You are only setting up about 4 different shot angles, but you hit them well.
A video on pivoting systems
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
You are only setting up about 4 different shot angles, but you hit them well.
Honestly, if I instructed a novice/beginning player to aim every shot using the nearest quarter aim they believe is closest to pocketing the ball, their pocketing percentage would immediately improve. Of course, they'll still be missing a lot of shots until they learn to start fine tuning the in-betweens.
Your own example (and I assume you weren't a beginner when you recorded that video), displays a pocketing percentage of 57%, or 71% if we count the "misplaced" ball as a successful shot. That's not impressive.
Anyway, I have already shown (a few years back) exactly why that method in your video sends all the balls toward the pocket when using the same pivot each time. It's an interesting concept when plotted out on paper. And it's probably that concept that got Hal Houle started down the road of pivot style aiming methods. I have no idea, because I had never heard of Hal Houle until I joined AZ in 2017, so I don't know what led him down that road.
Pointless gimmick.
Once he's lined up the shot and placed his body and bridge to that line, the manual pivot to the center of the cue ball is just fluff.
They also teach pivoting to the center of the cue ball on straight in shots. Instead of.just aiming center to center. Gimmick.
Last edited:
Lol, I wasn't trying to impress. I was testing out a concept.
If I cared to then I would design much more comprehensive experiments and gather the data in a diligent way.
It's been clear for 20 years that no amount of success is enough for the haters.
I just know what I know from 20 years of interacting with people. I enjoy seeing their eyes light up as they begin making shots that they have never made before.
I enjoy watching people rekindle their love of pool when they learn how to aim objectively and accurately.
Nope. You're still wrong. Has anyone ever seen you actually play? I have a friend that has one of your cues and he loves it. I said Joey builds a great cue but he doesn't seem to be any good at pool.
Again, I didn't set up any shot angles for any other reason than to test a proposition made during a discussion.
Unlike many of the haters when someone says that xyz can't be done and it's fairly easy to test I generally will try it and see what the results are.
Like the op I have thought about why these methods work as well as they do. I don't have the math and I don't think of shots in terms of angles.
I just follow the instructions as objectively as I can and record the results.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
The math guys don't appreciate a method they can't easily put on paper. There's much more going on in CTE than most realize. I'm sure it could be put to math, but calculating both eyes, their focal points, stereo vision etc just doesn't make a tidy formula. I don't really use CTE most of the time, but on days I struggle, it's nice to have the concepts to work with. Knowing different aiming systems and practicing with them is useful. It isn't wasted time.
Haters gonna hate. I honestly believe that some people (on both sides) just like to get a reaction. It's kind of like talking politics or religion. Some folks just like to needle others, then act surprised that someone is upset or defensive.
I know I've never gotten any better at pool by reading aiming arguments. Some can be nice though because it gets you thinking, and often when having to defend a method you learn a lot. It's just too bad this isn't usually done in a civil manner. The usual MO is to throw out the debate and go right into vitriol.
I can say with 100% confidence that every person who is actually into trying to learn and understand these systems in good faith has started out trying to discuss them with civility. I can say with 100% accuracy that I was attacked and called delusional within an hour of posting my very first experience with aiming systems. I was merely sharing my experience, observation and amazement with no malice. I was told that what I said about my own personal report of being able to make shots that had given be trouble before learning the aiming system with much higher consistency was delusional. I was told that I was merely experiencing a placebo effect based on a "religious" experience.
Now, I had waded into an "argument" that had been going on for years. I wasn't looking for a different way to aim. I didn't call Hal Houle. He requested me and my friend invited me to go meet him.
His reason for requesting me was to chastise me for repeating an article where a pro had claimed to use ghost ball. I met him out of courtesy for my friend. I found him to be a wonderfully nice man and after a bit of hesitancy I gave his method a fair shot rather than dismissing it. The real results on the table convinced me.
When I later recounted the events to the forum, Rec.Sport.Billiards, I was immediately attacked and called a delusional religious zealot.
So, to be clear, perhaps some of the haters had previous "issues" with other people over the mechanics of the system but that shouldn't have been made into my problem. I merely wanted to tell my story and just affirm that Hal was real and what he taught me improved my ability to make shots.
And me being me I didn't take that line of attack well.
When something interests me I try to explore it as much as I can. Back then in 2001 there wasn't a Stan Shuffet or anyone else taking it on to a higher degree that I knew of. There were however professional instructors teaching objective aiming using methods derived from what they learned from Hal. I didn't know that and those instructors were not on the forums at that time discussing the methods. They were simply teaching them in person.
Had I not been attacked that first day then I would have approached this very differently I think.
I have always felt that there is zero need for personal attacks and flame wars.
I have said hundreds of times that the smartest people should gather and figure out exactly why and how these methods work. Once I started making enough money I offered to pay all of the expenses for that to happen and the naysayers absolutely refused to even consider it.
Think about that for a moment. Iirc Hal first put out one of his aiming systems on rsb in 1997. I was introduced to it in 2001 I think. Here we are 27 years later and the same people are still knocking aiming systems. Those who have studied them in depth aren't even participating here much or at all anymore. That's really sad imo.
I fully understand the claims being made by the naysayers and the objections to the word objective. I personally have spent a lot of time thinking about it and have made a lot of videos working out concepts and doing challenges put up by the naysayers.
Instead of discussing the results of those videos the naysayers simply dismissed them and continued to call me delusional.
I am a super nobody. An average player who loves pool. I could have gone on and enjoyed pool and been completely ignorant of any aiming systems as I was doing prior to meeting Hal.
But I did meet him and he gave me a method that was not found in the books or videos at the time and that method caused me to improve my pocketing ability dramatically in a few hours.
So I was not going to simply discard that information or that gift. I took it to my local friends and they improved their pocketing. We were all amazed and perplexed. The better players said it works but said they didn't need it. The lesser players were fascinated and wanted to know more but I couldn't give them more.
Point being that we were all enjoying the exploration and the real results on the table. Just online the critics were savage and the proponents reacted in equal measure to the ridicule they were receiving from the opponents.
Subsequent to that initial experience trying to discuss it online I went to Chicago and beat two of the main antagonists in a little forum member tournament. While that was a little vindication for me it was a tragedy in my eyes that the opponents refused any attempt to have a real world discussion over the pool table and try to figure out the mechanics and identify where the so-called subconscious adjustment was happening.
I will never understand why they wouldn't take the opportunities to have substantive meetings in person with cameras rolling to figure out as much as possible together in a controlled manner.
I am not opposed to the idea of subconscious adjustment. But I personally have not figured out exactly where this alleged subconscious adjustment is happening in the process. If I do step 1,2, & 3 deliberately and consciously and the result is that my cue lands on the actual ghost ball shot line consistently then I don't know where my subconscious magically found the shot line.
Especially for shots where my subconscious failed to find the shot line most of the time without the clear objective steps that the system requires.
Instead of being part of the solution to identify how the subconscious through the use of the system leads to a higher degree of shot-making the "smart guys" simply dismissed any claims of improvement as self-delusion and dismissed all videos of pocketing accuracy as made-up trickery to "sell" the system.
So based on my experience the proponents have been genuinely operating in good faith and love of the sport. The opponents have been operating out of malice and using denigration and mocking to attempt to discredit every discussion about the accuracy of objective aiming systems.
This has caused a ton of animosity and outright hatred among the proponents. To the point where many have been driven away from trying to discuss them online. The joy felt at discovering new methods and desiring to share and discuss them has been trampled on by the mocking and jeering perpetrated by opponents. It's truly awful in my mind.
I also think it's not reasonable to expect the proponents to ignore the personal attacks.
If we are all truthful the fact is that all of the threads about aiming systems would have played out in far less posts without the constant attacks by the opponents. There would have been a small dedicated group that enjoyed the exploration and discussion.
And we may have found the "missing link" so to speak that would bridge the gap between what the opponents think and what the proponents experience.
The amount of pure rage and hate that I have felt towards some of the people here over aiming systems is ridiculous. And yes it's my fault for giving in to the trolling. But I can certainly understand to a small degree why a person who is bullied at work sometimes comes in with a gun and murders everyone.
Which is one reason why I am barely here anymore. It's a reason that a lot of truly good people are no longer here.
I don't want to be someone who is filled with homicidal rage over how to aim in pool. But I also don't want to be bullied and denigrated while trying to have good productive discussions about aiming systems.
So, I do agree that "both sides" have been vitriolic but I cannot agree that both sides are equally at fault for the vitriol. Maybe Gandi and Jesus are able to turn the other cheek but the rest of humanity isn't so peaceful.
It should be that those who spend their time trying to help others play better and enjoy this sport more are celebrated and helped in their endeavors. They should be able to get the viewpoints of the scientists, the mathematicians and the engineers without the denigration, mocking and personal attacks. All claims should be able to be investigated in controlled environments in a cooperative search for the facts.
But when one side is completely dismissive of real results and is unwilling to spend time documenting these results to determine the actual efficacy and the cause of any verified improvement then it becomes virtually impossible to have any actually productive conversation.
If a naysayer says try x-situation and see what happens and I do and then they refuse to discuss the results or treat me with any dignity as a student of the game then I will get very defensive and realize that they weren't actually interested in anyone actually testing their claim.
So that's where my perspective comes from. One does not need any aiming system to play good pool. But when there are methods that work well there shouldn't be any ridicule over using those tools to enjoy the game. Especially not from those who are themselves just average players imo.
Hal said that he was shown objective aiming by Ralph Greenleaf. Hal was in his 70s when I met him in 2001 iirc.
In subsequent years I have met a few old timers who said that they learned similar systems in the 50s and 60s.
I don't know why Hal got into aiming systems and embarked on a cross-country journey to teach them. What I do know is that there are some like Stan Shuffet who spent a great amount of time with Hal and became good friends with him.
There are some who knew Hal well who are engineers and accomplished professionals in their field.
When these people learned his systems and applied them I take their perspectives much more seriously than the perspectives of those who dismiss the systems and don't bother to even learn the steps properly or at all.
And yes if you teach any beginner a better way to aim then their pocketing will improve. However when they are consistently making shots well above their actual experience level by simply applying the method then it's a fair conclusion that the method is the catalyst.
Regarding the "in between" shots you mentioned. In your example there are in-between shots that will not work by simply aiming at the nearest quarter. In my example, using 90/90 the system handles the majority of open table shots that go directly to a pocket.
That said I am absolutely clear that my anecdotal experiences are not a substitute for verified data gathered in a controlled manner.
But at least I am out there doing something to see what happens.
Regarding the criticism of the make percentages. I would posit that if we were to have those same 7 shots and have the "just see it" players shoot them then the make percentage would likely be below 50% on average.
I can say that for me, before learning to use aiming systems my average would probably be below 50% for those seven shots. So based on that a 57% make percentage is good for the purpose of the experiment. And 70% is even better. Since that video I have learned how to use CTE with the perceptions and my make percentage is higher. More importantly my confidence in being on the correct line is way higher and when I focus on my execution my make percentages are way higher than 50%. As a bonus whenever I come up to a shot that I either haven't shot before or which I haven't practiced much then my odds of getting on the correct shot line are better than 50% and my make percentage is higher than 50%. And I am talking about the kind of crazy cuts that most people wouldn't consider trying in a game.
You came into this in 2017 and I have been messing with objective aiming systems since 2001. You obviously gained enough interest in the subject to develop your own objective math-based system that works. And that is in fact the whole point for me. It isn't that Hal Houle or Stan or anyone has the only accurate objective method of aiming. It is that the more people who are interested enough to explore these methods the more opportunities we have to refine what's known and develop new methods. Having more good tools that can be used to reach the same result isn't a bad thing. On the contrary, it has the potential to inspire more people to play more because they are enjoying the game more when they can pocket more balls. I prefer encouragement over discouragement.
I am positive that you have introduced your method to players where some of them have immediately understood it and improved their pocketing and others were slower to understand how to use and had less improvement. I would bet that you have had situations where the player who got it right away was super excited and felt like they would never miss again. Those experiences are what we should want in pool.
Do you really?
To make a cut shot using your "edges & pivot" method, the chosen bridge position must be "matched" to the given cut angle / CB-OB distance so the pivot from edge-edge to center CB puts you on the correct shot line. Any difference from the required bridge position (such as using the same bridge position for different CB-OB distances) misses the shot. (This is the "obvious geometry" I mentioned before.)
During play the only variable you control is the bridge position (distance from CB). Can you describe how you determine the correct bridge position "objectively" for each different cut angle / CB-OB distance?
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I wonder how many at the US Open now are using this deadly manual pivot.
Yes I can. First let's define the term "matched". We can hopefully agree that at least on paper there is a ghost ball position that corresponds to the object ball to pocket line. Thus the exact shot angle is determined by the ghost ball to pocket line and the ghost ball to cue ball line. This could be anywhere from 0 degrees to 179 degrees or 180 for the sake of the discussion. With a center cueball hit the bridge placement should put the v-notch as a node on the cueball to ghost ball line. For the discussion we will ignore cut-induced-throw and the condition of the balls or any other factors that could detract from the ghost ball/object ball to pocket line. The actual angle of the cut is not relevant and is also unknown and plays no part in determining the shot line in the imaginary GB method.
So matched to the shot line in this case means that the shot line is the line the CB must travel down I order to intersect the object ball and send it down the pocket line. To "match" the bridge-v placement one needs to know the GB to CB center line. Given that the ghost ball is by definition invisible the determination of where the center of the GB is in relation to the object ball is done by imagination and estimation. With a margin of error depending on the cut angle and distance to the pocket this imagined line can be inaccurate and still result in a successful shot. The determination of where the bridge should be placed is therefore a result of imagination and estimation that is honed through brute-force experience, commonly known as hitting a million balls. This ghost ball method of defining the shot line and placing the bridge on it is easiest with short distances to the object ball and relatively shallow angles. It is hardest with thin cuts and a lot of distance to the object ball.
So, as you mentioned a different variable such as increasing the distance between the cueball and the object ball can create a different shot line even with the same ghost ball. We agree on that geometry. And hopefully, we agree that using the invisible GB method means that the shot line in every case is guessed at with more or less accuracy dependent on several factors. And this line is not connected to the object ball in any way since the shot line is going to the invisible imagined ghost ball position rather than to any part of the object ball. There is no line connecting the cueball to the object ball in this method. Do we agree on this?
So now the question is how do I get to the unknown shot line objectively and have my bridge hand end up with the v-notch as a node on the actual shot line?
Using 90/90 and a cut to the left that is around 30 degrees, actual cut angle is unknown and not needed to be known. The steps are to position the body in such a way that a line could be drawn between the left edge of the cueball and the left edge of the object ball. This is an objective placement that is fully dependent on lining up the edges of the two balls in relation to the desired target pocket. There is only one place on the perimeter of the table that this left edge to left edge line can be. So once the eyes have locked on this line from the proper position, which for the sake of the discussion we will say is with the line splitting the nose right up the middle this places the body in the only position relative to the table that it can be on for the shot being faced.
At that point the shooter will then bend into the shot and place the bridge down in such a way that allows the cue to be on the edge to edge line. The bridge distance will be approximately the same distance that the shooter is normally comfortable with, let's say about 12". At this point the shooter will slightly shift the legs/hip to cause the cue tip to pivot from the left to the right and the cue will now be on the ghost ball shot line with the bridge as a node. The placement of the bridge was determined objectively by finding the line that connects two solid objects and placing the cue on that line.
There is a sweet spot for the bridge distance that causes the half-ball pivot to result in the cue being on the shot line. That distance varies slightly by person but it is found relatively quickly once a person starts to use the system. It is generally about the same bridge distance that one would comfortably adopt using the invisible ghost ball method.
Thus the steps to get to the point where the bridge hand is placed upon the table is objective based on connecting the outmost edges of the cueball and object ball. The shooter is not guessing at that point as there is only one place to stand where this line can be seen directly. The placement of the cue along that line pre-pivot is equally objective. When using the system the shooter is not guessing at the bridge distance after the initial hour or less of practice. Using this method the shooter finds that they are able to get to the shot line using two objective steps almost all of the time. This method uses three sighting positions, edge to edge, edge to center and inside edge to outside edge. Each of these three positions is for a range of cut angles and it is fairly easy to determine whether the shot line is correct with each of the methods. With a short amount of practice it becomes super easy to eliminate one of the sight lines and then have two to use. With a little more practice it becomes really easy to pick the correct initial sight line. The exact cut angles never need to be known and no ghost ball is ever required to find the shot line.
Once a shot line is found by the application of the steps though it is fairly easy to imagine a ghost ball position by looking at where the cue tip is pointing and determining if the cueball will send the ob to the pocket or not.
So in this process the only place that I can see a subconscious choice would be the bridge distance since the v-notch can be any point along the edge to edge line. But the process to get to the point to place the bridge distance is OBJECTIVE and given that there is a natural bridge distance that is comfortable it stands to reason that this distance is chosen because it is the most obvious position. It is not exactly 11" or 6" but is found fairly easily through the application of the first two steps in the 90/90 method.
And IF the objective choices leads to landing on the invisible and unknown ghost ball line consistently over a wide range of shots then in my opinion the system is objective based and qualifies to be called objective aiming.
I used 90/90 as the steps are simple. Other systems have different objective steps that lead to consistently getting on the correct shot line.
None because the pivoting doesn't have to be a hard manual pivot. That's just one way to do it in pivot systems.
I wonder if anyone on the planet has ever seen you actually playing pool.
You have quite an imagination to be able to rewrite history like that. The record shows that an independent arbiter, Mike Howerton, booted two CTE supporters from this forum and did not boot any CTE skeptics.
I've read your other posts. Your main problem is that you suffer from a terminal case of confirmation bias. You say you want a team of experts to figure out how it works but that's not what you really want. You want "experts" to tell you that you are right. Many experts of different stripes have told you that you are wrong but instead of heeding that advice and maybe reflecting on what that means for your game, you dismiss those people as either haters or say they just don't understand CTE.
I think you underestimate the subconscious mind and its ability to mess with your perceptions on the table. If you like using CTE then more power to you but don't go around making illogical claims that have never been backed up.
No offense intended.
That's right . The Houligans insisted manual pivots was the nuts . Then Dr Dave did some tests. Then pro after pro showed no manual pivot .
Then came the service pack , disguised pivot .
This thread started with the dude showing manual pivot . Nobody mentioned CTE till you came then cried victim right away .
Manual pivots are GIMMICKS.
I can't speak for Mike but I can speak to the fact that the those two wouldn't have been so upset if the haters (not skeptics) were not so hateful.
And no I don't want experts to tell me I am right. I want people who care to get together and figure out the phenomena without simply assigning it to subconscious adjustment. If in the end we can find that RIGHT HERE is where the subconscious is "adjusting" to magically find the right shot line then great. I can live with that.
What I cannot live with is when people like you who play no better than I do and have ZERO serious body of work on the subject dismiss the many examples of the systems working and the proponents as delusional.
And no, many experts have NOT told me I am wrong. You're not an expert, Pat is a real estate agent, Joey is a hobby cuemaker who doesn't even play pool it seems.
I have no claims that haven't been backed up. Not one. Just because you don't agree on the terms of engagement doesn't make you right.
You have shown NO understanding of CTE and you made crappy videos trying to knock the examples Stan has done as parlor tricks. But your own videos proved that you are not sincere and don't understand the subject.
The thread started with Bob Jewett posting a link to a video where the shooter was describing his personal journey with objective aiming. Something you know nothing about, manual pivot or otherwise.
dquarasr
Registered
….AND yet another thread in the Aiming Forum ruined, devolving into the same old debate about CTE, by the same cast of characters.
You simply can’t help yourselves, can you?
(A psychology major could probably write a PhD thesis using the AZB Aiming Forum as a case study.)
Sigh.
You simply can’t help yourselves, can you?
(A psychology major could probably write a PhD thesis using the AZB Aiming Forum as a case study.)
Sigh.
Is Bob J. an expert? Is Dr. Dave an expert?
As for the rest of your post, thank you for confirming my point. You are never going to have an open mind on this issue, so what's the use in debating it? This is the kind of thing that makes people conclude you are in a cult or religion.
dquarasr
Registered
I'm sorry, but I can't picture this. If I were to draw a line through the center of the CB to the center of the GB, and place the CB anywhere on that line, 6" or 6' away, how can distance between the OB and the CB create a different shot line? Are you really saying that a shot a different distance from the GB but AT A DIFFERENT ANGLE from the pocket line creates a different shot line? I agree with the latter, but not the former.
For definition purposes, when I hear "shot line", I think the line between the center of the CB and the center of the GB (the line I need to deliver the CB), and the "pocket line" the line through the center of the GB and the center of the OB to the pocket. Are we using these definitions when we say "distance between the cueball (sic) and the object ball can create a different shot line..."?