Aiming at "Center Pocket"

[jsp]

Question...

When aiming, is knowing the precise location of the pocket's center required in order to consistently aim at "center pocket"?

A) Nope. All you need is the general location of the pocket in order to choose which "cut type" of a finite number of cut types (straight-in, very thick, thick, thin, very thin, etc.) the shot falls into. What matters most are the precise locations of the OB/CB.

B) Of course. How can you aim at center pocket if you don't know precisely where center pocket is?

Please answer poll above.

 

[CarlB]

I am speaking purely off of logic as I know there is a hidden meaning to this poll that I do not understand.

In order to AIM for something, you MUST know where said something is. How do I hit a target on a shooting range if I do not know where the target is. How do I drive a car down the "middle" of a lane, if I don't know where the middle is.

Its logic, to hit something or at something, you have to know WHERE it is.

Carl

 

[sydbarret]

see the pocket and then basically feel where it is.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Question...

When aiming, is knowing the precise location of the pocket's center required in order to consistently aim at "center pocket"?

A) Nope. All you need is the general location of the pocket in order to choose which "cut type" of a finite number of cut types (straight-in, very thick, thick, thin, very thin, etc.) the shot falls into. What matters most are the precise locations of the OB/CB.

B) Of course. How can you aim at center pocket if you don't know precisely where center pocket is?

Please answer poll above.

I wonder what the highlighted phrase means. Does "precise locations" mean locations on the table or locations relative to each other? If it means locations on the table, then the precise locations of the balls also contains the information for precisely locating pockets. So I assume you mean the precise "formation" made by the balls and the shooter regardless of where they are on the table (plus, if you're using an x-angle system, enough pocket location info to choose a system alignment).

Of course the pocket location is necessary to aim center pocket. It's interesting that this obvious fact is universally disputed by CTE users - more evidence that it's a system for the "geometrically/logically challenged". I'm not criticizing that; if it's true then CTE fills a need.

pj
chgo

 

[jsp]

I wonder what the highlighted phrase means. Does "precise locations" mean locations on the table or locations relative to each other? If it means locations on the table, then the precise locations of the balls also contains the information for precisely locating pockets. So I assume you mean the precise "formation" made by the balls and the shooter regardless of where they are on the table (plus, if you're using an x-angle system, enough pocket location info to choose a system alignment).

I see your point. I meant the latter.

Of course if you know the location of the table's rails and its angles, then you can use that information to determine the location of the pockets. So I meant the precise locations of the CB/OB relative to each other and the shooter.

 

[fabfastfredyy]

All that matters is the way the pockets are cut. They can be extremely tight but very accepting, and play easier than a table with seemingly large holes.

 

[TheBook]

You left out a very important selection. All you need to know is the CTE and the ball will go into the center of the pocket.
. ..uttahere:



.

 

[mikepage]

Question...

When aiming, is knowing the precise location of the pocket's center required in order to consistently aim at "center pocket"?[...]

The answer is so obviously yes that any sane person who answers no must not understand the question.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

The answer is so obviously yes that any sane person who answers no must not understand the question.

Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?

The answer is definitely no, imo. This is definitely a testable question. We did this a few months ago--- posting videos of making balls with 1/2 the table covered and invisible. Huge majority of balls drop without the pocket in sight.

Dave

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?

Probably because

Of course if you know the location of the table's rails and its angles, then you can use that information to determine the location of the pockets.

 

[cleary]

Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?

The answer is definitely no, imo. This is definitely a testable question. We did this a few months ago--- posting videos of making balls with 1/2 the table covered and invisible. Huge majority of balls drop without the pocket in sight.

Dave

Dave, seriously... these people don't want to get it. I feel lucky to have learned, because I personally really needed it. They might not need it, but I did.

 

[mikepage]

Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?

[...]

I rest my case.

 

[cleary]

Its funny, in 1 month's time, my aiming voodoo pdf has 19,000 hits. That's unreal.

 

[fabfastfredyy]

I rest my case.

I vote no. But since you are pretty adamant about its importance, would you mind cluing me in?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The answer is so obviously yes that any sane person who answers no must not understand the question.

This is that logic stuff again, isn't it? No speakee that here.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

mikepage:
The answer is so obviously yes that any sane person who answers no must not understand the question.

spidey:
Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?

Because "without looking at the pocket" does not mean "without knowledge of where the pocket is" (which means you don't understand the question and may be sane).

The answer is definitely no, imo. This is definitely a testable question. We did this a few months ago--- posting videos of making balls with 1/2 the table covered and invisible. Huge majority of balls drop without the pocket in sight.

As you were told then (but still don't understand), that did not show that you had no knowledge of where the pockets were. In fact, some posters (including me) pointed out that there was plenty of pocket position information available to your eyes, and even suggested ways of setting it up so it would be a real test - none of which you tried.

So it's definitely a testable question, but you definitely did not test it.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I vote no. But since you are pretty adamant about its importance, would you mind cluing me in?

It seems pretty obvious that you can't point at something if you don't know where it is. So when you make the extraordinary claim that a system can point an OB at a pocket without knowing where the pocket is, I think it's your responsibility to clue us in on how that's possible, not our responsibility to explain the obvious to you.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

jsp:
When aiming, is knowing the precise location of the pocket's center required in order to consistently aim at "center pocket"?

mikepage:
The answer is so obviously yes that any sane person who answers no must not understand the question.

Spidey:
Then why can I make balls center-hole without looking at the pocket?

mikepage:
I rest my case.

LOL. Judgment for the plaintiff.

pj
chgo

 

[mikepage]

I vote no. But since you are pretty adamant about its importance, would you mind cluing me in?

OK

Let's simplify the question first. Imagine the object ball was the only ball on the table and you were allowed to strike the object ball with the stick --hit it right in the hole.

Now, do you have to know where the center of the hole is to be able to do this? Think about this.

The answer is yes. You don't need to know how far away it is but you DO need to know what direction it is.

Complicating the task by adding the cueball doesn't somehow change this.

 

[fabfastfredyy]

It seems pretty obvious that you can't point at something if you don't know where it is. So when you make the extraordinary claim that a system can point an OB at a pocket without knowing where the pocket is, I think it's your responsibility to clue us in on how that's possible, not our responsibility to explain the obvious to you.

pj
chgo

Man you're confusing the heck out of me. What you're saying is: I have a system that can point to something without knowing where it is, so I have the responsibility of explaining how this makes sense to you. This would imply that you are a person without a system, but believes that you need to know exactly where the center is to send it there. It's been ten years since I took the sats, so I'm just trying to dodge a trick question if this happens to be one. Anyways, I have the burden of proof?

If I point straight into the sky, I could be pointing at the moon or the sun, and tell you one or the other, and still be correct.