A reality check on aiming systems of all kinds

[Poolmanis]

You stated that I was wrong, and one of the strongest players in the world is wrong (Neils), and I'm going to assume by extension everyone that has successfully utilized the GB method is wrong. Which is fine by me, even though I don't agree.

When Niels say he aim with Ghost Ball does it make only good choice because he is freaking good? He have some facts wrong about that video and that´s fact. Everybody and their mother knows friction have to taken to adjust aiming when using ghost ball or any system. He just bypass it and actually give bad advice imo. Most of pro players not even know how they aim really. They just do it.

 

[JB Cases]

Apologies... When I thought about your willingness to wager it went straight to some kind of match play. I don't have a large enough dog in this aiming 'fight' to care to wager anything. How about a coffee...? Not sure how it could be any real 'contest of aiming' without being at the same table. Not even sure how that contest would be constructed.

Now that I think of it. Just the seeing how the concept would play out might be interesting enough to keep me engaged.

I have decided to do it for free. These conversations are interesting but often devolve into petty personal animosities. However there are really important concepts that need to be looked at. One of them is to figure out whether ghost ball is really effective as a practical method of physically aiming or whether it is mostly good for diagramming and demonstration of the physical line that must be found to be consistently accurate. No matter how I say it on these forums the feeling that I have when using objective aiming cannot be conveyed to someone who doesn't understand it or whom will not learn a system well enough to use it properly.

Earlier you said to me that I seem to want to add a few steps to ghost ball. Yeah, I do, a few steps that are designed to get me to the ghost ball line accurately every time is a clear improvement over guessing my way to it inconsistently. But honestly what you call extra often isn't in terms of practical usage and time to get down on the ball. For example in another thread I posted a recent video of me doing spot shots from various places in the kitchen. I was using a system called 90/90 that has these steps. 1. sight along a line that connects the edge of the cueball to the edge of the object ball. 2. Place bridge hand so that cuetip is on that line. 3. pivot to center ball. at that moment I am on the ghost ball line without having had to imagine anything. I had to perform a very simple task that was driven by what I could see and touch ONLY. The time from walking up to the shot and getting into position was seconds per shot.

Conversely, when I used Ghost Ball - WITH THE GB CENTER MARKED BY A DONUT AND WITH THE LINE EXTENDED WITH ANOTHER DONUT BEHIND THE OBJECT BALL - It took me longer to get into the shooting position with a lower success rate. Why? One reason that I guess might be present is performance anxiety because I was doing an impromptu video and another might be because it's not natural to have guides stuck on the table. When I tried to use GB without any guides my results were even worse. But with 90/90 I was making more of the shots. Granted this type of "experiment" is rife with opportunities for personal bias with might skew the results unintentionally in my favor. But I do think that if a controlled experiment were designable that controls for variables and bias then my assertions would bear out. Designing it however is a pretty big challenge due to the nature of the subject matter. It would be hard to find people who have never heard of objective aiming systems who have sufficient skill to participate. I do think that it would possible to use the APA scale of 2 to 7 to find people who are relatively new to the game and assess their knowledge base. But getting them all together to run this with the right amount of set up and camera work is definitely a decently complex project IMO.

Luckily I do have the facility for this now. Just need to put the other pieces into place.

Why do I care? As you have said GB is "tried and true" right? Honestly I used to be of the exact same opinion. When talk of objective aiming and specifically Hal Houle's 3 Angle Aiming appeared on the newsgroups I pretty much ignored it. Not because I felt that it wasn't good or didn't work but because I personally felt that aiming was handled already and wasn't "broken" per se and in need of fixing. But Hal, uninvited by me, introduced me to his methods and I was blown away by the results on the table. That set off a curiosity to dive into the subject and has resulted in my having a higher understanding of many aspects of the game, including ghost ball.

Please indulge me and try just this experiment and observe the results.

Next time you're at the pool room take an object ball and ask the players of different calibers to place another ball in line with a pocket. Put the object ball mid-table. They get ONE chance to put the ball down frozen to the object ball. Observe how they fiddle with it and show uncertainity before finally putting the ball down. Once down check it to see how they did. I predict that initially they will be fiddling and unsure and that many times they will be close but not exact. After a while they will get better but still show uncertainty. The higher skill level they are the better they will be at this exercise but even then I predict you will find that they are not adept at quickly putting the ball down in the right spot. And this is with a physical ball in their hands and the pocket line to use through the object ball. Tell me if you observe these results.

If you do then extrapolate what it could then mean when they don't have a physical ball in their hand to identify the ghost ball placement. Please consider that the task of finding the ghost ball shot line is not likely to be any easier without physical markers to use while doing it. Removing the actual real ball to place on the pocket line makes the task that much harder in my opinion and in my observation.

 

[JB Cases]

When Niels say he aim with Ghost Ball does it make only good choice because he is freaking good? He have some facts wrong about that video and that´s fact. Everybody and their mother knows friction have to taken to adjust aiming when using ghost ball or any system. He just bypass it and actually give bad advice imo. Most of pro players not even know how they aim really. They just do it.

THANK YOU. I really get tired of people who consider one player's advice to be the "truth" because that player is world class but another player whose advice contradicts the first one is never considered to be telling the truth.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Cte, to me is the most objective of them all. To the point that whatever feel might be there is so small that no knocker has ever been able to identify where it is.

lol

Describe a “perception”.

the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

So "perception" has no specific meaning in CTE? Or is this just the usual JB tapdance?

Here are some more dictionary definitions that are much closer to how CTE uses the word:

the way that someone thinks and feels about something

a belief or opinion based on how things seem

a thought, belief, or opinion based on appearances

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

So "perception" has no specific meaning in CTE? Or is this just the usual JB tapdance?

Here are some more dictionary definitions that are much closer to how CTE uses the word:

the way that someone thinks and feels about something

a belief or opinion based on how things seem

a thought, belief, or opinion based on appearances

pj
chgo

Nope you're totally wrong. I just gave a lesson earlier and we talked about what perception means in CTE. It means identifying objective items and aligning to them.

So finding the center cueball line directly to the center of an object ball to the center of a pocket is an example of using your eyesight with physical objects to align your body and subsequently to position your cue on that objectively identified line. Your perception would be a zero degree connection between two points on a line extended to a third, but invisible, point at the center of the pocket.

A half-ball aim and hit is an example of an objective perception where two lines are available through the connection of the cueball center to the edge of the object ball and the edge of the cue ball to the center of the object ball.

So in cte when someone says 15 degree perception, or edge to c for a cut to the right it denotes a specific visual identification of the center of the cue ball to the edge of the object ball and the edge of the cueball to the object ball right quarter line. This visual identification happens when the shooter focuses on seeing these lines emanating from the cueball which in turn puts the body into a specific position in relation to the cue ball. If it were a 30 degree perception then the body would move accordingly. There is no real guesswork involved here but there is some visual training of the eye muscles just like a person works on other muscles to be able to perform specific tasks.

This is why cte perceptions/visuals can be called out by a non-shooting player and performed by a shooting player with the result being consistent and accurately getting on the shot line.

So, you can choose to go with the most vague definition of perception which is a subjective assessment of a situation, as in I perceive some sarcasm or the objective definition which is to identify objects through the senses, as in that is a green car parked between two marked spaces.

For pool the objective definition of what covers center to edge aiming and other objective aiming methods.

Since you fidget aim, meaning you literally go down into shooting position and fidget around with your bridge hand until it feels right, I can understand why you would think that it is not possible to perceive ball relationships in a concrete and repeatable manner. To you all aiming is just some degree of fidgeting until it feels right.

This is simply not correct and is the root basis of your disagreement on this subject.

Earlier I gave a lesson and I introduced the student to 90/90 as a quick way to get him using his eyes to objectively connect the cueball and object ball. Within ten minutes he was pocketing shots from all angles and his comment was "it can't really be this easy can it?".

What bothers me most about you in particular is your continued claims that perception is fully subjective with no ability to identify the subjectivity in the system. Like I would respect you far more if you ever actually worked with someone who really knows CTE in good faith and you then were able to question aspects after demonstrating proficiency.

But making blanket claims that cte is purely subjective is not only incorrect but also malicious. It is my feeling that that if you learned it enough to be proficient then you would be clear about the level of objectivity present in the perceptions.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... what perception means in CTE. It means identifying objective items and aligning to them.

Let's take an easy one: the objective items for a 30-degree cut are CB center to OB edge and CB edge to OB center. What are CTE's "objective" instructions for how to "align to them"?

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

So "perception" has no specific meaning in CTE? Or is this just the usual JB tapdance?

Here are some more dictionary definitions that are much closer to how CTE uses the word:

the way that someone thinks and feels about something

a belief or opinion based on how things seem

a thought, belief, or opinion based on appearances

pj
chgo

The way someone thinks about something......

Example, I think that the correct alignment for this shot is center to edge+edge to A. My basis for this is that I have practiced with this method and recorded the results so that past experience informs the present task.

A belief or opinion based on how things seem.....

Example, I believe that the correct alignment for this shot is center to edge+edge to A. My basis for this is that I have practiced with this method and recorded the results so that past experience informs the present task

A thought, belief or opinion based on appearances.....

Example, I think that the correct alignment for this shot is center to edge+edge to A. My basis for this is that I have practiced with this method and recorded the results so that past experience informs the present task.

There are 8 perceptions and 6 of them are immediately discarded leaving a possible two. Of those two an experienced user can identify the correct one with incredible consistency.

What you are trying to tell us is that you think it is neither possible for a person to identify/perceive a center to center line and align to it nor possible for a person to perceive and align to a center to edge line and an edge to quarter line consciously and consistently.

I think you have a really low opinion of what a human is capable of. Perhaps you need to change your perspective and change your perception.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think that the correct alignment for this shot is center to edge+edge to A.

Those are two non-parallel lines. How does CTE instruct me to objectively resolve them to the one true CB direction for the shot?

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Let's take an easy one: the objective items for a 30-degree cut are CB center to OB edge and CB edge to OB center. What are CTE's "objective" instructions for how to "align to them"?

pj
chgo

Ok,

So the first thing to know is that there is no presumption of cut angle in CTE. This is because a 30 degree cut angle could actually be 29 or 31 degrees. So if you presented a shot to me that you knew was an exact 30 degree cut but which I didn't then I would do the following;

1. I would identify the center to edge coming to my nose. My body would be in the first position at that point.

2. I would then identify the edge to b line and move my body slightly to pickup this line clearly.

3. From here I would look at the edge of the cueball that is inside the cut angle and bend down into the shooting position with the center of the cue tip placed at that edge.

4. Then I pivot to center cue ball.

5. Take a few practice strokes and then shoot.

Want me to make a video of this for you? Doesn't matter because I will anyway since I like to take your questions to the table and answer them there.

Now go ahead and tell me what the subjective guessing part of this process is. Happy to discuss it and give my perspective.

 

[JB Cases]

Those are two non-parallel lines. How does CTE instruct me to objectively resolve them to the one true CB direction for the shot?

pj
chgo

The cte line is the first orientation. It is used to get into what you might call first position.

The edge-to-a line is the second orientation, call that second position.

From there the instruction is that the shooter goes into ball address with a specific action. That action is to place the bridge hand so that the cue tip center is pointed at the edge of the cueball that is inside the cut angle. Let's call that third position.

From there the shooter pivots (moves the body slightly) so that the tip pivots to center cueball and that will then be the "one true cueball direction for the shot" as you put it. Call this final position.

That is basic CTE with a clear physical pivot. With the addition of a slight head movement between second and third position and a focusing on the cutting edge while "stepping" to center the need to physically pivot is eliminated. The center of the cue ball that is in line with the gb shot line is identified in this way and the shooter can then go to shooting position directly. All of this happens in seconds.

I will use your question in the next video so that you and others can have a visual representation of these instructions.

 

[straightline]

I imagine Stan has revised this pivot deal but as stated, shot dynamics would now be based on some arbitrary placement of the bridge hand and not the shot itself?

 

[The_JV]

Please indulge me and try just this experiment and observe the results.

Next time you're at the pool room take an object ball and ask the players of different calibers to place another ball in line with a pocket. Put the object ball mid-table. They get ONE chance to put the ball down frozen to the object ball. Observe how they fiddle with it and show uncertainity before finally putting the ball down. Once down check it to see how they did. I predict that initially they will be fiddling and unsure and that many times they will be close but not exact. After a while they will get better but still show uncertainty. The higher skill level they are the better they will be at this exercise but even then I predict you will find that they are not adept at quickly putting the ball down in the right spot. And this is with a physical ball in their hands and the pocket line to use through the object ball. Tell me if you observe these results.

If you do then extrapolate what it could then mean when they don't have a physical ball in their hand to identify the ghost ball placement. Please consider that the task of finding the ghost ball shot line is not likely to be any easier without physical markers to use while doing it. Removing the actual real ball to place on the pocket line makes the task that much harder in my opinion and in my observation.

I would definitely try this if it came to mind. Unforunately my region has been placed back into a full lockdown for the net month at the minimum. My memory is horrible but I'll do my best.

 

[lfigueroa]

All these lines are a subjective perception.

You, me, and the next guy are all going to see them differently based upon how our head is turned, how high we stand at the table, how far from the table our stance is, and whether we are to the right, left, or center of the CB when we get into shooting position.

Lou Figueroa

 

[straightline]

Imagine a holographic pool generator. How's it gonna make sense of CTE?

 

[The_JV]

Since you fidget aim, meaning you literally go down into shooting position and fidget around with your bridge hand until it feels right, I can understand why you would think that it is not possible to perceive ball relationships in a concrete and repeatable manner. To you all aiming is just some degree of fidgeting until it feels right.

2. I would then identify the edge to b line and move my body slightly to pickup this line clearly.

3. From here I would look at the edge of the cueball that is inside the cut angle and bend down into the shooting position with the center of the cue tip placed at that edge.

4. Then I pivot to center cue ball.

Although you're doing so with purpose. I would consider steps 2 thru 4 "fidgeting".

I also 'fidgit' while down on the ball. Anyone that claims they don't adjust when down on the shot, are either lying to themselves or miss a ton of balls....lol. In my case, I address the CB on the shot line (much like someone using GB), adjust my bridge for whatever spin I wish to apply, and then adjust my aim to compensate for squirt/swerve if required.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The cte line is the first orientation. It is used to get into what you might call first position.

Used how?

The edge-to-a line is the second orientation, call that second position.

Position of what?

From there

From where?

... place the bridge hand so that the cue tip center is pointed at the edge of the cueball that is inside the cut angle. Let's call that third position.

Pointed in what direction (from where to the CB edge)?

From there

Where?

the shooter pivots (moves the body slightly) so that the tip pivots to center cueball and that will then be the "one true cueball direction for the shot" as you put it. Call this final position.

Whatever you say. Thanks for the effort, but it’s pretty clear we have very different understandings of what these concepts (and even many of these words) mean.

Good luck with it.

pj
chgo

 

[straightline]

Wubbout drunk?

 

[JB Cases]

I imagine Stan has revised this pivot deal but as stated, shot dynamics would now be based on some arbitrary placement of the bridge hand and not the shot itself?

The pivot has not been revised at all. The bridge placement is not arbitrary it is directed.

Although you're doing so with purpose. I would consider steps 2 thru 4 "fidgeting".

I also 'fidgit' while down on the ball. Anyone that claims they don't adjust when down on the shot, are either lying to themselves or miss a ton of balls....lol. In my case, I address the CB on the shot line (much like someone using GB), adjust my bridge for whatever spin I wish to apply, and then adjust my aim to compensate for squirt/swerve if required.

I promise you that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you fidget like Pat Johnson does. One of these days I might release the video I have of Pat's fidgeting...... probably not because I told him I wouldn't AND it's on a hard drive in drawer somewhere and not worth looking for.

What do you think doing it with purpose means? any aiming is done with purpose. This method is the complete opposite of fidgeting. It is a DELIBERATE, focused, instructed, objective, methodical way to go from standing to ball address and be confident that you are dead nuts perfect on the shot line. The steps I described require no guessing other than when learning there will be times when a student is unsure of which perception+sweep is the correct one between 2 objective choices but once that is learned for the shot type then it's a clear objective choice.

Honestly, you are at the moment unable to truly understand what I am saying because the way you have always done it and CTE is so different that you simply can't even begin to understand how it looks or feels from the shooter's view until you learn it.

Is this guy fidgeting?

How about this one?

I can go on and on..... CTE users are not in any way "fidgeting" or adjusting once they have landed at ball address. The only extra motion is IF a player uses backhand english then they would use that to apply spin.

All these lines are a subjective perception.

You, me, and the next guy are all going to see them differently based upon how our head is turned, how high we stand at the table, how far from the table our stance is, and whether we are to the right, left, or center of the CB when we get into shooting position.

Lou Figueroa

No Lou, they are not. When physical objects exist on the same plane then they are connected by lines. Those lines are not subjective, they exist even if not visible. A human can be told to stand with their cue touching the right edges of a pair of balls and they will be able to follow this direction exactly. Ten other people - none of whom need ever have played pool in their life can follow that instruction and end up with the cue in the exact same and correct position. You can tell these same people to point the cue through the center of the white ball to the center of the object ball and they will easily draw a mental line connecting those points. These are stupidly easy tests that should be clear to you that are no problem for the majority of human beings.

Now take those same ten people and tell them to point the the cue to the ghost ball. I predict you will get a range of results that are mostly wrong.

You are simply wrong. And the way you are are wrong, the false assertion that you made is EXACTLY the reason that you don't understand CTE. The whole point of objective reference points is to mitigate the variables in head position, head position above the balls when standing, width between eyeballs, distance from table etc.... That mitigation is exactly why objective aiming is so powerful. Earlier today I taught a guy who is a head taller than me. I taught him 90/90 and CTE on a 2 foot by 4 foot table with 1 3/8" balls. Once he locked onto the lines correctly he started pocketing because he had trained his eyes to see the line formed by connecting points.

Used how?

By sighting the objective center of the cueball to the objective edge of the object ball.

Position of what?

Body position in relation to the cueball.

From where?

From second position the instruction is that the shooter goes into ball address with a specific action. That action is to place the bridge hand so that the cue tip center is pointed at the edge of the cueball that is inside the cut angle. Let's call that third position.

Pointed in what direction (from where to the CB edge)?

from the bridge hand so that the cue tip center is pointed at the edge of the cueball that is inside the cut angle

Where?

Whatever you say. Thanks for the effort, but it’s pretty clear we have very different understandings of what these concepts (and even many of these words) mean.

Good luck with it.

pj
chgo

Yes, "whatever", is the predictable answer. My point remains that the proof is on the table. You want to argue this on this forum semantically but the fact is that no one nitpicks when they have a set of concrete practical instructions that gives them consistent way to get on the shot line. To you if the instruction is not something line place bridge hand exactly on these coordinates in this orientation then it isn't objective. Is such instruction were to exist then it would only be MORE objective. From a practical standpoint the instructions work to take the subjectivity out to the point that for the user there is no guessing needed. Any further refinements only serve to increase objectivity in the process.

 

[JB Cases]

Imagine a holographic pool generator. How's it gonna make sense of CTE?

It probably won't be able to. Unless you program in stereoscopic vision and set it up to account for the biomechanical reactions to visual input as a human experiences them when processing aiming system instructions.

The good part is that it doesn't need to. We have other ways to program sensors and chips that can precisely locate all targets and calculate all pathways.

The interesting question I would have is whether a player can use CTE (or other objective aiming systems) in an app like Virtual Pool IF the player is wearing a VR headset and if the game is set up for VR. Programatically, there would be no coding for aiming systems other than ghost ball. In that situation ghost ball becomes the most objective when it is turned on and used. I have a pretty good VR rig. I will see if there are any pool games for it.

Edit, found one that might work

Or this one.

I guess that there is no VR app for the Occulus Quest which is what I have :-(

Luckily, Rifts are getting cheaper so I might buy one to try out the above games.

 

[straightline]

I will say that guy in the first video back there sure shot a crappy out. He's like Cinch To Ensure. Didn't watch beyond that. Most pool will be played on tables sans all the road dots too. You and all the Chime To Enforce guys seem to want forge the notion that the flag bearers' straight shooting confirms rhetoric. The tack is more like congress than intelligent discussion.