cases]

Yes, and I agree that CTE and other fractional systems add just such shortcuts with their "system alignments" to get the shooter closer to the final aim line. But none of them, including CTE, eliminate the need to adjust from these system alignments to the final aim line by feel (or "experience" or whatever you want to call it).

pj
chgo

Not true. Again a person can face a shot that they have NEVER faced, say a super thin cut up the rail from a severe angle. A shot that they would normally NEVER shoot because of fear and lack of practice with it. Having ZERO idea of how thin to cut it they can apply the system and slice the ball in.

We can bet on this in any number of ways and you will lose every time.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

John:
You aim by feel?

Ok then do you want to bet $100 a shot on this same shot in different positions on the table?

http://pool.bz/P/?@2AbHm4BCxA3CCYA4D...bCJ1kHFV2kaqV@

John, if you want to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea how to prove or disprove anything, this is the way to do it.

pj
chgo

 

[champ2107]

cte/pro1 the feel/adjustment is made in the psr when done correctly. this is what messes everyone up.

 

[LAMas]

CTE is on-topic in this thread about fractional systems because CTE is a fractional system. CTE uses the same fractional "system alignments" (3/4 ball, 1/2 ball, 1/4 ball, 1/8 ball) that other fractional systems use as starting alignments for aiming, simply renamed "aimpoints A, B & C".

Here's the same graphic that I posted earlier for Hal Houle's "3-angle" system, showing the same system alignments relabeled as CTE's "aimpoint A, B & C" alignments. Yellow arrows illustrate CTE's "pivot" method of adjusting from system alignments.

pj
chgo


View attachment 220612

If one can see the 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and 4/4 edge; then one can bisect the distance between the 1/4 and 1/2 to see the 3/8 point/line; the distance between the 1/2 and 3/4 to see the 5/8 point; the distance beween the 3/4 and 4/4 to see the 7/8 point; and to aim at those points to get the resulting/respective cut angles inbetween.
:thumbup:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

John:
WHY do you spend so much time trying to turn others away from it...?

Why do you insist that's my motive when I've said and demonstrated time and again that it isn't? I think you just want to squelch conversation about the part of CTE that you can't convincingly address.

pj
chgo

 

[mohrt]

Do you think everybody who aims by feel "fidgets"? Don't be sucked into using loaded terms because John and Spidey do it.

No I'm just saying fractional aiming requires more conscious adjustments than CTE. Either system can reach an "automatic" state with enough practice. However I think CTE gets you there much quicker, and is much easier to maintain.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If one can see the 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and 4/4 edge; then one can bisect the distance between the 1/4 and 1/2 to see the 3/8 point/line; the distance between the 1/2 and 3/4 to see the 5/8 point; the distance beween the 3/4 and 4/4 to see the 7/8 point; and to aim at those points to get the resulting/respective cut angles inbetween.
:thumbup:

I don't believe this is true for most players. It's easy to see the edges of the OB, a little harder to estimate its center, harder yet to estimate the quarters between these landmarks accurately, and probably too hard for most to estimate the eighths between the quarters accurately. There's good reason that fractional systems don't normally go beyond the quarters.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'm just saying fractional aiming requires more conscious adjustments than CTE.

Fractional aiming doesn't require conscious adjustments, as evidenced by the users (John Barton among them) who argued for years that Hal's "3-angle" system was perfectly "exact" without any adjustment at all (they usually cited "pocket slop" as their justification for this wild claim).

And CTE doesn't require less adjustment from its system alignments - it just adds labels to the adjustments ("acquire visuals and pivot").

Either system can reach an "automatic" state with enough practice. However I think CTE gets you there much quicker, and is much easier to maintain.

I think this is a possible difference between fractional systems and learning to aim purely by feel, but not much of a difference between CTE and other fractional systems.

pj
chgo

 

[rayjay]

Be the shot.
:thumbup:

 

[champ2107]

the fractions are not used in the actual aiming, they are used some what in visual and body positioning though. PJ you know this so ease up a bit.

 

[mohrt]

And CTE doesn't require less adjustment from its system alignments - it just adds labels to the adjustments ("acquire visuals and pivot").

We keep getting caught up in these semantics. If you compare the systems from a purely geometric description, it is true that the CTE pre-pivot lines and the fractional aiming lines are very much the same. Likewise, they both require the same amount of linear adjustments between the lines to get to the center of the shot line. We all agree on that, so you can stop bringing up the argument.

Where the two systems differ is in the effort required to meet a specific level of proficiency. Fractional aiming requires more effort, more conscious adjustments to make the system work. HAMB is what it takes to get to a very high level of play. CTE requires far less effort. A few thousand shots with pivoting and you going to be way farther along the path to your goals. Likewise, it is easier to maintain that level of play. That is it, that is the sole purpose of choosing CTE over other aiming systems. If the above does not hold true, there would be no purpose to its use.

That said, milage may vary. CTE may not be for everyone. I can only speak from experience, and I'm sure many other CTE users will agree.

 

[mohrt]

I think this is a possible difference between fractional systems and learning to aim purely by feel, but not much of a difference between CTE and other fractional systems.

pj
chgo

Do not agree, see my previous post.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

We keep getting caught up in these semantics. If you compare the systems from a purely geometric description, it is true that the CTE pre-pivot lines and the fractional aiming lines are very much the same. Likewise, they both require the same amount of linear adjustments between the lines to get to the center of the shot line. We all agree on that, so you can stop bringing up the argument.

If "we all" means you and me I never would have needed to point that out in the first place. But I hope I've responded to the usual deniers often enough today.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

John, if you want to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea how to prove or disprove anything, this is the way to do it.

pj
chgo

Oh really? Well, let's see that is a difficult shot in anyone's book.

I would say that anyone could make it given enough tries to experiment. After they make it the first time how consistently can they make it thereafter?

So we take two subjects of equal ability. Say APA 3 level players.

We each get our player for ONE HOUR in separate rooms. You teach your player to make the shot by "feel" whatever that means to you and I will teach mine to make it using a system.

After one hour we let the two players gamble on this shot set up exactly as diagrammed AND in different positions around the table. ONE try per different shot.

My player will shoot it every time exactly as instructed by the system. My player will line up as instructed and pivot as instructed and shot the shot. Yours will be trying to "feel" it.

Do you feel confident enough to bet on the outcome? Do you think in the one hour of instruction my player will learn enough to be able to FEEL his or her way to a higher success rate with this shot than your player?

 

[JB Cases]

Fractional aiming doesn't require conscious adjustments, as evidenced by the users (John Barton among them) who argued for years that Hal's "3-angle" system was perfectly "exact" without any adjustment at all (they usually cited "pocket slop" as their justification for this wild claim).

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed that Hal's 3 angle system was exact. I have always said that when I - ONLY ME - use any of Hal's systems I do it the way I am told and get on the line and shoot the shot. So FOR ME it's precise and exact.

And I have said that in a PRACTICAL sense that is what the shooter wants, to be able to have a line that he can trust and which works. So for the actual playing of the game having a line that yields better results, consistent results, IS as close to perfectly exact and precise as could be wanted.

That's the beauty of Hal's methods. It's a completely DIFFERENT way to get to exactly the right line. Not feel, not fidgeting, not guessing, not hoping, not wishing, not fear.

And CTE doesn't require less adjustment from its system alignments - it just adds labels to the adjustments ("acquire visuals and pivot").

You're wrong and if you would ever just learn it you might see that you are wrong. Acquire visuals MEANS use objects on the table to align your eyes and body to a certain position and then go down into the shot and settle into the shot line. It means using clear lines to establish a concrete body position which leads to a set shot line.

I think this is a possible difference between fractional systems and learning to aim purely by feel, but not much of a difference between CTE and other fractional systems.

Said by the guy who a few posts ago said he has zero intention of investing any time learning any of these methods? I mean if you won't even put in any table time on them why should anyone care what your opinion is of them? This is all a game to you Pat and you know it. I get it that it's your "thing" now and I guess that's cool as everyone needs something to occupy their mind.

If nothing else you further the conversation and as long as you aren't being a jerk about it then it's good to have the conversation.