Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

  • I always go by feel

    Votes: 153 53.5%

  • Usually by feel, with aiming systems for hard shots

    Votes: 68 23.8%

  • Usually with aiming systems, by feel for easy shots

    Votes: 24 8.4%

  • I always use aiming systems

    Votes: 26 9.1%

  • I just hit balls very hard and hope they sink

    Votes: 15 5.2%
  • Total voters
    286
Patrick Johnson said:
lol


And if your initial alignment is to ghost ball - even if your estimate of that isn't exact - you'd be even closer.


The same applies to every other way of aiming.

Get counseling. This topic has made you (even more) crazy.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

You're wrong about that. You can't say that aligning to an invisible object is more or less precise than CTE. If it were that easy there would not be so many devices and templates out there designed to help people "see" the ghost ball. The precision of GB depends ENTIRELY on each individual person's ability to correctly imagine and place a nonexistent object. Some claim to be able to see this "ghost ball" as clearly as a real ball. Others can't see it at all and just guestimate a spot on the cloth to aim to. Others use devices to try to memorize "shot pictures" so that they don't have to actually imagine a ball at all.

Moreover though the CTE system isn't estimating. The CTE line isn't an estimate, it is a physical line that anyone with a laser can show on the table. Finding the shot line using GB IS an estimate. If you took one of these robots that play pool and only use the tracking mode where the actual shot line is projected on the table and you said to players use this laser to estimate the shot line using ghost ball you would find that the shooter would be off considerably on many shots once the tracking is switched on and the actual shot line was projected over the shooter's estimated shot line.

I predict that a shooter who has mastered the CTE method will have lines that are far closer, if not exact, far more often than someone using GB in such a test.

IF one had a template laid on the table that did represent the ghost ball THEN you're right the shooter would be on or extremely close to the real shot line. But no person on earth is allowed to use such a template in a game. (although that would be a fun way to handicap a match)

So, thanks for the insulting attack INSTEAD of looking at the actual information and diagrams I provided. It's ok Pat, since you have no actual working knowledge of the CTE method I can understand why you don't really want to delve into the actual technical aspects. Easier to call me crazy and make the debate emotional instead.
 
Last edited:
JB Cases said:
You can't say that aligning to an invisible object is more or less precise than CTE.
Click to expand...
Aligning to ghost ball, even if less precise than aligning to CTE, is likely more accurate (closer to the actual shot line). This is true of any aiming method that aligns initially to the approximate shot line - that initial alignment will almost always be closer to the actual shot line than CTE is. And since you're estimating from there to the shot line either way, your estimate will probably be closer if you start closer (aligning initially closer to the shot line).

pj
chgo
 
For CTE:

If subjectivity is involved in the core application of getting to the correct shot line then CTE is, in it's nature, just like any other method.

If not, then, at it's core, CTE's nature is a totally objective method or 'system'.

Has that not essentially been the subject of debate for what, two(2) decades?

I & others say that CTE does require subjectivity at the core to arrive at the correct shot line for many, many shots, in fact... ALL of the shots that do NOT fit the outcome angle of the objective visuals with the 'defined' 1/2 tip pivot.

Any shot that does not fit the outcome angle of the two line visual with one of the pivots then requires subjectivity to get to the correct shot line.

Forget ALL of the superfluous stuff.

The following is of major contention.

Seeing the CTE line along with an 'edge to' line places one (the shooter) along a line between them where both can be seen simultaneously (at the same time). That is, for discussion purposes, an 'objective' relationship between the 3 'parties', the shooter, the CTE line & the 'edge to' line & that 'objective' relationship is locked in. Take that 'objective' relationship & turn it or slide it to any position on the table & IT does NOT change.

Apply a pivot to it from a 'defined' 1/2 tip parallel left offset back to center ball & you get ONE outcome angle for a given speed of shot.

Do the same for a right parallel 1/2 tip offset & you get another SINGLE outcome angle for a given speed of shot.

Move that 'objective' relationship along with an assigned pivot anywhere on the table & the result is the same.

That could be considered totally objective IF the pivot is the same.

Vary ANY of that in any way, shape, form, or manner without whatever the cause for the variation being of an addition of some other objective nature & one has just then inserted subjectivity.

Hence one can not pocket 5 different parallel shots in which each has a totally different outcome angle directly into the same pocket by the 'objective' means stated above.

So... what would allow one to pocket those 5 totally different outcome angle shots directly into the same said pocket?

The answer is one's own individual subjective perception of what is required to do so & then the subjective application of a variance from the aforementioned objective visual alignment based on the 'objective' ( for discussion purposes) markers of CTE & 'edge to A, B, or C.

Hence, subjective perception & subjective application & NOT total or complete or only objectivity is what allows 5 different outcome angle parallel shots to be pocketed into the same pocket.

This IS the case & if one can not see that, then that is their issue.

Or... if one sees it differently, then I, & I think others would welcome any logical, rational, common sense explanation as to the contrary.

There is no different viewing perspective that allows one (the shooter) to see any different CTE line or 'edge to' line. There is ONLY one line between them where one can see them simultaneously (at the same time) If one moves off of THAT line for some reason then one is implementing their own individual subjectivity for some reason that is not related to the 'objective' visuals.

I have little to no doubt that that is what some are doing. They are skewing to one side or the other of that line that allows one to simultaneously see both lines. That is sort of like looking almost straight down the CTE line but still 'visualizing' an 'edge to' line or vise versa.

Since there is nothing objective to tell one how far to skew off of the simultaneous vision, one's subjectivity comes into play.

To say otherwise would simply not be founded on anything real that is logical, rational, or scientific.

Best to ALL.
 
Last edited:
Given my post #1744 above....

If anyone wishes to buy & try CTE they should certainly do so.

Also, I sincerely think & feel that there should be a thread or perhaps a sub forum where the 'how to use' CTE can be had without the 'ever' ongoing controversy of just what is the nature of CTE.

Perhaps two would be 'required'.

1. Learn How To Use CTE Here.

2. Discuss or argue about what CTE is here.

Best to ALL.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Aligning to ghost ball, even if less precise than aligning to CTE, is likely more accurate (closer to the actual shot line). This is true of any aiming method that aligns initially to the approximate shot line - that initial alignment will almost always be closer to the actual shot line than CTE is. And since you're estimating from there to the shot line either way, your estimate will probably be closer if you start closer (aligning initially closer to the shot line).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Sorry I emphatically disagree for the reasons already mentioned. For one thing instruction on GB almost always tells you that the GB you "see" IS the line you take unless it doesn't feel or look right then you stand up and do it again.

There IS only ONE shot line. Forgetting margin of error due to pocket size for a moment there only line that sends the cueball to the object ball which in turn sends the object ball to center pocket. Only one such line exists for any given shot.

Every player knows this but cannot easily see this line as it comes back from the object ball to the cue ball. If you told an average player to stand behind the object ball and point the laser to the contact point on the cue ball I would bet that most could not find the actual contact point on the CB with any consistency.

The only other line that is 100% there and which exists in ONLY one place is the CTE line. This line can be found by 100% of shooters with 100% accuracy within seconds for a trained shooter and within an hour of starting from zero for an absolutely novice CTE user.

So the important thing to remember is that the shooter is NOT finding the shot line simply because he is able to identify the CTE line. The CTE line only serves to allow the shooter to have a firm initial alignment to the cueball as he faces the shot which is consistent. Unknown to the shooter - at the back of the cueball - the CTE line he sees coming back at him is only a smidgen away from the actual, but unknown, shot line.

That's where the rest of the steps come into it to move the shooter into a position that ends up on the actual shot line. It works consistently.
 
stan shuffett said:
Correct, It will likely not happen.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

Well you know I have your back if you ever want to engage anyone in a shot making contest.

You proved it to my satisfaction even though Andi and I were dead set on tripping you up and finding the places where you would fudge to make the shot. I highly doubt that very many players on earth can beat you in a pure shot making contest.
 
ENGLISH! said:
For CTE:

If subjectivity is involved in the core application of getting to the correct shot line then CTE is, in it's nature, just like any other method.

If not, then, at it's core, CTE's nature is a totally objective method or 'system'.

Has that not essentially been the subject of debate for what, two(2) decades.

I & others say that CTE does require subjectivity at the core to arrive at the correct shot line for many, many shots, in fact... ALL of the shots that do NOT fit the outcome angle of the objective visuals with the 'defined' 1/2 tip pivot.

Any shot that does not fit the outcome angle of the two line visual with one of the pivots then requires subjectivity to get to the correct shot line.

Forget ALL of the superfluous stuff.

The following is of major contention.

Seeing the CTE line along with an 'edge to' line places one (the shooter) along a line between them where both can be seen simultaneously (at the same time). That is, for discussion purposes, an 'objective' relationship between the 3 'parties', the shooter, the CTE line & the 'edge to' line & that 'objective' relationship is locked in. Take that 'objective' relationship & turn it or slide it to any position on the table & IT does NOT change.

Apply a pivot to it from a 'defined' 1/2 tip parallel left offset back to center ball & you get ONE outcome angle for a given speed of shot.

Do the same for a right parallel 1/2 tip offset & you get another SINGLE outcome angle for a given speed of shot.

Move that 'objective' relationship along with an assigned pivot anywhere on the table & the result is the same.

That could be considered totally objective IF the pivot is the same.

Vary ANY of that in any way, shape, form, or manner without whatever the cause for the variation being of an addition of some other objective nature & one has just then inserted subjectivity.

Hence one can not pocket 5 different parallel shots in which each has a totally different outcome angle directly into the same pocket by the 'objective' means stated above.

So... what would allow one to pocket those 5 totally different outcome angle shots directly into the same said pocket?

The answer is one's own individual subjective perception of what is required to do so & then the subjective application of a variance from the aforementioned objective visual alignment based on the 'objective' ( for discussion purposes) markers of CTE & 'edge to A, B, or C.

Hence, subjective perception & subjective application & NOT total or complete or only objectivity is what allows 5 different outcome angle parallel shots to be pocketed into the same pocket.

This IS the case & if one can not see that, then that is their issue.

Or... if one sees it differently, then I, & I think others would welcome any logical, rational, common sense explanation as to the contrary.

There is no different viewing perspective that allows one (the shooter) to see any different CTE line or 'edge to' line. There is ONLY one line between them where one can see them simultaneously (at the same time) If one moves off of THAT line for some reason then one is implementing their own individual subjectivity for some reason that is not related to the 'objective' visuals.

I have little to no doubt that that is what some are doing. They are skewing to one side or the other of that line that allows one to simultaneously see both lines. That is sort of like looking almost straight down the CTE line but still 'visualizing' an 'edge to' line or vise versa.

Since there is nothing objective to tell one how far to skew off of the simultaneous vision, one's subjectivity comes into play.

To say otherwise would simply not be founded on anything real that is logical, rational, or scientific.

Best to ALL.
Click to expand...

So which one of the 5 parallel shots is the Objective one in you opinion. How do you tell what is an objective shot in cte and what is a subjective shot?
 
Dan White said:
Seems to me Rick just wants a straight answer to a simple question. Maybe there wouldn't be 11000 posts. Edit: I just realized you were talking about JB but the same thing applies to Rick. I don't understand the anger.
Click to expand...

It was not me being referenced.

As to Rick's question whatever it actually is..........

The only thing I can discern is that Rick has an issue with something he made up. Stan Shuffett has never said that CTE is "totally" objective.

So harping on this red herring is not productive. In my opinion your video analysis, which may or may not be correct, IS productive because it takes the demonstration evidence provided and attempts to break down the process objectively and analytically in a visual mode that everyone can see. Thus we can start to discuss the finer points of what has been offered.

We all know that a shooter can be on the WRONG shot line and throw the cueball into the right line or "gear" (throw) the object ball into the right pocket line.

Terms:

Shot Line - the line the cue ball must travel to contact the object ball in the right position to pocket the object ball.

Pocket line - the line the object ball MUST travel to go into the pocket.

So I can agree that IF you catch a player swooping or using some kind of body english then it is an indicator that there is some innate knowledge by the shooter that the shot line they are on is not correct. By the same token being on a perfectly correct shot line and using body english can often result in the shot being missed.

I submit that it is perfectly possible to use CTE and still be slightly off the shot line. The reasons for this are incorrectly choosing the Edge to Aimpoint+Sweep, second guessing the system, moving your feet, and even incorrect pivot. All things that can effect the outcome which is to land on the right shot line.

BUT

I submit that the vast majority of the time the method leads to the right shot line and the shooter can stroke perfectly straight with no body english and make the ball head perfectly towards the pocket center or very close to it. Assuming the shooter has a consistently straight stroke that is.

I would suggest that you do the same slow motion analysis on other videos and see if this bears out. I am going to predict that 99% of Gerry William's shots for example are performed with a straight follow through. I will say the same for Landon and Stan as well if you analyze the videos of them running racks as well as the demonstration shots they have done.
 
JB Cases said:
...the CTE line ... is only a smidgen away from the actual ... shot line.
Click to expand...
But still farther away than any "ghost ball" line, even if it's less precise than CTE. The central premise of your lavishly illustrated mini-novel above is that being so close to the shot line gives CTE an advantage over other methods - but since CTE is usually farther from the shot line than other methods, the premise is simply wrong.

Give it up, John - you're just talking yourself in circles.

pj <- and no, I don't want to bet $100K
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
But still farther away than any "ghost ball" line, even if it's less precise than CTE. The central premise of your lavishly illustrated mini-novel above is that being so close to the shot line gives CTE an advantage over other methods - but since CTE is usually farther from the shot line than other methods, the premise is simply wrong.

Give it up, John - you're just talking yourself in circles.

pj <- and no, I don't want to bet $100K
chgo
Click to expand...

You don't get and refuse to engage in productive dialog.

Yes the premise is that STARTING from a KNOWN LINE, a line that can be found easily and precisely by 100% of people 100% of the time is better than estimating a shot line that is based on imagining something that doesn't actually exist.

It's like looking for a stud in a wall. If you know construction you know that studs are always put in at exactly 2 feet intervals. So you know that the corner contains a stud and thus you can measure two feet away from that with a ruler or any other object known to be two feet long and find the next stud. OR you can sort of eyeball it and IMAGINE a ruler or two pieces of tile and hope that you are right.

The person who uses the KNOWN measurement can find a stud far more consistently than the person standing there using imagination.

Of course you don't want to bet anything. You would lose and badly. The reason you would lose is because CTE to you is a mental exercise in rhetoric rather an a practical exercise on the table to figure out the actual physical aspects of it. In other words Pat you haven't put in your million balls using the system. We have.

And we put a million before that using GB. We understand both while you barely understand GB. And the reason I say you barely understand GB is because of the way you aim.

You literally fidget until you feel right. And yes you are a decent player. Yes you are able to pick the right shot line a lot of the time. But any video of you playing would be seen as a more of a "don't do this" lesson instead of a demonstration of proper technique. I cannot imagine what is really going on in your head when you are looking for the shot line as you are down on the cueball. I hope it's not hundreds of ghostball projections blinking in and out of existence as hallucinations until you settle on one of them. It definitely doesn't look confident at all.
 
JB Cases said:
You don't get and refuse to engage in productive dialog.

Yes the premise is that STARTING from a KNOWN LINE, a line that can be found easily and precisely by 100% of people 100% of the time is better than estimating a shot line that is based on imagining something that doesn't actually exist.

It's like looking for a stud in a wall. If you know construction you know that studs are always put in at exactly 2 feet intervals. So you know that the corner contains a stud and thus you can measure two feet away from that with a ruler or any other object known to be two feet long and find the next stud. OR you can sort of eyeball it and IMAGINE a ruler or two pieces of tile and hope that you are right.

The person who uses the KNOWN measurement can find a stud far more consistently than the person standing there using imagination.

Of course you don't want to bet anything. You would lose and badly. The reason you would lose is because CTE to you is a mental exercise in rhetoric rather an a practical exercise on the table to figure out the actual physical aspects of it. In other words Pat you haven't put in your million balls using the system. We have.

And we put a million before that using GB. We understand both while you barely understand GB. And the reason I say you barely understand GB is because of the way you aim.

You literally fidget until you feel right. And yes you are a decent player. Yes you are able to pick the right shot line a lot of the time. But any video of you playing would be seen as a more of a "don't do this" lesson instead of a demonstration of proper technique. I cannot imagine what is really going on in your head when you are looking for the shot line as you are down on the cueball. I hope it's not hundreds of ghostball projections blinking in and out of existence as hallucinations until you settle on one of them. It definitely doesn't look confident at all.
Click to expand...

John,

Studs in these parts are 16" on center.

That's the problem when you start with a false premise. You wind up with a bad &/or false conclusion.

I thought you said you were through with this thread.

Best Wishes.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • JB - the Jumping Bean.jpg
    JB - the Jumping Bean.jpg
    90.1 KB · Views: 177
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top