Fractional aiming & systems like it

[Patrick Johnson]

FRACTIONAL AIMING

WHAT IT IS
Fractional Aiming is simple, straightforward and easy to understand. It simply means becoming familiar with three “fractional cut angles” that are easily created by aligning major fractions of the cue ball and object ball, and using those three fractional cut angles as “reference” cut angles to compare with and help estimate, memorize and recall aim alignments for the great majority of actual cut angles that fall between them.

WHAT IT ISN’T
Fractional Aiming can’t “show you” exactly where to aim unless the target just (rarely) happens to be on one of the three fractional cut angles – it simply gives you three familiar cut angles for comparison with actual cut angles to help estimate, memorize and recall them “by feel”. Aiming by feel skills are needed with any aiming method, and like any aiming method they’re learned by repetitive trial and error. An aiming method or system like Fractional Aiming can make learning to aim by repetitive trial and error quicker, easier and more effective.

HOW IT’S DONE
Fractional Cut Angles - Between a full (straight) shot and a thin cut there are three common fractional cut angles in each direction (for left and right cuts):
- ¾ BALL (14° Cut): Aim CB center at OB outside quarter (or CB inside edge at OB inside quarter)
- ½ BALL (30° Cut): Aim CB center at OB outside edge (or CB inside edge at OB center)
- ¼ BALL (49° Cut): Aim CB inside edge at OB outside quarter

Starting Alignment - For consistent visualization and alignment, start each shot by aligning CB center to OB edge (1/2 ball) – this is the easiest to see alignment and is also in the middle of the range of cut angles.

Practice and Repetition - Through repetitive trial and error (practice), learn to visualize the three fractional cut angles on each side of the object ball, where actual cut angles (target pockets) are located compared with them, and how much to adjust for the great majority of cuts that fall between them.

View attachment 39342

 

[Patrick Johnson]

FRACTIONAL AIMING

SIMILARITIES WITH OTHER AIMING METHODS
At least two other well known aiming systems use these same CB/OB fractional alignments. Their main difference with Fractional Aiming is that they (controversially) claim to “show” the shooter exactly where to aim any shot between the fractional cut angles.

Hal Houle’s “3 Angles” system uses the same three fractional alignments, calling them 15, 30 and 45 degrees instead of the actual 14, 30 and 49 degrees. The 3 Angles system’s claim of “exactness” was at first based on “pocket size margin of error”, but later (after it became clear that contradicted simple geometry) evolved into a concept called “rotating edges” – a vague and controversial explanation.

Stan Shuffet’s CTE system grew out of the 3 Angles system and uses the same three fractional alignments, but calls them “aimpoints” A, B and C, aligning them with the CB’s inside edge to create the same 3/4 ball, 1/2 ball and 1/4 ball alignments. CTE evolved to be much more elaborate than the 3 Angles system, adding “visuals”, “pivots” and “3D perception” to the fractional alignments to explain its “exactness” – but continues to be controversial.

Although the 3 Angles and CTE systems contain controversial instructions and concepts that are in dispute, for those who like them they can be helpful tools to assist and shorten the aiming learning process.

pj
chgo

 

[cutemonster]

thank you for spending your time putting together.

 

[bbb]

what is your opinion on the SEE system as it relates to a fractional aiming system??

 

[Patrick Johnson]

what is your opinion on the SEE system as it relates to a fractional aiming system??

I'm not very familiar with it - shadows, right?

If it's shadows, it's vaguely similar to Fractional Aiming just because it uses "reference" alignments. But because shadows move depending on the OB's position relative to lights, pockets and the CB, it's also fundamentally different than the fixed reference angles of Fractional Aiming.

I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion one way or another - I have opinions about how it's been described here, but I'm not sure those descriptions are accurate.

pj
chgo

 

[bbb]

I'm not very familiar with it - shadows, right?

If it's shadows, it's vaguely similar to Fractional Aiming just because it uses "reference" alignments. But because shadows move depending on the OB's position relative to lights, pockets and the CB, it's also fundamentally different than the fixed reference angles of Fractional Aiming.

I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion one way or another - I have opinions about how it's been described here, but I'm not sure those descriptions are accurate.

pj
chgo

thanks for the responce and thanks for spending the time for this thread
:thumbup:

 

[stan shuffett]

I resent the fact that you are misrepresenting CTE PRO ONE. I have explained the differences here and on my DVD1 and also on a recent YouTube contrast video.

I fully understand what your motive is with this thread....nothing more than another veiled attempt to discredit my work.

If you are going to reference my work, then present all the variables such as CTE, perception and pivoting and its ties to a 2x1 table.

Stan Shuffett

 

[stan shuffett]

Another point:

The fact that you purport in this thread that 15 30 and 49 of the standard fractions system is equal to 15 30 and 45 in CTE PRO ONE shows your ignorance....yes IGNORANCE

And if you want to meet and debate this and bet $2000 that they are the same you have 20 to 1 on the money......

Stan Shuffett

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I resent the fact that you are misrepresenting CTE PRO ONE. I have explained the differences here and on my DVD1 and also on a recent YouTube contrast video.

I've mentioned the differences I see. What have I missed?

I fully understand what your motive is with this thread....nothing more than another veiled attempt to discredit my work.

I'm not trying to discredit your work; only to clarify what it is. I've always thought (and said) that CTE can be a useful system for those who like it - I even said so again above. I also think Fractional Aiming can be useful without the controversial "extras" of CTE or 3 Angles - that's what this thread is about.

If you are going to reference my work, then present all the variables such as CTE, perception and pivoting and its ties to a 2x1 table.

I mentioned all those things above. I can't present them fully because I've never heard an explanation that makes sense to me. All I know about them is that they're how you claim that CTE can be "exact" for all shots - and they're the subject of much debate.

pj
chgo

 

[stan shuffett]

You are NOT going to define CTE with your untruths and misreps!

What did you miss?

You are not fooling anyone with saying CTE has the same alignments as 14 30 and 49!
Your fundamental comparison is flawed from the start......... You are dead in the water with your initial assumption that CTE is like the quarters in alignment.

Admit it!! You are wrong! If you were not wrong you'd be jumping all over 20 to 1.

Truth of the matter is is that you virtually know nothing about CTE as is evident by your comments about 14 30 and 49 being equal to 15 30 and 45 in alignment.

You have had a few years to study my work and you STILL do not understand that.

And if you understood Hal's work, you'd know that what he put forth was non fractional but he reeled you in like a big fish...

Stan Shuffett

 

[cookie man]

I can't present them fully because I've never heard an explanation that makes sense to me. All I know about them is that they're how you claim that CTE can be "exact" for all shots - and they're the subject of much debate.

pj
chgo

This says it all. Your opinion on cte is just a vague opinion. You fully admit here you don't know anything about cte, even after arguing against it for years and years. You and the other know- nothings are the only subject of much debate. And you even posted a review on cte dvd, but now admit you don't even know anything about it. JUST GUESS WORK ON YOUR PART.

 

[SmoothStroke]

Very nice work Patrick.
On the illustration I would love to see the solid arrow track extended back out through the 9 ball to the opposite rail on all but the full hit, using a dash or dotted line would be nice --------------> I think it would help many see where Times Square is.

When square up alignment is incorporated it really is a no brainer way to play. Throw in 10 minutes of eye movement instruction and it's off to the races.

It is as simple, as simple can be.
Sincerely: SS

 

[BeiberLvr]

FRACTIONAL AIMING

WHAT IT IS
Fractional Aiming is simple, straightforward and easy to understand. It simply means becoming familiar with three “fractional cut angles” that are easily created by aligning major fractions of the cue ball and object ball, and using those three fractional cut angles as “reference” cut angles to compare with and help estimate, memorize and recall aim alignments for the great majority of actual cut angles that fall between them.

WHAT IT ISN’T
Fractional Aiming can’t “show you” exactly where to aim unless the target just (rarely) happens to be on one of the three fractional cut angles – it simply gives you three familiar cut angles for comparison with actual cut angles to help estimate, memorize and recall them “by feel”. Aiming by feel skills are needed with any aiming method, and like any aiming method they’re learned by repetitive trial and error. An aiming method or system like Fractional Aiming can make learning to aim by repetitive trial and error quicker, easier and more effective.

HOW IT’S DONE
Fractional Cut Angles - Between a full (straight) shot and a thin cut there are three common fractional cut angles in each direction (for left and right cuts):
- ¾ BALL (14° Cut): Aim CB center at OB outside quarter (or CB inside edge at OB inside quarter)
- ½ BALL (30° Cut): Aim CB center at OB outside edge (or CB inside edge at OB center)
- ¼ BALL (49° Cut): Aim CB inside edge at OB outside quarter (or CB inside edge at OB outside quarter)

Starting Alignment - For consistent visualization and alignment, start each shot by aligning CB center to OB edge (1/2 ball) – this is the easiest to see alignment and is also in the middle of the range of cut angles.

Practice and Repetition - Through repetitive trial and error (practice), learn to visualize the three fractional cut angles on each side of the object ball, where actual cut angles (target pockets) are located compared with them, and how much to adjust for the great majority of cuts that fall between them.

View attachment 76250

I think these are the same

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think these are the same

lol

More proof I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Thanks.

pj
chgo

 

[BeiberLvr]

lol

More proof I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Thanks.

pj
chgo

With CTE...not a clue.

With most everything else, you're usually spot on.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Very nice work Patrick.
On the illustration I would love to see the solid arrow track extended back out through the 9 ball to the opposite rail on all but the full hit, using a dash or dotted line would be nice -------------->

Interesting idea. I'll take a look at that.

When square up alignment is incorporated it really is a no brainer way to play. Throw in 10 minutes of eye movement instruction and it's off to the races.

It is as simple, as simple can be.
Sincerely: SS

Pool ain't rocket surgery - if it ain't simple it's overcomplicated.

I think Occam said that.

pj <- or somebody
chgo

 

[Mikjary]

Interesting idea. I'll take a look at that.


Pool ain't rocket surgery - if it ain't simple it's overcomplicated.

I think Occam said that.

pj <- or somebody
chgo

Einstein. He said, "There aren't 6 million easy shots in pool."

Best,
Mike

 

[SmoothStroke]

Interesting idea. I'll take a look at that.


Pool ain't rocket surgery - if it ain't simple it's overcomplicated.

I think Occam said that.

pj <- or somebody
chgo

I think I say this:
It's not rocket science, I may borrow surgery.
It's not that dificult.
You don't know what you don't know until you know it.
That intersection right there is Times Square, learn how to hit it.
It's all about the thickness, Hit them heavy and remember it
Read all the books you want, then go buy a staight stroke.

I am going to steal this one from a world champ who shall remain nameless.
They teach ABC pool, they don't know about D - Z. Ding Ding Ding
I have a million of them, it must be the Sushi

Sincerely: SS -----------------> Line Out.

 

[swest]

I resent the fact that you are misrepresenting CTE PRO ONE. I have explained the differences here and on my DVD1 and also on a recent YouTube contrast video.

I fully understand what your motive is with this thread....nothing more than another veiled attempt to discredit my work.

If you are going to reference my work, then present all the variables such as CTE, perception and pivoting and its ties to a 2x1 table.

Stan Shuffett

It sounds like maybe you disagree with something the OP wrote in the first two posts of this thread.

Perhaps you disagree, specifically, with the passage:

Stan Shuffet’s CTE system grew out of the 3 Angles system and uses the same three fractional alignments, but calls them “aimpoints” A, B and C, aligning them with the CB’s inside edge to create the same 3/4 ball, 1/2 ball and 1/4 ball alignments. CTE evolved to be much more elaborate than the 3 Angles system, adding “visuals”, “pivots” and “3D perception” to the fractional alignments to explain its “exactness” – but continues to be controversial.​

If that is the case, then why not just correct the parts that you feel are in error?

 

[Mirza]

It sounds like maybe you disagree with something the OP wrote in the first two posts of this thread.

Perhaps you disagree, specifically, with the passage:

Stan Shuffet’s CTE system grew out of the 3 Angles system and uses the same three fractional alignments, but calls them “aimpoints” A, B and C, aligning them with the CB’s inside edge to create the same 3/4 ball, 1/2 ball and 1/4 ball alignments. CTE evolved to be much more elaborate than the 3 Angles system, adding “visuals”, “pivots” and “3D perception” to the fractional alignments to explain its “exactness” – but continues to be controversial.​

If that is the case, then why not just correct the parts that you feel are in error?

The error part is that three fractional alignments ARE NOT the same as three 15, 30 and 45 perceptions meaning that if you draw a virtual line through the center of the CB, after aligning to 3/4 fractional alignment and after aligning to 15° perception (CBEtoAorC + CTEL), that virtual line WILL NOT finish at the same spot on the OB.

And the other difference is that line WILL finish in the same place on the OB for every 3/4 fractional alignment, doesn't matter where CB and OB are on the table, which isn't true for CTE perceptions, if you change the angle, that line finishes on other spot on/off the OB, but the process of aligning to them is the same, as explained on the DVDs.

Stan can correct if I wrote something wrong.