The Simplest Aiming Systems to Visualize and Use

[SpiderWebComm]

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.

For someone who stated that he's out of the wordsmithing game that goes after players and CTE itself, you sure have a weaseling
way about you that doesn't allow you to stop. And then "innocently" claim "I'm not going after those who use CTE or on the system itself." Yeah, you have too much class for that. LOL. Why don't you stick to throwing tidbits out about poolology that are positive and see if you can get some class that way. Or how about your new Peter Pan style book, "I THINK I CAN, I THINK I CAN. I CAN FLY!"

Go ahead and do what you always do. Start backpedaling and claiming how you aren't negatively going after someone or the method itself but just trying to clear the air and then blaming me for attacking poor innocent you with that halo over your head.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

No part of estimation, practiced or guessing, is involved when I am taking the shot.

I’m sure it’s comforting to believe that. Too bad it hasn’t improved your personality.

pj
chgo

 

[xX-Wizard-Xx]

i will just keep using my proven system and keep it a secret .....

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I’m sure it’s comforting to believe that. Too bad it hasn’t improved your personality.

pj
chgo

It's gratifying to KNOW that. Everyone would like to have your charming, caring, patient, respectful personality.

 

[straightline]

i will just keep using my proven system and keep it a secret .....

Not good enough for me. I want the game improved.

 

[xX-Wizard-Xx]

Not good enough for me. I want the game improved.

LMAO lol

 

[Dan White]

"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.

You can sort all that out with cookie. It isn't central to my point anyway.

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.

I'm not talking about Pro1. The issue I'm trying to illustrate (below) is easier to discuss with basic manual pivoting.

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.

The only reason I mentioned 10 degrees was to distinguish it from the straight in shot. I could just as easily said to put on the first or second diamond or whatever like you did.

My example was to show 2 completely different angles with obviously different contact points, made in the pocket with the same exact process.

So was mine.

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.

I do know all that. Here's the crux of the issue: Why does the second ball get pocketed even though you did the same thing as in the first shot? Please don't say "Because I used CTE." What changed so that the second ball was hit at a sharper angle instead of hitting in the same place as the first shot, sending the ob into the short rail?

 

[Dan White]

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.

OB or CB?

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.

What do you mean by "look right"?

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.

I don't have the book but I think one of us has a misconception. That, or Stan has changed CTE completely. In CTE you never need to check to see if the shot looks right. The pocket is irrelevant.

Maybe this will clear it up: Set up any normal shot, mabye close to a half ball hit or whatever. Pick the correct perception etb or whatever and pocket the ball. Set up the exact same shot but move the ob over two inches. It's the same perception but you still want to shoot center pocket. Do you do anything different with ticks, etc. or just pick the same perception and fire away?

 

[BC21]

For someone who stated that he's out of the wordsmithing game that goes after players and CTE itself, you sure have a weaseling
way about you that doesn't allow you to stop. And then "innocently" claim "I'm not going after those who use CTE or on the system itself." Yeah, you have too much class for that. LOL. Why don't you stick to throwing tidbits out about poolology that are positive and see if you can get some class that way. Or how about your new Peter Pan style book, "I THINK I CAN, I THINK I CAN. I CAN FLY!"

Go ahead and do what you always do. Start backpedaling and claiming how you aren't negatively going after someone or the method itself but just trying to clear the air and then blaming me for attacking poor innocent you with that halo over your head.

You are a cynical idiot. Lol

Stating that the pocket and the rails are neccessary visual references for ALL aiming methods, including CTE, is not a knock on CTE or those who use it. It's just a fact.

You are always telling Dan and PJ they are obsessed, and you're probably right, but you are too, definitely. You try so hard to find negativity toward CTE that you find it where it doesn't even exist.

And the new book is not a Peter Pan wishy-washy-feel-good type of book. It's not a "power of positive thinking" type of book, and certainly isn't rooted in any magical or mysterious phenomenon. It's about playing smart and within your current limitations in order to win more often, and therefore have more fun playing the game. It also focuses on the mental aspects of performance and developing talent.

And since you brought it up, the new book can be found worldwide on Amazon, Lulu, Books a Million, Barnes and Noble, Walmart, and many other outlets... PLAYING TO WIN - How to Win More Often and Have More Fun Playing Pool

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You are a cynical idiot. Lol

Success! I got your holier than thou ass to cave in and be the first name caller with "idiot". Got to ya, huh? LMAO

Stating that the pocket and the rails are neccessary visual references for ALL aiming methods, including CTE, is not a knock on CTE or those who use it. It's just a fact.

It certainly isn't close to necessary as it is with other aiming systems. It's actually minor in the entire alignment of the two balls.
After many years of playing pool, it's only natural that the entire picture is right out in front of you when standing at the table.
But the relationship between the pocket and OB or back of the OB where impact takes place isn't the important focus. It's the relationship between the CB and the OB with edge to center and center to edge. Contact points or a GB for the CB to produce a specific "shot line" to that pocket have nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing. It's NOT a visual.

You are always telling Dan and PJ they are obsessed, and you're probably right, but you are too, definitely.

I'm just sick and tired of their same warped bulllshit for all these years trying to besmirch the method, the people who choose to use it, and the two main men who developed and then refined the system.

You try so hard to find negativity toward CTE that you find it where it doesn't even exist.

And the new book is not a Peter Pan wishy-washy-feel-good type of book. It's not a "power of positive thinking" type of book, and certainly isn't rooted in any magical or mysterious phenomenon. It's about playing smart and within your current limitations in order to win more often, and therefore have more fun playing the game. It also focuses on the mental aspects of performance and developing talent.

And since you brought it up, the new book can be found worldwide on Amazon, Lulu, Books a Million, Barnes and Noble, Walmart, and many other outlets... PLAYING TO WIN - How to Win More Often and Have More Fun Playing Pool

Well, I guess you can thank me profusely for giving you the right timing to introduce and plug the two books right here on the forum. I won't be ordering but good luck anyway.

 

[BC21]

Stating that the pocket and the rails are neccessary visual references for ALL aiming methods, including CTE, is not a knock on CTE or those who use it. It's just a fact.

.....
It certainly isn't close to necessary as it is with other aiming systems. It's actually minor in the entire alignment of the two balls.
After many years of playing pool, it's only natural that the entire picture is right out in front of you when standing at the table.
But the relationship between the pocket and OB or back of the OB where impact takes place isn't the important focus. It's the relationship between the CB and the OB with edge to center and center to edge. Contact points have nothing to do with it.
......

So the pockets and rails are "minor" visual references with CTE??? Hmmmmm......that's probably the funniest thing I've read in a while.

Without these visual references you would not know which perception to use. The "entire alignment of the two balls" stems directly from knowing where the pocket is.

With CTE, as with EVERY method of aiming, the location of the pocket (as it relates to the cb-ob relationship) is the root of the entire aiming process. That's not "minor". It's not "casual". It's the first visual step for every shot, regardless of aiming method, which means it's pretty important.

Without having something to aim at, there would be no aiming. Lol

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So the pockets and rails are "minor" visual references with CTE??? Hmmmmm......that's probably the funniest thing I've read in a while.

Without these visual references you would not know which perception to use. With CTE, as with EVERY method of aiming, the location of the pocket (as it relates to the cb-ob relationship) is the root of the entire aiming process. That's not "minor". It's not "casual". It's the first visual step for every shot, regardless of aiming method, which means it's pretty important.

Now YOU are getting funny and whacky. You DO need to know what pocket you're going to be attempting to pocket the ball in. Of course.
But it isn't the primary focus once determined or the obsession.

In your way of playing with fractions (I'm not sure you even play with fractions as much as overlap or GB aka "seeing the shot") the pocket is a constant focus.

The eyes go from the OB to the pocket...the CB to the OB to the pocket...the tip of the cue to the CB to the OB to the pocket back and forth multiple times before pulling the trigger. The pocket is a major and constant focus.

With CTE, once a specific pocket is chosen, the focus is on the alignment of the CB to OB based on CTE visuals with the target being a clean pure strike with the tip of the cue on the CB. This is what has NEVER made sense to those who love attacking CTE. Of course, it doesn't make sense for those unwilling to learn and experience a new and different method.

 

[BC21]

Now YOU are getting funny and whacky. You DO need to know what pocket you're going to be attempting to pocket the ball in. Of course.
But it isn't the primary focus once determined or the obsession.

In your way of playing with fractions (I'm not sure you even play with fractions as much as overlap or GB aka "seeing the shot") the pocket is a constant focus.

The eyes go from the OB to the pocket...the CB to the OB to the pocket...the tip of the cue to the CB to the OB to the pocket back and forth multiple times before pulling the trigger. The pocket is a major and constant focus.

With CTE, once a specific pocket is chosen, the focus is on the alignment of the CB to OB based on CTE visuals with the target being a clean pure strike with the tip of the cue on the CB. This is what has NEVER made sense to those who love attacking CTE. Of course, it doesn't make sense for those unwilling to learn and experience a new and different method.

No, there is no darting back and forth for me. Just as you do with CTE, I look at the pocket and determine how to aim the shot, then I align my body and cue to the ob. Focus is on the point of aim on or near the ob, not the pocket. But knowing or seeing where the ob must go (the pocket) is the first step in the process.

Anyhow, we weren't talking about "focus". We were talking about visual references, and I said that the pocket and/or the rails is a much needed visual reference for EVERY shot, regardless of aiming method. It's not a minor part of the aiming process - it's the source or root of the process. Without it there is no process, no solution. Nothing you say can change that fact.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

No, there is no darting back and forth for me. Just as you do with CTE, I look at the pocket and determine how to aim the shot, then I align my body and cue to the ob. Focus is on the point of aim on or near the ob, not the pocket. But knowing or seeing where the ob must go (the pocket) is the first step in the process.

Watching pro players live or on youtube shows their eyes going back and forth from CB to OB to pocket for those using contact points or overlaps.

Anyhow, we weren't talking about "focus". We were talking about visual references, and I said that the pocket and/or the rails is a much needed visual reference for EVERY shot, regardless of aiming method. It's not a minor part of the aiming process - it's the source or root of the process. Without it there is no process, no solution. Nothing you say can change that fact.

The chosen pocket is needed as the end of the destination for the OB. That's it. The rails aren't necessary with CTE as they are with the way you have them factored in for Poolology. It's an integral part of YOUR system. Nothing either of us say to each other based on different methodology for pocketing balls is going to change any fact or thinking. Therefore, end of this crap.
If you have more to say, talk to yourself.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Success! I got your holier than thou ass to cave in and be the first name caller with "idiot".

Good job - you're officially a self-confessed troll - and proud of it!

Took you long enough to figure that out...

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

For myself and for anyone who cares to read this....

Simplest Aiming System to use: Look at the targeted pocket. Look at the cb-ob relationship as it pertains to the pocket. Aim the cb so that it sends the ob to the pocket.

For every pool shot performed (regardless of aiming method or system), it is absolutely crucial to know where the targeted pocket is in order to start any aiming process between the cb and ob.

For many shots, experience players have gathered enough visual data on the table (through thousands of hours of table time) to make it possible to know exactly where the pocket is in relation to the ob without having to actually look at the line that sends the ob to the pocket. The rails provide enough visual reference for the mind to intuitively know where the pocket is. If you don't believe me, set a curtain up and see how well you pocket balls without actually seeing the pocket. I did this years ago when Stan Shuffett put out his curtain videos. It is truly fascinating how the mind perceives things based on just a little visual input.

The key here is that for every shot it is absolutely necessary to know or recognize where the targeted pocket is before any aiming can take place. But once that pocket location is known or realized, the primary focus points for aiming are strictly between the cb and the ob, not the pocket. Of course, the pocket can still be used as a visual reference to ensure that the focused aiming references are indeed going to send the ob into the pocket.

 

[Renegade_56]

Here's the crux of the issue: Why does the second ball get pocketed even though you did the same thing as in the first shot?

I don't need to know that, there are others here who seem to, not me.

Please don't say "Because I used CTE." What changed so that the second ball was hit at a sharper angle instead of hitting in the same place as the first shot, sending the ob into the short rail?

Why the worry over the second ball, I didn't aim either ball at the corner.

What makes me mad is when I don't have to aim to make a bankshot.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Good job - you're officially a self-confessed troll - and proud of it!

Took you long enough to figure that out...

pj
chgo

That was all in humor. Something you don't get.

How do you view yourself? The seeker and speaker of truth? The spokesman for all pool playing mankind? The mind of the universe? Mr. 2D extraordinaire?
What possibly could that mega ego of yours come up with?

 

[Renegade_56]

For every pool shot performed (regardless of aiming method or system), it is absolutely crucial to know where the targeted pocket is in order to start any aiming process between the cb and ob.

What if the pocket is not the target at all. CTE is very effective for combinations and carom shots as well.

 

[boogieman]

Now YOU are getting funny and whacky. You DO need to know what pocket you're going to be attempting to pocket the ball in. Of course.
But it isn't the primary focus once determined or the obsession.

In your way of playing with fractions (I'm not sure you even play with fractions as much as overlap or GB aka "seeing the shot") the pocket is a constant focus.

The eyes go from the OB to the pocket...the CB to the OB to the pocket...the tip of the cue to the CB to the OB to the pocket back and forth multiple times before pulling the trigger. The pocket is a major and constant focus.

With CTE, once a specific pocket is chosen, the focus is on the alignment of the CB to OB based on CTE visuals with the target being a clean pure strike with the tip of the cue on the CB. This is what has NEVER made sense to those who love attacking CTE. Of course, it doesn't make sense for those unwilling to learn and experience a new and different method.

If anyone is darting eyes back and forth, you’re talking a banger at best, not someone who knows how to aim. That’s true on any system.