It's not that I won't try. I can tell you right off the bat, the eye shifts and stroke corrections are not compatible with stuff I'm working on. Tell you what, I'll get to whatever the basic set shot is, learn how to do it, and report back on the fail zones. this will be per my methods and not a deliberate attempt to generate failure.
A real CTE shot for you to try.
- Thread starter mohrt
- Start date
There is no one way for a seasoned player that has been using a method of aiming other than CTE to do a shot using CTE.
Their method is too ingrain into them to allow for them to do a shot soley using CTE.
It is a waste of time to expect some one like me that has GB so ingrain in me not to use it.
You think someone that has been using fractional aiming for decades to all of sudden not use it?
And to expect someone be able to use CTE as effectively as something they used for decades?
Get real.....
Their method is too ingrain into them to allow for them to do a shot soley using CTE.
It is a waste of time to expect some one like me that has GB so ingrain in me not to use it.
You think someone that has been using fractional aiming for decades to all of sudden not use it?
And to expect someone be able to use CTE as effectively as something they used for decades?
Get real.....
GET REAL THEN, Why are you constantly posting in CTE threads when you have no interest in learning.
Good point. Most people should be able to get the visuals, the "fixed" cb. From there I'm sure whatever aiming method you've been using for years would play a subconscious role in helping to recognize and determine the sweep into that final aim line. As with any aiming method, you gotta see it and recognize that it's correct in order to know you're on it.
I used other aiming methods the first 25 years of playing pool. Then I found CTE and changed everything about how I aim. I don't see a problem with someone finding a way to advance their pool game, even if that means changing something they've done for years or decades. If they've never improved for a decade, maybe that's a hint something could be done better? *shrug*
I'm not convinced of that bold part. If it were possible somehow to show what the fixed cb looked like for 100 different players I wonder how many different looks you'd have. I am not able to see an ETA line and then CTE line and place my head where they both look good. I'm not sure that's even possible. I just see one then see the other and move my head somewhere in the middle.
You angle your face toward the cutting edge of the CB such that left eye is dominant on the left line and right eye is dominant on the right line (SL/AL or AL/SL). There is only one place it will look right, and that may take some practice to get proficient with. From there you follow the SL down into full stance (not just "somewhere in the middle")
Is this the latest service pack ?
I was referring to the procedure prior to a manual pivot. I don't think it is possible to make one eye dominant on one spot and the other on another spot, unless maybe if you close one eye at a time and make it work. Of course then it is no longer a 3D phenomenon.
This is the procedure at ball address. I can make my left eye dominant on the SL and right eye dominant on the AL on the shot given for this post. You don't even need to think about eye dominance when executing these shots, as angling your face into the cutting edge of CB does this automatically. I thought it was a good way to describe what is happening for the technocrats on this forum.
And TBH, this level of eye dominance description didn't exist before the book. It has made things much easier to understand IMHO. Follow the SL down to full stance, keeping eye dominance the same all the way in.Once in full stance, you can double check the SL and make sure it's still on CCB before you shoot. This is the bees knees for CTE. The AL may fall out of direct sight at full stance depending on the shot, but you can still tell if it's on or not. You can also back out to ball address and verify that the AL is still on. On this particular shot for this post, I can still see both SL and AL at full stance, as the CB and OB are sufficient distance from each other to do so.
Why not just plant your rear foot on the stroking/aiming line ? Drop your chin and dominant eye on that line?This is the procedure at ball address. I can make my left eye dominant on the SL and right eye dominant on the AL on the shot given for this post. You don't even need to think about eye dominance when executing these shots, as angling your face into the cutting edge of CB does this automatically. I thought it was a good way to describe what is happening for the technocrats on this forum.
Once in full stance, you can double check the SL and make sure it's still on CCB before you shoot. This is the bees knees for CTE. The AL may fall out of direct sight at full stance depending on the shot, but you can still tell if it's on or not. You can also back out to ball address and verify that the AL is still on. On this particular shot for this post, I can still see both SL and AL at full stance, as the CB and OB are sufficient distance from each other to do so.
Although I'm left eye dominant, I can consciously focus on one eye's image or the other's at any given time - so I think it's possible to get each eye aligned with a slightly different line, assuming they're parallel. Center-to-edge and edge-to-B lines (this example) are 1 1/8" apart, and human eyes are usually farther apart than that (mine are 2 5/8" center-to-center), hence the need to turn your head - however, I'd have to turn my head more than 60 degrees sideways (and be looking extremely sideways) to get my eyes physically on those two lines.
pj
chgo
Well you're a better man than I. When I look at something I see one image and cannot tell which eye is seeing what. The two together give a 3D image. I have to close one eye then the other to see what perspective each eye is giving me.
That can certainly can and does work, especially for these somewhat easy test shots. The real gain is when you have tougher shots, bank shots, thinner cuts, that is where CTE really shines. That, and you are doing the same thing shot to shot, a lot less "having a bad day" when you are not lining up on a shot the same way on some days.
You are exactly correct that the head turn gets your eyes aligned correctly. However, the head turn isn't that extreme. Unless you have 5 inches between your eyes? lol.
Reverse engineer the manual pivot method and you'll arrive at the "fixed" cb.... Start with a straight in shot and line up to shoot it. At tip address you should be lined straight at ccb. Now move your entire cue and bridge hand 1/2 a tip to the right (or left if you prefer), parallel to the line you started on, then pivot the cue so that the tip is lined back to ccb from this 1/2 tip offset perspective. Look at the line your cue stick is now on, as far as referencing ccb from that line. That is the "fixed" ccb, the pre-pivot or pre-sweep ccb that you get from the 15-outside visuals.
Nice shooting! I told myself I would make one post and then go hit some balls. I want to get at the crux of the issue and you always seem game to try. Here's an experiment. Set up the balls just like you did in the video in the various shots. Before hitting them, remove the left long rail, insert a six inch or twelve inch table bed shim and replace the rail. Now you have a table that is not 2x1 in dimension. Go back to the balls that are already set up at the centerline of the "old" table and shoot. Are you saying that the balls will not go in the pocket as in your video because of the change?
Follow up question. If you hit one shot slowly at barely pocket speed and then the same shot again hard with stun are they both going to go center pocket?
Thanks.
Yes, thanks, I understand what the "fixed" cb is supposed to be. My point is that there may be more subjectivity in seeing two lines between two small balls 3 or 4 feet apart than thought. Different people would fall on that fixed cb in different ways depending on how they perceive seeing the two lines at the same time.
lol I don't have table bed shims nor do I want to remove rails. Would they still go in? I have no idea but I'm betting it would affect things, as the 2x1 table does affect the perceptions. As for hitting balls slowly and then hard with stun, I'll have to give it a try, but I'll bet my stroke will have a bigger influence than anything... I didn't play pool for the entire year of covid and I'm just a couple weeks back into practice. I can feel the stroke just not quite where it used to be yet.