PDA

View Full Version : Aiming at "Center Pocket"

jsp
03-31-2011, 05:22 AM
Question...

When aiming, is knowing the precise location of the pocket's center required in order to consistently aim at "center pocket"?

A) Nope. All you need is the general location of the pocket in order to choose which "cut type" of a finite number of cut types (straight-in, very thick, thick, thin, very thin, etc.) the shot falls into. What matters most are the precise locations of the OB/CB.

B) Of course. How can you aim at center pocket if you don't know precisely where center pocket is?

CarlB
03-31-2011, 05:44 AM
I am speaking purely off of logic as I know there is a hidden meaning to this poll that I do not understand.

In order to AIM for something, you MUST know where said something is. How do I hit a target on a shooting range if I do not know where the target is. How do I drive a car down the "middle" of a lane, if I don't know where the middle is.

Its logic, to hit something or at something, you have to know WHERE it is.

Carl

sydbarret
03-31-2011, 05:48 AM
see the pocket and then basically feel where it is.

Patrick Johnson
03-31-2011, 05:54 AM
Question...

When aiming, is knowing the precise location of the pocket's center required in order to consistently aim at "center pocket"?

A) Nope. All you need is the general location of the pocket in order to choose which "cut type" of a finite number of cut types (straight-in, very thick, thick, thin, very thin, etc.) the shot falls into. What matters most are the precise locations of the OB/CB.

B) Of course. How can you aim at center pocket if you don't know precisely where center pocket is?

I wonder what the highlighted phrase means. Does "precise locations" mean locations on the table or locations relative to each other? If it means locations on the table, then the precise locations of the balls also contains the information for precisely locating pockets. So I assume you mean the precise "formation" made by the balls and the shooter regardless of where they are on the table (plus, if you're using an x-angle system, enough pocket location info to choose a system alignment).

Of course the pocket location is necessary to aim center pocket. It's interesting that this obvious fact is universally disputed by CTE users - more evidence that it's a system for the "geometrically/logically challenged". I'm not criticizing that; if it's true then CTE fills a need.

pj
chgo

jsp
03-31-2011, 06:08 AM
I wonder what the highlighted phrase means. Does "precise locations" mean locations on the table or locations relative to each other? If it means locations on the table, then the precise locations of the balls also contains the information for precisely locating pockets. So I assume you mean the precise "formation" made by the balls and the shooter regardless of where they are on the table (plus, if you're using an x-angle system, enough pocket location info to choose a system alignment).
I see your point. I meant the latter.

Of course if you know the location of the table's rails and its angles, then you can use that information to determine the location of the pockets. So I meant the precise locations of the CB/OB relative to each other and the shooter.

fabfastfredyy
03-31-2011, 06:14 AM
All that matters is the way the pockets are cut. They can be extremely tight but very accepting, and play easier than a table with seemingly large holes.

TheBook
03-31-2011, 07:36 AM
You left out a very important selection. All you need to know is the CTE and the ball will go into the center of the pocket.
. ..:outtahere:

.

mikepage
03-31-2011, 07:46 AM
Question...

When aiming, is knowing the precise location of the pocket's center required in order to consistently aim at "center pocket"?[...]

The answer is so obviously yes that any sane person who answers no must not understand the question.

SpiderWebComm
03-31-2011, 08:09 AM
The answer is so obviously yes that any sane person who answers no must not understand the question.

Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?

The answer is definitely no, imo. This is definitely a testable question. We did this a few months ago--- posting videos of making balls with 1/2 the table covered and invisible. Huge majority of balls drop without the pocket in sight.

Dave

ThePoliteSniper
03-31-2011, 08:40 AM
Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?

Probably because

Of course if you know the location of the table's rails and its angles, then you can use that information to determine the location of the pockets.

cleary
03-31-2011, 08:47 AM
Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?

The answer is definitely no, imo. This is definitely a testable question. We did this a few months ago--- posting videos of making balls with 1/2 the table covered and invisible. Huge majority of balls drop without the pocket in sight.

Dave

Dave, seriously... these people don't want to get it. I feel lucky to have learned, because I personally really needed it. They might not need it, but I did.

mikepage
03-31-2011, 08:48 AM
Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?

[...]

I rest my case.

cleary
03-31-2011, 08:50 AM
Its funny, in 1 month's time, my aiming voodoo pdf has 19,000 hits. That's unreal.

fabfastfredyy
03-31-2011, 09:07 AM
I rest my case.

I vote no. But since you are pretty adamant about its importance, would you mind cluing me in?

Patrick Johnson
03-31-2011, 09:12 AM
The answer is so obviously yes that any sane person who answers no must not understand the question.
This is that logic stuff again, isn't it? No speakee that here.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson
03-31-2011, 09:46 AM
mikepage:
The answer is so obviously yes that any sane person who answers no must not understand the question.
spidey:
Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?
Because "without looking at the pocket" does not mean "without knowledge of where the pocket is" (which means you don't understand the question and may be sane).

The answer is definitely no, imo. This is definitely a testable question. We did this a few months ago--- posting videos of making balls with 1/2 the table covered and invisible. Huge majority of balls drop without the pocket in sight.
As you were told then (but still don't understand), that did not show that you had no knowledge of where the pockets were. In fact, some posters (including me) pointed out that there was plenty of pocket position information available to your eyes, and even suggested ways of setting it up so it would be a real test - none of which you tried.

So it's definitely a testable question, but you definitely did not test it.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson
03-31-2011, 09:51 AM
I vote no. But since you are pretty adamant about its importance, would you mind cluing me in?
It seems pretty obvious that you can't point at something if you don't know where it is. So when you make the extraordinary claim that a system can point an OB at a pocket without knowing where the pocket is, I think it's your responsibility to clue us in on how that's possible, not our responsibility to explain the obvious to you.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson
03-31-2011, 10:07 AM
jsp:
When aiming, is knowing the precise location of the pocket's center required in order to consistently aim at "center pocket"?mikepage:
The answer is so obviously yes that any sane person who answers no must not understand the question.
Spidey:
Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?
mikepage:
I rest my case.
LOL. Judgment for the plaintiff.

pj
chgo

mikepage
03-31-2011, 10:25 AM
I vote no. But since you are pretty adamant about its importance, would you mind cluing me in?

OK

Let's simplify the question first. Imagine the object ball was the only ball on the table and you were allowed to strike the object ball with the stick --hit it right in the hole.

Now, do you have to know where the center of the hole is to be able to do this? Think about this.

The answer is yes. You don't need to know how far away it is but you DO need to know what direction it is.

fabfastfredyy
03-31-2011, 10:47 AM
It seems pretty obvious that you can't point at something if you don't know where it is. So when you make the extraordinary claim that a system can point an OB at a pocket without knowing where the pocket is, I think it's your responsibility to clue us in on how that's possible, not our responsibility to explain the obvious to you.

pj
chgo

Man you're confusing the heck out of me. What you're saying is: I have a system that can point to something without knowing where it is, so I have the responsibility of explaining how this makes sense to you. This would imply that you are a person without a system, but believes that you need to know exactly where the center is to send it there. It's been ten years since I took the sats, so I'm just trying to dodge a trick question if this happens to be one. Anyways, I have the burden of proof?

If I point straight into the sky, I could be pointing at the moon or the sun, and tell you one or the other, and still be correct.

Scott Lee
03-31-2011, 10:48 AM
Mike...I have to respectfully disagree. Adding the CB adds a tremendous amount of complexity to the shot...the first of which is contacting the OB in the correct place to go to the pocket (we call this the exit angle to the pocket...which is all you need to know). The pockets on pool tables have not changed locations in 400 years, and aren't expected to anytime soon. Therefore, with a rudimentary knowledge of CTE (and an accurate & repeatable stroke process), all you need to know is the exit angle, and how to get the CB to that point on the OB. That's why Dave could cover up much of the table, and still pocket balls. Naturally there are some minor adjustments that need to be made on some cuts. Nobody has ever disputed that...it's how the 'adjustments' are made that is in some dispute. The endless arguement of being able to physically "prove" something like CTE will be debated forever. If CTE works for you, use it...if not, use whatever works best for you! Looking forward to seeing you in Vegas in May! :grin:

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

fabfastfredyy
03-31-2011, 10:49 AM
OK

Let's simplify the question first. Imagine the object ball was the only ball on the table and you were allowed to strike the object ball with the stick --hit it right in the hole.

Now, do you have to know where the center of the hole is to be able to do this? Think about this.

The answer is yes. You don't need to know how far away it is but you DO need to know what direction it is.

The hole's existence is independent of your knowledge of it.

Cuemaster98
03-31-2011, 10:49 AM
I guess the answer is, it depends what you call "Center Pocket"?

I think when a player plays by the tangent line, he need to determine what the center of his pocket is. eg. Thick, Thin, produces different tangent line for the cue ball to follow so his center to the pocket will change and this is an adjustment that needs to be made to his aim (all systems).

However, if you use center pocket literally as the exact split of the pocket without consideration of the object ball than the answer would be "NO" because there are some shots where you can't aim at "center pocket" to make the ball. However, most aiming techniques will make the ball regardless of the "Center Pocket" because most systems you use automate where the aim at center should be to make the shot. This is the real benefit of most aiming systems, you don't have to know how it gets to the pocket but if you follow the system that object ball aim is automated to make the ball. Adjustment to any systems is required if you want to hit the right or left of the natural aim.

Basically, we talking about cheating the pocket to product different lines when object ball position allow for it. Most aiming techniques can easily compensate for this when those extra lines are available. Eg. ball in front of the pocket (if you have to use a system here..well...you're probably beyond help).:)

Regards,
Duc.

Scott Lee
03-31-2011, 10:53 AM
Mike...Let's be careful here. Randy and I are both "sane" individuals. We just happen to have a difference of opinion...which may be nothing more than sematics, to a degree. Please let's not let this thread degrade into name calling...like most of the CTE/aiming threads.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

The answer is so obviously yes that any sane person who answers no must not understand the question.

mikepage
03-31-2011, 10:56 AM
[...]all you need to know is the exit angle, [...]

OK, then we agree.

03-31-2011, 11:16 AM
Mike...I have to respectfully disagree. Adding the CB adds a tremendous amount of complexity to the shot...the first of which is contacting the OB in the correct place to go to the pocket (we call this the exit angle to the pocket...which is all you need to know). The pockets on pool tables have not changed locations in 400 years, and aren't expected to anytime soon. Therefore, with a rudimentary knowledge of CTE (and an accurate & repeatable stroke process), all you need to know is the exit angle, and how to get the CB to that point on the OB. That's why Dave could cover up much of the table, and still pocket balls. Naturally there are some minor adjustments that need to be made on some cuts. Nobody has ever disputed that...it's how the 'adjustments' are made that is in some dispute. The endless arguement of being able to physically "prove" something like CTE will be debated forever. If CTE works for you, use it...if not, use whatever works best for you! Looking forward to seeing you in Vegas in May! :grin:

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

You have to have some type of reference point that locates the pocket, whether that be the knowledge that you are dealing with a planar surface with a 1:2 ratio and the OB is on x,y coordinates on that playing surface etc... You still have to have SOME reference point that can lead you to the precise location of the desired result.

p.s. the way the first answer is worded then both answers are correct. Because if you know the precise locations of the OB/CB, then you know where the pockets are because you have a defined playing surface of 1:2 with exact locations of pockets in each corner and splitting the middle of the playing surface, so you would know where the pockets are with an exact location of the cb ob on the playing surface. Independent of an exact location on the playing surface you would need to know the location of the desired result.

So at the VERY LEAST, you would need to know distance from one rail, and the distance from one pocket, or distance from two rails. In other words, you need x,y coordinates. Which would mean you know the exact location of the pocket.

So is it just a question of semantics? Maybe, but you have to have additional information than the locations of the CB and OB.

Patrick Johnson
03-31-2011, 11:23 AM
The hole's existence is independent of your knowledge of it.
The hole's existence isn't in question.

pj <- haven't we crossed the too-simple-for-adults line yet?
chgo

fabfastfredyy
03-31-2011, 11:24 AM
You have to have some type of reference point that locates the pocket, whether that be the knowledge that you are dealing with a planar surface with a 1:2 ratio and the OB is on x,y coordinates on that playing surface etc... You still have to have SOME reference point that can lead you to the precise location of the desired result.

p.s. the way the first answer is worded then both answers are correct. Because if you know the precise locations of the OB/CB, then you know where the pockets are because you have a defined playing surface of 1:2 with exact locations of pockets in each corner and splitting the middle of the playing surface, so you would know where the pockets are with an exact location of the cb ob on the playing surface. Independent of an exact location on the playing surface you would need to know the location of the desired result.

Pocketing balls is not heavily dependent on the precise location of the center of the pocket. It would make sense however, if the object ball has little area to strike, like the end of the rail, because there is more area that will reject the ball.

SpiderWebComm
03-31-2011, 11:27 AM
Because "without looking at the pocket" does not mean "without knowledge of where the pocket is" (which means you don't understand the question and may be sane).

As you were told then (but still don't understand), that did not show that you had no knowledge of where the pockets were. In fact, some posters (including me) pointed out that there was plenty of pocket position information available to your eyes, and even suggested ways of setting it up so it would be a real test - none of which you tried.

So it's definitely a testable question, but you definitely did not test it.

pj
chgo

You and Mike both misread the original question. The question was, "Do you need to know PRECISELY where the center of the pocket is in order to hit it?" He didn't not say, "Do you need a general idea of where the pocket was, approximately?"

Suggest a test, get out of your basement, we'll meet up and figure out who's right Professor Johnson :)

I think if we tested tolerance to the center of the pocket (who has the smallest average deviation to center pocket) on truly blind shots (pocket region is covered and you're NOT allowed to move from behind the CB (you must stand in a small box) to check out the "contact point," you'd have a really, really, really rough time keeping up.

Run a test like that on a 3C table to measure accurately.

In fact, I'm trying to come out to Vegas in May. We'll get all of the math guys and instructors together and we'll setup a test. I'll buy the first round and it'll be fun. We'll all throw in $20 for fun that would go to the guy with the smallest deviation from center pocket. That way, the winner can buy himself a Ruth's filet or drink for free for the rest of the week. fabfastfredyy 03-31-2011, 11:28 AM The hole's existence isn't in question. pj <- haven't we crossed the too-simple-for-adults line yet? chgo Why are you asking me this? Jaden 03-31-2011, 11:31 AM Pocketing balls is not heavily dependent on the precise location of the center of the pocket. It would make sense however, if the object ball has little area to strike, like the end of the rail, because there is more area that will reject the ball. The tighter the pockets, the less margin of error and the more precisely you must know where the center of the pocket is; however, center of the pocket is a misnomer. If you aim every ball at the center of the pocket, you will miss some shots. Also, the question was do you need to know where the center of the pocket is to make the ball in the CENTER of the pocket, not to make the ball period. On a Standard cut gold crown, you can make the ball hit at medium speed being off anywhere from 2-5 degrees depending on the distance of the shot. Actually much more than that for really close shots. Jaden jsp 03-31-2011, 11:32 AM The hole's existence is independent of your knowledge of it. The hole's location is independent of the CB and OB. How does the CB and OB give me any information at all on the pocket's whereabouts? Do they talk to each other and by learning the right aiming system, you'll be able to develop a sixth sense capable of hearing their conversation? OB: Hey CB, what's up? CB: Not bad, and you? Howz the family doing? OB: We're doing okay, but number one has been looking a bit pale lately. CB: Bummer. OB: And yourself? Looks like you still have the measles. CB: Yeah, but I feel great. Anyway, have you seen the side pocket anywhere? The shooter wants to put you there. OB: Sure, it's right over there. Just tell him to place his bridge hand there, and pivot this way, and it'll all work out. CB: Okay, I'll pass the message. Have fun in the pocket. OB: Thanks, catch ya later. Jaden 03-31-2011, 11:34 AM You and Mike both misread the original question. The question was, "Do you need to know PRECISELY where the center of the pocket is in order to hit it?" He didn't not say, "Do you need a general idea of where the pocket was, approximately?" Suggest a test, get out of your basement, we'll meet up and figure out who's right Professor Johnson :) I think if we tested tolerance to the center of the pocket (who has the smallest average deviation to center pocket) on truly blind shots (pocket region is covered and you're NOT allowed to move from behind the CB (you must stand in a small box) to check out the "contact point," you'd have a really, really, really rough time keeping up. Run a test like that on a 3C table to measure accurately. In fact, I'm trying to come out to Vegas in May. We'll get all of the math guys and instructors together and we'll setup a test. I'll buy the first round and it'll be fun. We'll all throw in$20 for fun that would go to the guy with the smallest deviation from center pocket. That way, the winner can buy himself a Ruth's filet or drink for free for the rest of the week.

A physical test proves nothing unless you can prove that you don't know where the precise center of the pocket is.
I understand that CTE works for you. I actually developed a system that works that I can't logically explain too, so use it, but how it works is still up for debate and whether or not it works as described is DEFINITELY up for debate.

SpiderWebComm
03-31-2011, 11:36 AM
The hole's location is independent of the CB and OB.

How does the CB and OB give me any information at all on the pocket's whereabouts? Do they talk to each other and by learning the right aiming system, you'll be able to develop a sixth sense capable of hearing their conversation?

OB: Hey CB, what's up?

CB: Not bad, and you? Howz the family doing?

OB: We're doing okay, but number one has been looking a bit pale lately.

CB: Bummer.

OB: And yourself? Looks like you still have the measles.

CB: Yeah, but I feel great. Anyway, have you seen the side pocket anywhere? The shooter wants to put you there.

OB: Sure, it's right over there. Just tell him to place his bridge hand there, and pivot this way, and it'll all work out.

CB: Okay, I'll pass the message. Have fun in the pocket.

OB: Thanks, catch ya later.

Funny, that's basically what happens. As long as I know the cb/ob relationship and my location at the table (coming into the CB from the rail), that's all the data I need.

SpiderWebComm
03-31-2011, 11:38 AM
A physical test proves nothing unless you can prove that you don't know where the precise center of the pocket is.

NOBODY knows the PRECISE location of center pocket. It's always an estimated guess (even when you're LOOKING at the pocket, let alone shooting a blind shot).

Therefore, on blind shots, there has to be something "extra" to help you hit center-hole-joel every time. Intuition won't get you there on all shots.

03-31-2011, 11:39 AM
Funny, that's basically what happens. As long as I know the cb/ob relationship and my location at the table (coming into the CB from the rail), that's all the data I need.

If you know where on the table the CB and OB are in relation to two fixed points, then you know the precise location of the objective pocket.

SpiderWebComm
03-31-2011, 11:42 AM
If you know where on the table the CB and OB are in relation to two fixed points, then you know the precise location of the objective pocket.

No, you know the direction of the pocket - generally speaking. You don't know the PRECISE location. I can prove that by handing you a laser level and telling you to align it to center hole with everything blinded. You'll never be exact (i.e. precise).

Patrick Johnson
03-31-2011, 11:43 AM
If I point straight into the sky, I could be pointing at the moon or the sun, and tell you one or the other, and still be correct.
So you're saying you live someplace where our laws of nature don't apply. If you're ever in our corner of the universe, we can discuss the way things are here.

pj
chgo

12310bch
03-31-2011, 11:44 AM
It seems pretty obvious that you can't point at something if you don't know where it is. So when you make the extraordinary claim that a system can point an OB at a pocket without knowing where the pocket is, I think it's your responsibility to clue us in on how that's possible, not our responsibility to explain the obvious to you.

pj
chgo

The OP said THE CENTER OF THE POCKET. On many cuts I will line up to aim at one side of pocket or the other whichever will give me the thickest cut on the object ball.( or thinnest cut if I'm trying to avoid a scratch , etc.) On those shots I couldn't give a rat's ass where the center of the pocket is.:bash:

336Robin
03-31-2011, 11:46 AM
The hole's location is independent of the CB and OB.

How does the CB and OB give me any information at all on the pocket's whereabouts? Do they talk to each other and by learning the right aiming system, you'll be able to develop a sixth sense capable of hearing their conversation? [/I]

No they certainly dont by themselves. I have these methods in my book which is what Natural methods are about. Somehow something has to speak to you to give you a clue to what is going on, sure alignment and all that is a part of it but having a defined clue making system is exactly what the doctor ordered especially for those people who are not blessed with that 6th sense you speak of.

Robin Kelly

336robin :thumbup:
aimisthegameinpool@yahoo.com

http://274928807619529663.weebly.com/

03-31-2011, 11:46 AM
They are in a 1:2 ratio. 7x3.5, 8x4, 9x4.5 etc....

They all have a pocket in each corner and on the long rail splitting the center of the table.

If you have x,y coordinates for the CB and OB, then you KNOW the precise angle to the pockets.

You can find the x,y coordinates of the CB and or OB in one of two ways.

You have to have two reference points on the table. distance to two opposing rails, or distance to one rail and one pocket.

Once you have those two reference points then you know where the pockets are, PRECISELY where those pockets are.

Did you know that the human brain is better at naturally calculating the most complex computations (rates of acceleration and rates of deceleration) than almost any computer.

This is mete out any time you are driving on the freeway and need to stop in time (some people are better than others).

Your mind can compute the necesary mathematics to determine the angle to the pocket so long as it has the x,y coordinates of both balls by your being able to see two points of reference. if you think that you can pocket balls without having two points of reference and you care to accept a physical challenge that I setup that provides only one, I would be more than happy to oblige you....

Patrick Johnson
03-31-2011, 11:51 AM
Spidey:
You and Mike both misread the original question. The question was, "Do you need to know PRECISELY where the center of the pocket is in order to hit it?" He didn't not say, "Do you need a general idea of where the pocket was, approximately?"
You need to know the pocket's location to at least the same degree of accuracy that you claim to be able to purposely hit. If you claim to be able to hit center-pocket, then you need to know where the pocket's center is.

pj <- maybe flashcards...
chgo

SpiderWebComm
03-31-2011, 11:51 AM
They are in a 1:2 ratio. 7x3.5, 8x4, 9x4.5 etc....

They all have a pocket in each corner and on the long rail splitting the center of the table.

If you have x,y coordinates for the CB and OB, then you KNOW the precise angle to the pockets.

You can find the x,y coordinates of the CB and or OB in one of two ways.

You have to have two reference points on the table. distance to two opposing rails, or distance to one rail and one pocket.

Once you have those two reference points then you know where the pockets are, PRECISELY where those pockets are.

Did you know that the human brain is better at naturally calculating the most complex computations (rates of acceleration and rates of deceleration) than almost any computer.

This is mete out any time you are driving on the freeway and need to stop in time (some people are better than others).

Your mind can compute the necesary mathematics to determine the angle to the pocket so long as it has the x,y coordinates of both balls by your being able to see two points of reference. if you think that you can pocket balls without having two points of reference and you care to accept a physical challenge that I setup that provides only one, I would be more than happy to oblige you....

I'll accept any challenge--- as long as you, PJ, Mike, Lou and whoever participate as well so there's a baseline.

SpiderWebComm
03-31-2011, 11:52 AM
You need to know the pocket's location to at least the same degree of accuracy that you claim to be able to purposely hit. If you claim to be able to hit center-pocket, then you need to know where the pocket's center is.

pj <- maybe flashcards...
chgo

I don't know where anything is - ESPECIALLY the center of the pocket. CTE does, though :)

(flashcards for PJ)

fabfastfredyy
03-31-2011, 11:56 AM
So you're saying you live someplace where our laws of nature don't apply. If you're ever in our corner of the universe, we can discuss the way things are here.

pj
chgo

I don't see future conversations with you being anything but counterproductive.

Patrick Johnson
03-31-2011, 11:56 AM
I don't know where anything is
You don't need to convince me...

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson
03-31-2011, 11:57 AM
I don't see future conversations with you being anything but counterproductive.
I don't see them being anything at all.

pj <- nice to find something we can agree on
chgo

Neil
03-31-2011, 12:02 PM
...............

03-31-2011, 12:03 PM
I'll accept any challenge--- as long as you, PJ, Mike, Lou and whoever participate as well so there's a baseline.

You ARE claiming that you need only ONE frame of reference to put the ball wherever you want?

I'm not saying that CTE doesn't work, nor have I ever.

I don't even know how it's supposed to work. I am only arguing logic and trigonometrics here.

You can't know the proper cut angle to precisely put a sphere to any place by striking it with another sphere without knowing where it's going to go... None of the arguing in the world is going to change that.

You can know by either seeing the precise target location or having enough other information to know the precise location.

I've described how you can logically know the precise location.

there can be no argument without either seeing where the target location precisely is or having the x,y coordinates of both spheres on the playing surface while having access to the precise locations of the targets on the playing surface, you CANNOT accurately hit the target area without this. PERIOD.

This is becoming a game of semantics like me and Colin used to argue where we were saying the same thing in different enough ways to confuse each other.

When you do what you do, you HAVE to (by the limitations of physics) know precisely where your target is to hit your target. If you are successfully hitting your target accurately while only knowing the position of the CB/ OB and not the position of the target, then you are somehow provided with two frames of reference which is giving you the PRECISE locations of the pockets by a geometric function by knowing the x,y grid coordinates of the CB/OB AND knowing the dimensions of the grid and relational location of the six possible targets on the grid.

Scott Lee
03-31-2011, 12:08 PM
It amazes me how quickly these threads degerate into useless conflict. Pat, Dave, and anybody else...how about if we just on ONE thread, simply post, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!" Period. Then, the endless back and forth nonsense posts don't occur. CTE will never be able to be "proven" to the complete satisfaction of the "physics" guys. Okay, let's just accept that. Does that mean it can't work for a large or small group of players? No. It does require some basic math skills, plus of a degree of perception...which is what all aiming is about anyway. How about we put away the "acid tongues" and behave as adults?

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

03-31-2011, 12:16 PM
It amazes me how quickly these threads degerate into useless conflict. Pat, Dave, and anybody else...how about if we just on ONE thread, simply post, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!" Period. Then, the endless back and forth nonsense posts don't occur. CTE will never be able to be "proven" to the complete satisfaction of the "physics" guys. Okay, let's just accept that. Does that mean it can't work for a large or small group of players? No. It does require some basic math skills, plus of a degree of perception...which is what all aiming is about anyway. How about we put away the "acid tongues" and behave as adults?

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I was staying completely out of the CTE debate. I only got into the logical debate of the claim that you don't have to know the target to aim at it. That is patently absurd.

I explained how you can know where the pockets are without seeing the pocket. That's all. So in a way I'm defending CTE, because I'm explaining how an absurd idea can be true. IOW, it's not that you don't know where the pocket is. It is that you are knowing without knowing...lol....

jsp
03-31-2011, 12:21 PM
It amazes me how quickly these threads degerate into useless conflict. Pat, Dave, and anybody else...how about if we just on ONE thread, simply post, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!" Period. Then, the endless back and forth nonsense posts don't occur. CTE will never be able to be "proven" to the complete satisfaction of the "physics" guys. Okay, let's just accept that. Does that mean it can't work for a large or small group of players? No. It does require some basic math skills, plus of a degree of perception...which is what all aiming is about anyway. How about we put away the "acid tongues" and behave as adults?

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
I never mentioned anything about CTE at all when I started the poll. It's a simple logic question that can be answered without any knowledge of CTE or any other aiming systems.

It just so happens that the many of the CTE claims (not the system itself) are based on the logical fallacy that the poll question explores.

03-31-2011, 12:31 PM
Using a system that allows you to focus on the CB/OB relationship is akin to hitting a ball in baseball and keeping your eye on the ball. It allows you to better focus on the task at hand, hitting one ball in the precisely correct location with another ball.

You STILL need to know where the target is, if you're getting it from the relation of the balls to each other on a known surface with predefined targets, then more power to you, but you still know PRECISELY where those targets are either directly or indirectly....

p.s. I rarely look at the pocket when I shoot. I don't need to, I already know where the pockets are. I only need to know where the balls are in relation to each other with reference points on the grid. I can make back cuts without ever looking at the pocket, but that doesn't mean I don't know precisely where the pocket is when I line up the shot.

Scott Lee
03-31-2011, 12:32 PM
jsp...Never said you did. However, the "logical fallacy" comment is what I'm talking about. CTE works for lots of players (myself included), and for those of us it does work for, we don't have to have a location for the pocket...just an exit angle. Why that needs to be "denied" by some so vigorously (like PJ) is what escapes me...which is why I said...if it works for you fine. If not, do something else. It doesn't require than people have to descend into senseless posting arguments...for or against (Jaden, I'm not including you here). It's kinda like the "different strokes for different folks" idea. Live and let live! :grin: If I don't like how a student strokes the ball, I will certainly give them my perspective on why that often results in inconsistent results...but I will never tell them they are full of sh*t, or demand that they "do it the right way". The choice is always left up to the individual...you know, like the water/horse thing! :grin:

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I never mentioned anything about CTE at all when I started the poll. It's a simple logic question that can be answered without any knowledge of CTE or any other aiming systems.

It just so happens that the many of the CTE claims (not the system itself) are based on the logical fallacy that the poll question explores.

jsp
03-31-2011, 12:35 PM
...we don't have to have a location for the pocket...just an exit angle.
What exactly do you mean by "exit angle"? By exit angle do you mean a precise angle, such as 25.6 degrees? Or do you mean a range of angles, such as 20-30 degrees?

Scott Lee
03-31-2011, 01:29 PM
jsp...I'm not going to go into detail, but CTE works on the basis of just a few "angles" which cover almost all shots (for some varieties of CTE, it is just one angle). These angles are all primary to the half ball aim (30 degree cut), which is the most common angle on a pool table (and the angle that every pro desires to fall onto), for either a cut or bank. Therefore, the exit angle refers to the half ball aim, or one of a couple of others (1/4 ball or 3/4 ball). If someone covers the table, as Dave described (and Hal Houle did with Randyg years ago), and tells him what the exit angle is to the pocket, he would just have to line up on that angle. He would, obviously, need to know the location of the pocket (which is fixed), in order for the exit angle to work to pocket the ball. He personally would not have to be able to see the pocket.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

What exactly do you mean by "exit angle"? By exit angle do you mean a precise angle, such as 25.6 degrees? Or do you mean a range of angles, such as 20-30 degrees?

iralee
03-31-2011, 01:54 PM
jsp...I'm not going to go into detail, but CTE works on the basis of just a few "angles" which cover almost all shots (for some varieties of CTE, it is just one angle). These angles are all primary to the half ball aim (30 degree cut), which is the most common angle on a pool table (and the angle that every pro desires to fall onto), for either a cut or bank. Therefore, the exit angle refers to the half ball aim, or one of a couple of others (1/4 ball or 3/4 ball). If someone covers the table, as Dave described (and Hal Houle did with Randyg years ago), and tells him what the exit angle is to the pocket, he would just have to line up on that angle. He would, obviously, need to know the location of the pocket (which is fixed), in order for the exit angle to work to pocket the ball. He personally would not have to be able to see the pocket.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

A version of CTE with only one angle can not be a very useful system, unless all of the shots happen to coincidentally fall exactly onto that angle. Scott, can you explain why the balls on the table might align themselves for 30 degree cuts more frequently than other angles? (i.e. the distribution is centered around 1/2 ball hits)

-Ira

Patrick Johnson
03-31-2011, 02:00 PM
jsp:
By exit angle do you mean a precise angle, such as 25.6 degrees? Or do you mean a range of angles, such as 20-30 degrees?
Scott Lee:
I'm not going to go into detail
That's x-angle speak for "Good question. Hey look over there!"

...the exit angle refers to the half ball aim, or one of a couple of others (1/4 ball or 3/4 ball). If someone covers the table, as Dave described (and Hal Houle did with Randyg years ago), and tells him what the exit angle is to the pocket, he would just have to line up on that angle. He would, obviously, need to know the location of the pocket (which is fixed), in order for the exit angle to work to pocket the ball. He personally would not have to be able to see the pocket.
Nicely played.

pj <- appreciate good footwork
chgo

03-31-2011, 02:03 PM
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2933145&postcount=560

Above is a link to a pdf that has a grid pattern that is part of the pro/one system....

When I was talking about gridding to resolute the angles of shots I had no idea. I haven't looked into CTE hardly at all... lol...

Yes if you grid the table, and place the CB and OB on any part of the grid, you can use a table to lookup the EXACT angle to the pocket.

I had actually started to draw out a grid to relate what I was referring to and thought that if I had enough time I could create a system based off of a diamond based grid that would have squares labeled A-FF that each grid square would then be broken down into a hundred sectors. With a hundred sectors in each grid you could break it down to an exact enough angle for almost any table.

Then you could have various degrees of fractional aiming for any given angle that would work; however, it would still require visualization of the fractionals which is not much easier than ghost ball or any other technique.

quarter ball, half ball and full ball can never be enough, but if you grid the table and create a sheet table that can allow you to lookup fractionals for given layouts and practice long enough and study long enough to memorize the various fractionals to use for given grid patterns, you could become more exact perhaps. Or you could always use the table to lookup any shots that you are iffy on.

I find this hilarious that the only way that this could possibly work is illustrated from Stan's own system...and that I had thought of it without ever looking at the system...and more importantly that proponents of the system tried to deny that it was the case...

fabfastfredyy
03-31-2011, 02:04 PM
The hole's location is independent of the CB and OB.

How does the CB and OB give me any information at all on the pocket's whereabouts? Do they talk to each other and by learning the right aiming system, you'll be able to develop a sixth sense capable of hearing their conversation?

OB: Hey CB, what's up?

CB: Not bad, and you? Howz the family doing?

OB: We're doing okay, but number one has been looking a bit pale lately.

CB: Bummer.

OB: And yourself? Looks like you still have the measles.

CB: Yeah, but I feel great. Anyway, have you seen the side pocket anywhere? The shooter wants to put you there.

OB: Sure, it's right over there. Just tell him to place his bridge hand there, and pivot this way, and it'll all work out.

CB: Okay, I'll pass the message. Have fun in the pocket.

OB: Thanks, catch ya later.

So you're saying that I'm wrong? btw, I don't know what cte is.

gpeezy
03-31-2011, 02:15 PM
the center of the pocket is really only available when you are directly in front of the pocket (for example the "spot" looking into the corner pockets). after you rotate from that point, shooting at the "center pocket" will be a miss. finding the object balls pocketable path (if that makes any sense) is best. some instructional books and im sure instructors spend some time on "eye conversation" with the object ball and its intended pocket. this will find what i guess could be called 'center line'=center pocket........why does it feel i just explained an equation.

03-31-2011, 02:22 PM
the center of the pocket is really only available when you are directly in front of the pocket (for example the "spot" looking into the corner pockets). after you rotate from that point, shooting at the "center pocket" will be a miss. finding the object balls pocketable path (if that makes any sense) is best. some instructional books and im sure instructors spend some time on "eye conversation" with the object ball and its intended pocket. this will find what i guess could be called 'center line'=center pocket........why does it feel i just explained an equation.

When people are talking about center pocket, they are referring to a point a half balls width directly in line with center pocket from the edge of the grid. That's the place that almost any pocket ball should go to.

They aren't really talking about the center of the back of the pocket. I pointed out that many shots would be missed if they were always pointing at center pocket...

gpeezy
03-31-2011, 02:24 PM
well then i agree with you. the whole question is odd to me

champ2107
03-31-2011, 02:36 PM
The ctel, reference lines, pivoting, the pool table dimensions, pocket dimensions. Some genius figured out a system to shoot center pocket, some how?!!!

12310bch
03-31-2011, 10:18 PM
Q. How high is a mice when she spins?

A. The higher the fewer ( of course, silly)

AtLarge
03-31-2011, 11:20 PM
... It does require some basic math skills...

What basic math skills are required to aim using Stan's CTE?

04-01-2011, 01:16 AM
Who cares since a good number of shots are intentionaly not shot to center pocket for the best angle to approach the next shot.

Andrei8
04-01-2011, 01:44 AM
Hi all,

I am Andrew, from Romania, nice to meet you all, great forum. This is a very popular sport in Romania at amateur level and also poorly represented at Federation Level. There is no legal entity to represent the interests of the players in any official competitions.

Enough about me for the moment...
I wanted to add that i usually (unless playing for pure leisure) try to aim the center of the pocket at every shot i take. I think it gives you a larger error margin. English may also help if you hit the pocket first. But if you aim the pocket with no precise target, and you are not accurate, the shot may be missed. This is no big news...

fabfastfredyy
04-01-2011, 02:25 AM
Hi all,

I am Andrew, from Romania, nice to meet you all, great forum. This is a very popular sport in Romania at amateur level and also poorly represented at Federation Level. There is no legal entity to represent the interests of the players in any official competitions.

Enough about me for the moment...
I wanted to add that i usually (unless playing for pure leisure) try to aim the center of the pocket at every shot i take. I think it gives you a larger error margin. English may also help if you hit the pocket first. But if you aim the pocket with no precise target, and you are not accurate, the shot may be missed. This is no big news...

The pocket's center has nothing to do with it. Accuracy has nothing to do with aim. Missing a shot is not due to not having a target. The shot may always be missed, even if you're a few inches from the pocket. Betcha didn't know that.

If you've played darts or shot an arrow you would know that accuracy has very little to do with good vision.

Andrei8
04-01-2011, 02:45 AM
@fabfastfredyy

I agree with everything you say. However, you may have misunderstood me:

When I take a shot, I always try to send the OB to the center of the pocket. I don't argue about all the factors which influence the accuracy of the shot. Did you really think i don't know all this? :)

But if I only choose the pocket itself as a target I think, and you also know this, that o.5mm can make a difference especially when you choose to put a lot of English on the CB.

The accuracy of the shot, is indeed depending on a lot of other things, cloth, cue tip, CB, vision, hand stability, etc.

That's why we get to vote. As I said, i always choose to aim the very center of the pocket in order to improve that part of the accuracy which relies on this aspect. All other aspects must be taken into consideration at the same time. This aiming is included and, therefore, not excluded by any other part of the accuracy of a shot.

My humble opinion. Now that I'm about to end this post I see something else: "Accuracy has nothing to do with aim". This doesn't sound right. As a matter of fact I think we're talking about two different things.

Of course every shot may be missed even if you're a few inches from the pocket.How can you bet i didn't know that?

Imagine you're throwing a stone in a lake...that's easy. Now imagine you're throwing the same stone in a bucket from a reasonable distance. In my opinion, if I aim the center of the bucket from the first place, I'll have fewer chances to miss compared to someone who doesn't. But, of course, that doesn't mean that a poor vision, a shaky hand or a pigeon, can't make me miss.

fabfastfredyy
04-01-2011, 03:28 AM
@fabfastfredyy

I agree with everything you say. However, you may have misunderstood me:

When I take a shot, I always try to send the OB to the center of the pocket. I don't argue about all the factors which influence the accuracy of the shot. Did you really think i don't know all this? :)

But if I only choose the pocket itself as a target I think, and you also know this, that o.5mm can make a difference especially when you choose to put a lot of English on the CB.

The accuracy of the shot, is indeed depending on a lot of other things, cloth, cue tip, CB, vision, hand stability, etc.

That's why we get to vote. As I said, i always choose to aim the very center of the pocket in order to improve that part of the accuracy which relies on this aspect. All other aspects must be taken into consideration at the same time. This aiming is included and, therefore, not excluded by any other part of the accuracy of a shot.

My humble opinion. Now that I'm about to end this post I see something else: "Accuracy has nothing to do with aim". This doesn't sound right. As a matter of fact I think we're talking about two different things.

Of course every shot may be missed even if you're a few inches from the pocket.How can you bet i didn't know that?

Imagine you're throwing a stone in a lake...that's easy. Now imagine you're throwing the same stone in a bucket from a reasonable distance. In my opinion, if I aim the center of the bucket from the first place, I'll have fewer chances to miss compared to someone who doesn't. But, of course, that doesn't mean that a poor vision, a shaky hand or a pigeon, can't make me miss.

I can imagine the spectra of outcomes with all the rocks I can pick up at a lake, but we're talking about a cueball. Its action is predictable and constant much like that of the pockets...or even a dart-it's build to fly straight when thrown with proper mechanics.

Imagine throwing a knife. Now think of the dynamics of a knife throw by someone trained to kill....

Who cares...goodnight.

Andrei8
04-01-2011, 03:34 AM
Based on what you said so far I'd rather think of the dynamics of a knife throw by someone trained to kill who has no target. ("Missing a shot is not due to not having a target.")

Yet again, I agree, that's just the way I see things. You're different approach is no problem to any of us.

So yep...have a good night. I'm still at work :(

fabfastfredyy
04-01-2011, 03:43 AM
Don't you guys have vampires in Romania?

Andrei8
04-01-2011, 03:48 AM
Lol.
I'm new to this forum but pretty active on many other and as far as I know, off-topic isn't a good thing.
But if nobody has a problem with this yet, no, we don't have vampires here in Romania :)

I could tell you a really nice story but not here, maybe in a PM if you like.

However, it all started when a medieval ruler, Vlad Tepes (The Impaler) started playing pool with the Otomans making them his OBs.

jsp
04-01-2011, 06:09 AM
jsp...I'm not going to go into detail, but CTE works on the basis of just a few "angles" which cover almost all shots (for some varieties of CTE, it is just one angle). These angles are all primary to the half ball aim (30 degree cut), which is the most common angle on a pool table (and the angle that every pro desires to fall onto), for either a cut or bank. Therefore, the exit angle refers to the half ball aim, or one of a couple of others (1/4 ball or 3/4 ball). If someone covers the table, as Dave described (and Hal Houle did with Randyg years ago), and tells him what the exit angle is to the pocket, he would just have to line up on that angle. He would, obviously, need to know the location of the pocket (which is fixed), in order for the exit angle to work to pocket the ball. He personally would not have to be able to see the pocket.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott, see picture below. You have the CB and OB locations as shown. You want to hit the OB in the side pocket, but for argument's sake let's say you don't know the precise location of the side pocket. All you know is that it lies somewhere in the window shown, and that the "exit angle" of the shot is approximately a half-ball hit. And for completeness, let's say the centers of the CB and OB are exactly 5 ball widths apart. That's all the information you have.

According to the logic of the first answer (A), you have ALL the information you need in order to locate the EXACT center of the side pocket. So given the diagram, what colored star represents the side pocket's center? Does it lie somewhere in between two of the stars?

And the side pocket MUST lie at only one point, and one point alone. According to the logic in answer (A), it's not possible for the pocket to be in more than one spot in that window, given the precise CB and OB locations.

http://i56.tinypic.com/2j3m9mx.png

12310bch
04-01-2011, 06:40 AM
Lol.
I'm new to this forum but pretty active on many other and as far as I know, off-topic isn't a good thing.
But if nobody has a problem with this yet, no, we don't have vampires here in Romania :)

I could tell you a really nice story but not here, maybe in a PM if you like.

However, it all started when a medieval ruler, Vlad Tepes (The Impaler) started playing pool with the Otomans making them his OBs.

Andrei, sometimes off-topic or a small hi-jack is the only way to make fun of ourselves for debating the intricacies of a sport as if no other topic in the universe really was of any consequence. If you have a good story and somehow, even remotely connected to pool then fire a way.

How about this: Vlade (the impaler)( who by the way played for the L.A. Lakers) walked into the Forum Bar with a three-legged pig. He went over to the pool table to put his quarter in when an an automan from a local garage walked in. .....well Andrei, feel free to finish the story.

And welcome to the Forum. By the way,do you us CTE? If you truly want impaled , answer that question. :welcome:

mikepage
04-01-2011, 06:41 AM
[...] If someone [...] tells him what the exit angle is to the pocket, he would just have to line up on that angle.

That SOMEONE is usually the player himself.

He personally would not have to be able to see the pocket.

I doubt anyone in this poll regardless of answer they chose thinks a player has to see the pocket while shooting. I think all would agree that someone could cover up the pocket when the payer is ready to shoot.

Answering YES in this poll is a far more extraordinary act than that! It's the outrageous statement that a player can know the exit angle ACCURATELY without knowing where the pocket is ACCURATELY. I have no clue how someone can say this. It's the same information

jsp
04-01-2011, 06:44 AM
But if nobody has a problem with this yet, no, we don't have vampires here in Romania :).
I'm much more likely to believe in vampires than believing that you can always shoot at center pocket without first knowing where center pocket is. :thumbup:

Neil
04-01-2011, 06:57 AM
.................

Neil
04-01-2011, 07:04 AM
......................

mikepage
04-01-2011, 07:16 AM
Then, as a BCA instructor, don't you think that just maybe you ought to get with one of the more advanced instructors and learn how? Rather than say that what the more advanced instructors are teaching is outrageous??

Really Neil?

Is this REALLY what you think is productive here?

Neil
04-01-2011, 07:24 AM
...............

fabfastfredyy
04-01-2011, 07:30 AM
@fabfastfredyy

I agree with everything you say. However, you may have misunderstood me:

When I take a shot, I always try to send the OB to the center of the pocket. I don't argue about all the factors which influence the accuracy of the shot. Did you really think i don't know all this? :)

But if I only choose the pocket itself as a target I think, and you also know this, that o.5mm can make a difference especially when you choose to put a lot of English on the CB.

The accuracy of the shot, is indeed depending on a lot of other things, cloth, cue tip, CB, vision, hand stability, etc.

That's why we get to vote. As I said, i always choose to aim the very center of the pocket in order to improve that part of the accuracy which relies on this aspect. All other aspects must be taken into consideration at the same time. This aiming is included and, therefore, not excluded by any other part of the accuracy of a shot.

My humble opinion. Now that I'm about to end this post I see something else: "Accuracy has nothing to do with aim". This doesn't sound right. As a matter of fact I think we're talking about two different things.

Of course every shot may be missed even if you're a few inches from the pocket.How can you bet i didn't know that?

Imagine you're throwing a stone in a lake...that's easy. Now imagine you're throwing the same stone in a bucket from a reasonable distance. In my opinion, if I aim the center of the bucket from the first place, I'll have fewer chances to miss compared to someone who doesn't. But, of course, that doesn't mean that a poor vision, a shaky hand or a pigeon, can't make me miss.

You're not suppose to do this.

jsp
04-01-2011, 07:37 AM
You obviously either don't understand CTE at all, or you are just trying to be an ass.
You obviously don't understand my argument, or you are just trying to be an ass. So there. :nanner:

If you understood it at all, you would know that it is a visual system, and your 2D drawing won't prove a thing. If you ever get up here to Mi., set up the same shot totally blocking the side pocket from view, and I will make that shot in the center of the pocket. On your 2D drawing, you cannot get the proper visuals to determine which star it is.
Which star isn't important. The point is that you must argue that it has to be only one star, and it's impossible for it to be the other stars given that particular CB/OB setup. Because if it's another point, then the CB and/or OB have to move in order for you to pick that other point, correct?

And, with your post history on CTE, I figure that no matter which star one of us picked, you would say it was a different one.;)
I would say that it's perfectly possible for the pocket to be any one of those stars (or any points in between). Why can't it be? But again, I don't subscribe to the logic of answer (A).

Andrei8
04-01-2011, 07:39 AM
I'm much more likely to believe in vampires than believing that you can always shoot at center pocket without first knowing where center pocket is. :thumbup:
Lol. Me too :) Did I say that?!...

Andrei, sometimes off-topic or a small hi-jack is the only way to make fun of ourselves for debating the intricacies of a sport as if no other topic in the universe really was of any consequence. If you have a good story and somehow, even remotely connected to pool then fire a way.

How about this: Vlade (the impaler)( who by the way played for the L.A. Lakers) walked into the Forum Bar with a three-legged pig. He went over to the pool table to put his quarter in when an an automan from a local garage walked in. .....well Andrei, feel free to finish the story.

And welcome to the Forum. By the way,do you us CTE? If you truly want impaled , answer that question. :welcome:
First of all thank you. And...nope. I'd rather tell you the real one. But answer me this: What does Dracula mean to you...any of you...all of you?
Regarding CTE, it depends...
You're not suppose to do this.

Do what? Try to limit the margin of error for improved accuracy? :)

fabfastfredyy
04-01-2011, 07:46 AM
Lol. Me too :) Did I say that?!...

First of all thank you. And...nope. I'd rather tell you the real one. But answer me this: What does Dracula mean to you...any of you...all of you?

Do what? Try to limit the margin of error for improved accuracy? :)

YOu're new here and can quote 3 people?....I guess our idea of accuracy is different. Do you bank center pocket too?

iralee
04-01-2011, 07:48 AM
Getting you to stop knocking fellow instructors that are more advanced than you, you learning something new, yes, much more productive than you jumping on a bandwagon about something you don't even understand.

When it comes to describing helpful aiming methods (or their helpfulness), Mike Page has evidenced more understanding and is more articulate than nearly every instructor on this board - many of who have proven incapable of explaining what they think they know, yet are eager to sell/defend a lot of unhelpful voodoo.

-Ira

champ2107
04-01-2011, 07:54 AM
You obviously don't understand my argument, or you are just trying to be an ass. So there. :nanner:

Which star isn't important. The point is that you must argue that it has to be only one star, and it's impossible for it to be the other stars given that particular CB/OB setup. Because if it's another point, then the CB and/or OB have to move in order for you to pick that other point, correct?

I would say that it's perfectly possible for the pocket to be any one of those stars (or any points in between). Why can't it be? But again, I don't subscribe to the logic of answer (A).

You say some bright things sometimes but also you say some dumb stuff, JSP

Neil
04-01-2011, 07:54 AM
.................

jsp
04-01-2011, 08:00 AM
You say some bright things sometimes but also you say some dumb stuff, JSP
What exactly did I say that is "dumb"? Let me help you understand the argument better.

Andrei8
04-01-2011, 08:00 AM
YOu're new here and can quote 3 people?....I guess our idea of accuracy is different. Do you bank center pocket too?

I'm new here, not new to this planet. Irrelevant.

Masayoshi
04-01-2011, 08:18 AM
Mike has put out some good stuff, no doubt, and never said he hasn't. As to your statement as a whole- :rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotfl mao1:

What he said wasn't out of line actually. I wont name names, but many instructors on this board tend to market product rather than help out. There are a few good ones, but the less helpful ones make them look bad.

fabfastfredyy
04-01-2011, 08:19 AM
andrei

I'm just trying to find out if its worth explaining why I think you should re-arrange your approach to pocketing balls....or if it's me that got it all twisted. I think it's pretty obvious that if I don't shoot for the center I don't bank at the center either.

mikepage
04-01-2011, 08:30 AM
What he said wasn't out of line actually. I wont name names, but many instructors on this board tend to market product rather than help out. There are a few good ones, but the less helpful ones make them look bad.

Just to be clear, I didn't criticize ANY instructors.

fabfastfredyy
04-01-2011, 08:32 AM
Just to be clear, I didn't criticize ANY instructors.

You said I need to see a doctor. I don't really take offense to anything tho. I know you were just trying to make a statement.

Honestly, I'm pretty crazy.

Masayoshi
04-01-2011, 08:34 AM
Just to be clear, I didn't criticize ANY instructors.

Not you, IraLee

SpiderWebComm
04-01-2011, 09:00 AM
Just to be clear, I didn't criticize ANY instructors.

Well, you said whoever said "no" didn't understand the question and both RandyG and Scott Lee said no...... so are you CALLING THEM STUPID?

What ARE you trying to say Michael?

Dave

mikepage
04-01-2011, 09:13 AM
Well, you said whoever said "no" didn't understand the question and both RandyG and Scott Lee said no...... so are you CALLING THEM STUPID?

[...]

huh? .....

Roger Long
04-01-2011, 09:15 AM
Getting you to stop knocking fellow instructors that are more advanced than you, you learning something new, yes, much more productive than you jumping on a bandwagon about something you don't even understand.

Neil,

I don't think Mike Page has knocked anyone at all, he has merely knocked a concept that he disagrees with.

In title, I am supposed to be a more advanced instructor than Mike Page. In reality, I HIGHLY doubt that. Titles are worth...well, you know what they're worth.

Roger

Masayoshi
04-01-2011, 09:19 AM
Well, you said whoever said "no" didn't understand the question and both RandyG and Scott Lee said no...... so are you CALLING THEM STUPID?

What ARE you trying to say Michael?

Dave

Failure to understand and stupidity are two very separate things, unless you are just being bitter and want to throw words in his mouth.

Neil
04-01-2011, 09:19 AM
..............

Scott Lee
04-01-2011, 09:30 AM
Neil...Just to clarify something, Mike is EXTREMELY intelligent, and a good instructor to boot. He has posted some amazingly simple, informative video for all to use. He has done the research, and put together THE single best poolroom in the U.S., and possibly the world. Most of the things we may disagree about are merely semantics. Like I've said many times, in many of these threads, if CTE works for you, use it...if not use something else. I think that really says it all...except for the people who just have be in a pissing match with somebody...and we know who those folks are! Mike is certainly not one of them.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Mike, I'm not trying to get in any kind of argument with you here. But, I take the statement below by you to mean just what it said. That saying to don't need to know just where the pocket is exactly is an outrageous claim. In other words, false. Since a number of instructors on here teach that you can do that, then I read it as criticism of what they are teaching. If I am wrong in that, I apologize, but I don't see any way to read it any differently.

SpiderWebComm
04-01-2011, 09:32 AM
huh? .....

April Fools, Mike. I better say that before someone gets hurt.

Neil
04-01-2011, 09:40 AM
.................

Ratta
04-01-2011, 09:42 AM
Neil...Just to clarify something, Mike is EXTREMELY intelligent, and a good instructor to boot. He has posted some amazingly simple, informative video for all to use. He has done the research, and put together THE single best poolroom in the U.S., and possibly the world. Most of the things we may disagree about are merely semantics. Like I've said many times, in many of these threads, if CTE works for you, use it...if not use something else. I think that really says it all...except for the people who just have be in a pissing match with somebody...and we know who those folks are! Mike is certainly not one of them.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

:thumbup2:

duckie
04-01-2011, 09:44 AM
I just wish the question was worded a little different to include shots where you aren't trying for center pocket, but more of putting the OB right where you want it.

Like in safety play.

You have to know exactlly where to hit the OB ball to make it go where you want OR make the CB go where you want it, carom, Or the third ball in a 3 ball combo go center pocket. The sound of a well done 3 ball combo is sweet music.

Once you get the level of where "good enough" doesn't cut on a personal level, you will understand what making all types of shots in pool is about. Pool is not all about win/loses.

champ2107
04-01-2011, 09:45 AM
Just following these aiming threads has shown me who not to get a lesson from and you can also tell who the more advanced instructors are...ijs

ThePoliteSniper
04-01-2011, 10:51 AM
OK

Let's simplify the question first. Imagine the object ball was the only ball on the table and you were allowed to strike the object ball with the stick --hit it right in the hole.

Now, do you have to know where the center of the hole is to be able to do this? Think about this.

The answer is yes. You don't need to know how far away it is but you DO need to know what direction it is.

This is so incredibly simple and clear. Why are we even discussing this?

iralee
04-01-2011, 10:58 AM
Mike has put out some good stuff, no doubt, and never said he hasn't. As to your statement as a whole- :rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotfl mao1:

I take it (from all of the rotflmaos) that you believe that the majority of instructors that are trying to sell products are more articulate and helpful than Mike Page is. I disagree, because I tend to gravitate toward teaching approaches that are well-reasoned and explained with clarity. I came out to defend Mike P. because I felt he was being spoken down to as an instructor - and undeservingly so.

Still, you are entitled to your opinion, Neil, and I to mine.

peteypooldude
04-01-2011, 10:58 AM
This is so incredibly simple and clear. Why are we even discussing this?

Nice Avatar Snipper lol

champ2107
04-01-2011, 11:07 AM
It sounds to me like i can possibly find more instructional information on youtube by the sounds of some of these post im reading from certain people. Choose an instructor wisely :)

AtLarge
04-01-2011, 12:24 PM
... Since a number of instructors on here teach that you can do that, then I read it as criticism of what they are teaching. ...

Neil, it depends on how an instructor presents CTE.

If he presents it as the holy grail of aiming, as the way to align the stick perfectly to center GB while knowing only the general direction of the target -- without any form of adjustment or "feel" -- then I think that instructor has opened himself to valid criticism.

However, if the instructor presents CTE as just one of many possible aiming methods, one that some people find useful for reasons X, Y, and Z, then there is no problem.

I'm ignorant of what instructors have been teaching for CTE for the past few years and how they have been presenting it. Presumably it is/was related to Hal Houle's cryptic prescription for CTE and is/was without Stan's structure of specific secondary alignment points and bridge lengths. It is understandable that an instructor would want to be -- and would want to appear to be -- up to date, fashionable, au courant. CTE has been the hottest new thing in aiming for the past several years. It's proper for instructors to learn CTE so they can (1) answer any questions about it that their students raise and (2) present it to the extent they think it could help any of their students.

A problem arises only if they are ignorant of what is really happening with CTE and, irresponsibly, present it as the gods' gift to pool players. I have no evidence of that occurring.

fabfastfredyy
04-01-2011, 12:30 PM
This is so incredibly simple and clear. Why are we even discussing this?

It's really not all that simple. He said that the answer has to be a no brainer, if you were just using the cue to drive the ball at the pocket. The claim that you have to "know where the center of the pocket is" to be able to drive a ball using the aiming system "center pocket aim"...is quite redundant. I mean wouldn't you think its obvious that the center of anything, especially a pocket, is already known? That said, I don't think the op was trying to be a jackass when he started this thread by use of word play. I think he was trying to find out if a certain system was able to show proof of its claim that knowledge of the center of the pocket is unnecessary, when your aim is to get the ball there.

ThePoliteSniper
04-01-2011, 01:19 PM
?

If the location of the pocket is known, yes then you can send the objectball into the pocket. I don't know why it has to be the center of the pocket. It doesn't matter where you want the objectball to go. If you want to hit something (center pocket, left side of pocket, first diamond, second diamond or just any spot) you need to know where it is.

04-01-2011, 01:55 PM
?

If the location of the pocket is known, yes then you can send the objectball into the pocket. I don't know why it has to be the center of the pocket. It doesn't matter where you want the objectball to go. If you want to hit something (center pocket, left side of pocket, first diamond, second diamond or just any spot) you need to know where it is.

The whole thing about center pocket has thrown a lot of people off.

What was intended by the use of the term "center pocket" was precise OB control, not really "center pocket"

Because a pocket is bigger than the ball, there are many shots that will go regardless of whether or not you hit precisely where you meant to.

A better way of wording the question would be to say, do you need to know precisely where you want an OB to go, to get it there?

The answer to that is YES, you need to know precisely where you want the ball to get it there.

The answer is NO if you only want to be able to pocket the ball on a standard cut brunswick for the majority of the shots, you'll encounter.

Patrick Johnson
04-01-2011, 02:59 PM
Mike, I'm not trying to get in any kind of argument with you here. But, I take the statement below by you to mean just what it said. That saying to don't need to know just where the pocket is exactly is an outrageous claim. In other words, false. Since a number of instructors on here teach that you can do that, then I read it as criticism of what they are teaching. If I am wrong in that, I apologize, but I don't see any way to read it any differently.
If an instructor teaches that the target doesn't need to be located to the same degree of accuracy as the shot needs to be made (i.e., a center pocket shot doesn't require locating the center of the pocket), then they should be criticized for teaching things that defy the natural laws of the universe and that they clearly don't understand.

If that offends you, take a pill (and a high school logic class).

pj
chgo

champ2107
04-01-2011, 03:33 PM
Neil dont waste your time with Patrick Johnson!

fabfastfredyy
04-02-2011, 04:20 AM
All the counterarguments are from the side of those who don't know the difference between implicit/explicit concepts. Knowing of something is all a matter of structure of concepts.

If I take my beagle to a fox hole and say "get em Pepe!". He's gonna get the fox. It may be from start of the fox-hole or in the middle of the fox hole, where I would have to dig another starting point, he's gonna get the sucker.

What defies your high school level common sense type of logic is that the idea that my cueball is like that of my dog pepe's ability to always find things which aren't directly in front of my nose. Of course I'm aware of the fox, but do I need to know of its exact location?

So, do you need to know of the pocket's center? If you play like a fish, yes.

It's kinda like the idea that the earth is round when the eyes sees flatness.

mikepage
04-02-2011, 05:25 AM
[...]
Of course I'm aware of the fox, but do I need to know of its exact location?

[...]

Well no...

But Pepe does ...

fabfastfredyy
04-02-2011, 05:35 AM
Well no...

But Pepe does ...

:angry: I'm about to erupt and kick my dog. j/k

jsp
04-02-2011, 05:44 AM
What defies your high school level common sense type of logic is that the idea that my cueball is like that of my dog pepe's ability to always find things which aren't directly in front of my nose. Of course I'm aware of the fox, but do I need to know of its exact location?
So you're basically saying that the OB follows the pocket the same way your dog chases a fox?

What do you feed your pool balls, fab?

fabfastfredyy
04-02-2011, 05:50 AM
So you're basically saying that the OB follows the pocket the same way your dog chases a fox?

What do you feed your pool balls, fab?

steak and eggs

Patrick Johnson
04-02-2011, 05:56 AM
All the counterarguments are from the side of those who don't know the difference between implicit/explicit concepts. Knowing of something is all a matter of structure of concepts.

If I take my beagle to a fox hole and say "get em Pepe!". He's gonna get the fox. It may be from start of the fox-hole or in the middle of the fox hole, where I would have to dig another starting point, he's gonna get the sucker.

What defies your high school level common sense type of logic is that the idea that my cueball is like that of my dog pepe's ability to always find things which aren't directly in front of my nose. Of course I'm aware of the fox, but do I need to know of its exact location?

So, do you need to know of the pocket's center? If you play like a fish, yes.

It's kinda like the idea that the earth is round when the eyes sees flatness.
Is that English?

pj
chgo

fabfastfredyy
04-02-2011, 05:59 AM
Is that English?

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson
04-02-2011, 06:01 AM

pj
chgo

fabfastfredyy
04-02-2011, 06:05 AM
So you're basically saying that the OB follows the pocket the same way your dog chases a fox?

What do you feed your pool balls, fab?

BASICALLY?....well don't take it too literally...although you can, I wouldn't. I'm just trying to relate to you the general idea of the question. But you are the op right? I can't tell you what your thoughts are...it would be stupid.

fabfastfredyy
04-02-2011, 06:07 AM

pj
chgo

asbani
04-02-2011, 06:09 AM
Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?

The answer is definitely no, imo. This is definitely a testable question. We did this a few months ago--- posting videos of making balls with 1/2 the table covered and invisible. Huge majority of balls drop without the pocket in sight.

Dave

Dave, the question wasn't "you need to look at the pocket" it isn't looking, or seeing the pocket, he said "you need to know percesily where the pocket is" and the answer is yes because, you already know exactly where the pocket is from anywhere you stand at the table, if you're familiar with it.

and you then feel where the pocket is, sense it, and make an image, It's all about the image you create......... and yes you also do know exactly where the pocket is, Im sure of it.

duckie
04-02-2011, 06:56 AM
A little thought experiment. Say you take a world class soccer player that has a high rate of scoring precentages. Some how have the goal completely blocked from sight, say by a wall. Then have him shoot goals. I bet he could hit somewhere in the goal area because there are still enough visual refernces from the surrounding to be used to know where the goal is.

Now, take that some player, put him in a box with walls high enough not to see anything but the green grass he is standing on.

I bet he hasn't a clue where the goal would be. He knew where the goal was from years of play and using all the visual refernce that are on the playing field. Take those away, he's lost.

Same in pool. Prevent a shooter from seeing anything of the table, he's lost.
From the years of shotmaking, the pocket location will become so ingrain in your sub conconscious, you will start to believe the location doesn't matter.

I really doubt a newbie to pool and to CTE or any system for that matter would have much luck with the test that was presented as proof the pocket location doesn't matter.

fabfastfredyy
04-02-2011, 07:12 AM
A little thought experiment. Say you take a world class soccer player that has a high rate of scoring precentages. Some how have the goal completely blocked from sight, say by a wall. Then have him shoot goals. I bet he could hit somewhere in the goal area because there are still enough visual refernces from the surrounding to be used to know where the goal is.

Now, take that some player, put him in a box with walls high enough not to see anything but the green grass he is standing on.

I bet he hasn't a clue where the goal would be. He knew where the goal was from years of play and using all the visual refernce that are on the playing field. Take those away, he's lost.

Same in pool. Prevent a shooter from seeing anything of the table, he's lost.
From the years of shotmaking, the pocket location will become so ingrain in your sub conconscious, you will start to believe the location doesn't matter.

I really doubt a newbie to pool and to CTE or any system for that matter would have much luck with the test that was presented as proof the pocket location doesn't matter.

You are right. By proper use of logic you have ensured yourself the correct answer, but that wasn't the question. "A general location" was stated in the ops choices. And yes, that is all that's needed.

On a very advanced level, I think its even beyond that...to what degree I don't know.

jsp
04-02-2011, 07:20 AM
"A general location" was stated in the ops choices. And yes, that is all that's needed.
If you want to mail a letter to a specific address (a precise location), do you only have to write the zip code (general location) on the envelope to get it to that precise location?

fabfastfredyy
04-02-2011, 07:47 AM
If you want to mail a letter to a specific address (a precise location), do you only have to write the zip code (general location) on the envelope to get it to that precise location?

Mikjary
04-02-2011, 08:14 AM
A little thought experiment. Say you take a world class soccer player that has a high rate of scoring precentages. Some how have the goal completely blocked from sight, say by a wall. Then have him shoot goals. I bet he could hit somewhere in the goal area because there are still enough visual refernces from the surrounding to be used to know where the goal is.

Now, take that some player, put him in a box with walls high enough not to see anything but the green grass he is standing on.

I bet he hasn't a clue where the goal would be. He knew where the goal was from years of play and using all the visual refernce that are on the playing field. Take those away, he's lost.

Same in pool. Prevent a shooter from seeing anything of the table, he's lost.
From the years of shotmaking, the pocket location will become so ingrain in your sub conconscious, you will start to believe the location doesn't matter.

I really doubt a newbie to pool and to CTE or any system for that matter would have much luck with the test that was presented as proof the pocket location doesn't matter.

I agree with this idea. With a reference point, an experienced shooter can find the pocket. After several shots they may dial in center pocket. This is an advanced player's ability through many hours of practice.

Gerry Kanov, in his book, Precision Pool, talks about the moving pocket center. He tells how the pocket center for a shot down the rail is different than a shot from the spot. As an advanced player, I practice hitting parts of the pocket by placing a white hole reinforcer in the part of the pocket I need to hit. After some practice, I don't need the aiming aid anymore. It becomes just a suggestion to myself and gets done.

If you move the pocket, all bets are off. My spatial recognition would have to relearn the process. This is true when you go from a bar box to a nine footer for the first time. You have to learn the angles.

Finding center pocket comes with practice. To find center pocket, you must first understand the moving pocket idea and adapt for each angle.

Best,
Mike

Patrick Johnson
04-02-2011, 03:29 PM
Mikjary:
...the pocket center for a shot down the rail is different than a shot from the spot.
Oy vey. "Center pocket" isn't meant literally in this thread; it means "a precise target". The question is whether any target must be located precisely in order to hit it precisely.

The answer is, of course, yes. As Mike Page said, you have to be insane or not understand the question to say otherwise. (And, since everything must be explained here, Mike doesn't think anybody here is insane; he's saying that many on here don't understand the question - and boy is that true. We have the poll to prove it.)

pj
chgo

jsp
04-02-2011, 04:02 PM
27601
....

Mikjary
04-02-2011, 05:31 PM
Oy vey. "Center pocket" isn't meant literally in this thread; it means "a precise target". The question is whether any target must be located precisely in order to hit it precisely.

The answer is, of course, yes. As Mike Page said, you have to be insane or not understand the question to say otherwise. (And, since everything must be explained here, Mike doesn't think anybody here is insane; he's saying that many on here don't understand the question - and boy is that true. We have the poll to prove it.)

pj
chgo

Nice PJ. We got that. My point went over your head. I was addressing how a precise target is acquired. Visually. And coincidentally Cte relies on visuals. Could there be a link? And others are debating this because the real question for this poll should be, "Is Cte a center pocket system or how can we prove the users are wrong as usual without acting like that's what we tried to do"?

The answer is there must be enough information given to the player for him to reference any and all targets. Whether it's his relative position to the pocket, a rail, the spot on the table or a direct visual perception. The part not mentioned is what this player, through years of experience, does with this information. After a series of shotmaking attempts, they may be able to narrow down the intended target to small area and hit it consistently, with feedback gained from previous attempts.

The cue ball/object ball relationship is used in Cte without regard to pocket location, also. Could we be trying to disprove this? Hmmmmm?

The members of the Cte ILK would like to once again thank Professor Johnson, for his contributions to our growing level of intelligence, through his efforts and keen grasp of the obvious.

Best,
Mike

Patrick Johnson
04-02-2011, 07:49 PM
Mikjary:
The members of the Cte ILK would like to once again thank Professor Johnson, for his contributions to our growing level of intelligence, through his efforts and keen grasp of the obvious.
Actually, it doesn't appear to me that your level of intelligence is growing. For instance, it was obvious that the word "ilk" was used in the other thread to mean "systems like CTE", not "people who use CTE" - this was even explained by the person who said it. Yet you continue to be unnecessarily combative by insisting on misinterpreting it as some kind of personal affront. You seem to want it to be that. Maybe because it's easier to feel picked on than to consider the possibility that "your ilk" are wrong about some things?

pj
chgo

Mikjary
04-02-2011, 10:37 PM
Actually, it doesn't appear to me that your level of intelligence is growing. For instance, it was obvious that the word "ilk" was used in the other thread to mean "systems like CTE", not "people who use CTE" - this was even explained by the person who said it. Yet you continue to be unnecessarily combative by insisting on misinterpreting it as some kind of personal affront. You seem to want it to be that. Maybe because it's easier to feel picked on than to consider the possibility that "your ilk" are wrong about some things?

pj
chgo

Here's the definiton for the reading impaired...

ilk
1    /ɪlk/ Show Spelled[ilk] Show IPA
–noun
1.
family, class, or kind: he and all his ilk.

I used your favorite color, too. It was a definite backpedal. And BTW, how many times a year do you hear the word "ilk" used in conversation or correspondence? It was meant exactly as taken. Sorry, Professor...the intelligence card is becoming a tell.

Best,
Mike

04-02-2011, 11:06 PM
i would love to see a test of cte where a sheet is suspended just barely above the rails and stretched out to a full dimension extending beyond edges os table for an indeterminate number of feet and a whole cut exactly over cue ball to object ball with the extent that the blind covers table different on each side and see what the pocket percentage is if you cant see the rails or table edges.

fabfastfredyy
04-03-2011, 02:45 AM
Dave, the question wasn't "you need to look at the pocket" it isn't looking, or seeing the pocket, he said "you need to know percesily where the pocket is" and the answer is yes because, you already know exactly where the pocket is from anywhere you stand at the table, if you're familiar with it.

and you then feel where the pocket is, sense it, and make an image, It's all about the image you create......... and yes you also do know exactly where the pocket is, Im sure of it.

You can't always know exactly where the pocket is, so you can only guess. "center pocket aim", is just an aiming method. It can be used to find center pocket. Just like Pepe is used to find the fox. Or kinda like Jp forgetting his address and having to find mail to refresh his memory.

My bridge has "center pocket aim" button, when I press it, it'll give me x,y coordinates to center pocket. Without it I have to draw lines to find the center of the pocket...and aim and stuff.

12310bch
04-03-2011, 03:58 AM
I agree with this idea. With a reference point, an experienced shooter can find the pocket. After several shots they may dial in center pocket. This is an advanced player's ability through many hours of practice.

Gerry Kanov, in his book, Precision Pool, talks about the moving pocket center. He tells how the pocket center for a shot down the rail is different than a shot from the spot. As an advanced player, I practice hitting parts of the pocket by placing a white hole reinforcer in the part of the pocket I need to hit. After some practice, I don't need the aiming aid anymore. It becomes just a suggestion to myself and gets done.

If you move the pocket, all bets are off. My spatial recognition would have to relearn the process. This is true when you go from a bar box to a nine footer for the first time. You have to learn the angles.

Finding center pocket comes with practice. To find center pocket, you must first understand the moving pocket idea and adapt for each angle.

Best,
Mike

a coupla things;

>Why is everybody using the term 'center pocket' to mean 'center of target'? Center pocket has always had a specific definition which posters are now obscuring to cover up their spurious statements. CENTER POCKET IS CENTER POCKET. IT DOES NOT MOVE. IT IS AN ABSOLUTE. On the other hand, your 'target center' can change and most often does.There is an infinite number of 'target centers' but only 6 'center pockets'.

> From barbox to 9 -footer the angles are the same. It is the divergence
of the angles that takes getting used to. In other words there is another 2 feet (+-) for the shot to go awry.

I am not nitpicking. We all have to speak the same language in order to debate without frustration. The question was not clear from the gitgo.
I'm still not sure what the question was. And that ain't high school logic speakin'.

fabfastfredyy
04-03-2011, 04:11 AM
What happened was JSP had this idea that he was going to fool everyone with a trick question and got caught messing up.

jsp
04-03-2011, 06:26 AM
>Why is everybody using the term 'center pocket' to mean 'center of target'? Center pocket has always had a specific definition which posters are now obscuring to cover up their spurious statements. CENTER POCKET IS CENTER POCKET. IT DOES NOT MOVE. IT IS AN ABSOLUTE. On the other hand, your 'target center' can change and most often does.There is an infinite number of 'target centers' but only 6 'center pockets'.
Alright.

Wherever I say "center pocket", just substitute it with "a target that is a single point in space".

No difference to me, but whatever floats your boat.

What happened was JSP had this idea that he was going to fool everyone with a trick question and got caught messing up.
Nope, no trick question. Do the substitution described above, answer the question, and give an explanation for your answer.

12310bch
04-03-2011, 06:59 AM
Alright.

Wherever I say "center pocket", just substitute it with "a target that is a single point in space".

No difference to me, but whatever floats your boat.

Nope, no trick question. Do the substitution described above, answer the question, and give an explanation for your answer.

Why do think substituting a phrase that you created in your mind corrects all sins committed? Do you make up your own language as you go along? What should I substitute for the words 'center pocket' when you mean center pocket?

What if I tell you to cheat the pocket to the right of center pocket? Is that the same as saying to you," cheat the pocket to the right of ," a target that is a single point in space."

Just what the fluck would that mean to you? Or should I substitute with your phrase only when you want to cover your ass for the next of your inane threads.:bash:

jsp
04-03-2011, 07:12 AM
Why do think substituting a phrase that you created in your mind corrects all sins committed? Do you make up your own language as you go along? What should I substitute for the words 'center pocket' when you mean center pocket?

What if I tell you to cheat the pocket to the right of center pocket? Is that the same as saying to you," cheat the pocket to the right of ," a target that is a single point in space."

Just what the fluck would that mean to you? Or should I substitute with your phrase only when you want to cover your ass for the next of your inane threads.:bash:
Okay, don't do the substitution. Makes no difference to the argument.

Patrick Johnson
04-03-2011, 07:38 AM
What if I tell you to cheat the pocket to the right of center pocket? Is that the same as saying to you," cheat the pocket to the right of ," a target that is a single point in space."Yes, it is.

pj
chgo

Mikjary
04-03-2011, 07:47 AM
Alright.

Wherever I say "center pocket", just substitute it with "a target that is a single point in space".

No difference to me, but whatever floats your boat.

Nope, no trick question. Do the substitution described above, answer the question, and give an explanation for your answer.

This was my intention, to clarify the terminology. Throwing the "center pocket" into the equation was misleading. There's a big difference between aiming at a specific known point and a moving entity.

When you eat, do you use a mirror to raise the fork to your mouth? I believe with practice and an occasional double check of the pocket's proximity to the user, hitting the target can be achieved by an advanced player. Once he establishes the target, a higher level shooter can reproduce their positive results. Not at 100% level. They won't do that under any conditions or setups.

Now, can this be proven with an aiming system? Is this where we're headed with this discussion? And will this be an exercise in logic or biomechanics?

Best,
Mike

fabfastfredyy
04-03-2011, 08:34 AM
Alright.

Wherever I say "center pocket", just substitute it with "a target that is a single point in space".

No difference to me, but whatever floats your boat.

Nope, no trick question. Do the substitution described above, answer the question, and give an explanation for your answer.

I done did it with the pepe & bridge post.

fabfastfredyy
04-03-2011, 08:40 AM
This was my intention, to clarify the terminology. Throwing the "center pocket" into the equation was misleading. There's a big difference between aiming at a specific known point and a moving entity.

When you eat, do you use a mirror to raise the fork to your mouth? I believe with practice and an occasional double check of the pocket's proximity to the user, hitting the target can be achieved by an advanced player. Once he establishes the target, a higher level shooter can reproduce their positive results. Not at 100% level. They won't do that under any conditions or setups.

Now, can this be proven with an aiming system? Is this where we're headed with this discussion? And will this be an exercise in logic or biomechanics?

Best,
Mike

It's kinda like:

Question..... "Do you need to know where the center of your ass-cheek is, to spank it?"

You and I-- "NO, Just a ping pong paddle"

JSP and PJ--"Yes, I always use a mirror paddle"

Bob Jewett
04-03-2011, 09:40 AM
... Gerry Kanov, in his book, Precision Pool, talks about the moving pocket center. He tells how the pocket center for a shot down the rail is different than a shot from the spot. ...
If you choose the correct single point, the center of the pocket (and your white reinforcer) doesn't need to move much. Kanov discusses it beginning with shooting towards the back of the pocket, but I think that's the wrong target. See http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1997-04.pdf for an explanation.

pablocruz
04-03-2011, 09:46 AM
Okay, don't do the substitution. Makes no difference to the argument.

You're always askin for the math, lets see the Math!!

pablocruz
04-03-2011, 09:49 AM
Why don't you and Patrick come up with a thread
so you can argue with each other!!

Patrick Johnson
04-03-2011, 10:03 AM
Here's the definiton for the reading impaired...
...he and all his ilk.
Speaking of reading impaired... here's the original quote you're so offended by:

CTE and its ilk

Some just want to be offended.

pj
chgo

Mikjary
04-03-2011, 03:06 PM
Speaking of reading impaired... here's the original quote you're so offended by:

Some just want to be offended.

pj
chgo

Keep stirring and spinning. Your entire purpose on these threads is not to contribute anything except pain for most posters. When you have no answers, you attack punctuation and grammar. What a miserable little man you have become. Your reaching down deep into the troll bag of tricks because you're stalling for time until you can catch somebody at something.

They might misspell a word or not read something correctly. In rushes the aiming police. Well, the pms are flying and the word is out. This game you play is being laughed at by many. Are you that bored you can't respond to a post without being a PITA?

You need to pull the dress down from over your head. Nobody wants to see what you're saying, because your not saying anything. I know, I know, you're what's his name...the BIG deal on AZB. I read your egomaniacal description under your avatar and I am impressed. If you want to impress me further, quit cherry picking through people's posts and earn your honorary title.

I'm not using spellcheck, so feel free to wet your undergarments with this post.

Best,
Mike

Disclaimer; user is not responsible for insanity caused by putzes.

jsp
04-03-2011, 07:16 PM
This was my intention, to clarify the terminology. Throwing the "center pocket" into the equation was misleading. There's a big difference between aiming at a specific known point and a moving entity.
As long we're talking about a single point in space, I don't see a difference. In either case, you still have to know precisely where the target is.

When you eat, do you use a mirror to raise the fork to your mouth? I believe with practice and an occasional double check of the pocket's proximity to the user, hitting the target can be achieved by an advanced player.
Your analogy doesn't quite work. Do you really care about how precise you are at putting the fork inside your mouth? As long as the fork makes it inside your mouth, whether it's left edge, right edge, or dead center, do you care?

A better analogy would be taking out a splinter on your finger. Try taking one out without first being aware precisely where it is instead of just knowing the general location that it's somewhere on your finger.

jsp
04-03-2011, 07:20 PM
It's kinda like:

Question..... "Do you need to know where the center of your ass-cheek is, to spank it?"

You and I-- "NO, Just a ping pong paddle"

JSP and PJ--"Yes, I always use a mirror paddle"
I never asked if you need to know where center pocket is in order to simply pocket the OB. Nope, never asked that.

Mikjary
04-03-2011, 07:36 PM
As long we're talking about a single point in space, I don't see a difference. In either case, you still have to know precisely where the target is.

Your analogy doesn't quite work. Do you really care about how precise you are at putting the fork inside your mouth? As long as the fork makes it inside your mouth, whether it's left edge, right edge, or dead center, do you care?

A better analogy would be taking out a splinter on your finger. Try taking one out without first being aware precisely where it is instead of just knowing the general location that it's somewhere on your finger.

Yes, I care. Have you ever had a tine in your nostril? Not too easy to remove, either! :grin: J/K OK. Semantics bad...discussion good. I won't get into the splinter analogy. It wood prove too painful.

"Dangit all to ilk! I didn't use spell check"!...as he peers out into the darkness with his varmint gun handy. :grin:

Best,
Mike

Patrick Johnson
04-03-2011, 09:23 PM
Mikjary:
Throwing the "center pocket" into the equation was misleading. There's a big difference between aiming at a specific known point and a moving entity.
The pockets "move" for every shot anyway (the balls actually do, but it's the same effect). The moving pocket center is a small part of the overall "movement".

pj
chgo

pablocruz
04-03-2011, 11:30 PM
[QUOTE=Patrick Johnson;2946382]The pockets "move" for every shot ".

Now the pockets move!! Pockets do not move!! Unf#cking beleiveable!! Mike, what's in that "ILK Milk?"

Celtic
04-04-2011, 12:14 AM
I'll accept any challenge--- as long as you, PJ, Mike, Lou and whoever participate as well so there's a baseline.

WTF challenge are you trying to accept? The existence of friggin geometry and trigonometry?

You don't need to see the pocket to know exactly where it is. It is simple freaking math involving right angle triangles to determine the angle an object ball needs to travel to go straight into the pocket. I mean, grade 10, sin, cos, tan, A^2+B^2=C^2. Real tough stuff, and you guys actually screwed around making a video and think you proved something that the Greek people over 2000 years ago would have said "well, yeah, duhhh..." to you over? Once you have the angle to the pocket the contact point is exactly opposite that line towards the pocket, there is really nothing else you need to know.

Who cares if you cannot see the pocket? If you know the exact size of the table you know where the pocket is relative to a long rail and a short rail that is ALL I need to know and finding out the exact angle into any pocket on the table is then trivial math.

But with all of this, yes you actually need to KNOW where the pocket is to shoot the shot. You might not see it, but the spatial relations to know where the pocket is still exist.

champ2107
04-04-2011, 06:11 AM
You only actually need to know WHAT pocket is the target. If you dont know the cte/pro1 shot selection well or if its one of those in between shots or a shot that needs an adjustment, then you would use the pocket to help in your aiming. I bottom lined this thread.

SpiderWebComm
04-04-2011, 06:37 AM
WTF challenge are you trying to accept? The existence of friggin geometry and trigonometry?

You don't need to see the pocket to know exactly where it is. It is simple freaking math involving right angle triangles to determine the angle an object ball needs to travel to go straight into the pocket. I mean, grade 10, sin, cos, tan, A^2+B^2=C^2. Real tough stuff, and you guys actually screwed around making a video and think you proved something that the Greek people over 2000 years ago would have said "well, yeah, duhhh..." to you over? Once you have the angle to the pocket the contact point is exactly opposite that line towards the pocket, there is really nothing else you need to know.

Who cares if you cannot see the pocket? If you know the exact size of the table you know where the pocket is relative to a long rail and a short rail that is ALL I need to know and finding out the exact angle into any pocket on the table is then trivial math.

But with all of this, yes you actually need to KNOW where the pocket is to shoot the shot. You might not see it, but the spatial relations to know where the pocket is still exist.

Since you and the Greeks have this mastered, you can join into whatever test PJ comes up with too.

champ2107
04-04-2011, 06:47 AM
Since you and the Greeks have this mastered, you can join into whatever test PJ comes up with too.

This will not happen, he can not lead in this debate and he can only follow it and pick and choose at what he wants to post or he will expose his cte ignorance :)

Mikjary
04-04-2011, 07:40 AM
Pockets don't move. Basketball rims move...what planet am I on? Dude...I'm about to flip out.

Don't flip out. Understand, the ultimate goal is to discredit Cte and everything associated with it. It is being accepted by many infidels and the status quo in some pool circles is worried. If it was noticed that Cte users were using a certain cue, chalk or tip on their sticks, it would be attacked as garbage. You have stepped into the war zone, that's all. And this is one of the battlefields.

If you figure out how to walk on water, don't post it here. You'll have lots of splainin' ta do. :grin-square:

Best,
Mike

12310bch
04-04-2011, 09:25 AM
I worked on this all night. It proves that the original question is
nonsensical and proves everybody posting heretofore is either right or wrong (depending on whose ox is getting gored). This is the ultimate solution and I run this through my mind before every shot.

A_{n+1} = \frac{4}{3} A_0 + \sum_{k=2}^n \frac{3 \cdot 4^{k-1}}{9^k} A_0 = (\frac{4}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \sum_{k=2}^n 3\frac{3 \cdot 4^{k-1}}{9^k}) A_0 =(\frac{4}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \sum_{k=2}^n \frac{9 \cdot 4^{k-1}}{9^k}) A_0 = \left (\frac{4}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{4^{k}}{9^k} \right ) A_0 \, .

In the limit, as n goes to infinity, the limit of the sum of the powers of 4/9 is 4/5, so

\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} A_n = \left( \frac{4}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \cdot \frac{4}{5} \right ) A_0 = \frac{8}{5} A_0 \, .

TRAMP STEAMER verified the math for me.

I also might add that this thread is no longer about pool and should go to the NPR section.

Mikjary
04-04-2011, 11:01 AM
I worked on this all night. It proves that the original question is
nonsensical and proves everybody posting heretofore is either right or wrong (depending on whose ox is getting gored). This is the ultimate solution and I run this through my mind before every shot.

A_{n+1} = \frac{4}{3} A_0 + \sum_{k=2}^n \frac{3 \cdot 4^{k-1}}{9^k} A_0 = (\frac{4}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \sum_{k=2}^n 3\frac{3 \cdot 4^{k-1}}{9^k}) A_0 =(\frac{4}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \sum_{k=2}^n \frac{9 \cdot 4^{k-1}}{9^k}) A_0 = \left (\frac{4}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{4^{k}}{9^k} \right ) A_0 \, .

In the limit, as n goes to infinity, the limit of the sum of the powers of 4/9 is 4/5, so

\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} A_n = \left( \frac{4}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \cdot \frac{4}{5} \right ) A_0 = \frac{8}{5} A_0 \, .

TRAMP STEAMER verified the math for me.

I also might add that this thread is no longer about pool and should go to the NPR section.

Nonsense! The problem is that you've used all POSITIVE values. In a thread like this, anybody with any kind of a logical thought process knows that you should be using NEGATIVE values! Get with the program and quit being so damn happy! :D

Best,
Mike

Celtic
04-04-2011, 11:11 AM
Since you and the Greeks have this mastered, you can join into whatever test PJ comes up with too.

What test? Do you need me to show you the simple math that determines the angle to the corner of a rectangle on any placement of a point into that rectangular plane? Are you seriously trying to act like the math does not exist to work this out?

Do you want to bet that a person cannot work out the angle to any corner of a rectagular plane given the perpendicular distances from any point within that plane to the sides of that rectangle? Is that what you want to bet against? Because that is what I said is trivial, and you seem to act like you invented something that is magical, when it is simple math.

12310bch
04-04-2011, 11:13 AM
Nonsense! The problem is that you've used all POSITIVE values. In a thread like this, anybody with any kind of a logical thought process knows that you should be using NEGATIVE values! Get with the program and quit being so damn happy! :D

Best,
Mike

Mike you know the old wisdom that 2 negatives = a positive. Well I hereby proclaim that 2 positives = a negative. So you may substitute that, as you wish, into the algorithm. :rotflmao1: Peace, Bro .

SpiderWebComm
04-04-2011, 12:15 PM
What test? Do you need me to show you the simple math that determines the angle to the corner of a rectangle on any placement of a point into that rectangular plane? Are you seriously trying to act like the math does not exist to work this out?

Do you want to bet that a person cannot work out the angle to any corner of a rectagular plane given the perpendicular distances from any point within that plane to the sides of that rectangle? Is that what you want to bet against? Because that is what I said is trivial, and you seem to act like you invented something that is magical, when it is simple math.

If it's simple math--- let's see you post a video of making blind shots to any pocket. Triangles aren't going to help you much. Sorry.

Here's my pythagorean theorem: Celtic^2 + BlindShots^2 = LookingStupid^2

Robert Raiford
04-04-2011, 03:39 PM
I worked on this all night. It proves that the original question is
nonsensical and proves everybody posting heretofore is either right or wrong (depending on whose ox is getting gored). This is the ultimate solution and I run this through my mind before every shot.

A_{n+1} = \frac{4}{3} A_0 + \sum_{k=2}^n \frac{3 \cdot 4^{k-1}}{9^k} A_0 = (\frac{4}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \sum_{k=2}^n 3\frac{3 \cdot 4^{k-1}}{9^k}) A_0 =(\frac{4}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \sum_{k=2}^n \frac{9 \cdot 4^{k-1}}{9^k}) A_0 = \left (\frac{4}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{4^{k}}{9^k} \right ) A_0 \, .

In the limit, as n goes to infinity, the limit of the sum of the powers of 4/9 is 4/5, so

\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} A_n = \left( \frac{4}{3} + \frac{1}{3} \cdot \frac{4}{5} \right ) A_0 = \frac{8}{5} A_0 \, .

LOL. Just for fun, I plugged in the LaTeX code you posted into an online image renderer and attached the results.

Robert

ThePoliteSniper
04-04-2011, 03:53 PM
Finally something that makes sense.

lfigueroa
04-04-2011, 05:24 PM
Dude, you know everything. I forgot to mention banking as well (since you battled with Freddy the Beard on the one pocket forum about his technique and the use of side spin).

Maybe I'm an overgrown frat boy --- but at least I never got perma-banned from a pool room for being a know it all big-mouth. hahaha

Now THAT'S funny..... here, here's a little winky for you too:

;-)

Hey Lou, when you get some time, we're all interested in learning more about String Theory and maybe even M-Theory's impact on getting closer to a unified theory. I was going to ask Steven Hawking, but why bother since we have you on staff.

Yes, but I think you got banned -- from here -- for the same offense. Besides, the place was a pit. I have moved on to much cleaner and better pastures :-)

By the way, Freddy, though we've battle back and forth over the years, not so much over spin but "wrist induced" OB spin, was kind enough to nominate me a couple of weeks ago to be the onepocket.org sponsored player for the US Open 1Pocket Open in Vegas. I declined because I felt I hadn't been participating enough there as of late and I thought someone else could use the financial support more than me. So, though Freddy and I have disagreed, there has been a modicum of mutual respect.

But you... other than CTE-induced diarrhea of the mouth, what are you known for in pool? I mean, what have you done, or do? See, when I think of a player like say, Joey, even though we poke each other in the eye a lot, I know he is an accomplished player. And IMO, he is entitled to say what he says because of that. But you: all I know is that you have a table in your house and like to make funny videos of yourself and cartoons mocking other people.

So what have you done? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you like to mock me, which is fine, but what have you done in pool? And to be perfectly clear: this isn't about who can beat who, either. I'm just trying to figure out what your pool bona fides are.

Do you get out of your house ever and mix it up gambling in town? Across the country? Do you play in tournaments like the DCC, any of the Opens, maybe regional events or tours? Play pro players occasionally? Bar leagues? What? Any titles?

Or do you just like to run your mouth?

Lou Figueroa

SpiderWebComm
04-04-2011, 08:38 PM
Yes, but I think you got banned -- from here -- for the same offense. Besides, the place was a pit. I have moved on to much cleaner and better pastures :-)

By the way, Freddy, though we've battle back and forth over the years, not so much over spin but "wrist induced" OB spin, was kind enough to nominate me a couple of weeks ago to be the onepocket.org sponsored player for the US Open 1Pocket Open in Vegas. I declined because I felt I hadn't been participating enough there as of late and I thought someone else could use the financial support more than me. So, though Freddy and I have disagreed, there has been a modicum of mutual respect.

But you... other than CTE-induced diarrhea of the mouth, what are you known for in pool? I mean, what have you done, or do? See, when I think of a player like say, Joey, even though we poke each other in the eye a lot, I know he is an accomplished player. And IMO, he is entitled to say what he says because of that. But you: all I know is that you have a table in your house and like to make funny videos of yourself and cartoons mocking other people.

So what have you done? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you like to mock me, which is fine, but what have you done in pool? And to be perfectly clear: this isn't about who can beat who, either. I'm just trying to figure out what your pool bona fides are.

Do you get out of your house ever and mix it up gambling in town? Across the country? Do you play in tournaments like the DCC, any of the Opens, maybe regional events or tours? Play pro players occasionally? Bar leagues? What? Any titles?

Or do you just like to run your mouth?

Lou Figueroa

That "pit" was your every day hang-out until they got the shits of you and barred you from coming back. What are your pool "bona fides" outside of a bunch of 30th and 50th places in your player profile? You're probably a 1st place nit head.

Celtic
04-04-2011, 08:48 PM
If it's simple math--- let's see you post a video of making blind shots to any pocket. Triangles aren't going to help you much. Sorry.

The fact that you think it being a blind pocket means you don't know where the pocket is makes SpiderWebComm look stupid actually. Blind pocket /= not knowing where the pocket is, thus your answer for this poll and whole arguement are idiotic.

SpiderWebComm
04-04-2011, 09:15 PM
The fact that you think it being a blind pocket means you don't know where the pocket is makes SpiderWebComm look stupid actually. Blind pocket /= not knowing where the pocket is, thus your answer for this poll and whole arguement are idiotic.

Let's meet--- throw a bed sheet over the entire table--- and we'll see who makes more balls. Then, we'll see who's idiotic.

Roger Long
04-04-2011, 10:40 PM
That "pit" was your every day hang-out until they got the shits of you and barred you from coming back. What are your pool "bona fides" outside of a bunch of 30th and 50th places in your player profile? You're probably a 1st place nit head.

I dunno, I went to Lou's profile and saw some 16th, 18th, and 20th place finishes in big fields that featured many of the best one-pocket players in the world. Seems pretty good to me. Do we have any other participants in this thread with better performances than that? Just curious.

Roger

Nick B
04-04-2011, 11:20 PM
Easy Junior...you want no part of this Greek.

Nick

This will not happen, he can not lead in this debate and he can only follow it and pick and choose at what he wants to post or he will expose his cte ignorance :)

lfigueroa
04-05-2011, 05:12 AM
That "pit" was your every day hang-out until they got the shits of you and barred you from coming back. What are your pool "bona fides" outside of a bunch of 30th and 50th places in your player profile? You're probably a 1st place nit head.

I played there out of loyalty to the man who ran the place because he treated me very well on several cue purchases. He died, the place went downhill, and I continued to play there out of loyalty. The issue of their tables playing like crap came up and one of the kids running the place took umbrage and told Mom (literally) it was him or me. Guess who lost, but I don't miss the place.

So, I see from the rest of your answer that you've got nothing. Just to be clear again: I wasn't asking for high finishes, I asked if you even played in any tournaments or had any other pool credentials. Let's look at the questions again:

#####
But you... other than CTE-induced diarrhea of the mouth, what are you known for in pool? I mean, what have you done, or do? See, when I think of a player like say, Joey, even though we poke each other in the eye a lot, I know he is an accomplished player. And IMO, he is entitled to say what he says because of that. But you: all I know is that you have a table in your house and like to make funny videos of yourself and cartoons mocking other people.

So what have you done? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you like to mock me, which is fine, but what have you done in pool? And to be perfectly clear: this isn't about who can beat who, either. I'm just trying to figure out what your pool bona fides are.

Do you get out of your house ever and mix it up gambling in town? Across the country? Do you play in tournaments like the DCC, any of the Opens, maybe regional events or tours? Play pro players occasionally? Bar leagues? What? Any titles?

Or do you just like to run your mouth?
#####

Judging from your knowledge about me, I will guess that you already know I've been to quite a few DCCs and as Roger has pointed out, cashed in several. I've played in a half dozen or so US 1Pocket Opens. I play in tournaments here, Chicago, and KC. I think you know I won a qualifier for the World 14.1 Championship a year ago up in Chicago. (I give Bob's 14.1 Challenge a whirl most years but have only managed a 42, though I've run 100 over half a dozen times with a high run of 124.) I've played a World Champion in an exhibition match and acquitted myself well (running 48). I won a state 8ball championship many years ago and here in MO have finished 4th and 5th a couple of years in the state tournament. Way back, I won the USAF 14. European championship. I've played and beaten several pros in tournament play, including a US Open champion (Larry Nevel), and lost to guys like Efren, Buddy, Cliff, Frost, et al. I gamble at the game regularly and have had established games with a number of players in St. Louis for anywhere between $25 -$300. I've won several 1pocket tournaments in St. Louis. I try and travel to other major events and have been to the Mosconi Cup in Vegas a couple of times, the US 14.1 Open in NYC, and the SBE in Philly. I was invited by Mark Griffin last year to write daily reports for AZ Billiards from the US 10Ball Open event in Vegas. As previously noted, I was nominated to be the onepocket.org sponsored player this year to the US 1Pocket Open, but declined. (I am, though, organizing a dinner the night before the Open for the guys from the group at the hotel steakhouse.) I have been fortunate enough that, in my travels the last few years, I've played in a dozen rooms all over the country from LA to NYC. Going back maybe 15 years to RSB, I've written on pool instruction, trip reports, original stories, product reviews, shot layouts, and stuff like that.

I know that's not much of a resume, but I try.

So the question is....

Lou Figueroa

SpiderWebComm
04-05-2011, 06:11 AM
I played there out of loyalty to the man who ran the place because he treated me very well on several cue purchases. He died, the place went downhill, and I continued to play there out of loyalty. The issue of their tables playing like crap came up and one of the kids running the place took umbrage and told Mom (literally) it was him or me. Guess who lost, but I don't miss the place.

So, I see from the rest of your answer that you've got nothing. Just to be clear again: I wasn't asking for high finishes, I asked if you even played in any tournaments or had any other pool credentials. Let's look at the questions again:

#####
But you... other than CTE-induced diarrhea of the mouth, what are you known for in pool? I mean, what have you done, or do? See, when I think of a player like say, Joey, even though we poke each other in the eye a lot, I know he is an accomplished player. And IMO, he is entitled to say what he says because of that. But you: all I know is that you have a table in your house and like to make funny videos of yourself and cartoons mocking other people.

So what have you done? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you like to mock me, which is fine, but what have you done in pool? And to be perfectly clear: this isn't about who can beat who, either. I'm just trying to figure out what your pool bona fides are.

Do you get out of your house ever and mix it up gambling in town? Across the country? Do you play in tournaments like the DCC, any of the Opens, maybe regional events or tours? Play pro players occasionally? Bar leagues? What? Any titles?

Or do you just like to run your mouth?
#####

Judging from your knowledge about me, I will guess that you already know I've been to quite a few DCCs and as Roger has pointed out, cashed in several. I've played in a half dozen or so US 1Pocket Opens. I play in tournaments here, Chicago, and KC. I think you know I won a qualifier for the World 14.1 Championship a year ago up in Chicago. (I give Bob's 14.1 Challenge a whirl most years but have only managed a 42, though I've run 100 over half a dozen times with a high run of 124.) I've played a World Champion in an exhibition match and acquitted myself well (running 48). I won a state 8ball championship many years ago and here in MO have finished 4th and 5th a couple of years in the state tournament. Way back, I won the USAF 14. European championship. I've played and beaten several pros in tournament play, including a US Open champion (Larry Nevel), and lost to guys like Efren, Buddy, Cliff, Frost, et al. I gamble at the game regularly and have had established games with a number of players in St. Louis for anywhere between $25 -$300. I've won several 1pocket tournaments in St. Louis. I try and travel to other major events and have been to the Mosconi Cup in Vegas a couple of times, the US 14.1 Open in NYC, and the SBE in Philly. I was invited by Mark Griffin last year to write daily reports for AZ Billiards from the US 10Ball Open event in Vegas. As previously noted, I was nominated to be the onepocket.org sponsored player this year to the US 1Pocket Open, but declined. (I am, though, organizing a dinner the night before the Open for the guys from the group at the hotel steakhouse.) I have been fortunate enough that, in my travels the last few years, I've played in a dozen rooms all over the country from LA to NYC. Going back maybe 15 years to RSB, I've written on pool instruction, trip reports, original stories, product reviews, shot layouts, and stuff like that.

I know that's not much of a resume, but I try.

So the question is....

Lou Figueroa

Wow... you're gooooood. Like I told you a few times via PM.... if you run into me, don't be shy to try to make a game Mr. Player.

champ2107
04-05-2011, 06:28 AM
Easy Junior...you want no part of this Greek.

Nick

Relax son...did you get your ass handed to you again in toronto at shooters?

Nick B
04-05-2011, 10:05 AM
Do you make this stuff up as you go along?

Nick

Relax son...did you get your ass handed to you again in toronto at shooters?

champ2107
04-05-2011, 10:18 AM
Do you make this stuff up as you go along?

Nick

Maybe next time you can bring your buddy Patrick Johnson with you and he can help coach you, so it wont be such an early night for you :thumbup:

lfigueroa
04-05-2011, 01:46 PM
Wow... you're gooooood. Like I told you a few times via PM.... if you run into me, don't be shy to try to make a game Mr. Player.

Like I said: this is not about who can beat who.

It is merely an inquiry as to whether there is more to the depth and breath of your pool experience than playing on your home table and sitting behind your keyboard.

It looking like.... you got nothin'.

Lou Figueroa

SpiderWebComm
04-05-2011, 02:23 PM
Geez lou....just look at my player profile. The entry there shows me tied with Busty, finishin better than a former u.s. open champ, and behind Reyes/Hopkins. I won a $1000 8ball event 3/4 times I played in it. None of that matters. Countless other wins. Big deal. Your past doesn't help you win tomorrow's set - ever. Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk Itsnotme 04-05-2011, 04:32 PM Aiming is way overrated! Just smash the goddamn thing! And if you dont make it--shoot again! If your opponent complains, whack him/her with your cue and say, 'sit down'.... It's soo nice being a big 6 and a half foot 265 pound rock solid guy :) god I love it! Big boys rule this world :wink: Celtic 04-05-2011, 04:43 PM Let's meet--- throw a bed sheet over the entire table--- and we'll see who makes more balls. Then, we'll see who's idiotic. You.....still.....know.....where....the......pocke t....is!!!!! I am not sure how much more clear I can tell you this. Please read it close, try to comprehend. Neil 04-05-2011, 06:10 PM .................... ThePoliteSniper 04-05-2011, 06:35 PM You may THINK you know where the pocket is, but I'd be very surprised if you actually did! Here's a little test for you- Get a sheet of clear plexiglass that you can draw on. Put a sheet behind it so you can't see through it. Then put it on the table sideways about at the headstring. You stand in the kitchen, and draw on the plexiglass where the pocket is. Then remove the sheet. I'm sure you will draw the pocket in the wrong place, let alone know precisely where the center of the pocket is. And if you don't happen to have a sheet of plexiglass, give this drill a try: <iframe src="http://CueTable.com/P/Player/?@2AaBV2BVqW2CSPW2DOwW2EKwV2FHuV2GEcV2HBRV1ICHW1JF aW1KIkV1LLuV1MPFV1NSPV1OVaV1PYsU2UaBV3UbCu3UbCu3Ub TC2VVqW3VbCu3VbkA3VbTG3VbTG2WSPW3Wbbw3Wbbw3WbkA1kY sU3kcyO2qQtFAll_balls_into_the_same_pocket.&&&Damn_arrows!&How_do_they_work?&ZZ@" noresize="noresize" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="no" width="600" height="400" ></iframe> Shoot all 16 balls quickly (don't reset for every ball, just move over and shoot) into a corner pocket while looking down at the head string so that the pocket is not in sight. The only things you see are your cue and the balls. How many balls do you miss? A friend of mine loves this drill, saying it is supposed to burn the location of the pockets into your mind. According to him, he can make 16/16 pretty consistently. I don't know how difficult this is, but I will try it the next time I'm at a pool table. Of course it's trust-based. But if you take a peek at the pocket while shooting, you are only fooling yourself. Mikjary 04-05-2011, 07:20 PM And if you don't happen to have a sheet of plexiglass, give this drill a try: <iframe src="http://CueTable.com/P/Player/?@2AaBV2BVqW2CSPW2DOwW2EKwV2FHuV2GEcV2HBRV1ICHW1JF aW1KIkV1LLuV1MPFV1NSPV1OVaV1PYsU2UaBV3UbCu3UbCu3Ub TC2VVqW3VbCu3VbkA3VbTG3VbTG2WSPW3Wbbw3Wbbw3WbkA1kY sU3kcyO2qQtFAll_balls_into_the_same_pocket.&&&Damn_arrows!&How_do_they_work?&ZZ@" noresize="noresize" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="no" width="600" height="400" ></iframe> Shoot all 16 balls quickly (don't reset for every ball, just move over and shoot) into a corner pocket while looking down at the head string so that the pocket is not in sight. The only things you see are your cue and the balls. How many balls do you miss? A friend of mine loves this drill, saying it is supposed to burn the location of the pockets into your mind. According to him, he can make 16/16 pretty consistently. I don't know how difficult this is, but I will try it the next time I'm at a pool table. Of course it's trust-based. But if you take a peek at the pocket while shooting, you are only fooling yourself. Even if you reset yourself without looking at the pocket would be interesting. You're not using a system. Just intuition. I can see where it could possibly give the player some feedback. Best, Mike jsp 04-06-2011, 06:41 AM For the posters who answered "No" in the poll, would your answer change if the table's dimensions were not 2:1? Would you still answer "No" if you were playing on a table that had dimensions say 10' x 4'? lfigueroa 04-06-2011, 06:48 AM Geez lou....just look at my player profile. The entry there shows me tied with Busty, finishin better than a former u.s. open champ, and behind Reyes/Hopkins. I won a$1000 8ball event 3/4 times I played in it. None of that matters. Countless other wins. Big deal. Your past doesn't help you win tomorrow's set - ever.

Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk

OK, so looking at your player profile I saw a 17th in a PA 9ball event....

So what it boils down to is that have nothing -- you're the home rec room player who likes to run his mouth, particularly on the subject of aiming. CTE would appear to be the one thing you cling to because you so want to be recognized for something -- anything -- when it comes to pool. You play on your home table, make you stupid videos, and then get behind your keyboard and speak as an authority when in fact you have no experience in the real world of pool. Basically you are a no credentials lout who likes to mock people whose cue case you are not deserving of carrying -- Dave Segal revealed.

What a joke.

Lou Figueroa

jsp
04-06-2011, 06:54 AM
OK, so looking at your player profile I saw a 17th in a PA 9ball event....

So what it boils down to is that have nothing -- you're the home rec room player who likes to run his mouth, particularly on the subject of aiming. CTE would appear to be the one thing you cling to because you so want to be recognized for something -- anything -- when it comes to pool. You play on your home table, make you stupid videos, and then get behind your keyboard and speak as an authority when in fact you have no experience in the real world of pool. Basically you are a no credentials lout who likes to mock people whose cue case you are not deserving of carrying -- Dave Segal revealed.

What a joke.

Lou Figueroa
I frankly don't understand this pissing contest between you two (prolly carried over from another thread), but 99% of the posters on AZB are "no credentials louts". Should that disqualify any of us from posting our opinions?

And if you want to further derail this thread, you could at least take the time and vote in the poll. If not, take it back to the thread where this pissing contest started.

lfigueroa
04-06-2011, 07:18 AM
I frankly don't understand this pissing contest between you two (prolly carried over from another thread), but 99% of the posters on AZB are "no credentials louts". Should that disqualify any of us from posting our opinions?

And if you want to further derail this thread, you could at least take the time and vote in the poll. If not, take it back to the thread where this pissing contest started.

I apologize for the hijack. That's my fault. Frankly I believe everyone at every level of experience has something to contribute to these discussions and should be welcomed to participate.

I just finally felt curious about what the basis was for the implied authority with which Segal speaks, mostly on CTE, but other topics as well. I don't care if you're a home rec room player -- that individual should have a seat at the table. But that does not give you an automatic pass to speak as an authority, nor mock the opinion of far more accomplished and experienced players. Now that I (and the rest of us) know that Dave Segal has no real world pool/experience to speak of, that can be taken into consideration when deciding how much credibility you want to assign his comments. That's all.

My apologies once again. Carry on.

Lou Figueroa

SpiderWebComm
04-06-2011, 07:22 AM
OK, so looking at your player profile I saw a 17th in a PA 9ball event....

So what it boils down to is that have nothing -- you're the home rec room player who likes to run his mouth, particularly on the subject of aiming. CTE would appear to be the one thing you cling to because you so want to be recognized for something -- anything -- when it comes to pool. You play on your home table, make you stupid videos, and then get behind your keyboard and speak as an authority when in fact you have no experience in the real world of pool. Basically you are a no credentials lout who likes to mock people whose cue case you are not deserving of carrying -- Dave Segal revealed.

What a joke.

Lou Figueroa

Yeah - and that PA event had some of the very best players on earth in it. If you take the "hall of fame legends" out of the mix, I finished alright and that was over a decade ago.

Earth to Lou--- no one in the pool world has a CLUE of who you are outside of the forums either. For some reason you're going down this track where you think you've won everything under the sun and I've never won a thing --- trying to convince readers you're a somebody.

Every major tournament I've seen you at -- you've either gone 2 and out or 3 and out.

I'll bet you $5000 we can randomly choose a pool room in America and randomly select 10 players and ask if they know Lou Figueroa and nobody will have a clue. You're right... I'm a basement player now. I don't travel around anymore because of my job and my girlfriend. However, I've told you countless times.... this basement player will play ya, so don't be shy. Shit, John Barton even tore you up. SpiderWebComm 04-06-2011, 07:28 AM I apologize for the hijack. That's my fault. Frankly I believe everyone at every level of experience has something to contribute to these discussions and should be welcomed to participate. I just finally felt curious about what the basis was for the implied authority with which Segal speaks, mostly on CTE, but other topics as well. I don't care if you're a home rec room player -- that individual should have a seat at the table. But that does not give you an automatic pass to speak as an authority, nor mock the opinion of far more accomplished and experienced players. Now that I (and the rest of us) know that Dave Segal has no real world pool/experience to speak of, that can be taken into consideration when deciding how much credibility you want to assign his comments. That's all. My apologies once again. Carry on. Lou Figueroa Imagine how embarrassing it'd be to lose to me--- some hack with zero experience. Since you were so matter of fact on banking techniques-- would love to play you in some bank pool, mr. 1-hole. I'd play you some banks on the live stream. mikepage 04-06-2011, 07:41 AM Yeah - and that PA event had some of the very best players on earth in it. If you take the "hall of fame legends" out of the mix, I finished alright and that was over a decade ago. Earth to Lou--- no one in the pool world has a CLUE of who you are outside of the forums either. For some reason you're going down this track where you think you've won everything under the sun and I've never won a thing --- trying to convince readers you're a somebody. Every major tournament I've seen you at -- you've either gone 2 and out or 3 and out. I'll bet you$5000 we can randomly choose a pool room in America and randomly select 10 players and ask if they know Lou Figueroa and nobody will have a clue.

You're right... I'm a basement player now. I don't travel around anymore because of my job and my girlfriend. However, I've told you countless times.... this basement player will play ya, so don't be shy.

Shit, John Barton even tore you up.

OK, I'm probably the only person on the planet who has played Dave, Lou, AND John Barton.

For the record, Dave, John, and I all play at more-or-less the same speed.

And Lou plays quite a bit stronger.

SpiderWebComm
04-06-2011, 07:42 AM
OK, I'm probably the only person on the planet who has played Dave, Lou, AND John Barton.

For the record, Dave, John, and I all play at more-or-less the same speed.

And Lou plays quite a bit stronger.

I think I can spot you 10-5 in bank pool. I'd give Lou a try.

lfigueroa
04-06-2011, 07:50 AM
Yeah - and that PA event had some of the very best players on earth in it. If you take the "hall of fame legends" out of the mix, I finished alright and that was over a decade ago.

Earth to Lou--- no one in the pool world has a CLUE of who you are outside of the forums either. For some reason you're going down this track where you think you've won everything under the sun and I've never won a thing --- trying to convince readers you're a somebody.

Every major tournament I've seen you at -- you've either gone 2 and out or 3 and out.

I'll bet you \$5000 we can randomly choose a pool room in America and randomly select 10 players and ask if they know Lou Figueroa and nobody will have a clue.

You're right... I'm a basement player now. I don't travel around anymore because of my job and my girlfriend. However, I've told you countless times.... this basement player will play ya, so don't be shy.

Shit, John Barton even tore you up.

I don't think I've won anything. As I repeatedly pointed out: I was just inquiring as to what events you've played in and anything you've participated in in the pool world. Funny though how you can make it out to Vegas and hang around for days talking about CTE but can't get into the events themselves to play. And just for the record: John beat me 2-3 and then refused to play me in the finals when I came up through the left side. How that translates into "tore you up" I have no idea.

Lou Figueroa

lfigueroa
04-06-2011, 07:53 AM
Imagine how embarrassing it'd be to lose to me--- some hack with zero experience. Since you were so matter of fact on banking techniques-- would love to play you in some bank pool, mr. 1-hole. I'd play you some banks on the live stream.

lol, you're channeling John now.

Or does he just have his hand up your butt and making your mouth move like a puppet?

Lou Figueroa

mikepage
04-06-2011, 07:55 AM
I think I can spot you 10-5 in bank pool. I'd give Lou a try.

Will you be in Vegas this May? If so, what days?

SpiderWebComm
04-06-2011, 08:50 AM
Will you be in Vegas this May? If so, what days?

Trying for the 15th thru 19th. Will PM ya when it's locked up. Bring Lou with you too.

Roger Long
04-06-2011, 09:05 AM
Trying for the 15th thru 19th. Will PM ya when it's locked up. Bring Lou with you too.

Oh, no. That's when I'm going to be there. I hope you guys don't spatter blood on my new shirt! :angry:

Roger

Mikjary
04-06-2011, 09:58 AM
For the posters who answered "No" in the poll, would your answer change if the table's dimensions were not 2:1?

Would you still answer "No" if you were playing on a table that had dimensions say 10' x 4'?

Now you're asking some good questions! I like this. BTW, I did not vote in the poll.

The perspective ratio is probably close to 2:1 on the table. I would be interested if anybody could supply us with a more accurate number. Our visuals are tuned into this changing size of the balls to estimate distance. It would take a certain unknown amount of experience to reestablish the visuals, but I think the super computer would adapt. Results would vary for indvidual abilities.

Without empirical evidence, I'm speaking hypothetically. This a better idea than moving a pocket target. We still have consistent reference from the rail position, etc.

Best,
Mike

Nick B
04-06-2011, 10:19 AM
Dave,
I wasn't going to go but seeing as Vegas is close to Vancouver I might jump down (close by plane and I'm looking for excuse). We almost have enough for 2 "Death Match" teams. I'll bring extra foil so you can make me a custom hat.

Nick

Trying for the 15th thru 19th. Will PM ya when it's locked up. Bring Lou with you too.

sfleinen
04-06-2011, 11:30 AM
Oh, no. That's when I'm going to be there. I hope you guys don't spatter blood on my new shirt! :angry:

Roger

But-but-but Roger, isn't that the same red shirt you wear in those YouTube instructional videos (http://youtube.com/watch?v=BQc_IISqhxw), or you buying a "new" incarnation of it? If that's the case, the blood likely won't show up. :p

(Sorry, couldn't resist... :D )

-Sean

lfigueroa
04-06-2011, 02:43 PM
Oh, no. That's when I'm going to be there. I hope you guys don't spatter blood on my new shirt! :angry:

Roger

Roger, I don't think there's much blood when you step on a spider.

Lou Figueroa