CTE discussion !

Patrick Johnson said:
OK, so the possible alignments for each direction are:

CB 3/4 to OB center
CB 1/2 to OB center
CB 1/4 to OB center
CB inside edge to OB center (half ball)
- a 60-degree gap here**, then -
CB inside edge to OB outside edge (thin)

Five alignments for each direction, plus full = 11 total alignments.

**The 60-degree gap is caused by dividing the CB rather than the OB into smaller fractions, which leaves no way to make any alignments between half ball and thin hit. If it was done the other way (dividing the OB into smaller fractions) there would be 8 alignments in each direction, plus full = 17.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Cuts to the right -- aim one of four points on the right side of the center of the CB at either the center of the OB or the left edge of the OB. 4 x 2 = 8.

Cuts to the left -- aim one of four points on the left side of the center of the CB at either the center of the OB or the right edge of the OB. 4 x 2 = 8.

Straight shot -- aim the center of the CB at the center of the OB = 1.

8 + 8 + 1 = 17.

This does not leave a 60-degree gap in the cut angles.
 
Last edited:
In post #29, CJ says the reference points on the CB to use are equally spaced, i.e,, one-quarter of the radius of the ball apart. [He didn't say that specifically on the dvd, and the diagrams on the dvd could give a slightly different impression, but let's assume equal spacing between the CB reference points.]

With a center-CB hit (no spin) and ignoring cut-induced throw, the cut angles CJ's method produces in each direction, are as follows (in degrees):
7.2, 14.5, 22.0, 30.0, 38,7, 48.6, 61.0, and 90​
Plus zero degrees (straight).
 
there will be plenty of time to figure it out after you experience what it really is.

AtLarge said:
In post #29, CJ says the reference points on the CB to use are equally spaced, i.e,, one-quarter of the radius of the ball apart. [He didn't say that specifically on the dvd, and the diagrams on the dvd could give a slightly different impression, but let's assume equal spacing between the CB reference points.]

With a center-CB hit (no spin) and ignoring cut-induced throw, the cut angles CJ's method produces in each direction, are as follows (in degrees):
7.2, 14.5, 22.0, 30.0, 38,7, 48.6, 61.0, and 90​
Plus zero degrees (straight).
Click to expand...

This alignment is done above the ball to the right side of the pocket cutting the the left and the left side of the pocket cutting to the left and then I use the "touch of inside" to cover the Zone of the pocket as I've described in several posts in the Aiming Section "John S. Corey D. thread". Then with the "Touch of Inside" slightly over cut the object ball into the center of the pocket. The sense of connecting the two balls with your eyes to "feel the angle" is vitally important....pocket billiards, at the highest level is played more with feel....than with just vision. That's how the apparent gaps in the angles are filled in. Consciouly this would not be possible because we are limited, but unconsciouly we have the ability to create angles down to the smallest degree. Paradoxically, the more you consciously try to "figure these things out" , the more of a conundrum it creates. This is why it's adviseable to try using a "touch of inside" on ALL SHOTS for a period of 2-3 hours so your unconscious can have a chance to reprogram your current beliefs about pocketing a ball. If you are missing more than 2 balls an hour you can certainly benifit from trying what's being suggested to your unconscious mind. Just Do IT :wink: , there will be plenty of time to figure it out after you experience what it really is.
 
AtLarge said:
In post #29, CJ says the reference points on the CB to use are equally spaced, i.e,, one-quarter of the radius of the ball apart. [He didn't say that specifically on the dvd, and the diagrams on the dvd could give a slightly different impression, but let's assume equal spacing between the CB reference points.]

With a center-CB hit (no spin) and ignoring cut-induced throw, the cut angles CJ's method produces in each direction, are as follows (in degrees):
7.2, 14.5, 22.0, 30.0, 38,7, 48.6, 61.0, and 90​
Plus zero degrees (straight).
Click to expand...

I don't know whether anyone has noticed yet, but CJ's method (if you use equally spaced reference points on the CB -- a quarter of a radius apart) simply amounts to an "eighths" method. I'm sure most of us have been aware of the "quarters" fractional-ball aiming method (similar to SAM), which involves achieving CB/OB overlaps of 3/4, 1/2, and 1/4 (plus straight).

CJ's method simply fills in the gaps on that method a bit by adding the reference points half way between the quarters, i.e., the eighths. So he achieves CB/OB overlaps of 8/8, 7/8, 6/8, 5/8, 4/8, 3/8, 2/8, 1/8, and 0/8. This, of course, includes the "quarters" overlaps of 3/4 (14.5-degree cut), 1/2 (30-degree cut), and 1/4 (48.6-degree cut).

CJ does this by putting the finer reference points on the CB rather than on the OB. The opposite would work the same way, but CJ's way will probably have some advantages for some people.
 
AtLarge said:
CJ's method simply fills in the gaps on [the "quarters"] method a bit by adding the reference points half way between the quarters, i.e., the eighths.
Click to expand...
By contrast, CTE fills in the gaps between the quarters (called "aimpoints" in CTE) by pivoting the cue left or right.

By the way, using the quarters without conscious adjustments is pretty much what Hal Houle described as his "3 angle" system.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
the Object Ball is a different distance virtually every time, I can't control that

CJ does this by putting the finer reference points on the CB rather than on the OB. The opposite would work the same way, but CJ's way will probably have some advantages for some people.[/QUOTE]

The reason I use the Cue Ball instead of the Object Ball for the more specific point is it's easier for me to see them on the Cue Ball because I can CONTROL the distance I am from the Cue Ball.....the Object Ball is a different distance virtually every time, so I have a different "size perception" as well....the farther you are from your target, the smaller that target will appear....I really don't care how far I am from my target because I AIM WITH THE CUE BALL....at just the Center or Edge of the Object ball...this is the why I'm effective on long shots, it really doesn't matter to me about distance.
 
Living Legend said:
im pretty sure he has the cue ball split up in a lot more than i/8's and im not sure if cj realizes it. I believe his advantage doing it off the cue ball Atlarge is he is using the those lines to help in body alignment and he is placing a foot along that line and the cue ball is so much closer to him then the object ball (visually easier)... im just guessing at this and its just thoughts rolling around in my head as usual lol and I have not tried it at a table. ...
Click to expand...

If he used the reference points robotically and identically every time, he could only have 8 cut angles in each direction -- created by eighths of overlap. But those are just references; the shooter can fill in the gaps consciously or subconsciously. Here's CJ's view on how he fills in the gaps (from post #43):
The sense of connecting the two balls with your eyes to "feel the angle" is vitally important....pocket billiards, at the highest level is played more with feel....than with just vision. That's how the apparent gaps in the angles are filled in. Consciouly this would not be possible because we are limited, but unconsciouly we have the ability to create angles down to the smallest degree.​

As to the location of the reference points (OB vs. CB), I think you're in tune with CJ's thinking. CJ calls the points on the OB (center and edges) "relative" points whereas the points on the CB are "specific." The CB is always the same distance from the shooter (for most shots, anyway), while the OB is at different distances. So having the "specific points" on the CB may be easier (than the other way around) for some players to use.
 
this is what he is doing, he has his alignments, 8 off the cb and 3 off the object ball. These alignment are for body alignment only and are not used in the actual visual picking up of the contact point. These alignments get him very very close to correct shot line alignment and he picks up the contact point by feel or whatever. This is what he is doing and this is why he is running so many lines off the cue ball.
 
Last edited:
Living Legend said:
this is what he is doing, he has his alignments, 3 off the cb and 8 or so off the object ball. These alignment are for body alignment only and are not used in the actual picking up of the contact point. These alignments get him very very close to correct alignment and he picks up the contact point by feel or whatever. This is what he is doing.
Click to expand...

In fractional-ball aiming, visually finding the contact point is not an essential step for many people. They just learn to sense the cut angle needed and set up for the particular reference aim or reference ball overlap that will "satisfy" that cut angle. But some people may do what you are saying for the fine tuning.

[p.s. -- looks like you've got cb and ob reversed above]
 
"just aware of the presence of the object ball"

AtLarge said:
In fractional-ball aiming, visually finding the contact point is not an essential step for many people. They just learn to sense the cut angle needed and set up for the particular reference aim or reference ball overlap that will "satisfy" that cut angle. But some people may do what you are saying for the fine tuning.

[p.s. -- looks like you've got cb and ob reversed above]
Click to expand...

That's why I refer to my system as a "Connection System".....I feel like connecting the two balls BEFORE you get down is essential and everyone I've been around on the road does this (in slightly different ways, that's a matter of preference)...once you get down on the shot you can do whatever you want to "aim", I for one, just aim at a specific part of the cue ball and am "just aware of the presence of the object ball" at this point.
 
Living Legend said:
this is what he is doing, he has his alignments, 8 off the cb and 3 off the object ball. These alignment are for body alignment only and are not used in the actual visual picking up of the contact point.These alignments get him very very close to correct shot line alignment and he picks up the contact point by feel or whatever. This is what he is doing and this is why he is running so many lines off the cue ball.

ok hang on again since i have read cj post now lol ok fixed that atlarge :)
Click to expand...

I believe this to be correct, Is it correct cj? :cool:
 
Last edited:
Living Legend said:
I believe this to be correct, Is it correct cj? :cool:
Click to expand...

not really....this is describing the aiming system I have on my Ultimate Pool Secrets, but the alignment system hasn't been released yet, it's in the post production stage and will be out at the end of October.
 
cjssecrets4u2 said:
not really....this is describing the aiming system I have on my Ultimate Pool Secrets, but the alignment system hasn't been released yet, it's in the post production stage and will be out at the end of October.
Click to expand...

Hey CJ, I would really love to see some of your insight in this aiming system - in terms of correctness, further explanations that is maybe missing here that could be usefull, how it could be combined with your 3 part pocket with touch of inside etc. It's kinda CTE and 90/90 combined, something that SpiderWebbComm uses, and very effectively I must say.

http://www.billiardsthegame.com/offset-and-pivot-aiming-systems-395

http://vimeo.com/31802564 -> SpiderWebbComm using this aiming system and running 49 balls, Dave correct me here if I'm wrong with anything.

All the best,
Mirza
 
they still only work if you can consistently hit the ball straight

Mirza said:
Hey CJ, I would really love to see some of your insight in this aiming system - in terms of correctness, further explanations that is maybe missing here that could be usefull, how it could be combined with your 3 part pocket with touch of inside etc. It's kinda CTE and 90/90 combined, something that SpiderWebbComm uses, and very effectively I must say.

http://www.billiardsthegame.com/offset-and-pivot-aiming-systems-395

http://vimeo.com/31802564 -> SpiderWebbComm using this aiming system and running 49 balls, Dave correct me here if I'm wrong with anything.

All the best,
Mirza
Click to expand...

I can make any of these "aiming systems" work and as I told the guy I was working with tonight - and they're still only effective if you can consistently hit the ball straight, which most people have problems with....just try to hit the ball straight down table hitting the center of the ball....how many times can you make it come back and hit your tip? If you're a really good player about 80% of the time, if an average player maybe 20% of the time. So before you try to "master" an aiming system MAKE SURE you have developed a constant stroke, because if you haven't you won't be getting correct feedback that tells you how to calibrate your way of aiming.
The best "aiming system" is to get down on the cue ball as if the object ball has already been made...however you achieve this is fine in my book.:wink:
 
Mirza said:
Hey CJ, I would really love to see some of your insight in this aiming system - in terms of correctness, further explanations that is maybe missing here that could be usefull, how it could be combined with your 3 part pocket with touch of inside etc. It's kinda CTE and 90/90 combined, something that SpiderWebbComm uses, and very effectively I must say.

http://www.billiardsthegame.com/offset-and-pivot-aiming-systems-395

http://vimeo.com/31802564 -> SpiderWebbComm using this aiming system and running 49 balls, Dave correct me here if I'm wrong with anything.

All the best,
Mirza
Click to expand...


Mirza, I learned this system from Spidey a few years ago. The reason most fail to get it dialed in is because they simply don't put the table time in. I also use pro1 on certain shots. You really have to be exact with the pivot using Spideys method but it's by far the strongest information I have ever obtained in my game. After a few years i started pivoting in the air rather than manually . Spidey has some STRONG information but it takes more time to perfect than pro 1
 
peteypooldude said:
Mirza, I learned this system from Spidey a few years ago. The reason most fail to get it dialed in is because they simply don't put the table time in. I also use pro1 on certain shots. You really have to be exact with the pivot using Spideys method but it's by far the strongest information I have ever obtained in my game. After a few years i started pivoting in the air rather than manually . Spidey has some STRONG information but it takes more time to perfect than pro 1
Click to expand...

really? i see that system as very basic and pretty easily learned and a touch above 90/90 on the learning scale. What may make it seem harder to learn is that it is not as detailed and complete as cte/pro1 and if you know all these system you will understand what i mean...my opinion. I also see some misguided info on that cte website floating around here... again my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Living Legend said:
really? i see that system as very basic and pretty easily learned and a touch above 90/90 on the learning scale. What may make it seem harder to learn is that it is not as detailed and complete as cte/pro1 and if you know all these system you will understand what i mean...my opinion. I also see some misguided info on that cte website floating around here... again my opinion.
Click to expand...

Spideys method is very close to 90/90 , though simple as in .....pivot and shoot or less reference points , but easier to master... I think not. The pivot is much larger and if your not perfect with it in the beggining you will miss balls. I have not weeded through the post to question anyone's terminology or information. I don't work like that. I guess pro 1 was easy to understand because I already pivot aimed beforehand . So much so that I stayed with Spideys version
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top