How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

[Patrick Johnson]

Hal never had a 3-angle system. He told me he left the pivot out on purpose. He told Stan the same thing.

Whatever he left in or out, for whatever inscrutable reasons, his own posts to RSB years ago claimed every shot could be made using only the three fractional angles without adjustment of any kind. Then as now, that was the basis for all the controversy about whether or not fractional aiming "works".

Anyway, call it whatever you want.

pj
chgo

 

[champ2107]

Whatever he left in or out, for whatever inscrutable reasons, his own posts to RSB years ago claimed every shot could be made using only the three fractional angles without adjustment of any kind. Then as now, that was the basis for all the controversy about whether or not fractional aiming "works".

Anyway, call it whatever you want.

pj
chgo

the above bold is not possible

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave, you quote AtLarge's post as if I approve of the way he interpreted my comments at that time. Atlarge and I have discussed this 2 or 3 times. My use of experience was related to learning my system and not feel.

I don't claim you "approve" of anything. I was quoted what mohrt posted from AtLarge, which includes quotes from you. If you don't like their posts, or if you disagree with their interpretations, you should follow up with them, not me. I just shared my opinion that he quotes sounded reasonable. it sounds like you might disagree, which is fine.

So, do not take that post and purposefully try to misrepresent what I teach just because it sounds good to you.

Stan, why do you think I am trying to "purposefully misrepresent" what you teach? I'm just trying to help everybody have a better understanding on what CTE (including your version) is and how and why it works when it is used effectively. People don't necessarily need to know this stuff to use the systems well, but it might help some people who "don't get it."

Regards,
Dave

 

[stan shuffett]

Pj, diagram a shot with what is called Hal's 3 angle system that won't go. I will give you some feedback.

Also, Pj, Hal did use adjustments in that system of 1/8.

""every" is not a good word choice as you used it. Of course, Hal knew that some cb ob locations had zero pocket option no matter what.

It does matter what was left out of the 3 angle system because it is incomplete as described.

Stan

Anyway, please

 

[LAMas]

JB,

Putting thoughts accurately into words can be a monumental task. You make it look easy This is extremely well put, I encourage others to read it carefully.

I concur,
JB's rcommendation that one can reverse engineer many aiming systems is worthwhile and fortifies one's convictions.:smile:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pj, diagram a shot with what is called Hal's 3 angle system that won't go. I will give you some feedback.

Thanks for the offer, Stan, but that isn't necessary for me.

Also, Pj, Hal did use adjustments in that system of 1/8.

""every" is not a good word choice as you used it. Of course, Hal knew that some cb ob locations had zero pocket option no matter what.

Hal wasn't the best written-word communicator - most of us knew not to take him too literally back in the days when he posted in online forums.

It does matter what was left out of the 3 angle system because it is incomplete as described.

Thanks again for the offer, but I don't think it's necessary to perform an autopsy on this old system. It has mostly been replaced by updated versions like yours, and I mention it only as an example of the "simpler" end of the fractional systems spectrum.

Stan

Anyway, please

I appreciate your politeness, Stan.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

Scott,

Thank you for your well-thought-out answers to these important questions. I look forward to what other people think (especially CTE proponents, instructors, and users).

Here's a follow-up question for you and the others.

3.) If the same alignment and pivot is used to pocket shots requiring cut angles of 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 degrees (or even a bigger range), and the CB-OB relationship is identical for each of the shots, and the pocket is far away and tight, what is done differently in the procedure to create the different cut angles required? Obviously, across the length of the table, a 20 degree cut gives a very different result than a 24 degree cut. Over 9 feet, a 4 degree differences represents an error of more than 7 inches!

You're welcome. And no name calling was even used, imagine that...

That is a novel concept in this thread, isn't it? :frown:

I'm not sure what you mean by the CB-OB relationship being the same. If the cut angles are different, then the balls are in a different relative position, either laterally or distance-wise, in order to be able to account for the different cut angles. It is that difference that will result in a different visualization of the CTE line and the secondary aim lines, which results in a different initial position, which in turn results in a different post-pivot position and aim point, therefore allowing the ability to make all of those shots.

The CB-OB relationship has nothing to do with where the pocket is, and therefore has nothing to do with the cut angle required for the shots. For all shots between A and C below, where both balls are shifted laterally from one shot to the next, the CB-OB relationship is identical. They are the same distance apart. The CTE line shifts laterally, but the CTE lines for all of the shots are parallel. For example, if you used a half-ball hit (with the aiming line directly along the CTE) for all of the shots, the cut angle would be the exact same (30 degrees) for all of the shots, but the OB would go in a different place for each of the shots due to the lateral shift.

So the question still remains:

3.) If the same alignment and pivot is used to pocket shots requiring cut angles of 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 degrees (or even a bigger range), and the CB-OB relationship is identical for each of the shots, and the pocket is far away and tight, what is done differently in the procedure to create the different cut angles required? Obviously, across the length of the table, a 20 degree cut gives a very different result than a 24 degree cut. Over 9 feet, a 4 degree differences represents an error of more than 7 inches!​

The system does NOT rely on the forgiveness of the pockets to make shots that are in between the defined aim lines, if it did and there were indeed only 6 or 12 positions then obviously a lot of shots could not be made, even with the inherent slop available in most shots.

I agree completely, unless a person "adjusts" or "compensates" when actually applying the system at the table (whether they know it or not).

It is the visual relationship between the CB and OB that forces a different eventual aim line.

Again, for a given CB-OB relationship and for a selected alignment and pivot, only one cut angle can result from the procedure, unless the person is using "experience-based intuition" to help guide the actual aiming of the shot (whether they know it or not).

As I posted a little while ago, I follow the same prescribed steps for all shots. Other than knowing which alignment/pivot is appropriate for the shot I'm shooting (which with very little practice it's obvious when you are right and wrong), there is no interpolation going on between defined cut angles or anything like that, I just find the CTE line and secondary aim lines, move into the shot along that path, perform the pivot and I find myself on the correct aim line for the shot. Still don't know how that works, but it does...
Scott

The way it works probably varies from one person to the next, but success does require "visual intelligence," "experience-based intuition," and/or "judgement." Some people call this "feel." A more scientific explanation for how and why CTE works when it is used effectively can be found on my CTE evaluation and analysis page. Again, people don't need to know this stuff, but it might help the people that still don't "get" or "buy into" the CTE approach.

Thanks again,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Hal never had a 3-angle system.

Really? Here's a direct quote from Hal:

There are only 3 angles for any shot, on any size table. This includes; caroms, single rail banks, double rail banks, 1, 2, 3, and 4 rail banks, and double kiss banks. Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4 x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is wide. The table corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45 degrees. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 30 degrees. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the first diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 15 degrees. When you add up these 3 angles, they total 90 degrees, which is the same angle formed by the table corners. The cue ball relation to object ball relation shot angle is always 15, 30, or 45 degrees. The solution is very simple. There are only 2 edges on the cue ball to aim with, and they are always exactly in the same place on the cue ball. There are only 3 exact spots on the object ball to aim to, and they are always exactly in the same place on the object ball. So, 2 edges on the cue ball, and 3 spots on the object ball; 2 x 3 = 6 which is the total number of table pockets. This means that, depending upon how the cue ball and object ball lie in relation to one another, you may either pocket the object ball directly into a pocket or bank it into any one of the remaining 5 pockets. Of course, the reverse is true. If the relationship of cue ball to object ball can only be a bank, so be it. There is never a need to look at a pocket or cushion while lining up the edge on the cue ball to the spot on the object ball. You have only those 3 angles Your only requirement is to recognize whether your shot is a 15, 30, or 45 degree angle. Recognizing those 3 angles can be accomplished in an instant by aiming the edge of the cue ball to one of the spots on the object ball. It will be obvious which object ball spot is correct. There will be no doubt. Any time either one of the 2 edges on the cue ball is aimed at any one of the 3 spots on the object ball, that object ball must go to a pocket. Choose the correct spot and the object ball will most certainly go to the chosen pocket. The top professional players in the game have always known about this professional aiming system, but they are a closed fraternity, and you are the enemy. Interested in where those spots are located?

The 2 places on the cue ball are the left edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball to the left; and the right edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball to the right. The 3 spots on the object ball are the quarters, and the center. The quarters and center of the object ball face straight at the edges of your cue ball, not facing toward the pocket. In other words, if you were on a work-bench at home, there would be no pocket, so you would just line up the edge of the cue ball straight to your target on the object ball. When you cut to the left for 15 degrees, aim the left cue ball edge at the object ball left quarter. When you cut to the left for 30 degrees, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball center. When you cut to the left for 45 degrees, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for 15 degrees, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for 30 degrees, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object center. When you cut to the right for 45 degrees, you aim the right cue ball edge to the object ball left quarter. If you'll just get down and aim your old way, you'll be close to where you should be aiming. Look to see (without changing your head or eye position) just where the cue ball edge is aiming at the object ball. You'll see that on every shot that the cue ball edge is always aiming at the same targets on the object ball. Remember, this system is for any shot on the table; banks, caroms, combinations, and so forth. The only shot remaining is the extreme cut for any shot over 45 degrees. Aim the cue ball edge to the eighth of the object ball (which is half of the quarter). Don't let the pocket influence you. Have a friend hold the ball tray between the object ball and the pocket, so you cannot see the pocket, and you'll see that those 3 angles will handle just about anything. Of course, you would have chosen the 15, 30, or 45 degree angle before your friend put the ball tray in place. It also makes it much more interesting if you don't tell your friend how you are pocketing the ball without seeing the pocket. Have some fun. For any questions, call me. Regards, POOL HAL.​

He told me he left the pivot out on purpose. He told Stan the same thing.

Then you and Stan know a different version of Hal's 3-angle system. Maybe it can be called:

"Hal's version of the 3-angle system, with a pivot, that only Spidey and Stan know about"​

The rest of us are stuck with the original version that Hal shared with the rest of the world. :frown:

Regards,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Really? Here's a direct quote from Hal:

There are only 3 angles for any shot, on any size table. This includes; caroms, single rail banks, double rail banks, 1, 2, 3, and 4 rail banks, and double kiss banks. Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4 x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is wide. The table corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45 degrees. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 30 degrees. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the first diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 15 degrees. When you add up these 3 angles, they total 90 degrees, which is the same angle formed by the table corners. The cue ball relation to object ball relation shot angle is always 15, 30, or 45 degrees. The solution is very simple. There are only 2 edges on the cue ball to aim with, and they are always exactly in the same place on the cue ball. There are only 3 exact spots on the object ball to aim to, and they are always exactly in the same place on the object ball. So, 2 edges on the cue ball, and 3 spots on the object ball; 2 x 3 = 6 which is the total number of table pockets. This means that, depending upon how the cue ball and object ball lie in relation to one another, you may either pocket the object ball directly into a pocket or bank it into any one of the remaining 5 pockets. Of course, the reverse is true. If the relationship of cue ball to object ball can only be a bank, so be it. There is never a need to look at a pocket or cushion while lining up the edge on the cue ball to the spot on the object ball. You have only those 3 angles Your only requirement is to recognize whether your shot is a 15, 30, or 45 degree angle. Recognizing those 3 angles can be accomplished in an instant by aiming the edge of the cue ball to one of the spots on the object ball. It will be obvious which object ball spot is correct. There will be no doubt. Any time either one of the 2 edges on the cue ball is aimed at any one of the 3 spots on the object ball, that object ball must go to a pocket. Choose the correct spot and the object ball will most certainly go to the chosen pocket. The top professional players in the game have always known about this professional aiming system, but they are a closed fraternity, and you are the enemy. Interested in where those spots are located?

The 2 places on the cue ball are the left edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball to the left; and the right edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball to the right. The 3 spots on the object ball are the quarters, and the center. The quarters and center of the object ball face straight at the edges of your cue ball, not facing toward the pocket. In other words, if you were on a work-bench at home, there would be no pocket, so you would just line up the edge of the cue ball straight to your target on the object ball. When you cut to the left for 15 degrees, aim the left cue ball edge at the object ball left quarter. When you cut to the left for 30 degrees, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball center. When you cut to the left for 45 degrees, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for 15 degrees, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for 30 degrees, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object center. When you cut to the right for 45 degrees, you aim the right cue ball edge to the object ball left quarter. If you'll just get down and aim your old way, you'll be close to where you should be aiming. Look to see (without changing your head or eye position) just where the cue ball edge is aiming at the object ball. You'll see that on every shot that the cue ball edge is always aiming at the same targets on the object ball. Remember, this system is for any shot on the table; banks, caroms, combinations, and so forth. The only shot remaining is the extreme cut for any shot over 45 degrees. Aim the cue ball edge to the eighth of the object ball (which is half of the quarter). Don't let the pocket influence you. Have a friend hold the ball tray between the object ball and the pocket, so you cannot see the pocket, and you'll see that those 3 angles will handle just about anything. Of course, you would have chosen the 15, 30, or 45 degree angle before your friend put the ball tray in place. It also makes it much more interesting if you don't tell your friend how you are pocketing the ball without seeing the pocket. Have some fun. For any questions, call me. Regards, POOL HAL.​

Then you and Stan know a different version of Hal's 3-angle system. Maybe it can be called:

"Hal's version of the 3-angle system, with a pivot, that only Spidey and Stan know about"​

The rest of us are stuck with the original version that Hal shared with the rest of the world. :frown:

Regards,
Dave

He told me he left it out because he couldn't hack the rsb-holes. Did you ever post there? If you really think Hal thought 3 angles made everything, you should tear up your PhD.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

 

[dr_dave]

Then you and Stan know a different version of Hal's 3-angle system. Maybe it can be called:

"Hal's version of the 3-angle system, with a pivot, that only Spidey and Stan know about"​

The rest of us are stuck with the original version that Hal shared with the rest of the world. :frown:

It sounds like you might be referring to Version 1 of CTE, but I don't know for sure. This definitely a 3-angle system with a pivot.

Regards,
Dave

 

[champ2107]

It sounds like you might be referring to Version 1 of CTE, but I don't know for sure. This definitely a 3-angle system with a pivot.

Regards,
Dave

i have used that version and you need to use the most amount of adjustments than all other cte systems and i believe JB uses a system similar, that he has tweaked himself.

 

[stan shuffett]

Dr. Dave, Cte Pro One does not vary in how it works from person to person. You are trying to advance that concept and that idea is incorrect.
Your 3 shots were unlocked with 3 objective visuals that include an ob aimpoint and a cte sight line.
With a prescribed bridge distance and a 1/2 tip left pivot, all shots can be cleanly pocketed.
The process is consistent and objective from person to person.
Keep in mind that cte pro one is a visual system.
Many players, especially the novice can have difficulty in
physically using their cue in a correct manner during the process. That does not diminish the system. It only means that one's body or physical movements must further develop in order to follow precisely what the eye's have seen.
Ultimately, one's eyes can see quite masterfully in cte pro one but the physical aspect of following the eyes and becoming fluid-like with a cue takes significant work as we all know.

Stan

 

[dr_dave]

If you really think Hal thought 3 angles made everything, you should tear up your PhD.

I have seen demonstrations of people using Hal's original 3-angle system and Version 1 of CTE to pocket a wide range of shots, so I think I'll keep my diploma intact. Hell, I've even seen somebody once claim and demonstrate that every cut shot is a 1/2-ball hit! Amazingly, every ball went in the hole!

There is no question that any particular system can be made to work at the table. The real questions are: what does the shooter actually do to make it work, and how and why does it actually work? Unfortunately, that can't be explained with a demonstration or video of somebody making a bunch of shots.

Regards,
Dave

 

[LAMas]

Very interesting. Anyone that has the awareness to know this phenomenon is worth listening to!!

Here is a study of the relative size of the OB at various distances from the CB.
The .jpg/s don't show the details well at this low resolution, but you might get the gist of it.


This a study of using the edge of the CB to aim at fractions on the OB to effect cut angles greater than 30 degrees. I wanted to find something other than double distance aiming for those shots where the point of aim would be off to the side of the OB onthe cloth.

There is no pivot in this study.

Here is a practical application of using the relative size of the OB getting smaller (red circle inside of the normal size OB) as the distance from the CB increases. In this example, the initial alignment is on the CTE line with the left edge of the CB looking at the "C" segment of the OB. The bridge is in the same location behind the CB. The eyes move slightly to the left, as they must, to keep the edge of the CB on the smaller and smaller appearing OB "C" segment at increasing distances.

As the head/eye/s move to the left, the body/stance must also adjust to the new visual perception of the edge of the CB to "C". From that stance, one would then stroke and shoot.




Just saying.:thumbup:

 

[sfleinen]

Then you and Stan know a different version of Hal's 3-angle system. Maybe it can be called:

"Hal's version of the 3-angle system, with a pivot, that only Spidey and Stan know about"​

The rest of us are stuck with the original version that Hal shared with the rest of the world. :frown:

Regards,
Dave

It sounds like you might be referring to Version 1 of CTE, but I don't know for sure. This definitely a 3-angle system with a pivot.

Regards,
Dave

Dave S.:

It looks like you pulled the ultimate shark move -- getting Dr. Dave to quote, talk to, and correct himself. Did you connect one side of the FIFO to the other, to create an endless loop?

-Sean

 

[dr_dave]

Dave S.:

It looks like you pulled the ultimate shark move -- getting Dr. Dave to quote, talk to, and correct himself. Did you connect one side of the FIFO to the other, to create an endless loop?

-Sean

I think I know what you are implying here, but I doubt many other people know or care. :thumbup:

Regards,
Dave

 

[sfleinen]

I think I know what you are implying here, but I doubt many other people know or care. :thumbup:

Regards,
Dave

I imagine you have a link to some "resource pages" on your site for that.

 

[dr_dave]

I imagine you have a link to some "resource pages" on your site for that.

Sorry, but "that" is not a valid topical area on my pool resource page.

Maybe next time,
Dave :grin-square:

PS: Have a good weekend. I plan to take a break from AZB for at least a day ... unless I start getting the shakes.

 

[Banks]

Is this how it works?

Some (mostly undercooked) food for thought about aiming system benefits for everybody.

I think I know what you are implying here, but I doubt many other people know or care. :thumbup:

I believe this is what is known as “déjà vu” (literally "already seen") Deja vu is the experience of feeling sure that one has already witnessed or experienced a current situation, even though the exact circumstances of the prior encounter are uncertain and were perhaps imagined. The experience of déjà vu is usually accompanied by a compelling sense of familiarity, and also a sense of "eeriness", "strangeness", "weirdness", or what Sigmund Freud calls "the uncanny".

Thread has outlived it's useful life, too bad, will have to wait for another one - again...

Now there's a shock.

When you create the new thread, please post a link here so people who are interested can find it easily.

It's like a bad Bill Murray all over again(or did I just repeat myself?).

It looks like you pulled the ultimate shark move ... Did you connect one side of the thread to the other, to create an endless loop?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dr. Dave is no more FIFO than he is LIFO or even LILO. Either way, he's LOSTO.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk