Cte

[jwpretd]

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.

Here's a 2D picture that might help.

In this case, the translation between the two shots was done holding the ghost ball on the X axis, but that doesn't make any difference. The included angle between PG and PG' is about 15 degrees (or maybe 10 - I've forgotten - let's assume it's 15). For both shots, the player aligns themselves according to:

Cue ball center to left edge of object ball.
Right edge of cue ball to alignment point B on the object ball (i.e., the center of the object ball as seen by the player).

Consider the area bounded by PG and PG' both extended to the far rail. As I understand it, you are saying that this statement is false:

Line GC can be moved such that G falls on any point within that area without altering GC's orientation with respect to the table's X or Y axes.

Are you seriously willing to deny that? I don't think so.

Again, suppose we move A=(x,y) to a new point A'=(x+n,y+m), choosing n and m such that A' remains within the bounded area described above. This gives a new shot line, PA'.

Are you saying that we cannot move G,C as a unit, and without changing GC's orientation to the table's X,Y axes, to a point such that G lies on the extension of P,A' ? (For real balls on a real table, we must add the provision that C must have room to fit on the playing surface.) That would be equivalent to saying that a point on the X,Y plane cannot be moved to all other points on the plane by translation along the X and Y axes. Again, I really find it hard to believe that you're suggesting that.

The player's alignment is described identically for all shots within that area: CTE to OB left edge, CB right edge to OB point B, both taken as seen from the player's position. In order to maintain that visual alignment as the object ball is moved within that area, the player must physically move with respect to the table. This means that for all locations A(x,y) on which an object ball may be centered within that area, the player's orientation with respect to that object ball will differ from that used for some other location A(x+n,y+m), n,m > 0, unless A(x+n,y+m) lies on the line P,A(x,y).

So, do you still seriously contend that the alignment "CB center to OB left edge, CB right edge to OB point B, both taken as seen from the player's position" is not sufficient for an infinite number of cut angles within the 15 degree arc described above?

If you do, my previous premise was correct and the rest follows trivially.

If you do not agree, then it would be nice to see a drawing that illustrates some problem with the above, or get a coherent geometric explanation of where the above is wrong.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

[snip pretty picture and loopy explanation]
If you do not agree, then it would be nice to see a drawing that illustrates some problem with the above, or get a coherent geometric explanation of where the above is wrong.

Sorry, I'm not going to translate all that technobabble. What is clear to me is that if the CTE "visuals" and pivot are the same, then the cut angle should be the same. If you don't get the same cut angle and can't explain why clearly and simply, then the obvious assumption is that the cut angles are being changed by the shooter by feel.

pj
chgo

 

[Celtic]

It doesn't fall to pieces. Bet something on your assertions. I am willing to bet on mine.

Let's make it hurt if we are wrong. I guarantee you if I lose money betting on CTE then I won't say another word about it on these forums.

But I gamble and bet enough to make it hurt if I lose and when I play I only use CTE to aim with. So I am pretty sure I won't lose if we do some shot challenges. So come get the easy money and put your assertions on the table.

The next time I am in Vegas I will take you up on it in person. Don't want to upstream, if I am going to play a person I am not doing it remotely.

You cherry picking all of the shots you practice is not really showing the merits of CTE in a actual pool competition scenario. We can just play for cash, rotational pool or 8-ball if you really want to show the benefits of CTE but if you insist, 1-pocket. Although 1-pocket is the least useful game to show a the shotmaking merits of a aiming system.

 

[pablocruz]

You know where ASSuming gets you!! Starring in your own video!!

 

[JB Cases]

The next time I am in Vegas I will take you up on it in person. Don't want to upstream, if I am going to play a person I am not doing it remotely.

You cherry picking all of the shots you practice is not really showing the merits of CTE in a actual pool competition scenario. We can just play for cash, rotational pool or 8-ball if you really want to show the benefits of CTE but if you insist, 1-pocket. Although 1-pocket is the least useful game to show a the shotmaking merits of a aiming system.

Sure, I will play any game. But I disagree you about one pocket. One pocket is the PERFECT game to show off aiming systems. Because one pocket is not all about sending the object ball to a pocket and instead is about sending it to specific places it shows off how well CTE can be used for when you don't need to shoot a ball into a pocket. As well it shows off CTE banking.

Why are you assuming I would cherry pick anything? I offered to let you pick the shots. I just went to the table and nailed several back cut shots in a row - using basic CTE.

What I find funny is your assumptions based on limited data. You assume that I haven't tried shots from everywhere already and put the system to the test. You assume that it's no good for compeition when I have stated several times that I use it in competition. Others have also repported increased success in competition but this means nothing against your assumptions and predictions I guess.

Why in the world do you think I would play $1000 sets of nine ball and $100 one pocket using CTE if it was inconsistent and only good for "easy" shots? You might assume that I am that stupid but you'd be wrong there as well. I have been playing and gambling for more than 25 years. I am not a great player but I can hold my own against most people. At the very least I am smart enough not to use something that only works half-ass.

Especially when I have my own table to test it out on thoroughly. I don't mind putting CTE in action against you for one reason, I already know what kind of player it takes to beat me and I doubt that many people on AZB are of that caliber to do so consistently. And I know that I am getting better every day.

So you always have action with me.

 

[jwpretd]

Sorry, I'm not going to translate all that technobabble. What is clear to me is that if the CTE "visuals" and pivot are the same, then the cut angle should be the same. If you don't get the same cut angle and can't explain why clearly and simply, then the obvious assumption is that the cut angles are being changed by the shooter by feel.

I didn't expect that you would, nor did I expect that you would look at the image. Nor do I take umbrage at you calling "technobabble" what I felt were really rather simplistic geometric statements and related questions.

You don't get the same cut angle because you have to move your body to retain the same description of the alignment. If you stand frozen in one position and move the object ball far enough, then you can't see the object ball edge over the top of the cue ball. Thus, you have to move your body to be able to see that "visual". The same applies to the CB edge-to-whatever visualization. Moving changes the angle between your body and the OB-Pocket line. That's really all there is to it. It's too bad that the CB and OB alignment points are called "aim points" - that's not what they really are for any reasonable definition of "aim" and it seems to confuse people.

I would like to make a suggestion, if I might? (And I really do mean this in the best possible way, as pltrgyst once said to me long ago.) Before you again criticize, for example, a person's ability to visualize "simple geometry" you might want to think about it a bit. You might want to wonder what he did for a living. What is the possibility that at various times in his life he had to visualize quite a bit of geometry and did so successfully? Is it possible that out of interest and for amusement he treated CTE/ProOne as a work problem? That he gathered together all the information that's been presented here and on RSB and other places and went through it to try to make sense out of what people said they did and the results they cllaimed? Could he have taken Stan's DVD and watched it very carefully, making copious notes about not only what was said, but about what the demonstrators actually did, and make note of possible omissions and try to resolve apparent dichotomies? Perhaps he drew it all out very carefully (an onerous task) in both 2D (where possible) and 3D, to scale and at a size large enough to be useful? He might even have set up experiments so that he could see in actuality the sight lines that are supposed to be visualized. And he might have compared, with quite a bit of care, the relationships between those sight lines, and the OB-Pocket line, and the CB-GB line, and one or two others that seemed to be interesting.

In any case, you might think about considering those things, and analogous ones related to other topics, before criticizing people too harshly.

Take care - jwp

 

[AtLarge]

... So, do you still seriously contend that the alignment "CB center to OB left edge, CB right edge to OB point B, both taken as seen from the player's position" is not sufficient for an infinite number of cut angles within the 15 degree arc described above?...

John, your analysis is really over-complicating things. First, just pick some CB-OB separation -- let's say 3 feet. So take the two balls and put them 3 feet apart on some really large flat surface in front of you. Do your alignment of CB center to OB left edge and secondary alignment line to B. Then you also have to pick a pivot; let's say you choose "Right."

Now shoot the shot -- no pockets, no rails, just the two balls and one of Stan's alignments. Measure the cut angle it produces.

Now move your two balls anywhere else you want to on that surface. Take three paces to the left if you'd like, before placing the balls. If for the first shot they were facing northeast, now align them northwest, or east, or ... anywhere. But just make sure they are still 3 feet apart and that you do exactly the same alignment (left edge, B, right pivot), including having your head the same distance from the CB as for the first shot. Measure the cut angle for this shot.

Is there any reason in the world the two cut angles should be different (other than user inconsistencies in the mechanics of the method or the stroke)?

If you agree that they should be the same, then it should be clear that wherever they are on a pool table, so long as they are 3 feet apart and you do that same alignment (left edge, B, right pivot) you should get the same cut angle as you got on the "really large flat surface" without pockets or rails.

 

[JB Cases]

John, your analysis is really over-complicating things. First, just pick some CB-OB separation -- let's say 3 feet. So take the two balls and put them 3 feet apart on some really large flat surface in front of you. Do your alignment of CB center to OB left edge and secondary alignment line to B. Then you also have to pick a pivot; let's say you choose "Right."

Now shoot the shot -- no pockets, no rails, just the two balls and one of Stan's alignments. Measure the cut angle it produces.

Now move your two balls anywhere else you want to on that surface. Take three paces to the left if you'd like, before placing the balls. If for the first shot they were facing northeast, now align them northwest, or east, or ... anywhere. But just make sure they are still 3 feet apart and that you do exactly the same alignment (left edge, B, right pivot), including having your head the same distance from the CB as for the first shot. Measure the cut angle for this shot.

Is there any reason in the world the two cut angles should be different (other than user inconsistencies in the mechanics of the method or the stroke)?

If you agree that they should be the same, then it should be clear that wherever they are on a pool table, so long as they are 3 feet apart and you do that same alignment (left edge, B, right pivot) you should get the same cut angle as you got on the "really large flat surface" without pockets or rails.

If you take the pockets out of the equation and you approached every shot at the same way then you would have about the same angle. But the pocket IS part of the equation on every shot just not in the GHost Ball way.

In the Ghost Ball way the pocket is used to line up the GB through the object ball to the pocket. THen it is the connection to the cue ball.

In the CTE way the pocket exists as a never moving point that the shooter knows is there and so they orient their body to allow for it's general direction when facing the balls.

Standing behind the cueball there is only a very limited space where you can put your bridge hand down and propel the cue ball towards the object ball. So already your body is oriented to that end just by walking up to the table. Then as you walk up to the shot the CTE line you need to use becomes clear as day because the pocket is fixed into position. Then the rest of the steps are followed and you end up on the GB position.

People take Hal's words too literally when he said you don't need to know where the pocket is. Of course you need to know where the pocket is but you don't need to sight it through the object ball. The fact that the pocket is unmoving is enough to "know" where it is when using the CTE system.

I could show you a dozen shots however where it's incredibly difficult (for me) to see the GB/contact point, on those shots I am constantly undercutting or overcutting them due to perceptual errors. With CTE I nail them. And EVEN TODAY when I shoot them my brain is screaming WRONG WRONG WRONG when I am in the CTE given position. I literally have to force myself to shoot the shot despite that warning going off in my head. The result is that the ball splits the pocket and my brain goes "whew"....

But let's go a step farther shall we?

If I had to shoot a super tough shot for my life then I would do two things. I would sight the shot through the object ball to the pocket to determine the contact point and GB position. Then I would sight the shot from the cueball using CTE and make sure that those two inputs overlapped.

If I didn't have CTE then I would only have one input to use as verification. And frankly, I am not all that great at seeing the contact point even when I deliberately sight it.

 

[jwpretd]

John, your analysis is really over-complicating things.

As I understood it, the issue was that some people have stated that a given CTE/ProOne body/eye alignment specification can only generate a finite number of cut angles. That's incorrect, and that post was a sketchy outline of how to prove it can generate an infinite number of cut angles within the range for which its use is specified.

First, just pick some CB-OB separation -- let's say 3 feet. So take the two balls and put them 3 feet apart on some really large flat surface in front of you. Do your alignment of CB center to OB left edge and secondary alignment line to B. Then you also have to pick a pivot; let's say you choose "Right."

That means that it has to be an "inside" pivot, also, correct?

Now shoot the shot -- no pockets, no rails, just the two balls and one of Stan's alignments. Measure the cut angle it produces.

The angle with regard to what? To the alignment of the cue at the time of tip-CB impact? That would seem to be the reasonable choice, but it's always good to specify things like that carefully.

Now move your two balls anywhere else you want to on that surface. Take three paces to the left if you'd like, before placing the balls. If for the first shot they were facing northeast, now align them northwest, or east, or ... anywhere. But just make sure they are still 3 feet apart and that you do exactly the same alignment (left edge, B, right pivot), including having your head the same distance from the CB as for the first shot. Measure the cut angle for this shot.

Is there any reason in the world the two cut angles should be different....

No. By moving the object ball and cue ball together, you maintained the player's alignment with the line of the cut (that is, the line over which the object ball will travel when it's shot).

If you agree that they should be the same, then it should be clear that wherever they are on a pool table, so long as they are 3 feet apart and you do that same alignment (left edge, B, right pivot) you should get the same cut angle as you got on the "really large flat surface" without pockets or rails.

No. Here's one for you; it will be clearest if you start with the balls about two feet apart and set up for about a 3/4 ball right cut. You can be certain of the cut angle by putting a real ball where the ghost ball would be, and align the cue ball with it. The point is to be sure the initial set up is correct, then remove the ghost ball so you can see the OB easily. Get your CTE/ProOne alignment - don't worry about the pivot - just remember what the alignment looks like.

Now move the cue ball some - six inches to the right, say - without moving the OB. Move your body/eyes until you can get the same CTE/ProOne alignment again. Does the cut still look like a 3/4 ball hit?

Actually, when you move the cue ball it's possible to move it past one of the transition angles where CTE/ProOne says to use a different alignment. If you get very far past that point, you may find it impossible to get the original alignment. That's one reason the multiple alignment points are there.

By the way, once a cut angle is established, you may move the cue ball any distance you would like along the CB-GB line without altering the cut angle. That obviously alters the distance between the CB and OB, though not as rapidly as, say, moving the CB along the CB-OB line.

One of the reasons my posts like the earlier one about multiple angles are so long is that I spent a very long time as a systems analyst at UCSD coping with chemists, physicists, and (punishment for sins in a past life, I'm sure) research medical doctors. I learned very rapidly to be as unambiguous as possible about technical issues, especially in the presence of people who actively seek out ambiguous points to attack because you're saying things they don't want to believe. Not, of course, that there are any people like that on this forum.

 

[Mikjary]

You don't get the same cut angle because you have to move your body to retain the same description of the alignment.Take care - jwp

Getting warmer.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

jwpretd:
You don't get the same cut angle because you have to move your body to retain the same description of the alignment.

Mikjary:
Getting warmer.

LOL. Not quite there yet - some of your ideas still make a little sense.

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

.................

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Neil:
it has been explained clearly and simply several times just in this thread

How would you know?

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

....................

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Neil:
I READ THEM AND TYPED SOME OF THEM!

So you can explain how the same "visuals" and pivot can produce different cut angles?

Please do.

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

.................

 

[mohrt]

And the difficulty of pool is aiming shots WITH sidespin more then anything else. Who cares if a system works on shots with no sidespin? You are not going to win many matches playing with no side spin in either 8-ball or rotation pool. If the system falls to pieces and does not work the instant you put sidespin on the cueball it is pointless.

The point of CTE (and most any aiming system) is to start you at center pocket. From there you can induce other factors. Even ghostball works this way, except ghostball also requires some guesswork on aim for center pocket. If you start every shot center pocket you have room to play with either side, and will be making a lot more shots. CTE doesn't claim automatic shot making, it is just starting at center pocket. You still have to have a brain and adjust for side-spin, deflection, etc. Those adjustments are far easier if you know you have center pocket lined up already.

 

[jsp]

So you can explain how the same "visuals" and pivot can produce different cut angles?

Please do.

pj
chgo

Already did.

Hmmm, from my recollection you said that you "can't really describe just why" or you "can't explain why" because it was like "some magic trick".

In other words, you didn't explain anything.

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

Since when is body alignment part of an aiming system? That belongs to execution.

According to Dr. Dave's website, CTE/Pro One gives the player the following instructions:
"While standing, sight through the center of the CB and the outside edge of the OB (i.e., sight along the CTE line). Then, based on the amount of cut needed (see the table below), shift your sight to a line through a given edge or point on the CB to a given point on the OB, while also keeping the CTE line in your vision. Then drop and slide into your stance straight toward the CB in the direction of the sight line, aligning the cue 1/2-tip off the CB's center. Then pivot the cue to the center of the CB with a fixed-bridge pivot.

Here is a summary of the reference points for each type of cut:"

Then the distinction between straight in, very thick cut, thick cut, and so on, is listed. Beyond that distinction, Pro One doesn't care about the position of the pocket. Dr. Dave also points out the obvious problem, that if you have a number of shots with different potting angles that all fall under the "very thick cut" category, then strictly following Pro One's instruction should result in hitting every one of these shots at the same angle (which means the player would miss most of them). Unless you are changing the pivot point. But where does the system tell you where the pivot point is supposed to be?

CueTable Help

Both shots fall under the same category thickness. The lines A1 and B2 are both parallel to the rail and are also the same length. The CTE lines are the same. The reference points are the same. The only difference is that the position of the pocket has changed.

Where is the instruction that changes the pivot length?

If this has been answered already ( :speechless: ) could somebody post a link?

 

[champ2107]

Buy the dvd mate!! ok i want in on this, what the issue again, clarify it for me jsp,pj?

also is it possible to cue table exactly these issues that are not covered in the dvd so i can try them on a table and give an answer to them, or am i asking for too much? These guys may force me into to buying a table because of these cte threads