I never think about fractional aiming with CTE.
Fractional Shot "Coverage"
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
I never think about fractional aiming with CTE.
Experienced judgement? You seem to muddy the waters with your thought process when trying to be in a CTE discussion.
That too......
I'm sure you don't, but for a beginning cte user it wouldn't hurt to have some fractional knowledge. I mean, when looking at that fixed cb a player must decide if it looks thick or thin for the shot. It might be obvious to you, but not to someone learning how to play. Eventually they'll build the experience needed to just know it when they see it, or if they have some other method of knowing where the ob will go just by looking at it, like fractional aiming or ghostball or whatever.
No muddy water, until you stirred it up. It was honestly clear, because this is a fractional discussion, not a cte discussion.
Stan shows sighting straight through the fixed ccb, the perception (this is pre pivot/sweep), to determine exactly where the object would go if shot from that angle. He says that's how a player can know if the shot needs thinned or thickened. How does he know this? How can he look straight down this line and know exactly where the ob will go? Experience.
A weak C player with poor judgment of cb-ob relationships does not have the experience to always know where the ob will go if struck at a certain angle. But eventually, though experience, their judgement will improve. Or if they have fractional or ghostball experience, or whatever, then they might have a pretty good idea based on their level of experience.
Nothing muddy about that.
I WAS ASKED specific questions but you decide to answer them. How does that not muddy the waters. It was not a fractional discussion, it was direct CTE questions directed at me.
You do not need fractional or ghostball or any experience to learn CTE.
And you keep trying to interpret Stan's teachings and bring him up when he no longer posts here. That is in extremely bad taste. You have already posted several links to his works and misinterpreted what he was teaching.
Your postings on CTE clearly muddy the waters with bad info
I admit I've misunderstood some of what Stan says in his videos. But I post links to the videos so that people can watch and learn from the man himself instead of relying on my opinion or take of the system as a newbie at one point also. And I've never said a player needs fractional aiming or ghostball to learn cte... I've said it would be beneficial to have that experience/knowledge because a certain amount of judgment with cb-ob relationships is a must.
There is no misunderstanding or misinterpretation of how he teaches players to know which direction to sweep. It is exactly as I described, which equates to at least a minimal amount of needed experience. Stan has said before that cte is not for beginners or lower level players. This tells me he understands the benefits of being honest with a player's current skill/experience level, which reflects how easily a player learns cte. Stan is not close minded....you don't have to be either.
https://youtu.be/4iuvQT7dwfs
mini hijack??
You misunderstand the visual progression. For increasingly thinner cuts you use the A, B, 1/4, 1/8.
For opposite cut angles the progression is C (mirror of A), B (mirror of above B), 1/4, 1/8.
Since sacman doesn't want the post in his thread, I thought you'd appreciate it in yours.
You misunderstand the visual progression. For increasingly thinner cuts you use the A, B, 1/4, 1/8.
For opposite cut angles the progression is C (mirror of A), B (mirror of above B), 1/4, 1/8.
Since sacman doesn't want the post in his thread, I thought you'd appreciate it in yours.
Your welcome, I guess.
Whatever system you use, imo you still need to visualize the volume of the two balls colliding for cue ball control purposes.
How do you aim caroms and billiards ?
On half-ball hits, we know the object ball and cue ball travel about the same distance after collision. Less, the cue ball travels farther .
And on 3-ball combinations, you will need some contact point aiming as well. Or at least, you better .
That's my take and not arguing over it.
How do you aim caroms and billiards ?
On half-ball hits, we know the object ball and cue ball travel about the same distance after collision. Less, the cue ball travels farther .
And on 3-ball combinations, you will need some contact point aiming as well. Or at least, you better .
That's my take and not arguing over it.
Caroms i usually go with the back of the ball method. 3-ball combinations, unless they are dead nut combos i play safe
.................. Not taking this bait
I agree 100%.:grin-square:
I figured out a pretty sweet way to measure caroms and combinations. It has jumped my success percentage on those tremendously.
I have said this a million times; using any given method to aim doesn't mean you don't ever use any other method to aim. All methods are tools to be used when needed. Sometimes ghost ball is the right tool, sometimes contact point, sometimes double the distance....etc....
I bought your book a year or so ago. I opened it again last night. I have to say that to me it looks like hours and hours of learning to get good at estimating the ball position values and doing the math, however simple to find the fractional overlap that works.
I REALLY don't want to get into a xyz system vs. abc system thing but I do want to say that anything that works is worth the hours invested into using it if the end result is higher accuracy and more success. (and more fun).
When I use the systems I know then I can get into the shooting position in seconds confidently and comfortably. I have made a lot of SICK shots using the systems I prefer to aim with to put me in line.
I hear a lot of talk about "gaps" in this system or that system but the BOTTOM line is that I have yet to see anyone claiming that these gaps exist actually prove them. So when a user can consciously follow instructions and go from standing to shooting in seconds and be on the dead nuts perfect shot line consistently shot after shot after shot where then are the gaps?
John - You're on quite a tear with the posting. You just get back from China or something?
Also, you'll find with Poolology that most of your shots are in the A zone, which is easy to do. B is also easy, but you almost don't need a system for that zone because the shots are so close anyway. C zone takes a little more thought, but there are only a small fraction of shots likely to come up in C. So in reality you can just learn the A zone and get the greatest bang for the buck. Easy to memorize and covers a large percentage of shots.
It doesn't need to sound like advanced calculus. 10/40 = .25, 14/28 = .5 and so on. Not too difficult and the payoff is you get a 100% objectively determined aim point to pocket the ball. Not a bad price to pay if you haven't played enough to just know the shots.
Good post. Gaps are ironed out through practice and experience. Work with any system long enough and your brain works the gaps out.
Last edited:
Thanks, Dan. I believe if a player practices and pays attention using only zone A for a couple of weeks, the actual numbers will be used less and less because the brain will automatically recognize more and more shots.
This is how the system is helping so many already. Is it for everyone? Of course not.
As with the old estimated 5 lines fractional system, Poolology is geared toward helping the player cut balls more naturally based on cb-ob relationships. But instead of guessing or estimating the aim lines incorrectly a thousand times before developing better skills, Poolology allows you to get a correct aim line every time, which provides a quicker learning process when compared to the old-school trial and error of the traditional 5 lines method.
Last edited: