Objective v/s Subjective aiming

[BC21]

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 not. Well, Close is not what the topic iis about . It is that the 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

I find it funny that I was fishing for everyone's opinion on objective or subjective aiming, and never thought about the obvious likelihood of getting subjective responses. If you're a cte user, ctr is objective and nothing else is. I get it. If you're​ not a cte user then you are close minded. I understand now.

As far as fractional aiming, you are correct Stan. For 100 years it has been guesswork. Unfortunately, with that closed frame of mind, you can't understand that I've taken the guesswork out of that old school fractional method. Open minds are also used outside of the cte box.

 

[stan shuffett]

I find it funny that I was fishing for everyone's opinion on objective or subjective aiming, and never thought about the obvious likelihood of getting subjective responses. If you're a cte user, ctr is objective and nothing else is. I get it. If you're​ not a cte user then you are close minded. I understand now.

As far as fractional aiming, you are correct Stan. For 100 years it has been guesswork. Unfortunately, with that closed frame of mind, you can't understand that I've taken the guesswork out of that old school fractional method. Open minds are also used outside of the cte box.

What's funny to me is that you constantly feel the need to get CTE into the discussion for your work to get any traction.

Start a thread:::: Fractiional Aiming is void of any Guess-work! Support your assertion with a video showing how CCB is arrived at systematically/objectivity for a series of shots. Leave CTE out of it because I do not want to be a part of any fractional aiming discussion......It's feel and I have no need for it. If CTE were feel Id be gone with better things to do.

Then run 40/50 balls in 14.1 on video explaining your way through with no guesswork CCBs......

You will be cooked if you proceed with my suggestions! You're cooked anyway.

LAMas, one our best analyst, knows that your zone material is feel or parsimonious. He can weigh in about that big word. Would love to hear his thoughts.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Dan White]

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

Stan, if you can restate your position in a way that is more straightforward, meaning that it can be analyzed legally and understood by a normal person, then I'll take your $25,000 bet. This is assuming you are saying what I think you are saying about Poolology. Funds to be escrowed by attorneys.

I would also like to make a $5000 side bet that Dr. Dave and Bob both endorse Poolology as doing what it is advertised to do.

Disclaimer: this is not baiting anybody as I am only responding to an interesting offer.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Stan, if you can restate your position in a way that is more straightforward, meaning that it can be analyzed legally and understood by a normal person, then I'll take your $25,000 bet. This is assuming you are saying what I think you are saying about Poolology. Funds to be escrowed by attorneys.

I would also like to make a $5000 side bet that Dr. Dave and Bob both endorse Poolology as doing what it is advertised to do.

Disclaimer: this is not baiting anybody as I am only responding to an interesting offer.

Blah-Blah-Blah and Blah-Blah-Blah. How many more times are you going to say you're outta here once and for all and then finally leave, because you've certainly claimed you were outta here a whole bunch of times and each time you come slithering back with some worthless comment as usual.

You post nothing, absolutely nothing positive about CTE, Stan, or the subject matter.
But you do like playing the MR. INNOCENT CARD all the time just like above with one of your contentious posts designed to stir controversy or dispute.

"It can be analyzed legally"; "understood by a NORMAL person"; "funds to be escrowed by attorneys"; "I'll take your $25,000 bet".

I'd call that BAITING. Exactly what Mr. Wilson said not to do!

 

[stan shuffett]

Stan, if you can restate your position in a way that is more straightforward, meaning that it can be analyzed legally and understood by a normal person, then I'll take your $25,000 bet. This is assuming you are saying what I think you are saying about Poolology. Funds to be escrowed by attorneys.

I would also like to make a $5000 side bet that Dr. Dave and Bob both endorse Poolology as doing what it is advertised to do.

Disclaimer: this is not baiting anybody as I am only responding to an interesting offer.

First of all, Bc21 has described his zones as feel. So, yes , that is how it is described and exactly what Bob and Dave will say. I will bet the same way. That is a good bet.

I am more than happy to bet on my position. CTE has repeatable visual alignments based on objectivity., CCB is arrived at based on what a normal person can understand. I have a precise description of CTE that goes to directly to the center of a CB for the alignments.
The problem with all of this is that no matter what I say or present you will never go along with it. I know it and you know it. The world will see it and that is where it will be decided.

Stan Shuffett

 

[BC21]

What's funny to me is that you constantly feel the need to get CTE into the discussion for your work to get any traction.

Start a thread:::: Fractiional Aiming is void of any Guess-work! Support your assertion with a video showing how CCB is arrived at systematically/objectivity for a series of shots. Leave CTE out of it because I do not want to be a part of any fractional aiming discussion......It's feel and I have no need for it. If CTE were feel Id be gone with better things to do.

Then run 40/50 balls in 14.1 on video explaining your way through with no guesswork CCBs......

You will be cooked if you proceed with my suggestions! You're cooked anyway.

LAMas, one our best analyst, knows that your zone material is feel or parsimonious. He can weigh in about that big word. Would love to hear his thoughts.

Stan Shuffett

A civil public debate is good for all. I can't help it that every post concerning aiming must include cte. It's just another method of pocketing balls, and in this thread I gave it an honest assessment based on my opinion, as I did with ghostball, Salux, TRADITIONAL fractional aiming, and a new method of fractional aiming. I wanted other people's opinions on what they consider objective or subjective. You steered the topic toward a 'prove your system is better than mine' discussion. I'm not going there, because it's pointless. I am very open-minded to learning. And part of learning is realizing you don't have all the answers.

Poolology has been sent to players around the globe. Several people are reviewing the material and so far the feedback is very solid. I believe the May review in Billiards Digest will also be solid. Nevertheless, in 10 years from now when someone brings up Poolology in a forum, maybe giving an opinion I would disagree with, I doubt very seriously that I would be bothered enough to belittle them.

 

[CueAndMe]

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.

I may be wrong, but I would define objectivity in aiming systems as being provable using geometry or any other math or physics, thus eliminating user error/subjectivity.

 

[BC21]

Stan, if you can restate your position in a way that is more straightforward, meaning that it can be analyzed legally and understood by a normal person, then I'll take your $25,000 bet. This is assuming you are saying what I think you are saying about Poolology. Funds to be escrowed by attorneys.

I would also like to make a $5000 side bet that Dr. Dave and Bob both endorse Poolology as doing what it is advertised to do.

Disclaimer: this is not baiting anybody as I am only responding to an interesting offer.

I think your disclaimer is the best post I've read in a while! Lol

 

[stan shuffett]

A civil public debate is good for all. I can't help it that every post concerning aiming must include cte. It's just another method of pocketing balls, and in this thread I gave it an honest assessment based on my opinion, as I did with ghostball, Salux, TRADITIONAL fractional aiming, and a new method of fractional aiming. I wanted other people's opinions on what they consider objective or subjective. You steered the topic toward a 'prove your system is better than mine' discussion. I'm not going there, because it's pointless. I am very open-minded to learning. And part of learning is realizing you don't have all the answers.

Poolology has been sent to players around the globe. Several people are reviewing the material and so far the feedback is very solid. I believe the May review in Billiards Digest will also be solid. Nevertheless, in 10 years from now when someone brings up Poolology in a forum, maybe giving an opinion I would disagree with, I doubt very seriously that I would be bothered enough to belittle them.

So, BD will tout your work as an objective CCB ball system? I hope that you shared with them that fractional aiming is NOW an exact CCB system. I am sure that if they endorse it as that, They will pass it along to Bob and Dave for their study.
You have been all over the place here saying adjustments and not......
I promise that Dan White will also bet you 25 G that you are off base with your CCB system claim. In fact, he has already declared such and you agreed with him.

Release Me

Stan Shuffett

 

[BC21]

I may be wrong, but I would define objectivity in aiming systems as being provable using geometry or any other math or physics, thus eliminating user error/subjectivity.

I like that definition. A specific procedure or method that gets a task done without the need of speculation or personal manipulation.

 

[BC21]

So, BD will tout your work as an objective CCB ball system? I hope that you shared with them that fractional aiming is NOW an exact CCB system. I am sure that if they endorse it as that, They will pass it along to Bob and Dave for their study.
You have been all over the place here saying adjustments and not......
I promise that Dan White will also bet you 25 G that you are off base with your CCB system claim. In fact, he has already declared such and you agreed with him.

Release Me

Stan Shuffett

Against my better judgement I am replying. What do you mean by CCB system? I don't care about lining up with CCB. That is not how this fractional aiming works. The CB is sent to an aim point. Sometimes you're not striking it in the center when you do this. This business of CCB must be too professional for a slightly better than average player of my caliber to understand.

And you'd like to see a run of 100 balls from me? Hell, I would too!! Lol. My high run is 74 or 70 something. I learned the old school way, not using a system. I readily admit, due to family and work, that I do not dedicate hours of practice time on the table anymore. But I do get enough practice in to stay better than most players.

 

[Neil]

I may be wrong, but I would define objectivity in aiming systems as being provable using geometry or any other math or physics, thus eliminating user error/subjectivity.

If you think you may be wrong, why post it? Try spending an hour or two studying the word. (there are hours and hours and hours to read about the word, one or two hours is just getting a handle on it)

 

[stan shuffett]

Against my better judgement I am replying. What do you mean by CCB system? I don't care about lining up with CCB. That is not how this fractional aiming works. The CB is sent to an aim point. Sometimes you're not striking it in the center when you do this. This business of CCB must be too professional for a slightly better than average player of my caliber to understand.

And you'd like to see a run of 100 balls from me? Hell, I would too!! Lol. My high run is 74 or 70 something. I learned the old school way, not using a system. I readily admit, due to family and work, that I do not dedicate hours of practice time on the table anymore. But I do get enough in practice in stay better than most players.

Set up an exact ZERO angle shot. CCB is the solution and virtually can anyone understand that.
The 2 centers are objective and they can be aligned to. When aiming with traditional methods there are only a couple of objective alignments that can be referenced: c to c and c to e.

In CTE every shot has a CCB alignment that can known as strongly as the above 2 mentioned conventional alignments. Specific objective aspects of the CB and Ob can be used during offsets only. From an OFFSET, CCB can be described and taught for all shots not just the 2 above and even those are not truly objective in the conventional domain pbecause one's vision can't see angles. What is thought to be a zero angle may in fact be a left or right cut.

There are no straight ins in CTE. Every shot is a cut shot. A tip poalignment away from CCB starts to get iffy. So, you are helping the balls in most of the time. CCB is a different world.

Stan Shuffett

 

[CueAndMe]

If you think you may be wrong, why post it? Try spending an hour or two studying the word. (there are hours and hours and hours to read about the word, one or two hours is just getting a handle on it)

I wasn't defining the word. I was suggesting how the word should be defined with regard to aiming systems. If any aiming system can't be proved through geometry, how can it be taken seriously?

 

[BC21]

Set up an exact ZERO angle shot. CCB is the solution and virtually can anyone understand that.
The 2 centers are objective and they can be aligned to. When aiming with traditional methods there are only a couple of objective alignments that can be referenced: c to c and c to e.

In CTE every shot has a CCB alignment that can known as strongly as the above 2 mentioned conventional alignments. Specific objective aspects of the CB and Ob can be used during offsets only. From an OFFSET, CCB can be described and taught for all shots not just the 2 above and even those are not truly objective because one's vision can't see angles. What is thought to be a zero angle may in fact be a left or right cut.

There are no straight ins in CTE. Every shot is a cut shot. Any alignment away from CCB starts to get iffy. So, you are helping the balls in most of the time. CCB is a different world.

Stan Shuffett

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I thought that's what you meant by CCB, and I understand why users say it is objective as far as the getting to a CCB.

I believe the difference between CTE and my fractional method is this:

CTE focuses on getting the cue lined for CCB, like blind faith with no regard for the pocket or any particular aim point like ghostball center, etc...In order to do this, a player must visualize CTA, B, or C, where B (ob center) is objective and A and C are somewhat subjective.

My fractional method provides specific aim points on or near the OB, at which the player connects with CCB. However, only the center and the edge of the OB are objective, while all other OB aim points are somewhat subjective.

Correct? I mean, if only​ "c to c and c to e" are considered objective reference points, no system that references any other points can truly be objective. I suppose this is where a learned objectiveness creeps in.

 

[stan shuffett]

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I thought that's what you meant by CCB, and I understand why users say it is objective as far as the getting to a CCB.

I believe the difference between CTE and my fractional method is this:

CTE focuses on getting the cue lined for CCB, like blind faith with no regard for the pocket or any particular aim point like ghostball center, etc...In order to do this, a player must visualize CTA, B, or C, where B (ob center) is objective and A and C are somewhat subjective.

My fractional method provides specific aim points on or near the OB, at which the player connects with CCB. However, only the center and the edge of the OB are objective, while all other OB aim points are somewhat subjective.

Correct? I mean, if only​ "c to c and c to e" are considered objective reference points, no system that references any other points can truly be objective. I suppose this is where a learned objectiveness creeps in.

Seeing CTE perceptions is not subjective. A 15 and 30 degree PERCEPTION is objectively learned and repeatable.

Yes, from your visual perspective the closest you get to objectivity is when you purposefully align c to c and c to e. That is the nature of spheres unless you venture into offsets.....there is relief there from guessing.

Your aim points on or the near the OB don't tell the whole story. You clearly indicated that you don't use CCB but rather spin balls in in some way most all of the time which means you cannot account for exact bridge V placements.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Dan White]

Seeing CTE perceptions is not subjective. A huge 15 and 30 degree PERCEPTION is objectively learned and repeatable.

Yes, from your visual perspective the closest you get to objectivity is when purposefully you align c to c and c to e. That is the nature of spheres unless you venture into offsets.....there is relief there from guessing.

Your aim points on or the near the OB don't tell the whole story. You clearly indicated that you don't use CCB but rather spin balls in in some way most all of the time which means you cannot account for exact bridge V placements.

Stan Shuffett

Stan, your attempt to discuss Brian's method without knowing what it is is pointless. This is what CTE skeptics are accused of all the time, except in this case it is true. Instead of the $25,000, why not pony up $10 and buy Brian's Poolology electronic book. You will understand exactly what he is doing in about 10 minutes after you get to the part on using the zones and the rails. His aim points are 1/2, 1/4 and 3/4 ball, which isn't much different from your A, B and C points. Only, you don't have to try and see two lines at the same time, pivot and all that.

As I've said to you before, I don't discuss CTE anymore because you've said all you are going to say until your book comes out. There's no point to discussing anything until that happens. I do hope a book is actually published.

Brian's method is mathematically precise and easy enough for a young teen to understand and use. It is as objective as any system I've seen, but it acknowledges that interpolation is required for shots that fall between say 1/2 ball and 3/4 ball. Not a big deal because the difference between those two is not that great, and it is easy enough to aim between them.

Don't forget what we're talking about. Poolology takes fractional aiming and marries it to a diamond system. By doing simple math using the diamonds, the player is provided with a fraction to use for that particular shot, be it 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4. You don't even need to know where the pockets are as long as you can see some of the rails!

 

[lfigueroa]

A civil public debate is good for all. I can't help it that every post concerning aiming must include cte. It's just another method of pocketing balls, and in this thread I gave it an honest assessment based on my opinion, as I did with ghostball, Salux, TRADITIONAL fractional aiming, and a new method of fractional aiming. I wanted other people's opinions on what they consider objective or subjective. You steered the topic toward a 'prove your system is better than mine' discussion. I'm not going there, because it's pointless. I am very open-minded to learning. And part of learning is realizing you don't have all the answers.

Poolology has been sent to players around the globe. Several people are reviewing the material and so far the feedback is very solid. I believe the May review in Billiards Digest will also be solid. Nevertheless, in 10 years from now when someone brings up Poolology in a forum, maybe giving an opinion I would disagree with, I doubt very seriously that I would be bothered enough to belittle them.

I'm interested, just for sheets and grins

Right up front -- I am not an aiming system kinda guy (shock all around, no doubt, lol) but would be willing to purchase you book, DVD, whatever, and take a peek.

I promise a fair review.

Lou Figueroa
how do I do dat?

 

[stan shuffett]

Stan, your attempt to discuss Brian's method without knowing what it is is pointless. This is what CTE skeptics are accused of all the time, except in this case it is true. Instead of the $25,000, why not pony up $10 and buy Brian's Poolology electronic book. You will understand exactly what he is doing in about 10 minutes after you get to the part on using the zones and the rails. His aim points are 1/2, 1/4 and 3/4 ball, which isn't much different from your A, B and C points. Only, you don't have to try and see two lines at the same time, pivot and all that.

As I've said to you before, I don't discuss CTE anymore because you've said all you are going to say until your book comes out. There's no point to discussing anything until that happens. I do hope a book is actually published.

Brian's method is mathematically precise and easy enough for a young teen to understand and use. It is as objective as any system I've seen, but it acknowledges that interpolation is required for shots that fall between say 1/2 ball and 3/4 ball. Not a big deal because the difference between those two is not that great, and it is easy enough to aim between them.

Don't forget what we're talking about. Poolology takes fractional aiming and marries it to a diamond system. By doing simple math using the diamonds, the player is provided with a fraction to use for that particular shot, be it 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4. You don't even need to know where the pockets are as long as you can see some of the rails!

I understand fractional aiming! It is guess/work. There are no precise instructions for bridge V placements without judgement and you know that.

Stan Shuffett

 

[BC21]

I'm interested, just for sheets and grins

Right up front -- I am not an aiming system kinda guy (shock all around, no doubt, lol) but would be willing to purchase you book, DVD, whatever, and take a peek.

I promise a fair review.

Lou Figueroa
how do I do dat?

All fair reviews are welcome. I'll send you a pm.