How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

[dr_dave]

I put my bridge where comfortable. I don't deform my bridge.

Some people shift or deform their bridge when they pivot, others don't. Stan seems to clearly suggest that the bridge should remain rigid and not shift or deform during the pivot. Although, how the cue actually pivots within the bridge can depend on bridge type, orientation, and shape, and finger anatomy/geometry.

Its a visual system.

Agreed.

you don't use the same reference for all three shots.

You obviously don't, but some people might, and some people might use a different reference for all three shots. It all depends on how each person personally defines or visually interprets the "thick" and "thin" categories of Stan's CTE procedure. Regardless, Stan's DVD clearly demonstrates how you can sometimes use different references and pivots to arrive at the correct line of aim for a particular shot. In other words, there isn't always one correct answer for all people. Everybody will see things and place their bridge hand (and maybe pivot) differently. However, I agree that with practice, a person can develop their own approach and make the system work for them, as is the case with any "aiming system."

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

and with ghost ball,etc and even dam, whatever it is? i have never read it and please don't post it here because i know you want to now you can actually make every shot on the table with some tweaking and a million balls shot too.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here, but if you change your mind and decide to learn more about the DAM aiming system, here's the link (for future reference):

Dave's Aiming Method (DAM) :grin:​

If you are asking if I ever miss, the answer is: most definitely (quite often, in fact). If you are asking if top players (who don't miss often) use a version of DAM, I think the answer is: most definitely (although, they probably wouldn't call it DAM, unless their name is also Dave). If you read the actual description of DAM, you might actually agree with this statement (at least, in part).

Regards,
Dave

 

[mohrt]

What happens when balls on the table require you to lengthen or shorten your bridge length? What happens when the cueball is near a rail and your bridge length must be reduced?

When near a rail, you would slide your cue into a post-pivot position and place the bridge hand there. This takes some experience with CTE to execute. This is also where Pro1 has an advantage: the manual pivot is removed and replaced with a movement that takes your eyes directly to the shot line.

Is the measurement adjusted when using draw? As you are hitting towards the bottom of the cueball, you are hitting a point that is a greater distance away than if you were to strike the center of the cueball.

The adjustments of spin are applied after CTE is used to find the geometric shot line. You need to make the appropriate adjustments for spin, no different than other aiming systems.

 

[champ2107]

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

 

[cookie man]

S

You obviously don't, but some people might, and some people might use a different reference for all three shots. It all depends on how each person personally defines or visually interprets the "thick" and "thin" categories of Stan's CTE procedure. Regardless, Stan's DVD clearly demonstrates how you can sometimes use different references and pivots to arrive at the correct line of aim for a particular shot. In other words, there isn't always one correct answer for all people. Everybody will see things and place their bridge hand (and maybe pivot) differently. However, I agree that with practice, a person can develop their own approach and make the system work for them, as is the case with any "aiming system."

Regards,
Dave

Please explain how you would use a different reference for each shot, and what that reference would be.

 

[cookie man]

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here, but if you change your mind and decide to learn more about the DAM aiming system, here's the link (for future reference):

Dave's Aiming Method (DAM) :grin:​

If you are asking if I ever miss, the answer is: most definitely (quite often, in fact). If you are asking if top players (who don't miss often) use a version of DAM, I think the answer is: most definitely (although, they probably wouldn't call it DAM, unless their name is also Dave). If you read the actual description of DAM, you might actually agree with this statement (at least, in part).

Regards,
Dave

DAM aiming = Damn Another Miss

 

[cookie man]

What happens when balls on the table require you to lengthen or shorten your bridge length? What happens when the cueball is near a rail and your bridge length must be reduced?

Is the measurement adjusted when using draw? As you are hitting towards the bottom of the cueball, you are hitting a point that is a greater distance away than if you were to strike the center of the cueball.

Than you shorten or lengthen your bridge.

 

[dr_dave]

Please explain how you would use a different reference for each shot, and what that reference would be.

A brief summary can be found here:

Stan's version of CTE​

As an example, for a 15 degree cut to the left, one person might think this is a "very thick cut" and use the "inside 1/4" OB alignment (point A), with an "inside" cue tip position (for a left-to-right pivot). Another person might consider this a "medium thick cut" and use the "center" OB alignment (point B), with an "outside" cue tip position (for a right-to-left pivot). I personally wouldn't use either, because I personally don't like to use CTE.

See Stan's DVD for additional information and examples.

Regards,
Dave

 

[cookie man]

A brief summary can be found here:

Stan's version of CTE​

As an example, for a 15 degree cut to the left, one person might think this is a "very thick cut" and use the "inside 1/4" OB alignment (point A), with an "inside" cue tip position (for a left-to-right pivot). Another person might consider this a "medium thick cut" and use the "center" OB alignment (point B), with an "outside" cue tip position (for a right-to-left pivot). I personally wouldn't use either, because I personally don't like to use CTE.

See Stan's DVD for additional information and examples.

Regards,
Dave

Nice spin move try. Shots don't have 2 reference points, its either a or b not both.

 

[champ2107]

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

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
Ghost ball's harder-to-see alignment defines the exact final aim line for you (if you get it right), whereas CTE's easier-to-see starting alignment defines an alignment that's easier to get right but is only near the final aim line.

mohrt:
Right, and the final aim line is a pivot to center CB away.

Let's keep it real, OK? The final aim line is a "visual" and a "pivot" away, both of which the shooter defines without specific instructions from the system.

Me:
CTE's landmarks aren't all that different in terms of "visibility". Points A and C, between the edges and center of the OB, are "estimated" landmarks too.

mohrt:
I consider a 1/4 ball similar to an "edge" as it is still a very identifiable landmark, as opposed to arbitrarily positioned contact points

There's nothing "arbitrary" about contact points; they're located directly opposite the pocket on the OB. Maybe you're one of those who can't "see" them, but that doesn't make them "arbitrary". You're using loaded terms again.

pj
chgo

 

[AtLarge]

For your 3 shots, a and b use one reference line, c uses another. No other changes are necessary to pocket all 3 balls. Pivots are left to right, bridges the same.

Please explain how you would use a different reference for each shot, and what that reference would be.

cookie man -- I think the combination of secondary-alignment line and direction of pivot can vary from one individual to another for the same shot. These three reference shots, which have been discussed many times on this forum, provide a good example of that.

You said the first and second shots use the same reference line (which I imagine you'd say is "A," right?). Well, on his video, Stan says that the first shot is a "1/8" (inside 1/8 rather than A, because of the closeness of the two balls, I imagine) and the second shot is an "A."

Also on his DVD, Stan says that the third shot as a "B." So he uses three different secondary-alignment lines for the three shots.

So, evidently, you and Stan don't see things the same way.

For Stan, the three shots are inside 1/8-left, A-left, and B-left.

For me (at least today), the shots were A-right, A-left, and B-right.

For you, apparently they are something different.

Edit -- this shows how critical eye position is for this method. The basic prescriptions of 1/8-left, 1/8-right, A (or C)-left, A (or C)-right, B-left, and B-right are not precise enough in themselves to uniquely define one's eye position. It is experience that teaches one where to place his eyes to achieve the needed cut angle. Different people see things differently.

 

[champ2107]

are you talking about a specific shot on the dvd?

 

[AtLarge]

are you talking about a specific shot on the dvd?

If you are asking me, I'm talking about the set of three shots that have been used for years in discussing how CTE works. On the DVD, they are in Chapter 26.

 

[dr_dave]

If you are asking me, I'm talking about the set of three shots that have been used for years in discussing how CTE works. On the DVD, they are in Chapter 26.

FYI, diagrams illustrating the infamous three shots can be found here:

CTE evaluation and analysis resource page​

Regards,
Dave

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

Nice spin move try. Shots don't have 2 reference points, its either a or b not both.

You've just summarized why I prefer to use Dave's Aiming Method (DAM) over more complicated aiming systems like CTE/Pro1.

Aiming systems like CTE/Pro1 have generated dozens of threads and thousands of postings over the years. With everything that's been written about it, many people still don't understand how it works. You guys will be arguing over the nuances of CTE/Pro1 until the end of the world (which might come as soon as December 21, 2012, according to the Mayans ).

DAM may not be the perfect aiming system but it does work extremely well and it is relatively easy to learn and use. IMO, I think we need to open some threads on DAM and get the word out there.

 

[dr_dave]

You've just summarized why I prefer to use Dave's Aiming Method (DAM) over more complicated aiming systems like CTE/Pro1.

Aiming systems like CTE/Pro1 have generated dozens of threads and thousands of postings over the years. With everything that's been written about it, many people still don't understand how it works. You guys will be arguing over the nuances of CTE/Pro1 until the end of the world (which might come as soon as December 21, 2012, according to the Mayans ).

DAM may not be the perfect aiming system but it does work extremely well and it is easy to learn and use. Really, we need to open some threads on DAM and get the word out there.

That's the best DAM post I've read in an "aiming system" thread in a long time. :grin-square:

Good job,
Dave

 

[champ2107]

oh okay that one lol, those shots are all individual shots that have different degrees of cuts and there close in also and all will have there own unique ctel and reference contact point for the cut to the corner. I think cookie is talking about one stationary shot and not three separate unique shots

 

[AtLarge]

... I think cookie is talking about one stationary shot.

Nope, he was discussing Dr. Dave's three reference shots with Dr. Dave.

Edit: Incidentally, here's a long thread from two years ago discussing these three shots. Stan explained how he would shoot them in post #43. However, this was before the DVD and before he used the secondary-alignment lines (and he was using a 1/2-ball Pro-One offset rather than 1/2-tip CTE offset): http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=184873

 

[cookie man]

You've just summarized why I prefer to use Dave's Aiming Method (DAM) over more complicated aiming systems like CTE/Pro1.

Aiming systems like CTE/Pro1 have generated dozens of threads and thousands of postings over the years. With everything that's been written about it, many people still don't understand how it works. You guys will be arguing over the nuances of CTE/Pro1 until the end of the world (which might come as soon as December 21, 2012, according to the Mayans ).

DAM may not be the perfect aiming system but it does work extremely well and it is relatively easy to learn and use. IMO, I think we need to open some threads on DAM and get the word out there.

Thread would only last about 10 posts.

Dam Another Miss