A video on pivoting systems

[JB Cases]

Didn't you use a Ghostball template in one of your videos after missing a good number of shots in your demo?
How did the template help?

It allowed me to verify what I was doing wrong in the application of the method. We all agree that using a ghost ball template is an excellent visual guide for verifying the results. I am a student and cheerleader for CTE and other aiming methods. I am not an expert and not a certified teacher. I make videos on the fly impulsively in order to get my thoughts out and to respond to various aspects being commented on and criticized. So I fully accept that in my videos I will sometimes not be successful with the examples. I can also accept criticism for not putting out videos that only contain successful shots. I am not the best example of a diligent practitioner.

What I do find interesting is that you want to criticize me for what you see as unsuccessful examples and resorting to the use of GB templates to figure out what I am not doing correctly but you don't then accept the examples shown by the very diligent users who don't need to ever use GB templates and demonstrate successful shots over and over and over from all positions.

As I stated many times I am more of a cheerleader for objective aiming systems. I feel that in order to show that a system works it must resolve to ghost ball, or better said the NO IMAGINATION SHOT LINE. With a template one can go through the steps and see if they resolve to GB. Once it is seen that the steps resolve to GB for a range of shots then the template can be taken away and the steps followed and the template put in place to verify that the steps led the shooter to the gb center shot line.

So you can hopefully excuse my exuberance and willingness to be less than perfect while conveying the confidence in the system. Instead of whining and criticizing I try to work things out on the table. I have the CHOICE to upload what I record and so leaving in the mistakes and the corrections shows that I am not trying to fool anyone.

I have dozens of CTE videos. You are referencing just one of them. If you want to see videos of CTE in action where all the shots are made, even with curtains blocking the pockets, there are many of them.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I would however like to see this claim of 25 to 50 non-overlapping contact patches for a spot shot to the corner as a diagram.

The pocket margin of error from the spot to a 4.5" corner pocket is 2.25" or 3.6 degrees of angle, which means the cut angle can change up to 3.6 degrees before a new aim line is needed.

For the left cut shot shown in the diagram below, the 90 degrees of cut angles from straight in to thin cut divide into 25 3.6-degree pieces. With the pocket margin for error a single aim alignment works from anywhere within each 3.6-degree "lane", and a new alignment is needed whenever a line is crossed.

I think we tend to "blur" the number of distinct aim alignments as we make these small but necessary adjustments. A truly "objective" aiming system would have to explicitly define each one.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

The pocket margin of error from the spot to a 4.5" corner pocket is 2.25" or 3.6 degrees of angle, which means the cut angle can change up to 3.6 degrees before a new aim line is needed.

For the left cut shot shown in the diagram below, the 90 degrees of cut angles from straight in to thin cut divide into 25 3.6-degree pieces. With the pocket margin for error a single aim alignment works from anywhere within each 3.6-degree "lane", and a new alignment is needed whenever a line is crossed.

I think we tend to "blur" the number of distinct aim alignments as we make these small but necessary adjustments. A truly "objective" aiming system would have to explicitly define each one.

pj
chgo

View attachment 774351

So using your drawing you have plotted out 25 shots. Each shot is unique with a 3.6 degree separation for each line. The 3.6degree number is derived from the gap between the farthest edges of the 4.5" pocket. The object ball is always fixed and the cue ball can move to any of the 25 positions. The distance to the object ball is fixed for the purpose of this diagram. The actual cut angle will be different for each shot but that actual angle is not known to the shooter and there is no way without an external measuring tool to know the exact cut angle. Presumably, that information is not useful in the actual practice of assessing the shot for the purpose of choosing a shot line to adopt. If the shooter wants that information then the best that they could do outside of facing 0 and 90 degree shots would be to estimate it.

An "aim alignment" is the eye/body position that allows the shooter to comfortably and correctly assume the shooting position with the cue placed on the shot line if I am understanding your usage of the term "aim alignment". So, for example, shot 17 and 18 should require that the shooter have different body placements relative to the fixed playing surface.

Have I stated all of that correctly?

Assuming that I have, then as I understand it your contention to be that an objective aiming system would be able to "explicitly" define each of the "aim alignments" in terms of relation to the cueball placement. Hypothetically, for example, that description should be something like this, "for shot 17 the body will be at exactly 1" to the right of the left edge of the cueball".

Something formulaic where these variables are inserted....
Cueball position
+object ball position
+pocket position
+distance between eye centers
+height of head from table surface
____________________________
= body position pre-shot expressed as an easily repeatable and understood line to be adopted.

or

= a shot line that is expressed as a physical location that the shooter can use to lay their cue down to.

Is that about what you mean by an "explicit definition" of the aim alignment? So, something is generated that any person can use to find the shot line for each of the shots and is repeatable for every shooter as long as that shooter can apply the correct inputs as stated above? Such a system would satisfy your definition of objective?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The distance to the object ball is fixed for the purpose of this diagram.

No, the CB can be any distance from the OB within any 3.6 degree “wedge”.

The diagram only shows the geometry of how many discrete cut angles there are. The rest is your thoughts.

…something is generated that any person can use to find the shot line for each of the shots and is repeatable for every shooter as long as that shooter can apply the correct inputs as stated above? Such a system would satisfy your definition of objective?

“Correct inputs” is your undefined term. Post it and we’ll see.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

What

No, the CB can be any distance from the OB within any 3.6 degree “wedge”.

The diagram only shows the geometry of how many discrete cut angles there are. The rest is your thoughts.


“Correct inputs” is your undefined term. Post it and we’ll see.

pj
chgo

Well, your THOUGHTS are that for a system to be valid it has to produce an aim alignment for each of the shots diagrammed. That's what you said. You created the term "aim alignment" so I assume that either means the shot line or something that allows the shooter to repeated get to the shot line once the correct "aim alignment" is specified and adopted.


"Inputs" are assumed to be information that is used to define an "aim alignment" that corresponds with a given shot layout. I listed some examples of what the inputs could be. But since you stated that the requirement for a system to be objective would be that it must produce a unique "aim alignment" for each shot we need to figure out what "aim alignment" means to you.

What is an example of an explicit definition of either the "aim alignment" or the "small adjustment"? You have diagrammed 25 unique shots so pick one of them, say Shot 17 for example, and tell us what the definition of the "aim alignment" would need to be for the objective system to produce in order to satisfy your objection to the word objective.

Please take shot 17 and tell us your method of getting to the "aim alignment" and how that "aim alignment" (first time I have seen that term used by you) is described. In order for us to move forward we should be clear and in agreement for the terms being used. I want to make sure that I fully understand your terms and your definition of those terms. Something like aim alignment is _____ for shot 17 and it is ____ for shot 18 would suffice I think.

The goal for the shooter is to pick the correct shot line for each of these shots. So please tell us what your method is for picking the shot line based on your diagram. Where are your eyes, your head, your feet, and at what point does the shot line appear for you?

 

[Dan White]

Stop being coy. Your first comment to me in this thread was snide and set the tone. I have been DESCRIPTIVE of my journey with aiming systems and the nastiness encountered. If you feel that any of my descriptions apply to you then you might be correct.



Every shot creates a unique body position relative to the shot. Thus when identifying a CTE line the body moves slightly with distance and perspective. As you know the farther away the object ball is the smaller it appears. Thus the CTE line from a 3d perspective standing above the table is not the same as the CTE line ON the table in 2d. The visual connection is between the apparent center of the CB and the apparent edge of the OB as the initial alignment.



You gave two people who are experts in the 2d version of pool instruction. These two are great data collectors for the physics of the interactions between the balls. They are NOT experts in CTE. They have NOT met with CTE experts and had any sort of controlled experiments with the CTE experts. I acknowledge that both of them are very knowledgeable and both of them have a great body of work. But your "appeal to authority" falls flat just as mine does. You are not them and I am not a CTE expert. So both of us are simply choosing to believe one side because it comports with what we think. The major difference is that I have actually gone to CTE experts to learn from and I have actually challenged those CTE experts USING the objections that have been stated. I like Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave but I do not agree with their stance on CTE which comes from a place of ignorance and prejudice in my opinion. I have expressed that to Dr. Dave in person.



So what? Other engineers have said CTE works so I guess you cancel each other out. You have not shown that you know how to use CTE to date and I am inclined to believe you don't know how. I didn't say you know nothing. I said you don't know how to use CTE. If you do then you have been incredibly good at hiding your proficiency.

And to be clear what kind of engineer are you? Chemical or mechanical? It doesn't matter because pool has never been a math-based endeavor. The eyes lead and the first thing one does is aim with the eyes and the body follows the lead of the eyes. The mechanical part is that the arm moves the cue in connection with the eyes. People do not teach pool with math, they teach it with examples. Do this and this happens.

You and I are probably the same skill level. So when it comes to pool you are not any more knowledgeable in general than I am. Your claim that I don't listen to those who are better than me is absolutely false. Just because I don't listen to YOU doesn't mean I don't listen to people who are better than you. While you are "appealing to authority" there are people who use CTE who have greater professional engineering credentials than you ever will. They are building billion-dollar companies while you merely worked for one. And on top of that we have plenty of examples in the world of highly acclaimed scientists in one field who express complete dumbassery in other fields. Just because I can't do the math or use the right terms to explain the phenomena that is clearly present on the PHYSICAL TABLE using the PHYSICAL OBJECTS to satisfy the "science" crowd doesn't mean that the phenomena isn't happening and doesn't work. My "engineering" solutions are responsible for protecting millions of dollars in cues so I think that I am at least qualified to observe what is happening in real life on the table.

Lastly, for an engineer, you are terrible at analysis. The two times you have tried to knock Stan's videos have fallen way short and were easily dismissed.




Stan is above Dr. Dave in pool skill. Stan is an expert in the subject of Center to Edge aiming. You have no idea what Stan's background is beyond the knowledge that he is a retired teacher. Stan has trained champions. You claim the videos are full of holes yet the two times you attempted to criticize the videos I easily rebutted your criticism.

Stan has a Master's degree in education. CTE is a subject that he's educating others on. Stan has also WON a pro tournament and "EDUCATED" his son to be one of the the greatest teen age players in the history of pool. Multiple Mosconi cup team player, and multiple tournament winner Tyler Styer uses CTE and is a certified INSTRUCTOR. What do you know that they don't?



When I thought you were sincere I applauded your willingness to try. But since I now know that you were simply being an insincere troll I find that you were not operating in good faith. You are correct that I engaged with you at first as if you were sincere in figuring out the why behind CTE. As is my habit I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and treat them with respect and collegiality until they prove that they are insincere. You have called Stan a snake-oil salesman among other nasty things and so you deserve the criticism you are getting from me.



The video wasn't a "throw" video. You characterized it as that and made false claims that Stan was steering to achieve the pocketing. I watched your analysis and then watched the original videos frame by frame. When I did that I found that you were wrong and made my response videos. No one asked me to do that. I did it because I found that your claims were simply wrong. Your video and my response videos are all there for anyone to view and decide for themselves which of us is more credible.

Maybe you are not happy that an "engineer" of your claimed caliber was proven wrong by a pool cue casemaker with a high school degree. The fact is that you were wrong then and you are still wrong now. So perhaps the one who needs an attitude check is you.

I'm not going to continue feeding your mania. I do have an anecdote that I'm reminded of:

When I was in high school I had a "Fat" Mac computer. It was considered fat because it had a whopping 512K RAM, up from the standard 128K. lol. Anyway an older neighbor, JP, was big into gambling in AC and was trying to create a betting system for baccarat. He asked me to help him analyze his system and since I had a new Mac I was game to try. I wrote a program that played baccarat and used his betting method. He gave me hundreds of hours of actual play results as the database. My program would create a line graph of cumulative $ won or lost for each session. Using the results he could tweak his system and rerun the program to get the best results.

A family friend was watching this process and said it won't work. This friend owned his own engineering firm for 30 years and knew his stuff. The problem, he said, is that the database we were using was too small and JP was simply tailoring his system to that relatively small dataset. JP objected and said things like how could he possibly know if there was enough data, he didn't even know how to play baccarat, didn't understand the "hot table" in the casino and on and on with the objections.

Of course, the experienced engineer was right. On the computer simulation JP made a lot of money but in the real world it was a wash.

Similarly, John, over the years many experienced people have told you and shown you things you don't want to hear. Just like with the baccarat simulation, CTE works great on a discussion forum but in the real world your demonstrated results are unimpressive to say the least. Instead of stepping back and reevaluating you actually say you can't really do it right and are more of a cheerleader. I know you are convinced CTE works objectively and it feels that way to you. Instead of looking for experts to prove that CTE works objectively, maybe you should focus more on why it seems objective to you when you play. You've always mocked the idea that the subconscious plays a role in this but I think maybe that is the avenue you should be spending your energy on.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Well, your THOUGHTS are that for a system to be valid it has to produce an aim alignment for each of the shots diagrammed.

No, I said for a system to be objective. Color me unsurprised that you'd misrepresent that central fact - you're obviously just here to argue and insult, as usual.

Any system is "valid" if you can use it and it helps you - something I've said many times about CTE too (even though I'd never recommend it). But "valid" doesn't mean "objective" - no aiming system is entirely objective.

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyInCali]

No, I said for a system to be objective. Color me unsurprised that you'd misrepresent that central fact - you're obviously just here to argue and insult, as usual.

Any system is "valid" if you can use it and it helps you - something I've said many times about CTE too (even though I'd never recommend it). But "valid" doesn't mean "objective" - no aiming system is entirely objective.

pj
chgo

Marvin Chen's equal opposite is.totally objective and geometrically correct imo.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Marvin Chen's equal opposite is.totally objective and geometrically correct imo.

It's simple and objective (even instructive) in concept - I admire that about it. But even it relies on estimating the contact point and the doubled aim point.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

I'm not going to continue feeding your mania. I do have an anecdote that I'm reminded of:

When I was in high school I had a "Fat" Mac computer. It was considered fat because it had a whopping 512K RAM, up from the standard 128K. lol. Anyway an older neighbor, JP, was big into gambling in AC and was trying to create a betting system for baccarat. He asked me to help him analyze his system and since I had a new Mac I was game to try. I wrote a program that played baccarat and used his betting method. He gave me hundreds of hours of actual play results as the database. My program would create a line graph of cumulative $ won or lost for each session. Using the results he could tweak his system and rerun the program to get the best results.

A family friend was watching this process and said it won't work. This friend owned his own engineering firm for 30 years and knew his stuff. The problem, he said, is that the database we were using was too small and JP was simply tailoring his system to that relatively small dataset. JP objected and said things like how could he possibly know if there was enough data, he didn't even know how to play baccarat, didn't understand the "hot table" in the casino and on and on with the objections.

Of course, the experienced engineer was right. On the computer simulation JP made a lot of money but in the real world it was a wash.

Similarly, John, over the years many experienced people have told you and shown you things you don't want to hear. Just like with the baccarat simulation, CTE works great on a discussion forum but in the real world your demonstrated results are unimpressive to say the least. Instead of stepping back and reevaluating you actually say you can't really do it right and are more of a cheerleader. I know you are convinced CTE works objectively and it feels that way to you. Instead of looking for experts to prove that CTE works objectively, maybe you should focus more on why it seems objective to you when you play. You've always mocked the idea that the subconscious plays a role in this but I think maybe that is the avenue you should be spending your energy on.

I haven't mocked the idea that the subconscious plays a role. I asked the "engineers" who claim that the systems are only able to work because of subconscious adjustment to explain where in the process the subconscious is adjusting.

Neither you nor any other opponent of objective aiming systems has, to my knowledge, shown where this is occurring.

Not a single one of you has been able to duplicate Stan Shuffet's covered pocket demonstrations.

You attempted to denigrate Stan and call those demonstrations parlor tricks done by a snake oil salesman. You made a video and contradicted your own narrative. And you are incapable of understanding how and why you did that even when clearly explained.

The old engineer was right.... There was not enough data to figure out the real rate of variance. And you don't have enough knowledge or data to figure out the efficacy of center to edge aiming.

Neither does any "expert" you have mentioned. They both have the intelligence and the training to gather the data if they cared to. But instead they choose to mock and knock and you simply follow their lead.

 

[JB Cases]

No, I said for a system to be objective. Color me unsurprised that you'd misrepresent that central fact - you're obviously just here to argue and insult, as usual.

Any system is "valid" if you can use it and it helps you - something I've said many times about CTE too (even though I'd never recommend it). But "valid" doesn't mean "objective" - no aiming system is entirely objective.

pj
chgo

Ok, for a system to be objective.... So again what is an example of a defined "aim alignment" that a system must produce to be objective.

How does the aim alignment correspond to the shot line?

Are you able to answer this question?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... what is an example of a defined "aim alignment" that a system must produce to be objective.

The alignment of easily seen CB/OB features visibly defining the path the CB needs to take - found with no player guidance. And of course simple enough to be usable during play.

How does the aim alignment correspond to the shot line?

The only line I'm talking about is the line the CB is intended to travel, as I described above. I don't care what it's called.

Are you able to answer this question?

Are you able to describe how your system does the above?

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

The alignment of easily seen CB/OB features visibly defining the path the CB needs to take - found with no player guidance. And of course simple enough to be usable during play.

And can you describe the "easily seen" CB/OB features that define the path the CB needs to take? That line would be called the shot line so we can dispense with the term "aim alignment" since you seem to be saying below that the intended line of travel is the same as the "aim alignment".

So if we are talking about the shot line then if I understand you correctly an objective system would use "easily seen" CB/OB features and produce a shot line without player involvement. So if the player is not involved in the process who is then supposed to see the CB/OB features you have said are required to be aligned to produce the shot line?

The only line I'm talking about is the line the CB is intended to travel, as I described above. I don't care what it's called.

So the shot line? Are we in agreement that your use of the term "aim alignment" just means the shot line? I don't want to assume meaning for terms you introduced.

Are you able to describe how your system does the above?

pj
chgo

Well, possibly but I want to make sure we are clear about the terms. I now need to know what the CB/OB features are that you say are easily seen and used to define the shot line and who should be seeing those features since you stated that the player is not allowed to be involved in the process of aiming. I just want to be sure that I understand the criteria and terminology completely.

After you describe the easily seen CB/OB features could you give me an example of how you would subjectively use these CB/OB features to get to the shot line?

And are you totally sure that your term "aim alignment" means the shot line? I am unclear because you say "The alignment of easily seen CB/OB features visibly defining the path the CB needs to take" which seems to indicate that alignment to something, the easily seen CB/OB features, should produce something else, the path of the cueball towards the object ball. Let's aim for full clarity here and then we can see how any known system fits your criteria.

I am not sure that the qualifier you inserted, without player involvement, is relevant or valid because we are talking about methods of aiming that would be used by the player. There are computer programs coupled with optical sensors that do map out the cueball path using objective information about the field of play boundaries and ball positions along with geometric calculations based on the 2d image supplied to the program. Those systems can and do provide a cueball path without the player's involvement and a human player can indeed simply follow the line given by the program. But since we are not talking about those programs and the attendant equipment need to provide the inputs I am confused as to how your qualifier of no player involvement can apply to this discussion. Can you provide further clarification on that point?

 

[Dan White]

I haven't mocked the idea that the subconscious plays a role. I asked the "engineers" who claim that the systems are only able to work because of subconscious adjustment to explain where in the process the subconscious is adjusting.

Neither you nor any other opponent of objective aiming systems has, to my knowledge, shown where this is occurring.

Not a single one of you has been able to duplicate Stan Shuffet's covered pocket demonstrations.

You attempted to denigrate Stan and call those demonstrations parlor tricks done by a snake oil salesman. You made a video and contradicted your own narrative. And you are incapable of understanding how and why you did that even when clearly explained.

The old engineer was right.... There was not enough data to figure out the real rate of variance. And you don't have enough knowledge or data to figure out the efficacy of center to edge aiming.

Neither does any "expert" you have mentioned. They both have the intelligence and the training to gather the data if they cared to. But instead they choose to mock and knock and you simply follow their lead.

Funny how the guy who doesn't get it doesn't get it, whether it be my friend JP or JB.

You are PJ's problem now.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

And can you describe the "easily seen" CB/OB features that define the path the CB needs to take? That line would be called the shot line so we can dispense with the term "aim alignment" since you seem to be saying below that the intended line of travel is the same as the "aim alignment".

Play semantic games with somebody else. As I said, I'm only talking about the line the CB needs to travel.

So if the player is not involved in the process who is then supposed to see the CB/OB features you have said are required to be aligned to produce the shot line?

I said "without player guidance", meaning the player doesn't participate in determining the alignment.

I now need to know what the CB/OB features are that you say are easily seen and used to define the shot line

I didn't say they are easily seen; I said they need to be easily seen. You need to show the easily seen features that your system uses to show that it's truly objective.

...and who should be seeing those features since you stated that the player is not allowed to be involved in the process of aiming.

The player sees and aligns the features identified by the system.

Do you speak English? Get back to me when you're ready to stop the word games.

pj <- tired of the fact-dodging tapdancing
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Play semantic games with somebody else. As I said, I'm only talking about the line the CB needs to travel.

Semantics? I am attempting to get the terms defined to your satisfaction.

I said "without player guidance", meaning the player doesn't participate in determining the alignment.

The human being who is going to take the shot doesn't participate in determining the alignment?

I didn't say they are easily seen; I said they need to be easily seen. You need to show the easily seen features that your system uses to show that it's truly objective.

Ok, so what are these OB/CB features that would need to be easily seen?

The player sees and aligns the features identified by the system.

The same player who isn't allow to participate in the alignment? What features are we talking about?

Do you speak English? Get back to me when you're ready to stop the word games.

Of course I speak English. I have asked you for clarification and thus far you haven't really clarifed the terms that you introduced. I am perfectly willing to try and satisfy your criteria for determining whether a system is objective or not but the criteria you have stated are not clear enough to understand the terms. I asked you for examples and you have not provided any. I am glad to use your diagram but I am still not clear on the terms you introduced. Particularly " aim alignment" and "CB/OB features". I am also not clear on how the player is forbidden from being involved but should "easily see" the CB/OB features.

pj <- tired of the fact-dodging tapdancing
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The human being who is going to take the shot doesn't participate in determining the alignment?

Ok, so what are these OB/CB features that would need to be easily seen?

The same player who isn't allow to participate in the alignment? What features are we talking about?

Of course I speak English. I have asked you for clarification and thus far you haven't really clarifed the terms that you introduced. I am perfectly willing to try and satisfy your criteria for determining whether a system is objective or not but the criteria you have stated are not clear enough to understand the terms. I asked you for examples and you have not provided any. I am glad to use your diagram but I am still not clear on the terms you introduced. Particularly " aim alignment" and "CB/OB features". I am also not clear on how the player is forbidden from being involved but should "easily see" the CB/OB features.

Once more:
- an objective system identifies easily seen CB/OB features to align
- the player aligns them visually and sends the CB along that line

Of course I speak English.

Fooled me.

When you demonstrate that you're willing and able to have a simple, constructive conversation I might answer again.

pj <- not hopeful
chgo

 

[Dan White]

Once more:
- an objective system identifies easily seen CB/OB features to align
- the player aligns them visually and sends the CB along that line

If he is having trouble imagining such a system I would point to Poolology as an example. The system tells you what fractional hit to aim for. It is up to the player to correctly sight what a 1/2 ball or 3/4 ball looks like. There's more to it, of course, but the system, overall, is objective.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If he is having trouble imagining such a system I would point to Poolology as an example. The system tells you what fractional hit to aim for. It is up to the player to correctly sight what a 1/2 ball or 3/4 ball looks like. There's more to it, of course, but the system, overall, is objective.

Yes, I’d accept major fractions (1/2, 1/4) as “objective enough”, even though it takes some judgement to “see” them (especially if you’re using them on both balls). Smaller fractions I consider more firmly in the realm of “estimation”, even if you’re only estimating them on one ball.

pj
chgo

 

[Dan White]

Yes, I’d accept major fractions (1/2, 1/4) as “objective enough”, even though it takes some judgement to “see” them (especially if you’re using them on both balls). Smaller fractions I consider more firmly in the realm of “estimation”, even if you’re only estimating them on one ball.

pj
chgo

Yes, agreed, but the topic at hand, I think, is what makes CTE objective? In looking to Poolology I'd say it is an objective system because the geometry of the table and the ball positions are linked to the ball fractions. Bottom line, the system tells you where to aim to pocket the ball without any fudging from the player. Now, whether the player can visualize a 5/16 hit on the ob is a different matter, but IMO that has nothing to do whether this system tells you where to hit and is therefore "objective" (I know there are some simplifications to make Poolology useable).