Software can compute ghostball unlike people. Conversely software cannot compute a shot from CTE. It needs to know the shot and backwards engineer the CTE. Um, just like people.
A reality check on aiming systems of all kinds
- Thread starter JC
- Start date
Possibly not, but I do adjust when down on the ball. Any adjustment could be considered "fidgiting" by someone that's isnt in the shooter's head and thereby fully aware of what's being done.
You answered the question for me in the second sentence. "With purpose" = "deliberate" (<-forgive the lack of internet shouting
).Any aiming process involves guessing, regardless of the method. Unless you have a horizontal ruler etched on the surface of your eyeballs, which also accounts for depth preception. You're guessing.... I won't argue against you choice of aiming method for producing a greatly likelyhood of "successful guess" say versus the GB method. Simply because I don't know the correct way to use CTE, so I don't have a leg to stand on. I do feel confident in thinking that CTE works extremely well for you, so there's no need to go beyond that.
It could very well be that if I learned the CTE system, that I may never miss another shot. However, my game is so ingrained at this point that I have zero interest fully applying a new method. Member 'Genomachine' of "PerfectAim" fame, provide me a free skype lesson a while back which I at first declined. I did eventually take him up on the offer simply out of his persistence and my respect for his effort. Knowing full well that I wouldn't adopt anything he showed me. Sure enough he walked me through his eye dominance drills and spotted "flaws" (if you will) in my aiming process. Even though I didn't miss a single ball he asked me to make. He made some suggestions and they removed some of my "fidgiting" I wasn't even aware I was doing. Did I make any more balls...?.., well you can't make more than 100%...lol. It did resolve some inner turmoil in my game, but at the expense of throwing out +30yrs of PSR habit, and my natural cueing method. Simply not worth the miniscule gains.
I'm willing to bet that coffee I mentioned a while back that adpoting something like or CTE specifically, wouldn't warrant the reconstruction of my game either. I won't discount it as a viable method for those who struggle with say the ghost ball. Just that when I needed something to get me going in billiards back in my teens, I didn't have any struggles using the ghost method, and "fidgiting" with purpose is just a natural part of settling into a shot. Hell, some players take a few wild loopy practice strokes before the gentlest shots. Makes zero sense, but whatever works I suppose
What guessing is part of the process I described. At every step there is an objective reference point to identify and align to.Possibly not, but I do adjust when down on the ball. Any adjustment could be considered "fidgiting" by someone that's isnt in the shooter's head and thereby fully aware of what's being done.
You answered the question for me in the second sentence. "With purpose" = "deliberate" (<-forgive the lack of internet shouting
Any aiming process involves guessing, regardless of the method. Unless you have a horizontal ruler etched on the surface of your eyeballs, which also accounts for depth preception. You're guessing.... I won't argue against you choice of aiming method for producing a greatly likelyhood of "successful guess" say versus the GB method. Simply because I don't know the correct way to use CTE, so I don't have a leg to stand on. I do feel confident in thinking that CTE works extremely well for you, so there's no need to go beyond that.
It could very well be that if I learned the CTE system, that I may never miss another shot. However, my game is so ingrained at this point that I have zero interest fully applying a new method. Member 'Genomachine' of "PerfectAim" fame, provide me a free skype lesson a while back which I at first declined. I did eventually take him up on the offer simply out of his persistence and my respect for his effort. Knowing full well that I wouldn't adopt anything he showed me. Sure enough he walked me through his eye dominance drills and spotted "flaws" (if you will) in my aiming process. Even though I didn't miss a single ball he asked me to make. He made some suggestions and they removed some of my "fidgiting" I wasn't even aware I was doing. Did I make any more balls...?.., well you can't make more than 100%...lol. It did resolve some inner turmoil in my game, but at the expense of throwing out +30yrs of PSR habit, and my natural cueing method. Simply not worth the miniscule gains.
I'm willing to bet that coffee I mentioned a while back that adpoting something like or CTE specifically, wouldn't warrant the reconstruction of my game either. I won't discount it as a viable method for those who struggle with say the ghost ball. Just that when I needed something to get me going in billiards back in my teens, I didn't have any struggles using the ghost method, and "fidgiting" with purpose is just a natural part of settling into a shot. Hell, some players take a few wild loopy practice strokes before the gentlest shots. Makes zero sense, but whatever works I suppose
Please understand that my intention here is not to convince you to adopt anything else. But your comments, at least early on, were directed towards claiming that GB is "enough" and no need to teach anything else in general. That's how I read it and if so then I firmly disagree.
If something isn't broken then don't fix it. If I were able to score 100% on all pocketing tests as you seem to be able to do then I would consider aiming fully handled for myself.
Please show us your software that computes CTE. Since you don't know CTE I think that would be extremely hard for you to produce.
This am wut I roted:
Conversely software cannot compute a shot from CTE. It needs to know the shot and backwards engineer the CTE. Um, just like people.
You 'guess' what the center of the CB is. Unless it's marked on the ball, you're making a best guess at determining the center. You know where it should be, but it's still a guess. No different although less extreme as your attempt to guess to where the center of the GB would be in your video a while back. You're also guessing to what the edge of the OB is. Unless you have perfect vision for the distance you're at and have razor sharp image to focus on. I'm not doubting your theory, it just the practical application isn't absolute. There's still guess work. We are still human regardless of the aiming system. You can't discount the human element.
I'm not sure is I said "enough" at any point. However I will say now that it's a perfectly fine method for aiming, and is in working practice successfully for countless players. Can those same players benefit from something else as well...?..., possibly. I can't speak for them. I can say that I didn't need anything else beyond practice when using the GB.
Since we have the ability to be quoted along the way, there's no need to put words in my mouth. I didn't say I scored "100% on all pocketing tests". I said I didn't miss a ball on the shots GenoMachino asked me to perform when gauging my eye dominance. Wildly different when pulled out of context. There weren't many shots, and most weren't difficult at all. I'm assuming they were designed to highlight aiming/sighting tendencies, not gauge my skill level.
I miss tons of shots. I'm no different then any amatuer player. However, I don't believe the bulk of my issues are due to inadequate aiming. More so the other complications most experience with a lack of concentration, pattern play, etc....
No, I identify the center by gravity. A sphere is a circle that rests on it's exact center when sitting motionless on a level plane. The center line of a ball sitting on the table is possibly the most objective reference that there is.
When we say objective we don't say fraction of a millimeter precise. We mean that there are fixed parts of the object which are used for orientation.
In other words, if you tell people who have never played pool before in their lives to align a pool cue so that it would sever a pool ball into two equal halves most people would be able to do this without any further instruction. And by sever this i mean that the center line of the cue would be pointing at the centerline of the cue ball within a fraction of a millimeter. It is not necessary to instruct them to be exactly 28.51 mm from the edge. They will mostly be close enough that the task is acceptably performed for all practical purposes.
That means that the reference is sufficiently objective as to produce super consistent results for that task. How it translates for center to edge aiming in particular is that the guesswork is reduced to the point of practical non-existence. Or to put it another way, I go through every step without guessing or estimating. I am not looking at the edge of the cueball and trying to guess where 1.125" from that edge is, in any direction.
I was speaking tongue in cheek while trying to convey to you that the overriding sentiment should be that there is likely to always be room for improvement.
If a person were to devise a comprehensive aiming test and I ace it then clearly whatever I am doing is working. But without such a test assessment of your ability to aim and mine are both anecdotal.
I use Dr. Dave's Billiard University test to gauge skill and improvement. There are several others that are good, Colin Colenso's pocketing test, the Playing Ability Test and so on.
On the Colin Colenso test cte users were most of the top performers if I remember correctly.
Here is me doing a drill to test out CTE against it. And this is when I was using an even more basic form of CTE.
You might be right. Or you might be wrong. Or it could be that part of the issue is aiming and part fundamentals. You will surely never ever know if you don't ever learn any other way to aim.
The whole point of objective aiming is that guessing is reduced so much that uncertainty in alignment to the shot is near zero.
Last edited:
What do you think backwards engineering the shot means?
This is where you are so wrong. With cte I can take a beginner and teach them the system and then subsequently tell them the aiming perception (I prefer to call it a key) for shots they have never practiced in their lives and they will have an excellent chance at making the shot.
For a skilled player the chance to make the shot would be way better than 80% in my opinion.
In fact I would even go so far to say that the beginner could do the aiming using the key they were given and a high skilled player takes the shot to pretty much eliminate the fundamentals variable and the pocketing success would also be 80% or better.
Sorry but you make no sense. Doesn't matter what you think the point is that he got out without any fidgeting.
The point that was made is that cte users have fidgety movement when down on the ball. The videos I posted contradict that assertion.
We are fully clear that just because a person shoots straight out it doesn't prove that anything we say about an aiming system is true.
Just as nothing anecdotal you report proves anything you claim. But what performance videos do show is that a person claims to use a particular method and demonstrates task proficiency. This is added to the body of information that others can use to determine whether that method is interesting enough to learn.
If a guy says I can clear a bar higher than anyone else but only with an unorthodox technique then others will say show us. When he demonstrates that he can in fact do it then it will prompt others to try and learn that technique. Eventually the technique will need improved upon by others.
That's the point of demos.
You clearly think that you are the intelligent one between us. I have no doubt that you know more than me on a variety of subjects. But not on this subject. On this subject the task is clear, find the shot line. And for that task center to edge aiming is very precise and objective. Alongside cte are several other methods that are objective and way way better than ghost ball.
The test is whether a player sees measurable improvement after adopting a new technique. Not whether that technique can be programmed into a pool shooting algorithm.
The first is a test of usefulness. The second is a test of objectivity. Usefulness doesn’t prove objectivity.
Not that you’ll ever understand that.
pj
chgo
I don't come on this forum much, mainly cuz it's repetitious and boring. One thing I'm curious about though, is how you have time to run your business.
Reason I ask is cuz I'm considering a new case and if I order from you can I get it before the CTE discussion ends?
Reason I ask is cuz I'm considering a new case and if I order from you can I get it before the CTE discussion ends?
I know you're speaking tongue in cheek. However, the cases are well worth the wait. In fact the very first equipment upgrade I did was to buy a JB case in Vegas a couple of years back. Obvious decision imo... Took me waaay longer to figure out what to do with the cue purchase.
So nice to play with something decent enough as to not insult the case...lol
JC
Coos Cues
I ordered one a few weeks ago. Probably will never get it with my bad attitude.
Oh for sure... My take on it is such that I don't see the value of adding to the noise in my head by attempting to learn a new method for sake of a potential 0.5% increase of success. I'm at a point that I rarely miss open balls, and if I'm looking at a shot that's already not in my favour of making because I didn't bother adopting some form of aiming system, then I really should be playing a different option.
I spent a few years as a photographer for a newspaper and know how just a small change in camera height, or moving it to the the left or the right, changes perspective.
It's the same with eyeballs. And since we're all different in how we stand at, approach, and descend to the table, we're all seeing something different. No doubt, amongst thousands of players you'd eventually find a couple of them who sync up but that would be the exception, not the rule.
What Stan sees when he looks at the balls, what you see, what I see, is different.
Lou Figueroa
I am so glad that you are a super nobody in pool.
The fact is that you have zero idea whether a programmer could take the cte instructions and figure out a mathematical way to apply it.
It's a shame that practicality isn't a word that is in your vocabulary.
Could be. But here is the thing, Stan sees the center and the edge the same as I do. You can find the center of the cue ball just as well as any other player.
If I trusted you then I would bet super high on your ability to do that. Single lens cameras don't have the same ability to process depth and stereoscopic images. I am quite positive that every player on earth who is your speed can easily point their cute tip to the exact center line of the cue ball.
But that isn't even the point. The point is that objectivity and precision are high enough that it can be honestly said to be fully objective from the user perspective.
The amount of subjectivity is so small that if it exists it is not felt at all.
A 450 speed player who masters cte aiming can be told the aiming perception for a shot they have never practiced and apply it without doing anything other than following the directions and have an easily better than 50% chance to make it.
I have 25 employees. You likely wouldn't even need to talk to me. Most of our customers don't need to. I have time because of division of labor. Your case is very very likely to be completed in the time quoted just as it happens with the vast majority of our customers.
This is the very reason that a CTE specific sub forum topic is on the table. A subject related to straight cueing comes up in relationship to whatever aiming system is used as a reality check and for page after page of discussion this has been all about CTE, not straight cueing. It’s getting longer and longer between visits for me because of this issue. I think CTE discussion belongs on their fabled Facebook discussion area rather than where the commenters already made up their respective minds. This is not a discussion or debate. It’s useless rhetoric for serious player development.
JC
Coos Cues
Yup, it happens every time.
We have a noxious invasive species of plant brought here from Scotland here in Oregon called