What is your PSR?

[Straightpool_99]

Nobody is really interested in the PSR's, huh? It's all another excuse to argue about CTE. It would be quite interesting to hear the PSR's of some really accomplished players, to see if they were different from mine. I'm just another nobody, but I'm always looking for ways to improve. My goal is to get to 200 ball run..It's far, far away at the moment. I don't even think it's about shooting ability anymore, it's more the lack of mental stamina.

I think some of the problem with elaborate PSR, complex aiming systems etc is that they require conscious thought and sort of burn you out in the long run. So obviously you have to make them as automatic as possible. That is a problem, if you have multiple factors that needs checking and rechecking. There is a real danger that you might lose the focus and just go through the motions without doing the work, and that is when you miss a four foot straight in..

I used to have a very elaborate routine for footwork, which was very good and accurate, but I had to ditch it. It was throwing off my rhytm and stealing precious focus. I'm not going to bore you with the details of yet another hackers routine, but the above is my hypothesis of why I've failed to make a completely bomb proof psr and instead have to change it around every once in a while (other than the simple, generic stuff). It just ends up piling up like goverment paperwork and finally I don't even want to do it anymore..

 

[cookie man]

Lots of fake news here. First, I have never, ever deleted a post. So it must still be there. Second, it is hardly "bannable."

No it got deleted somehow. It was bannable in every letter you typed. Someone inside has your back Mr 12 hour

 

[SpiderWebComm]

No it got deleted somehow. It was bannable in every letter you typed. Someone inside has your back Mr 12 hour

This is very interesting. Also what I've been saying for a few months with no doubt.
Expect the following: Denial, denial, denial and downplaying it as an absurd claim.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Actually Sir Issac Newton in the late 1600's. Which in the timespan of recorded scientific thought was a long time to define it, as it added on to the work of Kepler who refuted the heliocentric model of the solar system.

Now as there are still people today who believe the earth is flat, some concepts are even harder to to prove, but it really depends upon your audience, doesn't it.

The gravity thing was pretty well figured out by Einstein many years ago. The CTE thing remains a more vexing problem, apparently.

"Not that there is anything wrong with that."

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I hear you, but that was years ago. Since I've been here I haven't seen any blatant frying of aiming systems...well, except for Denwit's recently spilled opinion.

No, it's not just years ago. It has calmed down some with the new rules recently put in place by Howerton.

In the first few months of being here you were more focused on your own system as you should be with getting the orders straight as well as the finished product. But it was going on.

I've read plenty of probing questions toward a few systems, and asked a few questions of my own. Questioning a particular aspect of any system isn't the same as ridiculing that system. Or stating an obvious difficulty or understanding regarding any part of a system is also not ridiculing.

Over the years, many years, questions were asked and we all jumped in eagerly to answer them as best we could. Stan did the most work by doing one video on youtube after another. You don't think it took a lot of time and effort?

But after a while we all got wise when the "innocuous" "innocent" questions kept coming from the same individuals with their agendas to vilify the system, the creator, and the users under the guise of "just wanting to understand how it works" to use it for themselves at a better level. Give me a friggin' break. How stupid does a person have to be to fall for that crap a couple of thousand times?

From what I've observed, the condescending attitudes typically come from those that should be able to answer questions in a civil and professional manner, but instead become aggressively defensive.

Read above. If a wise old farmer states with certainty a storm is coming before all the modern radar, computer predictions, and TV weather reporters are saying otherwise, believe the wise old farmer.

We look for the individuals asking the questions and how the questions are structured because it's been heard so many times it's unreal. If you're in a small closed room with a number of people and it suddenly smells like one of the rottenest farts ever was just cut, you can rest assured somebody really did fart and a sh!t storm will more than likely be coming. That's what happens here . Questions from certain people are like rotten farts, you can just smell them, and we know a shitstorm will be following.

I believe that's why I haven't had a lot of negative backlash -- I have an open mind and respect others. I try to remain professional and answer questions as openly as possible without resorting to personal attacks or degradation tactics. And sometimes it's hard to do when facing varying degrees of egos and arrogance.

Good for you and keep it that way. But you're a NEWBIE at all of this and there's really nothing controversial about a fractional aiming system. Lets face it, CTE is so outside the box and different that it fits no other model of aiming ever devised or used. 20 years of hell says it all.

But I hear you. It is what it is, always has been, and probably won't change because the past has left too many scars.

Scars it is! And trust me, the war hasn't ended.

 

[Dan White]

Actually Sir Issac Newton in the late 1600's. Which in the timespan of recorded scientific thought was a long time to define it, as it added on to the work of Kepler who refuted the heliocentric model of the solar system.

Now as there are still people today who believe the earth is flat, some concepts are even harder to to prove, but it really depends upon your audience, doesn't it.

Newton invented the field of physics and wrote down the laws of motion, but he did not understand what caused gravity. Einstein explained it. That was my point.

 

[Dan White]

No it got deleted somehow. It was bannable in every letter you typed. Someone inside has your back Mr 12 hour

I don't even know where those posts are to check and see. I did find these gems, however. Are these bannable, too?

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5918094&postcount=122

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5967621&postcount=30

At least in my post I was making an observation that you tend to miss the point frequently, which is supportable with evidence given a little time to compile it. Your posts are just mean insults.

 

[lfigueroa]

Nobody is really interested in the PSR's, huh? It's all another excuse to argue about CTE. It would be quite interesting to hear the PSR's of some really accomplished players, to see if they were different from mine. I'm just another nobody, but I'm always looking for ways to improve. My goal is to get to 200 ball run..It's far, far away at the moment. I don't even think it's about shooting ability anymore, it's more the lack of mental stamina.

I think some of the problem with elaborate PSR, complex aiming systems etc is that they require conscious thought and sort of burn you out in the long run. So obviously you have to make them as automatic as possible. That is a problem, if you have multiple factors that needs checking and rechecking. There is a real danger that you might lose the focus and just go through the motions without doing the work, and that is when you miss a four foot straight in..

I used to have a very elaborate routine for footwork, which was very good and accurate, but I had to ditch it. It was throwing off my rhytm and stealing precious focus. I'm not going to bore you with the details of yet another hackers routine, but the above is my hypothesis of why I've failed to make a completely bomb proof psr and instead have to change it around every once in a while (other than the simple, generic stuff). It just ends up piling up like goverment paperwork and finally I don't even want to do it anymore..

My goal is to run 100 two days in a row to win a bet with Mr. White

As to elaborate PSRs, I agree -- they cannot be too complicated. The udder thing is that they need to be organic. IOWs they cannot involve a bunch of motions that are not natural to you.

Having said all that, once you've determined a productive PSR, even if it involves new motions, it's very much like learning a dance step. Many years ago I made the mistake of giving Gail a set of four ballroom dance lessons for a birthday gift. (Never. Ever. Give your significant other dance lessons as a present because what you will quickly learn is that there is no end to the thing and you will be compelled to buy four more, then another set of lessons, and the next thing you know you're buying special dance shoes and a glittery, tight fitting shirt cut down to your navel to participate at some ballroom event sponsored by your instructor. But I digress.)

At first, learning whatever -- cha-cha, tango, merengue, waltz, jitterbug -- you are looking down at your feet, doing a mental count off of the steps, trying to remember to maintain your space, head and hand position, etc. But... after a while you don't have to think about it all that much and you get more and more fluid and natural in your execution. Same with a PSR.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Bobkitty]

My goal is to run 100 two days in a row to win a bet with Mr. White

As to elaborate PSRs, I agree -- they cannot be too complicated. The udder thing is that they need to be organic. IOWs they cannot involve a bunch of motions that are not natural to you.

Having said all that, once you've determined a productive PSR, even if it involves new motions, it's very much like learning a dance step. Many years ago I made the mistake of giving Gail a set of four ballroom dance lessons for a birthday gift. (Never. Ever. Give your significant other dance lessons as a present because what you will quickly learn is that there is no end to the thing and you will be compelled to buy four more, then another set of lessons, and the next thing you know you're buying special dance shoes and a glittery, tight fitting shirt cut down to your navel to participate at some ballroom event sponsored by your instructor. But I digress.)

At first, learning whatever -- cha-cha, tango, merengue, waltz, jitterbug -- you are looking down at your feet, doing a mental count off of the steps, trying to remember to maintain your space, head and hand position, etc. But... after a while you don't have to think about it all that much and you get more and more fluid and natural in your execution. Same with a PSR.

Lou Figueroa

My post deleted....Not about PSR.....

 

[SpiderWebComm]

At first, learning whatever -- cha-cha, tango, merengue, waltz, jitterbug -- you are looking down at your feet, doing a mental count off of the steps, trying to remember to maintain your space, head and hand position, etc. But... after a while you don't have to think about it all that much and you get more and more fluid and natural in your execution. Same with a PSR.

Lou Figueroa

In your current PSR or what you kept from your prior PSRs, what did you see and do with your feet, the bending and straightness of your knees, the angle of your body to the shot line, how high your chin is above the cue, the position of the eyes above the cue, the angle of your upper arm relative to horizontal, the distance of your hand and arm from the upper body, the normal distance of your bridge hand to the CB?

And why did you make changes from those areas up to now?

(I don't expect this to be answered but why not give it the old college try)

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Lou, in your days and many rounds of pool, have you ever seen someone using CTE to pocket the balls? I can not find anybody that has ever heard of it. I would love to see it in action. Why are you not excited about the new book of CTE?

If this isn't a leading trolling baiting question to create a stir, I don't know what is.

 

[Bobkitty]

I got rid of it.... wasn't about PSR..

 

[Tony_in_MD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

Not Einstein's law of universal gravitation.

Since you lost the point of my post, it takes time to understand natural phenomena since ones persons work often builds upon another. But of course there are always some who resist progress of any type.

Newton invented the field of physics and wrote down the laws of motion, but he did not understand what caused gravity. Einstein explained it. That was my point.

 

[8pack]

I used to think it was mysterious until I finally understood the concept. Now I get it. I just don't get the next step, coming into CCB, or how to tell if it's a thick or thin, unless that's an individual interpretation based on experience. But I'm fine not knowing, and I don't lose sleep thinking about it. If it makes you play better pool, nothing else matters.

No one in the world can just walk up to the table an pocket balls behind a curtain without knowing somewhat of where the pockets are. The rails..ball location on the table gives you a good ideal of where they are. (The diamonds also give you an advantage.)

When you think you have a system that gives you the dead nuts to the pockets, it better have all the different hits intertwined with it.
Collision over rules any center ball system to the ghost ball. A miss us a miss no matter how close it is. The key is getting the ball to roll on the line to the pocket correctly.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Newton invented the field of physics and wrote down the laws of motion, but he did not understand what caused gravity. Einstein explained it. That was my point.

Einstein didn't know what caused it either.

https://www.livescience.com/1770-greatest-mysteries-gravity.html

Physicists want to squeeze little old gravity into the standard model—the crown-jewel theory of modern physics that explains three other fundamental forces in physics—but none has succeeded. Like a runt at a pool party, gravity just doesn't fit in when using Einstein's theory of relativity, which explains gravity only on large scales

"Gravity is completely different from the other forces described by the standard model," said Mark Jackson, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab in Illinois. "When you do some calculations about small gravitational interactions, you get stupid answers. The math simply doesn't work."

Math doesn't work on something else we're all familiar with. Hmmm, what could that be?

 

[BC21]

No one in the world can just walk up to the table an pocket balls behind a curtain without knowing somewhat of where the pockets are. The rails..ball location on the table gives you a good ideal of where they are. (The diamonds also give you an advantage.)

When you think you have a system that gives you the dead nuts to the pockets, it better have all the different hits intertwined with it.
Collision over rules any center ball system to the ghost ball. A miss us a miss no matter how close it is. The key is getting the ball to roll on the line to the pocket correctly.

I partly agree. Collision overrules any system that ignores the effects of CIT. I'm not sure what you mean by "all the different hits", but I assume you're talking about using english it stunning the CB?

 

[Dan White]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

Not Einstein's law of universal gravitation.

Since you lost the point of my post, it takes time to understand natural phenomena since ones persons work often builds upon another. But of course there are always some who resist progress of any type.

You're right. I didn't understand the point of your post because it didn't have much to do with my point. Einstein is the one who said that he "stands on the shoulders of giants" so there is no argument there. I agree with that point.

However, you have it wrong about Newton. He understood, of course, that mass was related to gravity. He was one of the greatest geniuses of all time. His equations explain how it all works. Even so, he did not understand why gravity existed, why objects with mass attracted each other. Einstein figured that out. He realized that mass distorts space-time and creates something of an illusion that objects are attracted to each other. The earth orbits the sun (and the sun orbits the earth) because the fabric of space around the sun is distorted. As far as the earth knows, it is traveling along in a straight line, only it isn't straight because of the distortion.

 

[8pack]

I partly agree. Collision overrules any system that ignores the effects of CIT. I'm not sure what you mean by "all the different hits", but I assume you're talking about using english it stunning the CB?

Pool isn't just about making the shot .it's all about the next shot. Your system or any other system will not apply to all the variables of the next shot. Just because a shot is a half ball hit doesn't mean this is where you'll be aiming all the time...it can vary. Speed...distance..the thickness of the hit an an where you strike the CB changes things that will matter. Yes I no you understand this..but how strong is any system if you plan on playing real pool?
Not strong at all if you don't understand the adjustments that need to be made.

A half ball hit is nice to know but what's stronger is creating that hit an aiming some where else.

 

[Dan White]

Einstein didn't know what caused it either.

https://www.livescience.com/1770-greatest-mysteries-gravity.html

Physicists want to squeeze little old gravity into the standard model—the crown-jewel theory of modern physics that explains three other fundamental forces in physics—but none has succeeded. Like a runt at a pool party, gravity just doesn't fit in when using Einstein's theory of relativity, which explains gravity only on large scales

"Gravity is completely different from the other forces described by the standard model," said Mark Jackson, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab in Illinois. "When you do some calculations about small gravitational interactions, you get stupid answers. The math simply doesn't work."

Math doesn't work on something else we're all familiar with. Hmmm, what could that be?

This is a good example of what happens when you don't know anything about a particular subject, and then go to google to get the answers. In this case, Dave is trying to make it look like I don't know what I am talking about by copying and pasting an article that is really about the Grand Unified Theory, or more or less called the "Theory of Everything."

In your own quote above (in bold) it says right there that Einstein has explained gravity at large scales. Now you are trying to say that he didn't really do that because it doesn't work at small scales. "Small scales" is at the quantum level where pretty much everything we know about physics falls apart. If you are going to say that Einstein didn't understand gravity because he didn't discover the theory of everything (a phrase he coined) then you should say that Newton didn't understand physics because he didn't solve the theory, either. Einstein is widely credited with having answered the question of what gravity is. Is there more to learn about gravity? Sure, but that holds true for all the forces.

I'm saying there is a common sense threshold you have to apply. Newton figured out physics, Einstein figured out gravity, nobody has figured out everything 100% yet, and may never do so

Getting back to the point at hand. You could make a good argument that we know more about the Theory of Everything than we do about how CTE Pro1 provides multiple shot possibilities from one perception. I'm not arguing the point because it is pointless. Let's wait for Stan's book, which now may or may not really explain it. It is hard to tell, frankly.

I'm more interested in the thread you started and then abandoned. You said that you get different results from a low deflection shaft and didn't know why. I think if we dug into that subject in some detail we might find out why CTE really works so well for you. However, it is your stroke and we all know there is no chance that you will submit yourself to any testing that might get to the bottom of it.

Like the moderators say, if it works for you then it is great and we should all be happy for you. (Just don't pretend to understand it like that pretender, Isaac Newton :wink.

 

[BC21]

Pool isn't just about making the shot .it's all about the next shot. Your system or any other system will not apply to all the variables of the next shot. Just because a shot is a half ball hit doesn't mean this is where you'll be aiming all the time...it can vary. Speed...distance..the thickness of the hit an an where you strike the CB changes things that will matter. Yes I no you understand this..but how strong is any system if you plan on playing real pool?
Not strong at all if you don't understand the adjustments that need to be made.

A half ball hit is nice to know but what's stronger is creating that hit an aiming some where else.

Gotcha.....and we're on the same page. But I believe knowing and recognizing the aim line for any particular shot enables a player to make more accurate and more confident adjustments based on table conditions, throw, english, etc... It's not uncommon to see a dead 1/2 ball shot, and then realize you'll have to hit it thinner if you plan to stun it, or a touch thicker if you plan to spin it in. But knowing it's a 1/2 ball makes the required adjustments easier to estimate.