Yes you need to casually know where the pocket is for your 15,30,45. But from there it’s total concentration on the CTE reference lines
The Simplest Aiming Systems to Visualize and Use
- Thread starter SpiderWebComm
- Start date
I said it’s well described, you know, in a real nice collectors item book. What’s not well described by you and your side is exactly why it doesn’t work. Care to take a stab at that in total detail?
So... same ol', same ol' deflection.
I repeat: ...if you can’t describe it, then your system doesn’t “dictate” it. If you could you would've long ago, if only to prove the "naysayers" wrong.
pj
chgo
Usual Disclaimer: As I've said many times before, I'm not saying CTE can't be used effectively - just that it doesn't work fundamentally differently than other systems (despite all the added "detail").
Prove what you say. Prove its not different
Is it really "casually"? Lol. I mean, you either see it (the pocket) or you don't. If you're looking at the shot you see the pocket, either directly or indirectly (peripherally). And you see the rails. Without these visual inputs there would be zero reference for aiming any pool shot.
The burden of proof is on the maker of an improbable claim. An aiming system that can "dictate" every shot line is illogical and unheard of.
You prove what I say every time you try to sidestep that reality.
pj
chgo
What do you mean it doesn't work fundamentally differently mean? If the similarity is all or most aiming systems can make balls go into the pocket, I would agree. With that being said, then what is your 25 year bitch and insanity act about if it CAN be used effectively? Nobody knows why balls go into the pocket the way you play which involves contact points (OK) but always sprinkled with "FEEL". Wtf is that? Explain it. You never have, can't, and avoid trying to explain it. If you were some kind of world beater at pool, it's one thing. But you aren't even close. What do you FEEL and what are the modifications that make it deadly? (HA-HA)
Btw, I never remember you saying many times before (or ever) that CTE can't be used effectively.
I'll tell you this, as an example of what Cookie has been trying to explain to you. I really could care less if you believe it or not but if you truly understood the CTE methods it's a very simple example of what Cookie has told you.
Place the cue ball on the head string and in 1 diamond. Place an object ball in one diamond, directly in between the side pockets.
Using proper CTE fundamentals, line up a 15 degree inside perception to the left foot corner pocket. No need to look at the object ball from this point forward because I just told you the correct perception to pocket the ball. The only time you have to look at the pocket and ball relationship is to arrive at the 15, 30, or 45, etc,,, perception. Sweep or pivot depending on which CTE method of the 3 you choose, to center cue ball, and stroke the shot, into the lh foot corner pocket. If you miss, you are not doing CTE correctly.
Next set up the exact shot again except move both the object ball and cue ball in to 1 and a half diamonds off the side rail. No need to even look at the corner pocket because the perception is still 15 degrees inside. Perform the fundamental CTE approach and shoot the ball into the same LH corner pocket. For No need to look at the object ball again once your pivot hand hits the table.
So 2 very different ball positions and angles yet they all go exactly the same way with the same exact procedure, and other than looking at the cue ball from full stance to position your alignment center there is really no need at all to look at the pocket or the object ball again on any of the 2 shots.
If you miss any of the 2 you are not correctly applying CTE and have no business preaching that it can't work. It does, I can make these shots all day.
Attachments
Last edited:
That's right, I've said it can be used effectively. I'm not surprised you don't remember - you see what you want to.
pj
chgo
I appreciate the time you put into your reply but I don't see how your example is any different from mine -- which you categorically dismissed even though cookie said it was correct Moving along.
In your example the cut angle is greater on the second shot which requires a thinner contact compared to the first. How is this accomplished if you are doing the same steps each time -- namely, findimg the two lines then pivoting?
"My God this is like an Abbott and Costello routine only its not funny.
Can you confirm something so I know we're (you, me, boogie) on the same page?
1. Recognize straight in shot as a 15 inside.
2. Find cte line and eta line and settle on a line between them.
3. Get down on this line but place bridge and tip at a half tip offset to ccb. Pivot to ccb to thicken the shot. Straight in in this case.
4. Set balls up again but at a 10 degree angle. Repeat step 2 and 3 exactly the same but now the balls will cut the needed 10 degrees even though you didn't do anything differently, right?"
That is what you THINK Cookie agreed with? Pretty sure he didn't really, but I'll break that down for you.
1. A straight in shot will NEVER be a 15 degree inside perception.
2. Even if it was a 15 degree inside it wouldn't necessarily be ETA. Depends on whether the Aim line is thick or thin to the pocket.
3. You are getting down to full stance BEFORE even establishing the Parallax line, which is the position stepping occurs from in Pro 1. The 1/2 tip pivot is not required for Pro 1.
4. In your step 4 you are presuming you know the angle, which misses the entire point. You almost never do, and don't need to. You develop an eye for an approximation of 15, 30, or 45.
My example was to show 2 completely different angles with obviously different contact points, made in the pocket with the same exact process.
And by the way, both of those example shots I posted shot with a 15" outside perception go in the left up corner as a straight back 1 rail bank, again with the same procedure.
Geometric connection? Call it what you like, but it sure makes pocketing balls easier.
You come across as a pretty sharp fellow, you would know this all by now if you put a little effort into it.
New to pool, huh?
I usually describe it as practiced estimation. It's how you (yes, you) gauge when a shot is finally on.
pj
chgo
for speed and spin yes, for aiming,,,,,,,,,,, not so much
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Guys, thanks for having patience. This is the one CTE thread where it actually seems like good discussion is going on. There's been a few rough spots but there really is some good discussion.
I'll try to address what I can if the question is still on the table but it might be tomorrow, it's Valentine's Day and my wife has already been ignored for 30 games of 9 Ball tonight.
Dan, you've been playing pool for years and already have a ton of shots in your pool database. You already know how to make the shots so things feel and look very weird trying a different method. It did for me too. CTE is very different from the methods most people learn on, but it actually is workable. Renegade has a good post above, does a pretty good job there but it will still be confusing at first.
Try this: Set up a 15, 30, 45, whatever it doesn't matter. Look at the contact point/ghost ball or however you come down on a shot with your current aim. Do it just like your current aiming method. While down (not recommended but this is just an experiment at this point), take the nearest ABC CTE aim.
Think about the two references on the CB, the edge and the center, hell, even check both edges if you have to decide which perception makes sense. Since you already know how to make the shot, try as well as you can to get to the CTE shot. Don't even worry about the angle to the pocket (you already are in stance from your current aiming method, as you get more proficient at CTE you will trust the ABC more so you won't necessarily need your current method, but think of it like a secondary check). How you get down on the shot is part of CTE but don't worry about that now, too much info for your body to parse at first. More or less, between the two reference lines is the No Imagination Shot Line. Now here's the catch. Aim on this line with all your might. Shoot the shot.
It might not go in, because once you have this perception, you might have to adjust as on any system. CTE uses the tick/round barn idea. Focus your eyes on the edge of the OB and move them back to the aim. It will start to look right. If you get it looking right, it will go in. It's not really any different than does it look right with your current method, just a different approach. Remember, the dual references so it can help you tune it in.
If it still doesn't work with the tick/eye shift thing, just get down on the CTE shot and adjust as you would normally. Pay attention to how it looks when you play the "thinner or thicker" or however you do it now. You want it to look like this on a CTE aiming method, but it might take some experimentation to get there. The book actually does a good job at explaining but it does take some picking at to figure what you need to be doing.
Since you already know how to aim and have played for years, the Basic CTE seems a bit wonky but it's not. Think of it as a new player who has just discovered Ghost Ball. Some shots go, others you wonder what the hell happened. This is where the practice comes in. It does go pretty quick because I really do feel that CTE gives you a little better focus with the dual references. I think that the point of Basic CTE is for beginners or people who don't already know how to aim. It's important to understand so you understand the rest, but if it just makes no sense, try Disguised Pivot or Pro One. Something will click if you want to experiment and see what it's all about. I quickly gave up on the pivoting thing because I didn't need to do so. I guess you can say I came into it with DP after doing the shot diagrams in the book about 10X each. I personally didn't like the pivoting and felt it was a hindrance to me personally. CTE does let you kind of "customize" to your liking. Some guys might have no luck with one of the flavors but the others work.
All this said, I don't think it's necessary to use CTE, but it is a viable option. Is it worth rebuilding your game? Maybe not, but it's personal, some people it makes sense to do so, others not so much. If anything it is an interesting experiment and there are definitely "nuggets" in there even if you decide it isn't for you. The method does seem odd, especially with all the acronyms, but it's basically describing a new method of aiming where the currently used pool words don't really fit the bill. It's fun to joke about all the acronyms but I get it, once you associate what you're doing with them, it's less baggage and you don't have to explain the difference of similar words used for other aiming methods.
Personally with CTE, I used it for a while, but I quickly realized my main problem was fundamentals and focus. I kind of put it on the back burner while I whittled away at those two glaring problems in my game. No use trying to better my aim while my fundamentals were dog crap. I do plan to go back and experiment some more with it in the future. I'm close to this point but now I know I have to also work on my natural shape... so sometime soonish, but not immediately.
It's refreshing to see the discussion going on in the thread.
EDIT: Also try to not think about a straight in shot being CTE, the only reference to this is both edges and the centers line up. 15, 30, or 45 should be the baseline for experimentation, angled shots, not straights. Straight shots are just center to center, though you can use two references. To me, straight in is straight in, no matter what system you choose.
I'll try to address what I can if the question is still on the table but it might be tomorrow, it's Valentine's Day and my wife has already been ignored for 30 games of 9 Ball tonight.
Dan, you've been playing pool for years and already have a ton of shots in your pool database. You already know how to make the shots so things feel and look very weird trying a different method. It did for me too. CTE is very different from the methods most people learn on, but it actually is workable. Renegade has a good post above, does a pretty good job there but it will still be confusing at first.
Try this: Set up a 15, 30, 45, whatever it doesn't matter. Look at the contact point/ghost ball or however you come down on a shot with your current aim. Do it just like your current aiming method. While down (not recommended but this is just an experiment at this point), take the nearest ABC CTE aim.
Think about the two references on the CB, the edge and the center, hell, even check both edges if you have to decide which perception makes sense. Since you already know how to make the shot, try as well as you can to get to the CTE shot. Don't even worry about the angle to the pocket (you already are in stance from your current aiming method, as you get more proficient at CTE you will trust the ABC more so you won't necessarily need your current method, but think of it like a secondary check). How you get down on the shot is part of CTE but don't worry about that now, too much info for your body to parse at first. More or less, between the two reference lines is the No Imagination Shot Line. Now here's the catch. Aim on this line with all your might. Shoot the shot.
It might not go in, because once you have this perception, you might have to adjust as on any system. CTE uses the tick/round barn idea. Focus your eyes on the edge of the OB and move them back to the aim. It will start to look right. If you get it looking right, it will go in. It's not really any different than does it look right with your current method, just a different approach. Remember, the dual references so it can help you tune it in.
If it still doesn't work with the tick/eye shift thing, just get down on the CTE shot and adjust as you would normally. Pay attention to how it looks when you play the "thinner or thicker" or however you do it now. You want it to look like this on a CTE aiming method, but it might take some experimentation to get there. The book actually does a good job at explaining but it does take some picking at to figure what you need to be doing.
Since you already know how to aim and have played for years, the Basic CTE seems a bit wonky but it's not. Think of it as a new player who has just discovered Ghost Ball. Some shots go, others you wonder what the hell happened. This is where the practice comes in. It does go pretty quick because I really do feel that CTE gives you a little better focus with the dual references. I think that the point of Basic CTE is for beginners or people who don't already know how to aim. It's important to understand so you understand the rest, but if it just makes no sense, try Disguised Pivot or Pro One. Something will click if you want to experiment and see what it's all about. I quickly gave up on the pivoting thing because I didn't need to do so. I guess you can say I came into it with DP after doing the shot diagrams in the book about 10X each. I personally didn't like the pivoting and felt it was a hindrance to me personally. CTE does let you kind of "customize" to your liking. Some guys might have no luck with one of the flavors but the others work.
All this said, I don't think it's necessary to use CTE, but it is a viable option. Is it worth rebuilding your game? Maybe not, but it's personal, some people it makes sense to do so, others not so much. If anything it is an interesting experiment and there are definitely "nuggets" in there even if you decide it isn't for you. The method does seem odd, especially with all the acronyms, but it's basically describing a new method of aiming where the currently used pool words don't really fit the bill. It's fun to joke about all the acronyms but I get it, once you associate what you're doing with them, it's less baggage and you don't have to explain the difference of similar words used for other aiming methods.
Personally with CTE, I used it for a while, but I quickly realized my main problem was fundamentals and focus. I kind of put it on the back burner while I whittled away at those two glaring problems in my game. No use trying to better my aim while my fundamentals were dog crap. I do plan to go back and experiment some more with it in the future. I'm close to this point but now I know I have to also work on my natural shape... so sometime soonish, but not immediately.
It's refreshing to see the discussion going on in the thread.
EDIT: Also try to not think about a straight in shot being CTE, the only reference to this is both edges and the centers line up. 15, 30, or 45 should be the baseline for experimentation, angled shots, not straights. Straight shots are just center to center, though you can use two references. To me, straight in is straight in, no matter what system you choose.
Last edited:
really? So you can use feel for aiming but don't understand how it could be used with speed and spin for position play?
AFAIC it's not about if it works. With all the customers involved it looks more and more like a club of people who need the academia of SS's System to feel their merit as poolers. I'd call it a hypersystem compared to an intra system like contact geometry
. where the latter addresses the requirements and mechanics of every shot by geometric alignment and the former addresses the needs of some kind of abstract intellectual confirmation.Regardless, I still see players of all ilk well, missing. Shall I say, not 100% competent at whatever they profess? The first impression I get from the SS method rings truer with every new incarnation. It's unnecessarily complicated and requires rigid compensation to come up with what still appears to be an inadequate approach. Where it does shine is saleable content.
No, I wonder what difference makes it possible to aim without it. Is there a system for gauging speed and spin without feel? If not, why?
pj
chgo
What is it that finally lead you to that conclusion with your "AH-HA" moment after all those years of
"NO FRIGGIN' WAY".
Hey genius, maybe I just flat out never SAW. From time to time I do take vacations from here just as you have done. How about a copy and paste of the post with a date stamp.
As usual, Mr. Clueless Johnson strikes again! No part of estimation, practiced or guessing, is involved when I am taking the shot.
It's the most visible visual that jumps out at the player screaming it's on the target like the crosshairs in the scope
of a sniper's rifle. Something you have NEVER understood and never will. You'll die being the same half assed hack player
you've always been because of your "know everything" attitude. But you sure are a great wordsmith juggling words to make
far too many people and players THINK you're something far above what you really are.