The term "aim points" is kind of vague -- too many possible meanings. What I'm talking about in Dr. Dave's outline, or Spidey's list, is a set of 11 or 12 ways to arrive at a final cue stick alignment for a shot. Each of those 11 or 12 ways, if used for a given CB/OB separation (distance between them, like 3 feet) will, I claim, cut the OB at one and only one angle. But the same way of aligning for a shot with 6 feet of separation instead of 3 may well produce a different cut angle. In other words, 12 (11) cut angles for each distance between CB and OB.
Cte
- Thread starter jamesroberts
- Start date
The term "aim points" is kind of vague -- too many possible meanings. What I'm talking about in Dr. Dave's outline, or Spidey's list, is a set of 11 or 12 ways to arrive at a final cue stick alignment for a shot. Each of those 11 or 12 ways, if used for a given CB/OB separation (distance between them, like 3 feet) will, I claim, cut the OB at one and only one angle. But the same way of aligning for a shot with 6 feet of separation instead of 3 may well produce a different cut angle. In other words, 12 (11) cut angles for each distance between CB and OB.
That's because you are confusing sighting with aiming. Let me make it more simple for you Professor, you can sight the edge of the object ball from the cue ball center and use that line to get down on the SHOT line for any angle.
How is that possible you ask? Go to the table and you might be able to figure it out.
Let's try pictures again
Below are drawings of a 26 degree shot and a 15.4 degree. Both use the alignment "CB center to OB left edge, CB right edge to OB point B".
The 26 degree cut was drawn following CTE/ProOne instructions. The 15.4 degree cut was created by moving the OB and CB as a unit directly along the table's long axis until the cut angle was reduced as stated. Once the balls reached the new resting point, the new lines of sight were drawn (as planes vertical to the table), again in accordance with CTE/ProOne instructions. Neither the table nor the pocket nor the sky were moved; the camera was moved only to the extent needed to correctly simulate the player's line of sight (to the extent I could do so with a monocular device).
The 26 degree cut angle.
The blue line is the GB-OB-Pocket line; the orange line is the CTE sight line (really a plane, but hard to see here); the yellow line (plane) is the CBRE to OB-B sight line; the white line is the CB-GB line. The CB-OB distance is the same for both shots.
The 15.4 degree cut angle:
|
The left image (or top one if your browser window doesn't have them side by side) shows the CB and OB immediately after they have been moved up table directly along the table's long axis until they reached the black line coming from the pocket. Only the balls were moved; the player's eyes (the camera) are precisely where they were for the 26 degree shot. The included angle between the old (blue) GB-OB-Pocket line and the new (black) line is just over 10 degrees.
The right image (or bottom one) has the player's new sight lines illustrated, and the image is made from the player's new point of view. The new GB-OB-Pocket line has been made blue instead of black; it was not moved in that process. The old sight lines were left in place in the hope of making things a bit clearer.
The red line from the visual center of the cue ball (supposedly) to the table was put there for my own purposes and I forgot to remove it. You can ignore it.
The balls were moved directly along the table's long axis to meet jsp's desire, expressed in a post somewhere above, that the balls be moved directly along one of the table axes. In any case, the CB-OB distance is the same in both cases.
So we have
1. Two cut angles over 10 degrees apart (15.4 and 26 degrees) with the same CB to OB distance can be handled by the alignment shown.
2. The same procedure can be followed for any cut angle between those extremes.
3. There are an infinite number of possible cut angles between those extremes.
4. From 1, 2, and 3 it follows that the alignment shown can handle an infinite number of cut angles. Q.E.D.
Below are drawings of a 26 degree shot and a 15.4 degree. Both use the alignment "CB center to OB left edge, CB right edge to OB point B".
The 26 degree cut was drawn following CTE/ProOne instructions. The 15.4 degree cut was created by moving the OB and CB as a unit directly along the table's long axis until the cut angle was reduced as stated. Once the balls reached the new resting point, the new lines of sight were drawn (as planes vertical to the table), again in accordance with CTE/ProOne instructions. Neither the table nor the pocket nor the sky were moved; the camera was moved only to the extent needed to correctly simulate the player's line of sight (to the extent I could do so with a monocular device).
The 26 degree cut angle.
The blue line is the GB-OB-Pocket line; the orange line is the CTE sight line (really a plane, but hard to see here); the yellow line (plane) is the CBRE to OB-B sight line; the white line is the CB-GB line. The CB-OB distance is the same for both shots.
The 15.4 degree cut angle:
The left image (or top one if your browser window doesn't have them side by side) shows the CB and OB immediately after they have been moved up table directly along the table's long axis until they reached the black line coming from the pocket. Only the balls were moved; the player's eyes (the camera) are precisely where they were for the 26 degree shot. The included angle between the old (blue) GB-OB-Pocket line and the new (black) line is just over 10 degrees.
The right image (or bottom one) has the player's new sight lines illustrated, and the image is made from the player's new point of view. The new GB-OB-Pocket line has been made blue instead of black; it was not moved in that process. The old sight lines were left in place in the hope of making things a bit clearer.
The red line from the visual center of the cue ball (supposedly) to the table was put there for my own purposes and I forgot to remove it. You can ignore it.
The balls were moved directly along the table's long axis to meet jsp's desire, expressed in a post somewhere above, that the balls be moved directly along one of the table axes. In any case, the CB-OB distance is the same in both cases.
So we have
1. Two cut angles over 10 degrees apart (15.4 and 26 degrees) with the same CB to OB distance can be handled by the alignment shown.
2. The same procedure can be followed for any cut angle between those extremes.
3. There are an infinite number of possible cut angles between those extremes.
4. From 1, 2, and 3 it follows that the alignment shown can handle an infinite number of cut angles. Q.E.D.
John -- how is the final cue alignment (CB-GB) being determined for the two shots? You say they both use secondary alignment point "B," but what is the pivot for each shot. Are they both from the same side? Looks to me like it might require different choices from the alignment menu to pocket those two shots.
Neil, you are certainly correct, but I found another way that I feel gives clearer information because it uses visible sight lines. I found it quite enlightening.
Get three cans - a cue can, an object can, and a ghost can. Soup cans will do, but the 14.5 ounce size work better. You'll also need some string, scotch tape, and scissors. On any sort of table, set up a shot with the cans, using a corner to represent the pocket; have the cue can (CC) and object can (OC) a couple of feet apart and put the GC where it should go.
Run a piece of string from the corner under the center of the OC and GC to represent the GB-OB-Pocket line. Run string from the top of the CC to the edge of the OC halfway between its top and bottom. Run string from the edge of the CC to the target on the OC, with both locations being halfway between the cans' tops and bottoms. The various edges and targets need to be selected per the CTE/ProOne instructions for the thickness of cut you have set up.
Now walk around and look at your shot. How do the lines of sight "move" against the background of the cans and table? Set up other shots at slightly varying, or largely varying, cut angles and distances. Does where you stand make a difference? How? Can a single line combination (e.g., CTEL-OCLE, CCLE-OBB) be used for many angles? At varying CC-OC distances? Do you have to change your physical position to retain the correct sight lines when a shot changes?
Use full cans, not empty ones; empty ones fall over. And the cans should all be the same height and diameter.
You're making me hungry. What's the late-night snack tonight, John? Any more grilled cheese with bacon?
And speaking of cans, I've been sitting most of the day; did my taxes today. Talk about a messed up system -- how about that U.S. FIT system?
Time to sleep.
This is the key right here and it's why Stan's two sight lines method is better than my one line (cte line only) method. Stan's brings the shooter really in tight to the shot.
Imagine the shooter has a line projecting from his body. This line moves with the shooter and is from his perspective. So no matter where the balls are positioned the shooter can use his projecting line to get himself lined up to the shot. Then he uses the secondary line to get even more precisely aligned. Once zeroed in he brings his cue down into the shot.
Amazingly, only a small number of sight lines emanating from the shooter's body are required to handle any shot on the table. (disclaimer: any shot that is makable and has an unobstructed path from the cueball to the object ball and an unobstructed path to the pocket.)
Nope. Crackers, smoked oysters, kippered herring, Anchor Steam and Liberty Ale.
LOL. This is pool, not a vampire movie. There are no mystical "areas".
pj <- gotta be somethin' in the AzB water
chgo
Nonsense. Is this another patented, drive-by, one liner from the Prof? Did it make you feel superior? Or are you frustrated because you haven't been able to get a handle on the system?
At least put up some info with your negativity. It can be filtered out and possibly add to the discussion. Or is that not the case because you don't understand what I'm saying here?
LOL Best,
Mike
heres another great post from the professor! why dont you discuss your opinion instead of making these retarded one line statements always? You already are outed as a dolt on here. Do you not have any social skills at all? What do you do for a living or did, it must not involve people? im very curious about this now.
ha you beat to it Mike and i understand what you mean and agree
Last edited:
Of course it was.
Nope. I see the exact same thing. And I have taken it to the pool table. Why would I have to move to the left for the B CB?
You bet it does.
Nope, it still does in reality. I took it to the pool table and I see the same thing. Tell me what you're doing differently than me.
Of course you can't explain it. Because it's like "magic" (your words, not mine).
Below are drawings of a 26 degree shot and a 15.4 degree. Both use the alignment "CB center to OB left edge, CB right edge to OB point B".
The 26 degree cut was drawn following CTE/ProOne instructions. The 15.4 degree cut was created by moving the OB and CB as a unit directly along the table's long axis until the cut angle was reduced as stated. Once the balls reached the new resting point, the new lines of sight were drawn (as planes vertical to the table), again in accordance with CTE/ProOne instructions. Neither the table nor the pocket nor the sky were moved; the camera was moved only to the extent needed to correctly simulate the player's line of sight (to the extent I could do so with a monocular device).
The 26 degree cut angle.
The blue line is the GB-OB-Pocket line; the orange line is the CTE sight line (really a plane, but hard to see here); the yellow line (plane) is the CBRE to OB-B sight line; the white line is the CB-GB line. The CB-OB distance is the same for both shots.
The 15.4 degree cut angle:
|
The left image (or top one if your browser window doesn't have them side by side) shows the CB and OB immediately after they have been moved up table directly along the table's long axis until they reached the black line coming from the pocket. Only the balls were moved; the player's eyes (the camera) are precisely where they were for the 26 degree shot. The included angle between the old (blue) GB-OB-Pocket line and the new (black) line is just over 10 degrees.
The right image (or bottom one) has the player's new sight lines illustrated, and the image is made from the player's new point of view. The new GB-OB-Pocket line has been made blue instead of black; it was not moved in that process. The old sight lines were left in place in the hope of making things a bit clearer.
The red line from the visual center of the cue ball (supposedly) to the table was put there for my own purposes and I forgot to remove it. You can ignore it.
The balls were moved directly along the table's long axis to meet jsp's desire, expressed in a post somewhere above, that the balls be moved directly along one of the table axes. In any case, the CB-OB distance is the same in both cases.
So we have
1. Two cut angles over 10 degrees apart (15.4 and 26 degrees) with the same CB to OB distance can be handled by the alignment shown.
2. The same procedure can be followed for any cut angle between those extremes.
3. There are an infinite number of possible cut angles between those extremes.
4. From 1, 2, and 3 it follows that the alignment shown can handle an infinite number of cut angles. Q.E.D.
This was a counter post to Patrick Johnson, i wonder why he has not responded with that huge amount of knowledge he claims he has about cte?
John, how does point #4 follow from 1,2 & 3?Below are drawings of a 26 degree shot and a 15.4 degree. Both use the alignment "CB center to OB left edge, CB right edge to OB point B".
The 26 degree cut was drawn following CTE/ProOne instructions. The 15.4 degree cut was created by moving the OB and CB as a unit directly along the table's long axis until the cut angle was reduced as stated. Once the balls reached the new resting point, the new lines of sight were drawn (as planes vertical to the table), again in accordance with CTE/ProOne instructions. Neither the table nor the pocket nor the sky were moved; the camera was moved only to the extent needed to correctly simulate the player's line of sight (to the extent I could do so with a monocular device).
The 26 degree cut angle.
The blue line is the GB-OB-Pocket line; the orange line is the CTE sight line (really a plane, but hard to see here); the yellow line (plane) is the CBRE to OB-B sight line; the white line is the CB-GB line. The CB-OB distance is the same for both shots.
The 15.4 degree cut angle:
|
The left image (or top one if your browser window doesn't have them side by side) shows the CB and OB immediately after they have been moved up table directly along the table's long axis until they reached the black line coming from the pocket. Only the balls were moved; the player's eyes (the camera) are precisely where they were for the 26 degree shot. The included angle between the old (blue) GB-OB-Pocket line and the new (black) line is just over 10 degrees.
The right image (or bottom one) has the player's new sight lines illustrated, and the image is made from the player's new point of view. The new GB-OB-Pocket line has been made blue instead of black; it was not moved in that process. The old sight lines were left in place in the hope of making things a bit clearer.
The red line from the visual center of the cue ball (supposedly) to the table was put there for my own purposes and I forgot to remove it. You can ignore it.
The balls were moved directly along the table's long axis to meet jsp's desire, expressed in a post somewhere above, that the balls be moved directly along one of the table axes. In any case, the CB-OB distance is the same in both cases.
So we have
1. Two cut angles over 10 degrees apart (15.4 and 26 degrees) with the same CB to OB distance can be handled by the alignment shown.
2. The same procedure can be followed for any cut angle between those extremes.
3. There are an infinite number of possible cut angles between those extremes.
4. From 1, 2, and 3 it follows that the alignment shown can handle an infinite number of cut angles. Q.E.D.
With the two shots, we know that the correct aim line (white) should have a different orientation with respect to the CTE and edge-to-B guide lines/planes (orange and yellow, respectively) in actuality. Comparing the first and third images (brilliantly done by the way, but of course you had fabulous tools to work with
) they show that the aim line (white) also appears from the shooter's perspective to have a different orientation with respect to those two lines/planes. So how would the shooter know where to point his or her cue without the aid of the ghostball sitting there? How could the guides, by themselves, without any ghostball fudging, be used to establish that direction?Jim
Last edited:
At risk of repeating myself: nonsense.
Nothing has changed in the shooter's physical relationship to the balls, so there's no change in the "visual" he would have and no change in cut angle.
Since your premise is wrong (changing the relationship of balls to table does not change the relationship of balls to shooter), your conclusions are baseless (and, incidentally, wrong).
Q.E.D.
pj
chgo
I think you're "perplexed" because you don't want to consider the most obvious explanation.
Really? You can't explain why? How about because it's a shot that the CTE system can't make on its own? Of course that wouldn't be as cool as magic, but shouldn't we at least consider the possibility?
pj
chgo