A Curious CTE Diagram

[The_JV]

So the aim line is where your cue is pointed and the shot line is the intended CB direction, right? Makes sense to me.

lol... actually I don't think of it that way.

Yes, my aim line is where my cue is pointed. However what I consider the shot line, is the path the OB takes to the target.

I have never given the actual path of the CB a name of any kind, squirt altered or not.

Maybe I should pick something real confusing for that on. Like SAAL..., Squirt Adjusted Aim Line

I'll start jotting down my memoirs now

 

[Patrick Johnson]

my aim line is where my cue is pointed. However what I consider the shot line, is the path the OB takes to the target.

System overload. Terminating data intake.



pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

I'm not talking about deviations in terms of how Stan presented it over the years. I'm talking about the deviations made by each user to fit their own needs. As in, "Oh, I love Stan's method. I use it myself but when I do it I ...Insert alteration to the method here. I know you'll say that doesn't happen but we all know it does.

In manufacturing I call it version creep when someone makes a small change without making a new master and then someone else does and soon no one knows who made what changes or why.

I have seen several methods of aim that I would say are similar to the ways that Hal taught. I don't think that Hal was the only one who figured out that using objective references between the balls could greatly improve results.

I maintain that the multiple objective references that force the body to adopt a very narrow, pretty much exact, space in connection to the shot is a core element in the process. And this is important because it starts the player out highly focused on a clear objective connection to the cueball.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I maintain that the multiple objective references ... force the body to adopt a very narrow, pretty much exact, space in connection to the shot

Or...

References don’t force the body to do anything - your practiced interpretation (“perception”) of the references tells you what to do with your body - a respectable learned skill you’ve earned.

As I’ve said, I’m kinda intrigued by the dual (not “multiple”) references, but not because they’re somehow “extra objective” - I’m thinking they might make more precisely memorable shot pictures to recall.

Potentially valuable, even if not extranatural.

pj
chgo

 

[boogieman]

I'm always checking my cue action/stroke when down on the ball. I use my aim line to measure against my stroke mechanics. So after I correct for squirt I 'reset' my aim line to the corrected direction so my stroke mechanics have a new reference to compare to. That's why, in mind at least, I'm always parallel to the aim line. Even though I aware that I have angled away from the original uncorrected aim.

All of this sounds really complicated, but it's really simplistic in practice.

When I'm playing good I do the same. Accounting for throw/deflection feels automagical. It sounds like we have a slide rule out, but it's really just a HAMB with the same cue for years feel thing. It is conscious thought for me at this point. Tonight I tried TOI as an experiament on almost any type of cut shot. The crazy thing is, with a tiny bit of inside, it's not really inside, you're getting your cue parallel to the shot line. Even with outside spin (cutting to left and using right english) with TOI (or whatever adjustment) your cue is naturally on the shot line, hard to describe, but it's essentially a parallel shift. Pockets were split tonight with center pocket music, but by using TOI.

Call it what you want, but if your cue is parallel to the shot line, the cue ball sure floats pretty around the table. It was actually obeying me very well tonight minus a few speed control problems.

I was also aiming to overcut the OB, not aiming to hit the point of the pocket, but just inside the point. With the TOI/parallel shifted cue, it split the pocket. It was a weird feeling to fully trust my stroke and almost not be able to miss!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

When I'm playing good I do the same. Accounting for throw/deflection feels automagical. It sounds like we have a slide rule out, but it's really just a HAMB with the same cue for years feel thing. It is conscious thought for me at this point. Tonight I tried TOI as an experiament on almost any type of cut shot. The crazy thing is, with a tiny bit of inside, it's not really inside, you're getting your cue parallel to the shot line. Even with outside spin (cutting to left and using right english) with TOI (or whatever adjustment) your cue is naturally on the shot line, hard to describe, but it's essentially a parallel shift. Pockets were split tonight with center pocket music, but by using TOI.

Call it what you want, but if your cue is parallel to the shot line, the cue ball sure floats pretty around the table. It was actually obeying me very well tonight minus a few speed control problems.

I was also aiming to overcut the OB, not aiming to hit the point of the pocket, but just inside the point. With the TOI/parallel shifted cue, it split the pocket. It was a weird feeling to fully trust my stroke and almost not be able to miss!

As I was saying to JV (and we finally agreed), even with just a “touch” of side the cue needs to be (at least slightly) angled from the shot line to compensate for squirt.

pj
chgo

 

[The_JV]

As I was saying to JV (and we finally agreed), even with just a “touch” of side the cue needs to be (at least slightly) angled from the shot line to compensate for squirt.

For the record, lol, we slightly agree that what I'm doing contains what is probably best described as a pivot when I adjust for squirt. However that's where our agreement ends. My process (thought and physical) and terminology differs from yours. Even though the end result is hopefully the same.

JV <- enjoying a fresh new day of patience

 

[Patrick Johnson]

For the record, lol, we slightly agree that what I'm doing contains what is probably best described as a pivot when I adjust for squirt. However that's where our agreement ends. My process (thought and physical) and terminology differs from yours. Even though the end result is hopefully the same.

JV <- enjoying a fresh new day of patience

Yes, it's the end result I'm talking about. However you get there is cool by me.

pj
chgo

 

[boogieman]

As I was saying to JV (and we finally agreed), even with just a “touch” of side the cue needs to be (at least slightly) angled from the shot line to compensate for squirt.

pj
chgo

When on center ball at the overcut shot line, it goes where you hit it (accounting for CIT). With the TOI pivot, it throws the ball closer to center pocket. You don't really have to pay attention to CIT as the pivot makes it unnecessary to calculate. If you are using more speed on the CB, it will go closer to the other (opposite) side of where you were aiming. If you want to really hit the CB fast for shape, you might actually aim the center OB to the point of the pocket, and it still throws to center pocket. It takes a minute amount of know how, people with pool knowledge know why it works, but for an average user you could say it just works.

Honestly the way the ball behaves off the rails makes it a very worthwhile system, the ball feels more natural as it sort of negates the spin from the ball collision. The CB actually goes where I want instead of ending up buried behind the only ball on the table that could cause problems. It's really eerie as it feels much more subconscious than when the ball is hit without a slight pivot.

The tiny pivot isn't really a "parallel shift" I guess it is a slight angle, but it feels right. The pivot causes the Object ball to be hit more full, resulting in it going to the center of the pocket instead of the overcut.

Think of using a jump cue. The "clock face" is perpendicular to your tip. It's the same with a TOI, the clock face is still perpendicular to the tip. So the throw/deflection to the right actually hits the ball thicker instead of thinner. It takes a tiny bit of adjustment and practice, but it works nice. You're also using the (top and slight right) edge of your tip rather than center.

I hope description makes sense because I suck at describing things.

 

[The_JV]

Yes, my aim line is where my cue is pointed. However what I consider the shot line, is the path the OB takes to the target.

System overload. Terminating data intake.

Aha... Bob agrees with my take on what the "shot line" and "aim line" represent:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Aha... Bob agrees with my take on what the "shot line" and "aim line" represent.

As much as I respect both of your opinions, I'm sticking with:
- "aim line" = where the cue stick is pointed
- "shot line" = where I want the CB to go

To each my own.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Or...

References don’t force the body to do anything - your practiced interpretation (“perception”) of the references tells you what to do with your body - a respectable learned skill you’ve earned.

As I’ve said, I’m kinda intrigued by the dual (not “multiple”) references, but not because they’re somehow “extra objective” - I’m thinking they might make more precisely memorable shot pictures to recall.

Potentially valuable, even if not extranatural.

pj
chgo

The eyes tell the body what to do when the directions are look here in this way. If there is a red circle on the floor and I tell you to stand inside of it then you will use your eyes to locate it and your body will automatically move to place you inside of it. If there are two red circles and I tell you to stand in one and raise your hands held together to point at the edge of the other one your body will adopt a certain position and not any other. If I then tell you to point at the other edge of the circle then your body will adopt a position that is different and unique to the objective line created between your eyes and the object you were told to align to.

The multiple references, dual means two which is a multiple of one, serve to let the user "fix" or lock-in the cueball from the body position that the references have directed the user to.

And while you are correct that inanimate objects don't by themselves force anyone to do anything in the context of pool in the literal sense the fact is that inanimate objects FORCE us to align to or move away from just about every moment of an active person's life. If someone wants a glass of milk and they can see they use their eyes to orient them as they move through the house to accomplish the task. A moving/movable human reacts to the objects they perceive. If a task requires that they achieve a higher degree of visual focus then they certainly do practice until that degree is reached if at all possible for them to do so.

I think that we can agree on the following principles.

1. There is a small bracket of lines that the pool cue can adopt when shooting center cueball which will allow the object ball to be made.
2. The adoption of line within that set is called the center cue ball shot line.
3. There is a finite body position zone that the shooter can inhabit relative to the cueball which allows them to comfortably deliver the cuestick in a smooth forward motion allowing the cueball to move straight down the chosen shot line.
4. Adopting a correct shot line coupled with a straight stroke and with the proper speed for the table conditions consistently will result in a majority of shots attempted being pocketed.
5. Any method of aiming that results in the majority of attempted shots being made consistently is an effective aiming system.
6. The more objectively that a shooter with a straight stroke can aim the more consistent that they will be able to pocket the majority of shots that they attempt to pocket.

I maintain that we can devise tests that can accurately measure the efficacy of any aiming system to enough of a degree where we can have a cost/benefit comparison that correctly identifies expected levels of aiming accuracy after x-amount of time and effort. I believe we can figure out "best practices" and determine which aiming systems are best, better, good, average, and so on. I also think that we can determine using the same methods what types of shots some aimings systems are really great for and which ones to avoid, with the idea being that people can get a pretty good idea of which methods are worth learning deeply so as to have them available on demand in the same way that golfers have particular clubs and different techniques for different shots.

You and I disagree on what the word objective means as it applies to the Center to Edge aiming system. Part of that comes from the "shot picture" concept. Shot picture folks think that one must develop a library of shot pictures and that CTE is doing nothing more than providing that in the same way that any other aiming method does it. Even the pros I know who are expert CTE practitioners use the "shot picture library" concept to tell their students that they are building correct shot pictures. I happen to disagree because, anecdotally, I come up on shots all the time for which I have no shot picture memory of ever having shot it and I use CTE and have no confidence that the shot line is actually right other than I have cycled objectively through the CTE perceptions and eliminated all the ones I know won't work and have chosen the one I feel is most likely to be correct. And very often it is correct. At that point I don't have a shot picture that I remember but instead a cte-code shot solution. One that I arrived at objectively from my perspective as the shooter.

 

[bbb]

JB
you said this above
I come up on shots all the time for which I have no shot picture memory of ever having shot it and I use CTE and have no confidence that the shot line is actually right other than I have cycled objectively through the CTE perceptions and eliminated all the ones I know won't work and have chosen the one I feel is most likely to be correct. And very often it is correct. At that point I don't have a shot picture that I remember but instead a cte-code shot solution. One that I arrived at objectively from my perspective as the shooter.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
arent both terms describing the same thing using different semantics?
for any cue ball/ object ball /pocket relationship
you have your cte-code shot solution and "they" have their shot picture
.....................
you also said above
I have cycled objectively through the CTE perceptions and eliminated all the ones I know won't work and have chosen the one I feel is most likely to be correct.
One that I arrived at objectively from my perspective as the shooter.
......................
you mention feel above
was that a freudian slip or a poor choice of words?
isnt your experience of where the ball goes with each cte-code shot solution
what allows you to discard many options and select the cte-code shot solution that you decide on?
you say this selection process is objective
others say it is subjective
to me it is both
objective because the angles are real
subjective because you cant measure the angles with any system but poolology
so all the other systems have some subjectivity based on experience
i do not practice or in any way claim to understand cte completely
this is just my humble opinion
thank you all for letting me ramble

 

[The_JV]

JB
you said this above
I come up on shots all the time for which I have no shot picture memory of ever having shot it and I use CTE and have no confidence that the shot line is actually right other than I have cycled objectively through the CTE perceptions and eliminated all the ones I know won't work and have chosen the one I feel is most likely to be correct. And very often it is correct. At that point I don't have a shot picture that I remember but instead a cte-code shot solution. One that I arrived at objectively from my perspective as the shooter.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
arent both terms describing the same thing using different semantics?
for any cue ball object ball pocket relationship
you have your cte-code shot solution and "they" have their shot picture
.....................
you also said above
I have cycled objectively through the CTE perceptions and eliminated all the ones I know won't work and have chosen the one I feel is most likely to be correct.
One that I arrived at objectively from my perspective as the shooter.
......................
you mention feel above
was that a freudian slip or a poor choice of words?
isnt your experience of where the ball goes with each cte-code shot solution
what allows you to discard many options and select the cte-code shot solution that you decide on?
you say this selection process is objective
others say it is subjective
to me it is both
objective because the angles are real
subjective because you cant measure the angles with any system but poolology
so all systems have some subjectivity based on experience
i do not practice or in any way claim to understand cte completely
this is just my humble opinion
thank you all for letting me ramble

Exactly...

The cycling through "CTE-codes" until you have eliminated those you think won't work to the one that you feel may, is no different than the way I aim thick on long blind cuts and adjust until I know I've gotten to thin. At that point I stop and revert back to the aim prior to "too thin" and pull the trigger. That process is definitely not objective but yet works extremely well for me at least.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

snippedydoodah

tl;dr

pj
chgo

 

[boogieman]

6. The more objectively that a shooter with a straight stroke can aim the more consistent that they will be able to pocket the majority of shots that they attempt to pocket.

Good post, but what could be more objective than letting the body subconsciously perform the shot? Once rote/muscle memory/subconscious pocketing is established, there is no need for aiming systems. If you can look at the ball, then hit the ball good, why is there a need for aiming systems? I'm not being silly here. Pool, in it's best form would be played on a subconscious level, totally "hypnotized" or in the zone. The game would be playing through us, not us playing the game.

Look, point, shoot, just like hunting with a traditional bow. If there are people that can shoot an aspirin out of the air with a traditional Mongolian horse bow, what does that tell us? There's no sights, no ratios, and the aspirin is moving. Eyes see this, body do this and in an instant.

While a physical feat such as shooting an aspiring is impressive, I think in ways it's way harder to knock a stationary object into another stationary object and that one go to a target.

I'm not saying people don't need aiming systems, but wouldn't it be neat to just see and do instead? Maybe we have it wrong. Maybe we need to HAMB with an aiming system, then hit about 10 million without and transcend the limits of mere mortal pool players.

 

[Low500]

Good post, but what could be more objective than letting the body subconsciously perform the shot? Once rote/muscle memory/subconscious pocketing is established, there is no need for aiming systems. If you can look at the ball, then hit the ball good, why is there a need for aiming systems? I'm not being silly here. Pool, in it's best form would be played on a subconscious level, totally "hypnotized" or in the zone. The game would be playing through us, not us playing the game.

Look, point, shoot, just like hunting with a traditional bow. If there are people that can shoot an aspirin out of the air with a traditional Mongolian horse bow, what does that tell us? There's no sights, no ratios, and the aspirin is moving. Eyes see this, body do this and in an instant.

While a physical feat such as shooting an aspiring is impressive, I think in ways it's way harder to knock a stationary object into another stationary object and that one go to a target.

I'm not saying people don't need aiming systems, but wouldn't it be neat to just see and do instead? Maybe we have it wrong. Maybe we need to HAMB with an aiming system, then hit about 10 million without and transcend the limits of mere mortal pool players.

There's a lot to be said for what you've posted.
My dad was a professional sleight of hand magician and made a very good six figure living working corporate trade shows pitching sales for various companies across the USA by working a sales spiel into his sleight of hand with cards and coins. A mere 18 inches from watchers' eyes...(who were bound and determined to "catch" him).
He used to say when he reached a certain skill level in his career, the 'magic' no longer had to be thought about. It just 'happened' and he simply created routines on the spot out of thin air. That way, he said, he didn't have to even think about what his hands needed to accomplish and he could express his personality and humor into the corporate sales message without even thinking about the sleight of hand itself...a kind of "zone", if you will.
I knew what he was doing with those cards and coins and what to look for....but it was invisible, even to me. As far as comparing it to HAMB....every day of his life, every morning he spent one hour at a table surrounded by mirrors secured to the table top. When he couldn't see himself dealing those seconds and bottoms and doing those bottom palms and hole card switches or 3-4 half dollars palmed in his hands looking natural...he then knew his routines were ready to work for money. That was his "HAMB".

 

[The_JV]

Good post, but what could be more objective than letting the body subconsciously perform the shot? Once rote/muscle memory/subconscious pocketing is established, there is no need for aiming systems. If you can look at the ball, then hit the ball good, why is there a need for aiming systems? I'm not being silly here. Pool, in it's best form would be played on a subconscious level, totally "hypnotized" or in the zone. The game would be playing through us, not us playing the game.

Look, point, shoot, just like hunting with a traditional bow. If there are people that can shoot an aspirin out of the air with a traditional Mongolian horse bow, what does that tell us? There's no sights, no ratios, and the aspirin is moving. Eyes see this, body do this and in an instant.

While a physical feat such as shooting an aspiring is impressive, I think in ways it's way harder to knock a stationary object into another stationary object and that one go to a target.

I'm not saying people don't need aiming systems, but wouldn't it be neat to just see and do instead? Maybe we have it wrong. Maybe we need to HAMB with an aiming system, then hit about 10 million without and transcend the limits of mere mortal pool players.

There's a lot to be said for what you've posted.
My dad was a professional sleight of hand magician and made a very good six figure living working corporate trade shows pitching sales for various companies across the USA by working a sales spiel into his sleight of hand with cards and coins. A mere 18 inches from watchers' eyes...(who were bound and determined to "catch" him).
He used to say when he reached a certain skill level in his career, the 'magic' no longer had to be thought about. It just 'happened' and he simply created routines on the spot out of thin air. That way, he said, he didn't have to even think about what his hands needed to accomplish and he could express his personality and humor into the corporate sales message without even thinking about the sleight of hand itself...a kind of "zone", if you will.
I knew what he was doing with those cards and coins and what to look for....but it was invisible, even to me. As far as comparing it to HAMB....every day of his life, every morning he spent one hour at a table surrounded by mirrors secured to the table top. When he couldn't see himself dealing those seconds and bottoms and doing those bottom palms and hole card switches or 3-4 half dollars palmed in his hands looking natural...he then knew his routines were ready to work for money. That was his "HAMB".

It's funny... I've been a HAMB player since I didn't need to consider the ghost ball anymore. My potting success has never been an issue for me, so most of my playing 'career' has been developing table IQ and effective patterns. However, since frequenting this forum and more specifically this aiming subforum. I have found my conscious has taken over aiming to some degree and I find myself missing balls that would normally be automatic. I think what's happened is I'm paying more attention to my process as a means to eiher gather info to post here or to compare my process to what I've seen discussed.

Which is really funny because I have argued in the past that I would perfer full conscious control over the aiming process as to implement corrections as needed. Appears as though I'm regretting what I wished for....lol

 

[boogieman]

Which is really funny because I have argued in the past that I would perfer full conscious control over the aiming process as to implement corrections as needed. Appears as though I'm regretting what I wished for....lol

The aiming forum is a bit like a trip to Oz. Maybe it is best to not look at the man behind the curtain, but that's not very satisfying to our curiosity!

As we travel down the yellow brick road, perhaps we should remember the message when the troupe made it to the Emerald City!

"In the story of the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy, the Tin Man, the Scarecrow and the Lion defeat the wicked witch and return to the Emerald City. The Great Wizard has promised to grant their wishes if they defeat the witch. Dorothy hopes to return to Kansas, the Tin Man desires a heart, the Lion, courage and the Scarecrow, brains.
Cowering before the booming voice of the Wizard, Dorothy and her chums ask him to fulfill his promise. But by accident, the curtain falls away. The Wizard is revealed as a small old man speaking into a megaphone and pulling frantically at levers. It is all smoke and mirrors.

The Wizard realizes that his deception has been revealed. I’m not a bad man, just a bad wizard, he says.
But Dorothy’s chums insist he keeps his promise. The Wizard presents the Scarecrow with a certificate, the Tin Man with a clock and the Lion with medals. He is a wise man who knows that the human qualities of brains, heart, and courage cannot be given. As such, he offers his gifts allegorically. In giving these gifts he acknowledges that, through their trials and tribulations, what Dorothy’s companions are seeking was always within themselves. During their adventures, the Scarecrow had admirably shown his brains, the Tin Man his heart and the Lion his bravery. Not realizing that the gifts are only allegorical, Dorothy’s chums dance with delight.
Too often, we act like tin men, scarecrows and cowardly lions, blithely expecting others to provide the solutions to our difficulties.
These solutions are actually within us. Other people cannot tell us what meanings to make or what directions we should take in our lives. That has to come from us.
We have to learn to listen carefully to ourselves and not let our own voices be drowned out by others." source

 

[JB Cases]

Good post, but what could be more objective than letting the body subconsciously perform the shot? Once rote/muscle memory/subconscious pocketing is established, there is no need for aiming systems. If you can look at the ball, then hit the ball good, why is there a need for aiming systems? I'm not being silly here. Pool, in it's best form would be played on a subconscious level, totally "hypnotized" or in the zone. The game would be playing through us, not us playing the game.

Look, point, shoot, just like hunting with a traditional bow. If there are people that can shoot an aspirin out of the air with a traditional Mongolian horse bow, what does that tell us? There's no sights, no ratios, and the aspirin is moving. Eyes see this, body do this and in an instant.

While a physical feat such as shooting an aspiring is impressive, I think in ways it's way harder to knock a stationary object into another stationary object and that one go to a target.

I'm not saying people don't need aiming systems, but wouldn't it be neat to just see and do instead? Maybe we have it wrong. Maybe we need to HAMB with an aiming system, then hit about 10 million without and transcend the limits of mere mortal pool players.

There is no activity that humans do that involves aiming which is not a practiced skill.

At least none that I can think of. Even my morning pee has to be aimed correctly.