PRO ONE for Dummies, using *GASP* a diagram.

[Colin Colenso]

I really feel I have to post this. I have never heard any "bad comments" on that bul....it called "shaft aiming" !!!!!! Why ???? Only bad comments on cte !!!! Even SVB claims that he aims with his CUE SHAFT !!! Where is the "math" behind this ??? Aiming 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 of the shaft to the outer ob edge !!!! Really ??? Who can do that ??? What kind of vision is required to aim 3/4 of your shaft to an ob edge ??? Guys who claim that they aim this way, are TOTALLY UNAWARE of their BODY ROTATIONS !!! They don't realise what they are doing !!!!!!!

What is easier ??? To aim 2/3 of your shaft to the ob edge or perceive a HALF BALL OFFSET between cb and ob ???????

There have been arguments over shaft aiming, ghost ball, fractional and other types of aiming methods. The geometric logic of those systems is not up for dispute as I understand. Almost all who use such systems will admit that they are performed intuitively, with feel.

3 exceptions come to mind. The full ball, half ball and fine cut, where some aim CTC, CTE and ETE.

Most snooker players and traditional aimers attempt to come straight down the aim line. It's hard to conclude that they are rotating imho. Not saying some aspects of rotating can't be adapted successfully.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin,
Is the red line on the right (CTE) visualized with the right eye?
Is the red line on the left (~A) visualized with the left eye?

As the OB is moved farther downtable and appears to become smaller, does that change the perception and move that line and perhaps one's stance farther to the left to remain on the new ~A?

Happy New Year all.

How they are visualized is still a mystery to me.

It seems reasonable that perception changes, making a thinner connection as the OB gets further away. Though at some point as it approaches the rail, the cut turns into a bank. This is confusing... as is when it goes from ETA to ETB and then ETC. My understanding is that both can be used when the angle is in the grey zone, which suggests that the ET lines are less critical than the CTE line. But, just guessing.

While distance perception offers a possible path to explaining changing pot angles with the same perception, it can't provide an explanation for horizontal shifts, where the CB and OB are the same distance apart and from the pocket but with angles like 10 degrees, 15 degrees and 20 degrees.

JB performs those 3 shots in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8G7-xpyKlk

It's a total mystery to me how perception changes on these shots. That's why I assume that the visual somehow takes into account the table. But how? I don't know. Perhaps JB and others can describe their perception in these cases.

 

[LAMas]

Colin,
Your comments are in blue.

My eyes are about 2.25” apart or the diameter of a pool ball. So if I stroke between my eyes (1.125” between) with the cue under my chin, I can see the CTE line with my right eye and the left edge of the CB with my left eye. This, to me is correct if the CB and OB are touching each other center to center.

As the OB is farther away from the CB, I must shift my stance to the left to keep the left edge of the CB aligned with the left edge of the OB for it appears to be smaller. If the table was infinite in length, the OB being down table would appear to be a dot.

How they are visualized is still a mystery to me.

It seems reasonable that perception changes, making a thinner connection as the OB gets further away.

OK

Though at some point as it approaches the rail, the cut turns into a bank.

By a bank, do you mean that you miss the edge of the OB and hit the rail and not the OB?

This is confusing... as is when it goes from ETA to ETB and then ETC. My understanding is that both can be used when the angle is in the grey zone, which suggests that the ET lines are less critical than the CTE line. But, just guessing.

I believe that both are critical and as the ET (left eye) moves to capture A to B to C horizontally (left to right), the head, body and thus the stance moves horizontally to the left. If this is the case for the shooter, then the right eye moves off of the original CTE line as the stance moves to the left. This effects a thinner cut angle than CTE (right eye) as the left eye captures A and thinner as it captures B and thinner as it captures C.

While distance perception offers a possible path to explaining changing pot angles with the same perception, it can't provide an explanation for horizontal shifts, where the CB and OB are the same distance apart and from the pocket but with angles like 10 degrees, 15 degrees and 20 degrees.

To me, starting at CTE, a 15 degree cut to the left would put the center of the CB aim off of the CTE line and aimed at "~C". while the left edge of the CB as viewed with my left eye on the “A” location on the OB. The 10 degree cut angle would be a bit short of A and the 20 degree cut angle would be a bit greater but not yet on C.

For cut angles greater than ~30 degrees (CTE), the aim moves off of the edge of the OB to the right and off of the OB on to the cloth...this is my problem with GB aiming, for I no longer have a distinct spot to aim at on the OB. Using the left eye on the left edge of the CB, keeps the "secondary aim line" on the OB from left edge to A, to B, to C, and even the right edge for the 90 degree cut angle.

JB performs those 3 shots in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8G7-xpyKlk

It's a total mystery to me how perception changes on these shots. That's why I assume that the visual somehow takes into account the table. But how? I don't know. Perhaps JB and others can describe their perception in these cases.

Over the years now, I use fractional distances between the edge, A, B, C and other edge, others have recommended that I tilt my head a bit to change my stance while keeping my left eye on say “A”.

This is your thread and I am not trolling it.

 

[JB Cases]

How they are visualized is still a mystery to me.

It seems reasonable that perception changes, making a thinner connection as the OB gets further away. Though at some point as it approaches the rail, the cut turns into a bank. This is confusing... as is when it goes from ETA to ETB and then ETC. My understanding is that both can be used when the angle is in the grey zone, which suggests that the ET lines are less critical than the CTE line. But, just guessing.

While distance perception offers a possible path to explaining changing pot angles with the same perception, it can't provide an explanation for horizontal shifts, where the CB and OB are the same distance apart and from the pocket but with angles like 10 degrees, 15 degrees and 20 degrees.

JB performs those 3 shots in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8G7-xpyKlk

It's a total mystery to me how perception changes on these shots. That's why I assume that the visual somehow takes into account the table. But how? I don't know. Perhaps JB and others can describe their perception in these cases.

The explanations you seek are in the video. I also was having trouble with long shots and one piece of information cleared it up.

Think of it like walking around a building. If you have a corner of the building to use a reference then that corner never changes position no matter what angle you are at relative to the building.

So if I tell you to line up so that you are looking directly at the corner then you can do that easily as long as you can physically see it. You can go farther away or closer and still orient yourself to that corner. The size of the building changes to get smaller as you get farther away but the corner never moves. So as long as you can align your self to the corner you have a fixed perception of an object's precise location regardless of how you move around it.

Now I say to you find the center of the building. Well, no matter where you are standing you are no more than a small body shift away from staring at the direct center of the building.

But if I had placed you at different angles and asked you to turn around and orient to the center of the building first then it's likely you would be off by a few degrees more or less depending on your relative position to the building.

If you knew to orient first to the corner to get your bearings and then find center I would bet high that your precision would be way higher.

The fact of it is that at the back of the cue ball the difference between the CTE line and the shot line is NEVER more than 1.2mm at the greatest and is almost always far less.

I I <---------- Less than this coming out the back of the cue ball. So IF you are using the CTE line to be the initial alignment - standing up - then the movement to the true shot line is so slight that it's not noticeable.

See this video to see what I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nETW...st=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9&index=4

 

[pablocruz]

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=225328

 

[pablocruz]

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=217512

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin,
Your comments are in blue.

My eyes are about 2.25” apart or the diameter of a pool ball. So if I stroke between my eyes (1.125” between) with the cue under my chin, I can see the CTE line with my right eye and the left edge of the CB with my left eye. This, to me is correct if the CB and OB are touching each other center to center.

As the OB is farther away from the CB, I must shift my stance to the left to keep the left edge of the CB aligned with the left edge of the OB for it appears to be smaller. If the table was infinite in length, the OB being down table would appear to be a dot.

How they are visualized is still a mystery to me.

It seems reasonable that perception changes, making a thinner connection as the OB gets further away.

OK

Though at some point as it approaches the rail, the cut turns into a bank.

By a bank, do you mean that you miss the edge of the OB and hit the rail and not the OB?

This is confusing... as is when it goes from ETA to ETB and then ETC. My understanding is that both can be used when the angle is in the grey zone, which suggests that the ET lines are less critical than the CTE line. But, just guessing.

I believe that both are critical and as the ET (left eye) moves to capture A to B to C horizontally (left to right), the head, body and thus the stance moves horizontally to the left. If this is the case for the shooter, then the right eye moves off of the original CTE line as the stance moves to the left. This effects a thinner cut angle than CTE (right eye) as the left eye captures A and thinner as it captures B and thinner as it captures C.

While distance perception offers a possible path to explaining changing pot angles with the same perception, it can't provide an explanation for horizontal shifts, where the CB and OB are the same distance apart and from the pocket but with angles like 10 degrees, 15 degrees and 20 degrees.

To me, a 15 degree cut to the left would put the left edge of the CB as viewed with my left eye on the “A” location on the OB. My right eye moves off of the CTE line to the right and off of the OB…this is a problem I have with GB aiming for I no longer have a distinct spot to aim at on the OB. Using the left eye keeps it on the OB from left edge to A, to B, to C, and even the right edge for the 90degree cut angle. The 10 degree cut angle would be a bit short of A and the 20 degree cut angle would be a bit greater but not yet on C.

JB performs those 3 shots in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8G7-xpyKlk

It's a total mystery to me how perception changes on these shots. That's why I assume that the visual somehow takes into account the table. But how? I don't know. Perhaps JB and others can describe their perception in these cases.

Over the years now, I use fractional distances between the edge, A, B, C and other edge, others have recommended that I tilt my head a bit to change my stance while keeping my left eye on say “A”.

This is your thread and I am not trolling it.

I was actually thinking about this today LAMas. Interesting observation that the eyes are close to 2.25" apart.

Regarding the bank, my understanding is that say we take one of JB's shots and keep moving the CB vertically down the table, same distance off the side rail, that the same visual will at some point become the bank shot.

Another point related to what JoeyA said, is that it's not just the vanishing point, smaller perception of an OB further away that may change the relationship of ETAL and CTEL. Even with 2D geometry, the relationship of these lines changes with distance. Just imagine those line with CB and OB an inch apart and that becomes obvious. The rate of change is more rapid when balls are close, less so at a distance, which is consistent with how the pot angle varies with distance.

Thanks for your input. This is exactly the kind of discussion I'd hoped to develop. I was trying to be tongue in cheek and light hearted in my original post, but I struck a clumsy chord.

 

[Colin Colenso]

The explanations you seek are in the video. I also was having trouble with long shots and one piece of information cleared it up.

Think of it like walking around a building. If you have a corner of the building to use a reference then that corner never changes position no matter what angle you are at relative to the building.

So if I tell you to line up so that you are looking directly at the corner then you can do that easily as long as you can physically see it. You can go farther away or closer and still orient yourself to that corner. The size of the building changes to get smaller as you get farther away but the corner never moves. So as long as you can align your self to the corner you have a fixed perception of an object's precise location regardless of how you move around it.

Now I say to you find the center of the building. Well, no matter where you are standing you are no more than a small body shift away from staring at the direct center of the building.

But if I had placed you at different angles and asked you to turn around and orient to the center of the building first then it's likely you would be off by a few degrees more or less depending on your relative position to the building.

If you knew to orient first to the corner to get your bearings and then find center I would bet high that your precision would be way higher.

The fact of it is that at the back of the cue ball the difference between the CTE line and the shot line is NEVER more than 1.2mm at the greatest and is almost always far less.

I I <---------- Less than this coming out the back of the cue ball. So IF you are using the CTE line to be the initial alignment - standing up - then the movement to the true shot line is so slight that it's not noticeable.

See this video to see what I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nETW...st=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9&index=4

That's interesting JB.

I watched it quite a while ago, but it didn't completely click. Needs some deeper thought and more re-watching.

Kudos for all the time and effort you put into that.

 

[Colin Colenso]

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=217512

Thanks Pablo, some descriptions in that thread that are informative.

edit: Both thread links are informative... about half way through both epic sagas.

Things haven't changed much over the years I can say.

 

[Colin Colenso]

P.S. I asked Hal HOW it works....

His response was, "It's too complicated to explain. It's a 3D proof."
My response was, "Try me.. I'm OK with geometry."
His response was, "Did the ball go in the hole?"
Me, "Yeah, Hal."
Him: "THEN STOP ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS!!!"

I considered all you wrote Dave, but especially like the last conversation.

It's very true that if it works, then you don't need to know how to explain the geometry. That said, I know yourself and other proponents wish that the geometry could be solved. It's not critical, but would make discussions easier no doubt.

Cheers,
Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

Well Colin, you have a high math background, so it seems you should also be somewhat scientific. However, it seems like your scientific method is akin to todays pseudo-science practitioners. I say that, because you sure seem to have things backwards.

In real science, one observes, and then tries to learn the how and why's. In pseudo-science, one says "I can't find the how's and why's, so it doesn't exist". You call CTE a religion. How apt! People say the same things about God that you say about CTE- that is, "I can't figure out how it is supposed to work mathematically, so it must not be real". You, and they, say this despite the evidence right under their noses! You choose to ignore the evidence because you don't understand the "how". Instead of saying "Here's the evidence, there has to be some way of finding the math behind it."

Quite frankly, I only have a high school level of math. Yet, even with only that, I know enough to know that the math behind CTE will require a full study in several fields. The first thing you have to do, is figure out how to apply the math to our vision perception. I suspect, once one is able to do that (and not sure that even can be done at this time), then, the rest of it shouldn't be to hard to figure out mathematically.

Hi Neil,
The thread was begun as an attempt to discuss a different type of scientific analysis of CTE.

I've long proposed that there are advantages to CTE type systems, and also have humbly admitted that I struggle to understand it completely. I hope to present myself as a curious student, not the expert, but it's hard to maintain that stance when accused of total ignorance and having duplicitous goals.

I've tried CTE type systems for more hours than many who are 100% converts. Part of that experience has shown me some benefits and also left some doubts.

I'm sure most proponents, as well as myself would be pleased if the geometry / math could be established with more certainty.

Cheers,
Colin

 

[mohrt]

You act like CTE users are all out to get you (or anyone) genuinely interested in the underpinnings of CTE. IMHO it is the the exact opposite... the discussions are encouraged and welcomed. The problem is when purposely provocative/sarcastic vocabulary is used. Every person sees, interprets and responds differently. The very topic of this post contains a spoonful of sarcasm which sets the wrong tone from the get-go if you are trying to be serious. When you throw around terms like magical, snake-oil, etc., you are only setting yourself up for negative retort. And I digress, there are also plenty of CTE users that cannot control themselves and do nothing more than fire back with more of the same defamatory statements. None of it helps matters any.

New years resolution: lets try to be the bigger person and reply with positivity, or none at all!

 

[LAMas]

You act like CTE users are all out to get you (or anyone) genuinely interested in the underpinnings of CTE. IMHO it is the the exact opposite... the discussions are encouraged and welcomed. The problem is when purposely provocative/sarcastic vocabulary is used. Every person sees, interprets and responds differently. The very topic of this post contains a spoonful of sarcasm which sets the wrong tone from the get-go if you are trying to be serious. When you throw around terms like magical, snake-oil, etc., you are only setting yourself up for negative retort. And I digress, there are also plenty of CTE users that cannot control themselves and do nothing more than fire back with more of the same defamatory statements. None of it helps matters any.

New years resolution: lets try to be the bigger person and reply with positivity, or none at all!

Tap, tap, tap...no more sarcasm.

 

[rhatten]

New years resolution: lets try to be the bigger person and reply with positivity, or none at all!

Ditto... on the tap tap.. This was my point. Many more will be able to benefit (pay attention) and contribute positively to the community. Stan (as well as many other) may not feel so bad about all of the labor/knowledge he has donated to this community.

Moving this "New Years Resolution" to the Top of the list.

 

[LAMas]

Colin's thread/this will increase the interest in CTE and perhaps the sales of Stan's DVDs...so I wonder if the negative posts have a positive purpose...save individual egos?

 

[JB Cases]

We have two tests of skill on AZB where the top ranked participants are CTE users, Colin's potting test and Dr. Dave's Billiard University.

I would go out on a limb and say that no matter what the drill or test is that dedicated CTE users will be at the top.

What I would like to see but have never yet seen is an opponent like Lou Figueroa for example, take any of these tests and show where he stands.

 

[8pack]

We have two tests of skill on AZB where the top ranked participants are CTE users, Colin's potting test and Dr. Dave's Billiard University.

I would go out on a limb and say that no matter what the drill or test is that dedicated CTE users will be at the top.

What I would like to see but have never yet seen is an opponent like Lou Figueroa for example, take any of these tests and show where he stands.

I done pretty good on colins test..:wink::wink: No misses was it.
I would go out on a limb to say if all the player's here had a table you wouldn't be barking so much.

Better get to dedicating yourself.

 

[mohrt]

We have two tests of skill on AZB where the top ranked participants are CTE users, Colin's potting test and Dr. Dave's Billiard University.

I would go out on a limb and say that no matter what the drill or test is that dedicated CTE users will be at the top.

What I would like to see but have never yet seen is an opponent like Lou Figueroa for example, take any of these tests and show where he stands.

I have my doubts that ranking CTE users against non-CTE users would be of much use. The metrics would always be inconclusive. You have ghost-ballers that have played all their lives and play at very high levels, and you have CTE proponents that play only casually. The real argument to put to rest is that CTE is exactly as it is described, and this should (eventually) be common knowledge.

However, it is *awesome* that you are taking on Lou, IMHO all the chirping is good for the sport

 

[JB Cases]

I have my doubts that ranking CTE users against non-CTE users would be of much use. The metrics would always be inconclusive. You have ghost-ballers that have played all their lives and play at very high levels, and you have CTE proponents that play only casually. The real argument to put to rest is that CTE is exactly as it is described, and this should (eventually) be common knowledge.

Still, I would love to see how they do. So far the evidence shows that the aiming system user's are ranking higher. What better pool of average non-pros do we have here to draw from?

 

[JB Cases]

I done pretty good on colins test..:wink::wink: No misses was it.
I would go out on a limb to say if all the player's here had a table you wouldn't be barking so much.

Better get to dedicating yourself.

Dedicating myself to what?

You use an aiming system. Maybe not CTE but something similar. Unless you lied about it in past posts you have said you use a mixture of systems.

Barking? Who is barking? Give me a break, IF anyone really wants to record themselves they can do it at any pool room easily.