I can live with "Aiming Points".
When I think about how I aim with CTE/Pro One, it is these aiming points that lock me onto the shot and I do aim the edge of the cue ball carefully and directly at them. :wink:
JoeyA
PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions
- Thread starter stan shuffett
- Start date
I can live with "Aiming Points".
When I think about how I aim with CTE/Pro One, it is these aiming points that lock me onto the shot and I do aim the edge of the cue ball carefully and directly at them. :wink:
JoeyA
Thank you, Joey. In order to continue an objective dialogue, AtLarge suggested moving the discussion over to his thread. http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=226152 I think this is a good idea. You and other posters have been doing a nice job of contributing information there.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
I am used to using "aim points" especially for cut angles less that 30 degrees (CTE). Depending on applied english, CIT and cloth speed, I double distance aim the contact point to the center of the OB.
What I want from CTE is a way to aim at points on the OB for cut angles greater than 30 degrees where the fractional aim points are on the OB and not on the cloth as DD aiming requires.
Here are results for cuts to the left with a 2 foot separation between the CB and OB; bridge hand 1 foot behind the center of the CB; using my left eye on the secondary aiming line with the edge of the CB at the fractional points; stroking the cue below the center of my chin (1.125" to the right of the left eye); and a 1/2 tip offset to the left of the center of the CB pre-pivot.
The results may/will be different than what my diagrams show depending on how one's visuals are. If the visuals are consistent, what may be consistent is from the edge of the OB you get say, 40 degrees; then 1/8 is 4 degrees more; 1/4 "A" is 4 degrees more; 3/8 "A+" 6 degrees more; 1/2 "B" is 6 degrees more; 5/8 "B+" is 8 degrees more and 3/4 "C" is 12 degrees more.
Sorry for the large size:
LAMas,
One thing that stands out in your post is how your cue is under your right eye. It is possible to be strongly right eye dominant and to use Cte. Have you tried using only your right eye to pick up your visuals?
I have experimented using this method, but after a while my brain reverted back to using two eyes. What's right for me may not be anything like what you have to do to get the system to work for you. You will have to adjust your alignment, but it can be done.
You may be able to keep that dominant eye totally in charge. My alignment is more typical and I have to have the cue centered between my eyes. I shade towards my dominant right eye and easily use both eyes to aim, Your strong dominant right eye may want to do all the aiming.
Richard Kranicki, in his book, Anwers To A Pool Player's Prayers, talks about the "pure" dominant eye and its sighting alignments. The opposite eye's information is ignored and only the "pure " eye is used to aim. He also mentions how if using this setup is combined with a more cue centered approach, the user will have to compensate for a blended image from the eyes. This compensation is in the form of aiming for an "apparent" cue ball, changing the shooter's physical alignment.
What do you think? Could this be a possibility for you?
Best,
Mike
LAMas,
One thing that stands out in your post is how your cue is under your right eye. It is possible to be strongly right eye dominant and to use Cte. Have you tried using only your right eye to pick up your visuals?
I have experimented using this method, but after a while my brain reverted back to using two eyes. What's right for me may not be anything like what you have to do to get the system to work for you. You will have to adjust your alignment, but it can be done.
You may be able to keep that dominant eye totally in charge. My alignment is more typical and I have to have the cue centered between my eyes. I shade towards my dominant right eye and easily use both eyes to aim, Your strong dominant right eye may want to do all the aiming.
Richard Kranicki, in his book, Anwers To A Pool Player's Prayers, talks about the "pure" dominant eye and its sighting alignments. The opposite eye's information is ignored and only the "pure " eye is used to aim. He also mentions how if using this setup is combined with a more cue centered approach, the user will have to compensate for a blended image from the eyes. This compensation is in the form of aiming for an "apparent" cue ball, changing the shooter's physical alignment.
What do you think? Could this be a possibility for you?
Best,
Mike
Mike,
I am right eye dominant, but for cut angles to the left as I posted, I use my left eye on the secondary aim line - even closing my dominant eye to make sure that I am on the correct aim line from the edge of the CB to the secondary points on the OB....I think that you mentioned this months ago. It makes alot of sense to me.
As I move the secondary aim line to the fractions sarting at the left edge, I am moving my eyes, head and body/stance incrementally to effeect the new cut angle. At the start at the table, I stick aim the secondary aim line and drop down on the shot with my left eye over the stick before I reposition my stick under the center of my chin with a 1/2 tip offset to the left of the center of the CB.
I reverse this for cuts to the right. I haven't diagrammed cutting to the left with a 1/2 tip offset on the right side of the center of the CB and pivot tip to the center of the CB.
I don't pay attention to the CTEL (which is closer to the eye not on the secondary aim line) except at the start.
It works for me even if I'm wrong.:wink::thumbup:
Have you tried DD using the CB/OB edges (not centers)?
pj
chgo
I tried stick aiming contact point to contact point using my cue, but I haven't mastered the perfect parallel shift back to the center of the CB.
That's why I tried pivot systems but they require more adjustments.
I can/will try aiming with the edge of the CB without the pivot and see if that works for me.
Thanks.
LAMas, I must not be understanding what you are doing here. With the spec's you gave (2' separation, 12" bridge, 1/2-tip offset, pivot left to right on cuts to the left), the cut angles I produce are much less than yours. Just consider the first one: 40 degrees using an alignment line of CB left edge to OB left edge. How can a 1/2-tip pivot possibly produce a 40-degree cut from 2 feet with that alignment? The angle I get is probably less than half of that.
I must be missing something. Or, are different peoples' visuals that different?
Part of the uniqueness of the system is the user can interpret the visual signals and use this feedback to direct his alignment for a range of angles. Although this large a change is not typical, it can be done. I tried it and found with a little effort it was possible. It is not what Stan is teaching and doesn't fit into the aiming point setups as I know them.
LAMas admittedly is not working from the video and is tweaking the system until he gets what he needs from it. He says he is using his own adaptation. Ain't that right, Big E? :grin-square:
Best,
Mike
With vague instructions like "using my left eye on the secondary aiming line" how could different peoples' visuals be anything but different? I'm sure that, without a pocket in view to "finish" the aiming by feel, different shooters who follow the same CTE system instructions will usually produce different cut angles. I'm also sure the same shooter will produce different cut angles (although not as different as different shooters) following the same instructions multiple times.
CTE system instructions leave lots of room for "creativity".
pj
chgo
This is a very interesting line Patrick Johnson posted and i see a lot of potential here! especially since Mr Johnson knows that cte/pro1 does not need a pocket to view in order to pocket the balls, I guess he agrees then that there is no feel involved in cte/pro1 aiming?
There's feel in any system. Otherwise, someone using any particular system would never miss a shot. Some people seem to be offended by the "feel" remark but its just a subconscious adjustment that's made and you don't even realize that you do it.
I just started using CTE/Pro-1 and like it thus far but I do think there's a "feel" aspect to the system, or maybe I'm just doing it wrong. For the money just using a consistent preshot routine was worth the cost of the dvd for me. Plus, I "feel" like i'm now consistently lining up to all my shots the same.
Makes sense and uses CTE. It is possible. I'll be damned.
Sounds to me like you're seeing CTE and its real benefits with your eyes open.
pj
chgo
Can you explain your opinion on the feel part a little more so we have an idea of what you mean? you may want to move into the tips thread after also, the guy above hovers in this thread like a vulture waiting to jump on everything in this thread and twist the shit out of everything people post in here.
Last edited:
Then answer this- a person has a lot of trouble making shot X. Using a system, their percentage of making it goes way up. If the answer was "feel", then where was their "feel" before? The system (any system) is not going to add "feel" to the shot.
As far as never missing- just because you now know where to aim, doesn't mean that you are going to stroke straight. There's more to making a ball than just aiming.
I have this problem lol I think 90% of my misses are my strokes fault!
pj,
In the other thread, I wrote that I tried DD using the distance between the contact point on the OB to it's edge and aiming the edge of the CB DD. It is geometrically diagrammable and yields very good results - I'm getting better at aiming with the edge of the CB while practicing CTE/Pro 1 as I use it.
To get consistent results to memorize, I stand squaree to the shot with the cue being stroked under the center of my chin or 1.125" to the side of the secondary aim line - I don't angle/turn my head for this will reduce the distance between the two eyes looking at the shot. My diagrams are based on this 1.125" to the side of the secondary aim line and can be drawn in ACAD.
I don't find using both eyes with one looking at the CTEL and the other on/looking at the secondary aim line usefull to me and those that do will have different cut angles than mine.
I like your DD CP to edge aiming.
Thanks.
For years I shot spot shots near the side rail in the kitchen thinking that I was cutting the OB 30 degrees. Dr. dave and others said that I was actually undercutting the shot for the true 30 degree cut would have the CB on a line close to the corner pocket in the kitchen. They described cut induced throw (CIT) and it's effect - reduces the cut angle.
Since then I started putting my CB on a line to the OB just to the inside of the line going to the corner pocket in the kitchen. In order to pocket the spot shot from there, I had to use high/follow with pocket speed - this is geometrically correct. I can still shoot spot shots from the side rails with stun though.
I revisited the cut angles in my diagram and increased the size of the OB and the angles are about 5 degrees less. I will update the diagram with the cut angles derived at the table using high/follow to minimize CIT and to get close to the new cut angles.
Depending on how one positions his eyes and where he strokes his cue i.e., under the dominant eye or somewhere in between - the resulting cut angles can be different than mine.
Thanks.
Can't think of a particular shot, but there's been some shots when you might think its a pivot to the left but it's really a pivot to the right. It's an undefined variable and I'm subconsciously adjusting for these pivots (at least getting to this point).
Also, I think doing Pro1 pivots are done by "feel".
Another example is banking. You go to any different table and they will bank different. If you lined up the same shot on different tables and hit it the same way, it's not guaranteed to drop. Banking balls has so far been the hardest adjustment for me in adopting Pro1.