Center Pocket Music, the long-awaited CTE Pro One book, by Stan Shuffett.

[straightline]

No one claimed that cte replaces physics.

What does line of centers mean again?

We don't use that terminology in America when learning to play. I have seen it used by snooker coaches.

Does it mean line from center pocket through the object ball and line of cueball through the center of the ghost ball?

How does one find the ghost ball line consistently?

Look at Dr. D's work. Lets call that the most complete and accurate description of the workings of pool if not the entirety of pool... EVER.
Compare ProTE. Three lines to gain your bearings, windshift detailed in a coming version.
Not much pool there. Lots of pool movies but the content is the balls. And since I'm here, in the context of mentioning line of centers, that's how the balls transfer energy. ALWAYS. I recall skewing the subject but there's your final answer. Again, no ProTE.

The ghost ball line is identical to the contact line with the exception that the contact line intersects the pocket line (actually the derived shot line intersects the pocket line, sorry), AT THE BASE OF THE GHOST BALL. Without it, ghost ball is just an estimation - a perception; a preception for the advanced among us.

No, stop saying what you want to hear rather than what I said. Tyler has been clear about what methods and which people have been responsible for providing the foundation for his skill. That's all I and others have said.

Did you bother to notice that my assertions are conclusions? Tyler can say whatever he wants. He play reel gud. But in selling his climb through pool, he's just another guy selling his way.

 

[JB Cases]

If Stan were still posting here this is about the point he would bitch slap you, figuratively of course. CTE does not require ANY adjustment to compensate for speed, period. That's coming from Stan, not me. Here he says he shoots soft and hard and does not have to make any adjustments:

NOTE: These videos are not uploading into AZ correctly. Go to youtube and start the video at 3:16 minutes in:

Stan saw my video and a week later came up with the following one with 2.5 inch pockets. In this excerpt he says how he uses CTE with various speeds and pockets the ball with almost no wiggle room. His point is that CTE works without needing to make adjustments. That is different from your misdirecting post about cheating pockets which is something entirely different.

NOTE: Start this video at 12:09 minutes in:

I have to say I find this video and the complaining about nitpicking to be very disingenuous. It can't be that Stan does not understand the point of my video showing the clear, consistent, and substantial amount of throw. I have to conclude that the purpose of this second video is to muddy the waters and throw out the straw man argument that I am saying that a shot has to be exactly perfect in order to be a valid shot. That's rubbish and I think he knows that. The alternative explanation is equally unflattering.

Stan said no such thing. He said he didn't adjust not that no adjustments would ever be necessary. He said that HE did not need to adjust for the shots demonstrated.

Perhaps your fundamental problem is that you are ALWAYS looking for something to nitpick about and you are overthinking pool. I mean, what I get out of your posting is that EITHER Stan is LYING to everyone deliberately and is making fully conscious adjustments and claiming otherwise, OR he is completely clueless about pool and science and talking nonsense or he is self-deluded and is only able to perform the shots he does because he was a really good player BEFORE learning CTE does not work without subconscious adjustments and so Stan must be adjusting subconsciously.

You never hold out the possibility that Stan is doing exactly as he says and making no conscious adjustments. You never entertain the possibility that getting on the dead nuts perfect shot line allows for the largest margin of error on either side. Stan mentions clearly that conditions may warrant some adjustment but that he didn't need to on his table.

And for SURE you will never experience what CTE users have which is the FEELING that one can aim and shoot at different speeds with no overt adjustment. So the PRACTICAL usage is aiming objectively with no need to adjust overtly UNLESS one consciously CHOOSES to for whatever reason they have determined an adjustment OFF THE BASELINE is needed.

Disingenuous is when you find 30 seconds in hours of video and FALSELY attribute comments to Stan that he did not make. And when you falsely characterize the video, and you PURPOSEFULLY don't link to the video you are critiquing. Let's be clear since you like to do the appeal to authority thing all the time. Professional players go to Stan for training. They don't go to you. Players that Stan has trained are among the best players living. You are a super nobody in comparison. Does that mean that Stan is always right and that you are always wrong? No, of course not. But what it does mean is that on the hierarchy of experience Stan's is way way above yours and he is far MORE LIKELY to know what he is experiencing on the table and why it happens the way he describes.

It's unreal that you are so dead set on finding ANYTHING that you can to discredit Stan that you skip over the fact that he created a second video with a 2.5" restricted pocket opening just to show you that he can make the shots into a super tight pocket as well. He didn't throw out a strawman argument he made a VALID argument that you are nitpicking and looking for results to dispute and never ever give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

Regarding the pocket cheating video. The reason I included it is because Stan addresses the issue of being able to shoot to different parts of the pocket if needed. Stan reduced the pocket opening for the demonstration. Instead of seeing Stan as a sincere instructor and working WITH him you work against him under the pretense of "just asking questions."

So no, I am not a saint Dan but I am certainly a better human than you are based on what I see of how you act here on this topic.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Not to derail the thread or anything, but has anyone actually gotten the chance to read the book yet?

I'd be curious to know a little bit about what's in the book and how it's presented? What are the diagrams like, does it have information besides CTE stuff etc. etc..? At the moment I don't have the almost 200 dollars needed (including shipping) and I might not have them for a little while, so it would be nice to get some idea about the books content and overall opinions on the quality of it. G-d damned car repairs and Covid are wiping out my account, lol. If you don't want to reply to my post due to some animosity or whatever, maybe you can do a review in the review section? Pictures would be highly appreciated.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Not to derail the thread or anything, but has anyone actually gotten the chance to read the book yet?

I'd be curious to know a little bit about what's in the book and how it's presented? What are the diagrams like, does it have information besides CTE stuff etc. etc..? At the moment I don't have the almost 200 dollars needed (including shipping) and I might not have them for a little while, so it would be nice to get some idea about the books content and overall opinions on the quality of it. G-d damned car repairs and Covid are wiping out my account, lol. If you don't want to reply to my post due to some animosity or whatever, maybe you can do a review in the review section? Pictures would be highly appreciated.

It isn't a "read" the book. It's a read, look at the accompanying picture illustrating the written words, and most importantly DO!

The book has EVERYTHING in the way of written word instructions and pictures that one could possibly need or want. I don't know what you mean "does it have information besides CTE stuff. If you mean contact points, fractions, etc.,HELL NO!
If you mean the stroke, the bridge, eye positions, the setup and solutions to every shot and more, HELL YES!!

There are many, many shots all over the table where the solution is shown with pictures and the instructions.

The work and thought Stan put into this book is mind blowing! Just INCREDIBLE! All of these dumbass questions and accusations that have been regurgitated thousands of times over 23 years are all answered.

I know one or more of them is going to jump up screaming bloody murder that all I am is a drugged out shill, but it's not so.

IT IS WHAT IT IS AND WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED PLUS MORE!!! FAR MORE!!!

 

[Dan White]

Stan said no such thing. He said he didn't adjust not that no adjustments would ever be necessary. He said that HE did not need to adjust for the shots demonstrated.

Perhaps your fundamental problem is that you are ALWAYS looking for something to nitpick about and you are overthinking pool. I mean, what I get out of your posting is that EITHER Stan is LYING to everyone deliberately and is making fully conscious adjustments and claiming otherwise, OR he is completely clueless about pool and science and talking nonsense or he is self-deluded and is only able to perform the shots he does because he was a really good player BEFORE learning CTE does not work without subconscious adjustments and so Stan must be adjusting subconsciously.

You never hold out the possibility that Stan is doing exactly as he says and making no conscious adjustments. You never entertain the possibility that getting on the dead nuts perfect shot line allows for the largest margin of error on either side. Stan mentions clearly that conditions may warrant some adjustment but that he didn't need to on his table.

And for SURE you will never experience what CTE users have which is the FEELING that one can aim and shoot at different speeds with no overt adjustment. So the PRACTICAL usage is aiming objectively with no need to adjust overtly UNLESS one consciously CHOOSES to for whatever reason they have determined an adjustment OFF THE BASELINE is needed.

Disingenuous is when you find 30 seconds in hours of video and FALSELY attribute comments to Stan that he did not make. And when you falsely characterize the video, and you PURPOSEFULLY don't link to the video you are critiquing. Let's be clear since you like to do the appeal to authority thing all the time. Professional players go to Stan for training. They don't go to you. Players that Stan has trained are among the best players living. You are a super nobody in comparison. Does that mean that Stan is always right and that you are always wrong? No, of course not. But what it does mean is that on the hierarchy of experience Stan's is way way above yours and he is far MORE LIKELY to know what he is experiencing on the table and why it happens the way he describes.

It's unreal that you are so dead set on finding ANYTHING that you can to discredit Stan that you skip over the fact that he created a second video with a 2.5" restricted pocket opening just to show you that he can make the shots into a super tight pocket as well. He didn't throw out a strawman argument he made a VALID argument that you are nitpicking and looking for results to dispute and never ever give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

Regarding the pocket cheating video. The reason I included it is because Stan addresses the issue of being able to shoot to different parts of the pocket if needed. Stan reduced the pocket opening for the demonstration. Instead of seeing Stan as a sincere instructor and working WITH him you work against him under the pretense of "just asking questions."

So no, I am not a saint Dan but I am certainly a better human than you are based on what I see of how you act here on this topic.

You are coming up with everything but the kitchen sink to defend the indefensible. The fact is Stan was so preoccupied with observing where the cue ball was hitting the foot rail on soft vs hard shots that he didn't consider that the ob was throwing a whole inch over 2.5 diamonds. This invalidates what he says in the video and has wider implications for CTE as covered in the discussion I posted on AZ, referenced earlier in this thread.

The fact that he set up a 2.5" pocket and was able to pocket balls at different speeds proves my other point about doing a real scientific study. You have to remove biases from the experiment. In Stan's first video he wasn't thinking about where the ob was going in the pocket. He was preoccupied with the cue ball travel. After my video showed the throw he said didn't exist, he made another video with 2.5" pockets. The test subject now knows what is being measured and sure enough the throw seems to disappear. It's human nature and is not always easy to eliminate from an experiment.

As to the rest of your comments -- whatever floats your boat. If you want to debate specific aspects of my video I'm all game, otherwise we're wasting time. Let's reboot the discussion, shall we?

Do you agree or disagree that the 3 soft balls go center pocket and the 3 hard balls hit the right facing, which by my math is about one inch difference. Can we at least agree on that ?

 

[JB Cases]

Look at Dr. D's work. Lets call that the most complete and accurate description of the workings of pool if not the entirety of pool... EVER.
Compare ProTE. Three lines to gain your bearings, windshift detailed in a coming version.
Not much pool there. Lots of pool movies but the content is the balls. And since I'm here, in the context of mentioning line of centers, that's how the balls transfer energy. ALWAYS. I recall skewing the subject but there's your final answer. Again, no ProTE.

The ghost ball line is identical to the contact line with the exception that the contact line intersects the pocket line (actually the derived shot line intersects the pocket line, sorry), AT THE BASE OF THE GHOST BALL. Without it, ghost ball is just an estimation - a perception; a preception for the advanced among us.

Did you bother to notice that my assertions are conclusions? Tyler can say whatever he wants. He play reel gud. But in selling his climb through pool, he's just another guy selling his way.

Mischaracterization, per usual. Not much pool eh? LOL.

You mean the ghost ball line is parallel to the contact line. The ghost ball line is an estimation. Both of those lines intersect the pocket line but they never converge, EVER. Yes, on paper, the GB line runs though the base of the ball because the base of the ball is ALWAYS on the vertical center plane. However in usage the shooter has nothing BUT estimation to determine where the GB center would be IF there was an actual physical ball there UNLESS the shooter uses an objective and precise method to figure out the GB line. For example the contact line is actually MORE objective than the GB line as one can determine it using the equal/opposite method. Once determined THEN the GB line can be derived by a simple parallel shift to center cueball.

Parallel Aiming Technique - Easy Pool Tutor

The Parallel Aiming technique was first introduced by the great Willie Mosconi in his book, "Winning Pocket Billiards". It shows an alternative aiming method

easypooltutor.com

 

[JB Cases]

You are coming up with everything but the kitchen sink to defend the indefensible. The fact is Stan was so preoccupied with observing where the cue ball was hitting the foot rail on soft vs hard shots that he didn't consider that the ob was throwing a whole inch over 2.5 diamonds. This invalidates what he says in the video and has wider implications for CTE as covered in the discussion I posted on AZ, referenced earlier in this thread.

The fact that he set up a 2.5" pocket and was able to pocket balls at different speeds proves my other point about doing a real scientific study. You have to remove biases from the experiment. In Stan's first video he wasn't thinking about where the ob was going in the pocket. He was preoccupied with the cue ball travel. After my video showed the throw he said didn't exist, he made another video with 2.5" pockets. The test subject now knows what is being measured and sure enough the throw seems to disappear. It's human nature and is not always easy to eliminate from an experiment.

As to the rest of your comments -- whatever floats your boat. If you want to debate specific aspects of my video I'm all game, otherwise we're wasting time. Let's reboot the discussion, shall we?

Do you agree or disagree that the 3 soft balls go center pocket and the 3 hard balls hit the right facing, which by my math is about one inch difference. Can we at least agree on that ?

Not at all. You on the other hand refuse to concede the possibility that the balls were simply mishit.

Of course we can agree that the balls which went to the right of center were not center pocket. Stan's pockets are 4.25" or less. A ball traveling over the center would have 1.125" on each side. which leaves 1" of margin. So yes from the perspective of the shot line over center pocket the ball deviates by about 1". However you call that throw and the fact is that a TINY shift at contact is enough to create a vector that results in a one inch deviation for that shot. The fact is that you would need far more shots done with video from several angles to identify whether the shots were mishit or thrown.


Regarding the test subject.....sure I agree that knowledge of what's being measured can influence the performance. But you still haven't proven your point based on the limited data. You want to assign motivation to Stan without also giving the benefit of the doubt. You also mischaracterized what he said. He did NOT say that contact induced throw is not a thing. He merely said that he didn't need to account for it on those shots. Now, that said I don't have ANY PROBLEM with looking at CIT and CTE together and figuring out what conditions might results in throw needing to be adjusted for and how much adjustment off of the given shot line might be needed.

 

[JB Cases]

I will pick this back up next week

 

[JB Cases]

Not to derail the thread or anything, but has anyone actually gotten the chance to read the book yet?

I'd be curious to know a little bit about what's in the book and how it's presented? What are the diagrams like, does it have information besides CTE stuff etc. etc..? At the moment I don't have the almost 200 dollars needed (including shipping) and I might not have them for a little while, so it would be nice to get some idea about the books content and overall opinions on the quality of it. G-d damned car repairs and Covid are wiping out my account, lol. If you don't want to reply to my post due to some animosity or whatever, maybe you can do a review in the review section? Pictures would be highly appreciated.

Yes, I am reading it and working it. I can't give you my opinion because I am too close to the subject.

 

[duckie]

All aiming systems are based on estimations, which makes them all subjective.

 

[Dan White]

Not at all. You on the other hand refuse to concede the possibility that the balls were simply mishit.

Of course we can agree that the balls which went to the right of center were not center pocket. Stan's pockets are 4.25" or less. A ball traveling over the center would have 1.125" on each side. which leaves 1" of margin. So yes from the perspective of the shot line over center pocket the ball deviates by about 1". However you call that throw and the fact is that a TINY shift at contact is enough to create a vector that results in a one inch deviation for that shot. The fact is that you would need far more shots done with video from several angles to identify whether the shots were mishit or thrown.

OK now we are getting somewhere, maybe. Of course in a dispassionate review of the situation one of the possibilities is that the balls were "mishit" or let's say pocketed with some slop, imprecision, whatever you want to call it. Does that idea hold water? Here's my thought on it:

1. Stan is a player who is so accurate you are willing to bet $100,000 on him. Stan is a pro level player who did another video shooting 9 out of 10 shots into a 2.5 inch pocket.
2. Stan hit four balls. Two hard and two soft. The two soft shots are dead center pocket to the extent you could superimpose one ball over the other just about perfectly. Same with the hard hit shots. They both careen into the pocket just about brushing the right facing. It does not seem likely that these are random mishits. Given Stan's expertise the odds of four randomly aimed balls resulting in two sets of superimposed balls is very low.
3. The cue ball hits the foot rail in about identical spots for the soft and hard hits. This means the cue ball contacted the ob at the same point each time, confirming that the soft shots were identical to each other as were the hard shots.
4. Stan repeatedly says he kept all variables the same except for speed. Taken at his word, then the result is exactly what we would expect. Balls hit harder throw less, which is the result we see in the video. If Stan does everything identically except for speed, he is not immune to the laws of physics. Throw happens to everybody.
5. In 20 years of Hal and Stan promoting CTE there has never once been evidence offered as proof for the various claims. You even said we should give Stan the benefit of the doubt. That's not science. Stan has had an opportunity for many years to provide any proof at all that balls do not throw differently when using CTE. He made one video in 2017 attempting to demonstrate this (still not proof, actually) and he managed to show the exact opposite.

Given the above it seems to be reaching to say that Stan is immune from physics and his shots would normally all enter the pocket in the same place, except in this case he got a case of the wobblies and couldn't pocket a ball clean.

Yes, more than two trials would be nice but we have to work with what is available. In statistics, the greater the difference between data sets the fewer trials are needed to find statistical significance. In other words, if the shooter is dead accurate then it doesn't take very many tries to show that the 1 inch difference between soft and hard is a real thing. In fact, at Stan's level of play just the two trials might be conclusive.

Regarding the test subject.....sure I agree that knowledge of what's being measured can influence the performance. But you still haven't proven your point based on the limited data. You want to assign motivation to Stan without also giving the benefit of the doubt. You also mischaracterized what he said. He did NOT say that contact induced throw is not a thing. He merely said that he didn't need to account for it on those shots. Now, that said I don't have ANY PROBLEM with looking at CIT and CTE together and figuring out what conditions might results in throw needing to be adjusted for and how much adjustment off of the given shot line might be needed.

Sorry, but no. Stan has flat out claimed numerous times that throw is not a variable for CTE because of the over cut. He never said throw is variable and needs to be adjusted for. His reply (3 years later) to my analysis is that his aim was off a little, so sue him. In other words, the balls did not throw any more or any less with speed even though every other variable was fixed, according to him. I know you don't believe this, either, so you are trying to say that Stan doesn't really mean that or never really said that. He did, sorry.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

All aiming systems are based on estimations, which makes them all subjective.

When you're right you're right, Duckie.

I'd add that a system's reference alignments (fractions, etc.) can be more or less objective (although seeing and aligning them accurately adds some subjectivity) - but getting from one of those "objective" alignments to the final aim line is certainly a "subjective" estimation, no matter how practiced and consistent.

pj
chgo

 

[straightline]

Mischaracterization, per usual. Not much pool eh? LOL.

Some dead outs with CTE terms affixed. I see that repeated shots can be organized by CTE.

You mean the ghost ball line is parallel to the contact line. The ghost ball line is an estimation. Both of those lines intersect the pocket line but they never converge, EVER. Yes, on paper, the GB line runs though the base of the ball because the base of the ball is ALWAYS on the vertical center plane. However in usage the shooter has nothing BUT estimation to determine where the GB center would be IF there was an actual physical ball there UNLESS the shooter uses an objective and precise method to figure out the GB line. For example the contact line is actually MORE objective than the GB line as one can determine it using the equal/opposite method. Once determined THEN the GB line can be derived by a simple parallel shift to center cueball.

Wrong. I said contact point aiming "done properly". Of course the lines are parallel. CP aiming differs by a geometric trick that bypasses the need to shoot at an apparition.

 

[duckie]

Im taking some family members shooting for the first time in their lives. Open sights and scopes.

When I state to them how to align the front and rear sights on the gun to get the right sight picture which includes the target....thats objective aiming.

Why, because nothing has to be imagined. The front and rear sights and target is real. Anyone looking at the gun can see the sights or the target.

Same concept with using a scope.

If someone has to imagine something thats not real......it is subjective...kinda like edge on a ball or a 1/2 ball hit.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If someone has to imagine something thats not real......it is subjective...kinda like edge on a ball or a 1/2 ball hit.

What you call something doesn’t make it more or less visible.

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

Im taking some family members shooting for the first time in their lives. Open sights and scopes.

When I state to them how to align the front and rear sights on the gun to get the right sight picture which includes the target....thats objective aiming.

Why, because nothing has to be imagined. The front and rear sights and target is real. Anyone looking at the gun can see the sights or the target.

Same concept with using a scope.

If someone has to imagine something thats not real......it is subjective...kinda like edge on a ball or a 1/2 ball hit.

Wind and light make shooting subjective. You can't see the wind but it can bite you in the butt, likewise light! I was at a benchrest match where the temperature at the height we were shooting was probably 100F plus maybe topping 110. Forty power scope at 200 yards. I had many views of the target. It was snapping to three different positions in my scope right to left, plus forming an image about an inch high sometimes in a boil. Other times the heat waves were tighter and I got "white out" despite no smoke, smog, or fog, my target simply disappeared for long seconds, important with a shot clock running.

I had shot groups at one hundred and two hundred with hall of fame shooters and world record holders on both sides of me and hadn't embarrassed myself. Now I was shooting my last group of the last relay at 200. The predominant wind was right to left so with three images an inch apart subjectively it would seem logical that the image to the far right showed the real position of the target. Logic favored this solution. Problem was my gut was convinced the middle image showed the real target location. I had parked four shots in about a quarter inch center to center in a couple minutes so had minutes to decide where to place that last shot! Unfortunately I couldn't find anything to help beyond what I saw through the scope. Logic triumphed over the gut and I parked a bullet right in the middle of the group when it sat on the far right. Wrong! That miscalculation moved me from a respectable finish to close to dead assed last when I opened that last group to near an inch!

I have read of many systems people made work like the reflections of lights on the pool balls. I found my solution to be just to hit the object ball on the opposite side from the pocket. Since the contact point on the cue ball can't be seen my system is a combination of objective and subjective aiming, much like shooting the rifles.

A chuckle, a fellow pistol competitor had never fired a group from a bench with a rifle. Telling him how to set up and when to shoot by watching my windflags I steered him to a first ever group that was under an eighth inch center to center at 100 yards. He looked at me, "I think I could have done better if you let me do it my way!"

No matter what method of directing the cue ball we use, there will never be a magic formula that doesn't have to be adjusted for table conditions and conditions dealing with that particular shot which I think is a good thing. If it was easy everyone could do it! There should be a reward for a gift or countless hours spent on a table or both.

Hu

 

[straightline]

I have read of many systems people made work like the reflections of lights on the pool balls. I found my solution to be just to hit the object ball on the opposite side from the pocket. Since the contact point on the cue ball can't be seen my system is a combination of objective and subjective aiming, much like shooting the rifles.
Hu

I call this the ass of the ball. Contact point might not light up for you but it can be seen.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Wind and light make shooting subjective. You can't see the wind but it can bite you in the butt, likewise light! I was at a benchrest match where the temperature at the height we were shooting was probably 100F plus maybe topping 110. Forty power scope at 200 yards. I had many views of the target. It was snapping to three different positions in my scope right to left, plus forming an image about an inch high sometimes in a boil. Other times the heat waves were tighter and I got "white out" despite no smoke, smog, or fog, my target simply disappeared for long seconds, important with a shot clock running.

I had shot groups at one hundred and two hundred with hall of fame shooters and world record holders on both sides of me and hadn't embarrassed myself. Now I was shooting my last group of the last relay at 200. The predominant wind was right to left so with three images an inch apart subjectively it would seem logical that the image to the far right showed the real position of the target. Logic favored this solution. Problem was my gut was convinced the middle image showed the real target location. I had parked four shots in about a quarter inch center to center in a couple minutes so had minutes to decide where to place that last shot! Unfortunately I couldn't find anything to help beyond what I saw through the scope. Logic triumphed over the gut and I parked a bullet right in the middle of the group when it sat on the far right. Wrong! That miscalculation moved me from a respectable finish to close to dead assed last when I opened that last group to near an inch!

I have read of many systems people made work like the reflections of lights on the pool balls. I found my solution to be just to hit the object ball on the opposite side from the pocket. Since the contact point on the cue ball can't be seen my system is a combination of objective and subjective aiming, much like shooting the rifles.

You are correct about the contact point not being able to be seen on the CB so how can it be linked up to the the contact point on the OB even if you know where IT is? Even when trying to imagine the contact point on the CB from the player's side, it's a distorted view. Same thing with fractions. Since you've chosen to use contact points, it HAS TO BE a combination of objective and subjective aiming.

A chuckle, a fellow pistol competitor had never fired a group from a bench with a rifle. Telling him how to set up and when to shoot by watching my windflags I steered him to a first ever group that was under an eighth inch center to center at 100 yards. He looked at me, "I think I could have done better if you let me do it my way!"

No matter what method of directing the cue ball we use, there will never be a magic formula that doesn't have to be adjusted for table conditions and conditions dealing with that particular shot which I think is a good thing. If it was easy everyone could do it! There should be a reward for a gift or countless hours spent on a table or both.

Hu

I enjoyed the shooting story with my favorite movie being American Sniper. But answer this: First of all you're shooting from a bench rest for stability instead of standing freely. Big difference in stability. You aren't using the front and rear sight on the gun itself. You have a very high power scope with cross hairs that can be adjusted up or down for distance and left or right for windage. There's still some guesswork involved because there could be a wind gust at the wrong time to throw the entire calculation off. IF you trained your eyes and brain to see and aim the EDGE of the CB which is very clear to a 1/2 ball hit on the OB (center) (also clear) or 1/4 ball hit on the OB with CB edge (also clear) life would be a lot easier just like using a scope. Of course those 3 targets aren't completely dialed in to all cut angles on the table by doing just that alone, but the remainder of it is like turning the knob on your scope to really get it dialed in. And that is what's taught. Make sense? Of course the two can't be a 100% comparison but there are many similarities. Far more with CTE than any other aiming method.

Get on a table for one hour. Spread all 15 balls out on the table with CB in hand for the first shot. Then try running the table by using the EDGE of the CB to A, B, C - 15-30-45 on the OB. What you'll probably see after no time flat is that it won't go if you stuck with the A, B, or C. From experience it would look either too thick or too thin. A 45 might have to be extended to a 60 or an EDGE. But A, B, C can be used only and you'll be surprised at how many balls will go in with just those 3 lined up as is.

Complete CTE involves more than just that for all the nuances that occur on the table. This is nothing more than to initially train your eyes and brain to see the CB edge and ABC on the OB. If you can't, you can't. Forget it. NO BITCHING AND VERBAL DESTRUCTION REQUIRED.

 

[straightline]

You can see it on the face you are looking at and estimate the offset at the front of the ball. If you envision an ellipse corresponding to the equator, it's pretty easy to line up the exact reciprocal points with no further geometry or drafting.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

A, B, C can be used only and you'll be surprised at how many balls will go in with just those 3 lined up as is.

It would be surprising if more than a few fractional shots go in. For instance, at just 2 feet from the pocket less than 1 in 4 will go (and that's with corner pockets at least 5" wide).

pj
chgo