lol
Might be the longest post I've bothered to read past the first sentence.
pj
chgo
I tried CTE again
- Thread starter BeiberLvr
- Start date
Might be the longest post I've bothered to read past the first sentence.
pj
chgo
Anyway, back to the subject of the thread.
I don't know why all the CTE'ers left, but if Stans book and the so called "truth" series is at hand, a lot of people might actually try CTE. As sad as it is, many people aroud the world don't have 50 dollars for an aiming system, or whatever the book is going to cost, probably more than double that. So a free youtube series might get a lot more tries from people who would not otherwise buy anything. It may also really change the climate on this forum, as new people come in that are both in favour and against.
Personally I'm rather looking forward to it, just to see what some of these "atypical" aiming system folks think about the whole thing. I most certainly don't think the forum will be flooded, but maybe some asian folks will find their way on to this forum and give us their perspectives. Would be interesting.
I don't know why all the CTE'ers left, but if Stans book and the so called "truth" series is at hand, a lot of people might actually try CTE. As sad as it is, many people aroud the world don't have 50 dollars for an aiming system, or whatever the book is going to cost, probably more than double that. So a free youtube series might get a lot more tries from people who would not otherwise buy anything. It may also really change the climate on this forum, as new people come in that are both in favour and against.
Personally I'm rather looking forward to it, just to see what some of these "atypical" aiming system folks think about the whole thing. I most certainly don't think the forum will be flooded, but maybe some asian folks will find their way on to this forum and give us their perspectives. Would be interesting.
Really the only thing that will change the climate here is if the outrageous and unsubstantiated claims made by the "inventor" are stopped. Some people play better with CTE and I'm sure there are good reasons for that. Others do not do as well and I think sometimes that is because of people's expectations of what the system is actually capable of.
I agree that it will be interesting if/when all that stuff finally comes out.
Yes, I believe Stan said the book will be at least $75 to $80, maybe even higher. I find it hard to believe that we'll see any change or sudden shift here, no burst of enlightenment in the pool world concerning cte. I mean, it's been around for many years already, with a few thousand DVDs sold and over 100 free YouTube lessons available over the years.
I hope I'm wrong, and I hope the Truth Series isn't going to be just more of the same ol' same ol', like these.....Sermon at the 10 Foot, or CTE:
The How vs The Why.
If the book and new video lessons help others improve, or at least help players finally learn what cte is all about, then that'll be a good thing. The more pool players in the world the better!
Last edited:
Have you looked at this man's thoughts on CTE? Compared to what Stan is teaching, this is easier to understand.
My CTE Aiming With Pivot Shift, Pool Lessons
This is basically what I do except for the A-B-C; I just use angles 15-30-45 ect. I get my perception in my PSR and pivot at the table.
My CTE Aiming With Pivot Shift, Pool Lessons
This is basically what I do except for the A-B-C; I just use angles 15-30-45 ect. I get my perception in my PSR and pivot at the table.
Last edited:
Yes, I've watched this guy. He makes it look easy to understand, but there is a lot missing. For example, where does he begin his pivot? In other words, is it an exact half tip from the center cb perspective he gets using the two visual lines? Or is it just estimated based on what looks right? This needs to be known, along with a bridge distance, so you will know where to place your bridge hand in order to make the pivot or sweep work out correctly.
At least Stan explains his version as a "half tip" manual pivot, and the cte DVDs provide the specific bridge distances needed to make it work, which Stan mentions in one of his videos. The declared accuracy of the system is overrated, but with work it can be used to pocket balls. I believe the "sweeps" were incorporated to escape from the awkwardness of manual pivots. But the sweeps, just as with this guy you've referenced, are not well defined. They seem to be totally dependent on a player's ability to recognize where the final aim line should be.
I've seen this video and I posted a comment on youtube. Sorry, but this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He said you can throw a cue ball and an ob out on the table at random and no matter where the balls are you will have either a 15, 30, 45, 60 or edge to edge type shot (don't remember exactly how many angles he gave). He didn't say you have to modify your aim by pivoting. In fact, he doesn't seem to know what the pivot is for. Stan used the "sweep" but that was a VISUAL sweep. This guy say you need to sweep you cue in from the left or right.
I think this video demonstrates, again, that no matter how you choose to use CTE (everybody has their own version) is the sweep/pivot and or the process of getting down on the shot that determines the actual shot line that the player settles on. This is based on experience and rote learning. The only exception is if you are playing on a bar box where there is enough room for error.
Again, the fact that everybody does CTE differently and they STILL make it work should be a clue as to what actually is responsible for the ball being pocketed. Given that, why bother with the fandance? Here's a CTE method that is much easier: Divide the ob vertically into 3 slices to the left of center and 3 slices to the right of center. Pick the slice that you think comes closest to pocketing the ball. Will you miss thin or thick? Adjust your aim with a pivot accordingly. Do this for a few months and all of a sudden it will "click."
The fandance helps disguise the fact that the shooter relies on his subconscious to recognize the final shot line, just like everybody else, avoiding the loss of confidence that can come from "taking your hands off the steering wheel" and relying on autopilot. Not everybody needs the misdirection, but some definitely do better with it.
pj
chgo
You can also be using it and actually not know you're using it.
And you can also be disguising your pivot so nobody picks up the secret.
Lots of versions of CTE being put up, and people are swearing up and down that their version is working perfectly. I think they all have problems, that are fixed in the pivot. The looser the "conditions" of the pivots are, the better the system works. And they DO work, btw. People pocket balls this way. HOW they pocket the balls are more debatable....
I find I play better with systems that have a BIG pivot, like 90-90 or another system which has a 1/2 ball pivot, in only one direction, I forget the name. SEE also works well for me. There is a lot of wiggle room for induvidual adjustments in that system. The bigger ark of the pivot allows for a subtle "shoulder reset", which is what i believe is going on with most (manual) pivot systems. SEE has footwork as well, which also helps. Faulty alignment and aim is thus fixed by subtle manipulation of the shoulder joint or footwork.
Of course I don't use them, because I like to step into the shot, in a straight line. But I can play with them, if I so choose.
I find I play better with systems that have a BIG pivot, like 90-90 or another system which has a 1/2 ball pivot, in only one direction, I forget the name. SEE also works well for me. There is a lot of wiggle room for induvidual adjustments in that system. The bigger ark of the pivot allows for a subtle "shoulder reset", which is what i believe is going on with most (manual) pivot systems. SEE has footwork as well, which also helps. Faulty alignment and aim is thus fixed by subtle manipulation of the shoulder joint or footwork.
Of course I don't use them, because I like to step into the shot, in a straight line. But I can play with them, if I so choose.
Last edited:
The sweep might be the most subjective part of the system.
Also, not to hijack my own thread, but for those that don't venture into the Main Forum very often. I'm having a little contest.
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=496335
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=496335
It's amazing how often certain shot angles come up. Like with fractions, for example, halfball hits are very common. Depending on how far the ob is from the pocket, a halfball hit could work anytime the shot angle is between about 25° to 35°. This wide range (10° window) is of course only when the ob is within 12" of the pocket. From 2 diamonds out the range narrows to about 28 to 32 degrees, a 5° window. And from half table it's about a 2.5° window, or about 29 to 31 degrees.
Regardless of the fact that all pool shots fall anywhere between a 0° and a 90° cut, when we consider the margin of error at the pocket we can drastically reduce the amount of shot/aiming possiblities. In other words, we rarely have to be exactly dead on. Fractionally, with an ob about a diamond from the pocket, the aim can be narrowed down to 1 of 4 aiming options, thinning or thickening the chosen aim line a touch if needed. From 2 diamonds we have about 8 options. And from half table we can narrow it down to 1 of 16 options, thinning or thickening the chosen aim a touch here or there as needed.
My point is....we very rarely (if ever) have to choose that exact 1 out of 90 degree aim. Usually we're playing within a window of a handful of shot angles, thinning or thickening as needed based on experience. If you work with any system long enough that gets you very close to the shot line, then eventually your brain (through experience) will begin to finalize or tune into the final aim quite accurately. It doesn't matter if you're finalizing with a pivot, a sweep, a little spin, or simply aiming to hit the ob a quarter or eighth of tip thinner or thicker. The more you do it the better you get at it.
Last edited:
There is no margin of error at the pocket. The margin of error is the area on a OB that the CB can contact and the OB goes anywhere in the pocket. There are variables that determine the size of this area.
Those are pocket opening, distance OB is from pocket, the OB angle into the pocket and the CB angle to the OB.
Funny how a 1/2 ball hit is now a range of shot angles......
Oh, if the sighting method used does not get you on the shot line, you are using the wrong method. My method gets you on the shot line.....not near it. In addition, there is no need to even consider what the degree of the shot angle is which only adds a unneeded level of complication.
Last edited:
Additional info on cut angles or aim points needed: https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/aiming/lines-of-aim/
I read some of theses post and wonder how many really play pool versus just practice.
The reason for this comment is a statment implying one needs to be rarely precise in where the CB contacts the OB. So untrue unless you do not care about consistency.
I play and practice 14.1 which does require precision in where the CB contacts the OB in order to keep your run going, breaking open clusters, moving balls off the rail, break shots,creating break shots, combos and caroms.
Getting in the habit, mindset, training yourself to be precise in contacting the OB with the CB will increase your consistency.
Doing poke and hope in shot making will not do it.
The reason for this comment is a statment implying one needs to be rarely precise in where the CB contacts the OB. So untrue unless you do not care about consistency.
I play and practice 14.1 which does require precision in where the CB contacts the OB in order to keep your run going, breaking open clusters, moving balls off the rail, break shots,creating break shots, combos and caroms.
Getting in the habit, mindset, training yourself to be precise in contacting the OB with the CB will increase your consistency.
Doing poke and hope in shot making will not do it.
I agree that striving to be precise is a great habit to help build consistency. I was just making a point that pocketing balls usually involves only a handful of aiming references. Naturally, ghostball is different because there is no solid reference -- you simply aim for where you imagine the ghostball to be.
Here are some facts about me to satisfy your curiosity about who really plays and who just practices: I don't practice....just can't seem to make time for it. I really play. I gamble. I love 14.1, 1-pocket, 9ball, and 10 ball. My high run is 78 on a 9ft with 4 3/8" pockets. And I'm sure a little more precision would've gotten me much higher, or if I had been on a table with 5" buckets.
Precision is needed on some shots, but typically just getting the ball in the hole doesn't require exactness. That was my point. My comments in the AIMING forum are geared toward AIMING TO POCKET BALLS, not breaking out clusters or playing pinpoint position. It's really not that difficult to incorporate those elements once you get a good handle on pocketing balls.
Last edited:
Yes there are variables that determine the actual margin of area across the surface of the ob. It is always changing depending on the ob's distance from the pocket. At about a foot out, straight out from the pocket, margin of error across the surface of the ob is 0.2 inches. At half table it's 0.05 inches. This is with 4.5" pockets. The angle from cb to ob isn't one of the variables used when it comes to determining the margin of error for any given shot. It's just ob distance from pocket and pocket width, which naturally gets smaller as the ob gets closer to a rail.
Anyway, thinking about this tiny margin of error at the ob (which is typically between 0.2" to 0.05"), trying to be this precise when aiming is a bit daunting. Just look at the shot and realize that you have a margin of 1.125" left or right of center pocket. It's always +/- 1.125" at the pocket (with 4.5" pockets), unless the pocket is blocked or the ob is near a rail, making the effective pocket opening much smaller.
And I'm sorry you don't understand my halfball comment, about a halfball aim being able to pocket balls within a certain range of shot angles. This doesn't mean a halfball hit will produce all the angles within that range....
. It simply means that when accounting for that +/- 1.125" margin at the pocket, you can aim for a halfball hit on a 25 to 35° cut if the ob is close to the pocket. If it's 4 or 5 diamonds out then that angle range is much smaller, more like 29 to 31 degrees, because the margin for error is just over +/- 1 degree from that distance. Not everyone here is pro caliber like yourself due to years and years of ghostball work. Some might actually benefit from a system that gets them very close to the shot line, leaving a little required judgment to fine tune it. I believe it's a quicker path to developing a feel for aiming, rather than the old-school HAMB rote trial and error method.
Last edited:
...or approached at a less than optimal angle. I’ll bet Dr. Dave has a factor for average effective pocket sizes somewhere on his website. Something like offangle x angle likelihood = % off of maxwidth.
pj
chgo
Of course. Coming in from the rail the pocket width is much smaller. My examples were all in reference to a wide open pocket, straight on.