CTE experiment, with civil discussion

[stan shuffett]

Dave Segal's Geometry

In a previous post I started to reference Dave's math. Perhaps I was remiss not to mention it then but I think maybe it's more appropriate to do so in this post.

First, I have reconciled my main manual to include important aspects of what Dave has presented, particularly on how one can obtain an appropriate half-ball pivot. Dave's is the first evidence of its kind that clearly shows this without refute.

Also, Dave presents a major adjustment that's necessary for proper CTE perception. Landon put this major tweak to immediate use with huge success as did another pro player that I work with.

Dave's contributions to CTE are huge and this player/instructor acknowledges that with a great big THANKS!

Stan

 

[LAMas]

That's a lot closer than I thought it would be, with hardly any change in bridge length. And that's quite a range of angles from 44 to 89 degrees. Could you try a couple of more ... maybe 10 and 30? If CTCP (Center-to-Contact-Point) can be shown to work for a wide range of angles, maybe it will become the "new CTE" or "Pro Two." I'll reserve judgment until I see more diagrams and try out a bunch of shots at the table.

Thanks,
Dave

PS: BTW, it's "CB center to OB contact point", not "OB contact point to center of OB."

Dave,
The diagrams that I offer for consideration is based on "center of the CB aimed at the contact point on the OB and then shifting to the center of the OB, and then the pivot back to the center of the CB from the new bridge location, but you knew that.:smile:

So this would be "C/CBTCP/OBSTC/OBPTC/CB". WOW:smile:

What is at the core of these diagrams is that it adjust for the OB appearing to be smaller at farther/longer shots an thus reducing the included angle to deliver the CB to the same point of contact with the OB (wherever) - rather than angling away from the OB as would CTE as your diagrams clearly show.

The 30 degree cut doesn't require a shift for it is one of the two shots that I would revert to aiming the center of the CB to the edge of the OB without shift or pivot - the other is the straight in shot where I would aim the center of the CB to the center of the OB - this is, to me, academic.

I don't have ACad at home so I will do the 10 degree and 20 degree diagrams tomorrow for those that are interested.
Thanks

 

[LAMas]

dr_dave,
Here is a Power Point diagram that shows an early study that promted me to analize it on dimensionally accurate ACad.

It is a cartoon but it is proportional.
First the 80 degree cut to show the bridge distance X is about the same bridge distance X as for the 20 degree cut:



View attachment Microsoft PowerPoint - CTP_CUT_80.pdf

View attachment Microsoft PowerPoint - CTP_CUT_20.pdf

 

[Scott Lee]

Tap, tap, tap Dead Crab. I agree with you 100%! :thumbup: Without an accurate and repeatable stroke, NO aiming method will be consistent.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

That is why it doesn't make sense to invest so much time on "aiming" when alignment and stroke are so much more important.

 

[LAMas]

Sorry,
Not everyone has ppt. so I had to convert it to print and scan as jpg.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

In a previous post I started to reference Dave's math. Perhaps I was remiss not to mention it then but I think maybe it's more appropriate to do so in this post.

First, I have reconciled my main manual to include important aspects of what Dave has presented, particularly on how one can obtain an appropriate half-ball pivot. Dave's is the first evidence of its kind that clearly shows this without refute.

Also, Dave presents a major adjustment that's necessary for proper CTE perception. Landon put this major tweak to immediate use with huge success as did another pro player that I work with.

Dave's contributions to CTE are huge and this player/instructor acknowledges that with a great big THANKS!

Stan

Stan, that was very nice of you to post. You never owe me a thanks. It's guys like you, Hal and Ron Vitello that pretty much molded the way I play.

 

[Scott Lee]

Stan...Thank you for that explaination, and clarification. On the dvd I recorded, when I visited Hal in July 08, Hal would have me pivot right to left, or left to right, depending on the shot (the direction the ball was being cut). This was one of the most confusing things for me, as it was difficult for me to understand when I was supposed to set up on the right side of the CB, and pivot left...or set up on the left side of the CB, and pivot right. Hal made no mention of a distinction between right-handed and left-handed players. I will say this...that when I followed Hal's direction, the balls flew into the center of the pockets, whether it was a thick hit, or a super thin cut...it didn't matter!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Shots A,B,C, as presented, require a right to left cue movement. That right to left pivot will seem unnatural for most right-handed players. In PRO ONE the movement is always from left to right for right-handed players. In PRO ONE, shots A,B,C can be pocketed with a left to right, half-ball pivot. Constant left to right pivoting for right-handed players is the major variation of PRO ONE from Hal’s method of CTE. For lefties, the pivot would always be from right to left.

Stan Shuffett

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Stan...Thank you for that explaination, and clarification. On the dvd I recorded, when I visited Hal in July 08, Hal would have me pivot right to left, or left to right, depending on the shot (the direction the ball was being cut). This was one of the most confusing things for me, as it was difficult for me to understand when I was supposed to set up on the right side of the CB, and pivot left...or set up on the left side of the CB, and pivot right. Hal made no mention of a distinction between right-handed and left-handed players. I will say this...that when I followed Hal's direction, the balls flew into the center of the pockets, whether it was a thick hit, or a super thin cut...it didn't matter!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

If you're incorporating pivots from both sides--- only one will work. One will look like it can't miss and the other won't look close. For anything less than 30 degrees, everything is a thick cut pivot. Put the cue on the side of the CTEL that doesn't have the pocket an you pivot towards the pocket. After a while, you know which side to pivot from based on a quick look.

The side you pivot from has nothing to do with whether you're right or left handed. However, right to left pivots are unnatural movements for right-handers and left to right pivots are unnatural movements for left handers. Finding out how to eliminate the unnatural movement was a milestone for sure - I thank Stan for that.

 

[Shark75]

I play my best when I pivot from the left in the air on every shot. That way you are coming straight down the target line when stroking a shot.

 

[AtLarge]

Stan,

Thank you so much for contributing your thoughts. I really appreciate it, and I'm sure many others will also.

So it sounds like you let your "subconscious and mind take over" during the "bridge-hand slide" and the "arcing" pivot. This apparently results in the different "effective pivot lengths" and final cue angles necessary to pocket the three different shots. That makes sense to me, even with my PhD. I'm not looking for equations or numbers, just simple explanations. Thank you for providing one.

Obviously, some visual "feel" and "judgment" is required in the CTE aiming process, and the pocket location must be taken into consideration (even if only subconsciously), and skill with the process does take time and effort to develop. That's what I've been trying to say for years. It sounds like you agree.

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave -- I think that Stan's post #43 in this thread is a landmark in the long forum history of debates about CTE aiming. This could be the first time that a strong proponent or teacher of CTE/Pro One has acknowledged the sorts of things that you summarize in your post #46, quoted above. Thank you, Dr. Dave, for your persistence in at long last eliciting this response, and thank you, Stan, for being willing to post it.

 

[JB Cases]

Shots A,B,C, as presented, require a right to left cue movement. That right to left pivot will seem unnatural for most right-handed players. In PRO ONE the movement is always from left to right for right-handed players. In PRO ONE, shots A,B,C can be pocketed with a left to right, half-ball pivot. Constant left to right pivoting for right-handed players is the major variation of PRO ONE from Hal’s method of CTE. For lefties, the pivot would always be from right to left.

Within a straight line range of shots from Shot A to Shot C, there are at least 500 more shots that could have the same CB-OB relationship. All 500 shots can share a half-ball pivot for successful pocketing.

If I were to shoot any one of the 500 shots within the range of A to C, I would not worry about precision math calculations or exact wording to guide my every move. I’d want my subconscious mind and body to take over.

For any of the 500 shots I would first see CTE and align to CTE. Then, I would visually shift my sight to the right cue ball edge and allow my body/eyes to move slightly ‘right’ across the CTEL. My cue is following with its initial left to right movement. My eyes would have already located center cue ball at this stage of the process. My bridge hand would be sliding up the left cue ball edge line and arcing in toward center cue ball. During this ‘bridge hand slide’ my angled cue would arc by the left edge of the cue ball. My ‘bridge hand slide’ and arcing cue would land at center cue ball simultaneously. {My final bridge distance at actual aim would be about 7.5 inches. My bridge distance would not have been constant during its movement to center cue ball.}

What could the range of my total eye/body movement or offset across the CTEL be for the 500 shots in a line from A to C? Let’s call it a range of 3/8 of an inch. Divide 3/8 by 500 to determine my incremental eye location or visual aim difference for each of the 500 shots. I get .075 of an inch. One’s visual and bodily intelligence can easily manage all 500 shots with uncanny precision. It all comes back to the fact that there are countless shots on a pool table. A great way to handle the vast array of shots is to use CTE.

Within one’s brain, there are 2 separate physical locations that separately deal with objects and spacial relationships simultaneously. OBJECTS: table surface, cue, balls, rails and pockets---SPACIAL RELATIONSHIPS: body/cue/table distances, varying bridge distance, CB/OB distance and OB/pocket distance. This can get very complicated! { Knowledgable PHDs can be extremely challenged when assigned to write about the inner workings of what happens when a person touches his finger to his nose.} I’d personally like to see a doctoral dissertation that describes the inner workings of what a pool player does mentally, visually and bodily to successfully execute a shot such as shot C.

Hal Houle learned that through CTE a player can quickly tap into the purity of aiming. A key factor in CTE is that the shooter learns to largely disengage his conscious mind from the aiming process. Your mind’s eye can easily perceive each of the 500 shots referenced above as ‘one’.

Subconscious aiming by way of CTE is available to any player within days or weeks and certainly no longer than months after having learned the process. CTE can be learned in as little as 5 hours. Does this mean you’ll be pocketing balls like a pro in short order? No, but your process of arriving at an actual aim will be very pro-like in short order.

IMO, CTE is nothing less than a precious gift, a gift from its inventor, Hal Houle.

Stan Shuffett

Thank you Stan!!!!

The past couple days I have revisited Hal's older writing - including the famous 3 Angles for Everything essay. (Thanks CC)

I agree with you and find that this is why none of Hal's systems work in a 2d graphic. Perhaps there is some slight adjustment but it's so slight and so automatic that it feels like no adjustment at all.

This spatial awareness aspect is why it works.

Some players who don't use Ghost Ball and don't use any aiming system just have this feeling naturally. The see the shot in it's entirety encompassing the whole picture.

The past two days I have been practicing various aiming systems in preparation for making a presentation to a friend. I want the information I impart to be on solid ground.

I have experienced in the past two days exactly what you describe above. Once you get it, then you really get it. But you have to get over the fact that Hal's aiming systems are as far away from ghost ball as can be. The end result is the same, the player ends up in the same place.

The approach however is not the same and as you say the spatial awareness covers an almost infinite amount of adjustments.

For me it shouldn't even be called "aiming". I think that it should be called "approach methods" because that's what I feel when I am looking at a shot. I approach the shot from a certain direction based on the reference points I have selected. Then the settling in and getting down on the shot is almost automatic and subconscious.

Hal Houle has given us a truly remarkable gift.

I sincerely hope that someday someone somewhere will be able to piece this together in a way that is as clear and easy to understand as the Ghost Ball method. Until then unfortunately the gift can only truly be passed from one person to another one at at a time.

 

[JB Cases]

Very nicely done Dave. Case closed. It always comes back to feel. I'm going to stop reading cte threads now.

No it doesn't always come back to feel. The point that Stan is making is that the approach to the shot is the same on all three shots and the exact precise alignment happens naturally from there if you follow the directions.

Because the exact amount of "adjustment" is SO SLIGHT and so quick it feels to the CTE aimer that he or she is doing the SAME THING on every shot.

That's how it really feels when you aim or approach a shot using Hal's methods.

Feel actually gets in the way for some of us because we trained a long time on another way to aim called Ghost Ball and Shifted English. Using the ghost ball to aim into space coupled with shifted english to adjust for deflection can set people up on lines that are no where close to where they need to be to make the ball BUT they FEEL like it's perfect. So then it's back to the drawing board and I have to adjust a little less or a little more aim a little thicker or a little thinner - and repeat this process for EVERY SHOT on the table - i.e. the whole million balls process to hone my feel for every possible shot variation.

When I use Hal's methods, be it CTE or Quarters (my term) or 3 Angles, then I approach every shot the same way. If there is any FEEL involved then it's the feeling that I am on the wrong line because of the fact that I had aimed this shot wrong my whole life. If I simply trust the aiming line that Hal's method directs me to then the ball goes. And if I practice this way and get it ingrained then I start to not even need the lines I just automatically step into the shot and lay my cue down on the right line.

If there are adjustments - they are SO SMALL and SO SLIGHT that the are totally subconscious and that is the whole thing right there.

I can't tell you how many times over the past ten years that I have had tough shots with balls in the middle of the table and used Hal's system to double check the line and bam the ball splits the pocket and the crowd literally applauds.

Well, let me say this so that we don't totally disagree. It does come down to feel. And feel must be trained. If you feel it's right but it isn't then you have retrain yourself until you figure out the right way. Hal's methods allow me a way to get that retraining where before him there was no other way and I would have to be resigned to reaching a certain level and stopping.

After learning Hal's methods there is no shot that I fear.

I will go to the pool room later and do these three shots. I will film myself doing them with a little Flip camera. If you can see any conscious adjustment then point it out.

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave -- I think that Stan's post #43 in this thread is a landmark in the long forum history of debates about CTE aiming. This could be the first time that a strong proponent or teacher of CTE/Pro One has acknowledged the sorts of things that you summarize in your post #46, quoted above.

Agreed. I respect Stan for helping to provide new insight into the CTE approach. Acknowledging that visual perception and subconscious adjustment are important parts of the process in no way diminishes the value of CTE, 90/90, or any "aiming system." Aiming systems can help create a consistent framework and pre-shot routine that can help a player better focus on the alignment and aim for each shot. That's a great thing. For a list of additional benefits of "aiming systems," see:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#benefits​

I think the seemingly endless debates about what CTE is are no longer necessary; although, I hope Spidey, Stan, and other still continue to improve and further develop the approach and how it is presented, illustrated, and explained.

Thank you, Dr. Dave, for your persistence in at long last eliciting this response, and thank you, Stan, for being willing to post it.

Amen to that. I also thank Stan.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dbkrider]

Dave,
I learned the CTE method of aiming by watching the youtube post search for "CTE Aiming" (50 plus times)
I played with the system for two months on and off. Some sucesses.
Played in a big table 9 ball tournament three weeks ago (not my strong suit, I play way better on a bar box). Anyway I made a deal with myself that I would use CTE aiming on every shot. Wow, I got a 9th place finish and in the money!
For me this system works very well. but i use the one tip off of center with a small hip pivot.
I tried the three thick cuts shots you show in your post, and made every shot 3 times!
Thanks for your help with CTE Aiming. Derick

 

[STICKBNDER]

Sorry,
Not everyone has ppt. so I had to convert it to print and scan as jpg.

View attachment 135265

View attachment 135266

anyone else confuse with these diagram???

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Agreed. I respect Stan for helping to provide new insight into the CTE approach. Acknowledging that visual perception and subconscious adjustment are important parts of the process in no way diminishes the value of CTE, 90/90, or any "aiming system." Aiming systems can help create a consistent framework and pre-shot routine that can help a player better focus on the alignment and aim for each shot. That's a great thing. For a list of additional benefits of "aiming systems," see:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#benefits​

I think the seemingly endless debates about what CTE is are no longer necessary; although, I hope Spidey, Stan, and other still continue to improve and further develop the approach and how it is presented, illustrated, and explained.

Amen to that. I also thank Stan.

Regards,
Dave

I believe Stan said what I've been saying since the beginning of the CTE Aiming thread. You asked a similar question about 3 other shots and I said "alignment is what changes" AKA identifying the outermost edge.

Identifying the outermost edge isn't feel based - it's not an educated guess, per se. It's addressing the first possible edge of the CB that is in line with the CTEL.

I posted two pictures in the CTE Aiming thread that shows how edges shift based on perspective. The moment your eyes move, the edge you address on the CB changes and the edge you're sighting on the OB changes. People tend to forget those images - I should prob repost. The perspective change gives a different geometric solution to the shot.

I agree with Stan that the setup looks SO similar between all shots that someone couldn't tell the difference if watching the person. The difference between making any of the balls is prob less than 1/2 inch.

However, experience and hitting 1000 balls with CTE isn't what makes those shots -- I can show someone how to make them in a minute or two, consistently.

The diagrams you post do not show perspective at all: The CTEL you diagram likely isn't the line you see at the table--- in order to see it, your eyes must be at an exact perspective (sighting straight down it, which no one does).

The moment your eyes move a hair, the CB edge you address changes and the OB edge sighted changes as well. I think people confuse visual intelligence with "feel." Edit: I wanted to add here, if there is anything that requires feel, it's the pivot... not the alignment or sighting the CTEL. Obviously, one must pivot along a particular arc to make the shot. I could argue that it's not feel (for me) but it might be for someone else. I don't know, honestly.

Every method of shooting pool requires feel (non of us are robots) and we always make subconscious adjustments when we make poor body alignments; however, CTE is the most systematic way to make a ball on the planet (CTE, Pro1, 90/90 - all the same).

 

[stan shuffett]

I believe Stan said what I've been saying since the beginning of the CTE Aiming thread. You asked a similar question about 3 other shots and I said "alignment is what changes" AKA identifying the outermost edge.

Identifying the outermost edge isn't feel based - it's not an educated guess, per se. It's addressing the first possible edge of the CB that is in line with the CTEL.

I posted two pictures in the CTE Aiming thread that shows how edges shift based on perspective. The moment your eyes move, the edge you address on the CB changes and the edge you're sighting on the OB changes. People tend to forget those images - I should prob repost. The perspective change gives a different geometric solution to the shot.

I agree with Stan that the setup looks SO similar between all shots that someone couldn't tell the difference if watching the person. The difference between making any of the balls is prob less than 1/2 inch.

However, experience and hitting 1000 balls with CTE isn't what makes those shots -- I can show someone how to make them in a minute or two, consistently.

The diagrams you post do not show perspective at all: The CTEL you diagram likely isn't the line you see at the table--- in order to see it, your eyes must be at an exact perspective (sighting straight down it, which no one does).

The moment your eyes move a hair, the CB edge you address changes and the OB edge sighted changes as well. I think people confuse visual intelligence with "feel." Edit: I wanted to add here, if there is anything that requires feel, it's the pivot... not the alignment or sighting the CTEL. Obviously, one must pivot along a particular arc to make the shot. I could argue that it's not feel (for me) but it might be for someone else. I don't know, honestly.

Every method of shooting pool requires feel (non of us are robots) and we always make subconscious adjustments when we make poor body alignments; however, CTE is the most systematic way to make a ball on the planet (CTE, Pro1, 90/90 - all the same).

Dave, Well stated!

I'd like to highlite your last phrase. "CTE is the most systematic way to make a ball on the planet (CTE, Pro1, 90/90 - all the same).."

Also, worth rephrasing is the idea that feel does not equal visual intelligence. Visual and bodily intelligences supersede feel in every way. One's visual intelligence is just that,an intelligence. It's the conscious mind that engages in feel and search.

CTE is a strongly based visual system. The eyes see and the body follows intelligently.

Stan

 

[dr_dave]

Shot "A" is about a 10-degree cut, shot "B" is about a 15-degree cut, and shot "C" is about a 20-degree cut. All three shots fit into the "thick hit" category of CTE (see my CTE page and Spidey's blog for more info). Also, the CB-to-OB distance is the same for all three shots, so the "shot arc" is the exact same for all three shots (see my CTE page and Spidey's blog for more info).

Here is the CTE aiming procedure for a "thick hit" shot, as I understand it:

1.) ALIGN: (for thick cuts): Start with your cue parallel to the CB-center-to-outside-OB-edge line (CTEL) with the tip pointing at the outside edge of the CB (per the 2nd CTE version on my CTE page).

2.) PIVOT: Then pivot your tip toward the pocket until it reaches the CB's center. The "effective pivot length" or "pivot arc radius" you use during the pivot should be the distance from the bridge to the OB (see Spidey's blog for more info).​

Since all three shots are "thick hits," and since the CB-to-OB distance is the same for each, the "effective pivot length" or "pivot arc" is also the same for each (assuming the bridge length is the same for all three shots).

Here's the question I want people to answer with the experiment: What do you do differently with the alignment and/or pivot steps of CTE to pocket each of these three shots?

I believe Stan said what I've been saying since the beginning of the CTE Aiming thread. You asked a similar question about 3 other shots and I said "alignment is what changes" AKA identifying the outermost edge.

So when you pocket these three shots, it sounds like your initial alignment is slightly different on each. Recently, you claimed the pocket location or the exact amount of cut needed for a shot doesn't affect the alignment or pivot. How can that be? The two balls have identical relationships for all three shots. The only thing different is the amount of cut you need.

Identifying the outermost edge isn't feel based - it's not an educated guess, per se. It's addressing the first possible edge of the CB that is in line with the CTEL.

But the CTEL and "first possible edge of the CB" is the same for all three shots, unless you consciously or subconsciously change your visual alignment to somehow adjust for the amount of cut needed.

I posted two pictures in the CTE Aiming thread that shows how edges shift based on perspective.

Sorry, but I didn't grasp the point of those rotated images. I'm not being mean, just honest.

The moment your eyes move, the edge you address on the CB changes and the edge you're sighting on the OB changes.

I guess the key is knowing how much to move the eyes for the three different shots. How do you judge this without taking the pocket location or amount of cut into consideration, or is this just done subconsciously.

I can show someone how to make them in a minute or two, consistently.

That is a bold statement! I'll have to take your word for this. Will the "someone" also be able to make the same three shots if the balls were shifted a little (i.e., if the cut angles were slightly different), using what you showed them with the three original shots? Do you realize what you are claiming here? You are claiming you can show "someone" how to make any 0-to-30-degree cut-angle shot from any place on the table. Furthermore, that "someone" will pocket the balls "consistently" (i.e., they won't miss any of the shots very often). Furthermore, this can all be done in one or two minutes, with no practice time required beyond the 1-2 minutes. I guess you are also assuming the "someone" can't currently do this (pocket all of these balls consistently) with their current "system." If you can truly accomplish this, then you will become an incredibly wealthy man, and I will be the first to document your feat in the pages of Billiards Digest. You have my promise on that.

The diagrams you post do not show perspective at all: The CTEL you diagram likely isn't the line you see at the table

My diagram (see above) only shows the shot layout and the necessary CB and OB lines for the three shots. To pocket the balls, these lines must be as shown, regardless of any 3D perspective.

in order to see it, your eyes must be at an exact perspective (sighting straight down it, which no one does).

The moment your eyes move a hair, the CB edge you address changes and the OB edge sighted changes as well.

This sounds like the key for your version of CTE. You need to shift the eyes just the right amount to give the correct initial alignment required to create the necessary amount of cut after the pivot.

Obviously, one must pivot along a particular arc to make the shot. I could argue that it's not feel (for me) but it might be for someone else. I don't know, honestly.

... but based on your blog, the pivot arc should be the same for each of the three shots since the distance between the balls is the same, but maybe the subconscious also helps adjust the pivot arc the subtle, but necessary, amounts.

Thank you for contributing to the thread. I hope you don't think my replies are disrespectful ... that is not my intent. I'm just trying to help provide better understanding (for me and others).

Regards,
Dave

 

[Elephant Man]

Mañana.....

 

[stan shuffett]

At the HEART of CTE

I think the seemingly endless debates about what CTE is are no longer necessary; although, I hope Spidey, Stan, and other still continue to improve and further develop the approach and how it is presented, illustrated, and explained.

Dave

Dr. Dave, I present, illustrate and explain very well during my classes.

At the HEART of what I present concerning CTE/PRO ONE is the half-ball pivot. The half-ball pivot is the very essense of what Hal determined would pocket every shot on the table. It's the half-ball pivot that does not change.

The 1 and 1/8" pivot is the KEY for any player to advance their game to another dimension.

Every shot is rendered the same with the half-ball pivot. When correctly used the pivot is virtually undetectable.

Stan








Stan