If these were real relationships that relate in some regular way to aiming pool shots, you'd be able to describe them (without spending "thousands of hours" figuring out how) and everybody would immediately understand them.
If the balls don't move and you shift and pivot the same way, the CB must hit the same contact point. Does this really need to be explained?
That's not true. Here's an example:My goodness man. The pivot is the same, the ctel always changes.I honestly think these two quotes point to a solution to the entire CTE debate!Patrick Johnson said:
Many cut angles (all that fall within a given range) can be created by pivoting the same way. In other words, Cookie Man is correct. You just need to pivot a slightly different amount for each cut angle. In other words, Patrick Johnson is correct.
Problem solved!!!
You can pivot the "same way" and still use a slightly different "effective pivot length" for each shot. I think if everybody was able to see both sides of this issue, there would no longer be a need for debate and animosity, and the benefits of CTE could be accepted and appreciated for what they are.
FYI the meaning of "effective pivot length," along with explanations and illustrations of why it is important, is presented in detail here:
I'm glad the age-old debate is finally over! :grin-square:
You mean OBs appear smaller at a distance. This is a 2D phenomenon that can be accurately depicted in a 2D drawing. In fact, a 2D drawing can easily show exactly how much smaller a distant ball appears to be than a near ball. Like this:
Whatever point you think you're trying to make, it isn't as complicated as you seem to think. If you can't make it it's because you don't understand it yourself.
Actually (as you probably know), balls rolling on a flat surface work just about like round flat discs bumping into each other. The "discs" are their equators.
But in the example below, the OB appears to be the same size with all three shots, right? The only thing different with these three shots in the cut angle required. Am I right that the only thing you do differently when using CTE to pocket each of these shots is to consciously or subconsciously change the "effective pivot length?"
Maybe it'll eventually mean something...
But in the example below, the OB appears to be the same size with all three shots, right? The only thing different with these three shots in the cut angle required. Am I right that the only thing you do differently when using CTE to pocket each of these shots is to consciously or subconsciously change the "effective pivot length?"
Thanks,
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 cut" category of CTE. Also, the CB-to-OB distance is the same for all three shots. The only thing different is the amount of cut angle needed for each shot. From everything I have read, heard, and tried, to use CTE to pocket each of these shots, the "effective pivot length" needs to be different for each shot. For more information, see:
If we had a video demonstration of how to make each of these shots, with a top view (directly over each shot separately) clearly showing the initial alignment and the effect of the pivot, I'm sure we would have answers to these important questions. I don't care is half the table is covered or not, or if each shot is made the first time or not. I just want to see what is different in the alignment and/or pivot on each of these shots to better understand how CTE actually works.
As the distance decreases to a diamond's length and below, a thick alignment can turn into a thin alignment - and a thin alignment can turn into a very-thin alignment. The first shot is a thick shot, but if you cut the distance to a 1/2 diamond, the alignment is adjusted to a thin shot. One can also make an alignment adjustment from thick to thin and reverse the pivot direction.
Stan covers this in his video. Don't get hung up on thick = 0-30 degreess, thin = 31 to whatever degrees. It doesn't work like that.
Note: I think that was derived from more than a 1/2 hit = thick and less than a 1/2 ball hit is thin. That's incomplete, however.
Distance / friction affect your alignment. Your second shot, if moved 1 diamond further away goes from a thin to a thick shot. The difference from shot 1 to shot 3 as far as the offset from the CTEL is about .4" Between 3 alignments and two pivot directions, you'll hit the proper offset - every time. Therefore, each shot has 6 possibilities (not all of them work for the INTENDED pocket).
However, this might answer why guys like 8pack and RandyG say some of those more exotic banks can be made without guessing or shooting to ghost-points
I'd love to do a top-down video. If you have one or know someone who can do that, I'm in.
So are you saying pivot one way to make the ball in the pocket and pivot the opposite way to bank it. You've done it now.As the distance decreases to a diamond's length and below, a thick alignment can turn into a thin alignment - and a thin alignment can turn into a very-thin alignment. The first shot is a thick shot, but if you cut the distance to a 1/2 diamond, the alignment is adjusted to a thin shot. One can also make an alignment adjustment from thick to thin and reverse the pivot direction.
Stan covers this in his video. Don't get hung up on thick = 0-30 degreess, thin = 31 to whatever degrees. It doesn't work like that.
Note: I think that was derived from more than a 1/2 hit = thick and less than a 1/2 ball hit is thin. That's incomplete, however.
Distance / friction affect your alignment. Your second shot, if moved 1 diamond further away goes from a thin to a thick shot. The difference from shot 1 to shot 3 as far as the offset from the CTEL is about .4" Between 3 alignments and two pivot directions, you'll hit the proper offset - every time. Therefore, each shot has 6 possibilities (not all of them work for the INTENDED pocket). However, this might answer why guys like 8pack and RandyG say some of those more exotic banks can be made without guessing or shooting to ghost-points
I'd love to do a top-down video. If you have one or know someone who can do that, I'm in.
