Aiming at "Center Pocket"

[Jaden]

Every pool table has this in common...

They are in a 1:2 ratio. 7x3.5, 8x4, 9x4.5 etc....

They all have a pocket in each corner and on the long rail splitting the center of the table.

If you have x,y coordinates for the CB and OB, then you KNOW the precise angle to the pockets.

You can find the x,y coordinates of the CB and or OB in one of two ways.

You have to have two reference points on the table. distance to two opposing rails, or distance to one rail and one pocket.

Once you have those two reference points then you know where the pockets are, PRECISELY where those pockets are.

Did you know that the human brain is better at naturally calculating the most complex computations (rates of acceleration and rates of deceleration) than almost any computer.

This is mete out any time you are driving on the freeway and need to stop in time (some people are better than others).

Your mind can compute the necesary mathematics to determine the angle to the pocket so long as it has the x,y coordinates of both balls by your being able to see two points of reference. if you think that you can pocket balls without having two points of reference and you care to accept a physical challenge that I setup that provides only one, I would be more than happy to oblige you....

Jaden

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Spidey:
You and Mike both misread the original question. The question was, "Do you need to know PRECISELY where the center of the pocket is in order to hit it?" He didn't not say, "Do you need a general idea of where the pocket was, approximately?"

You need to know the pocket's location to at least the same degree of accuracy that you claim to be able to purposely hit. If you claim to be able to hit center-pocket, then you need to know where the pocket's center is.

pj <- maybe flashcards...
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

They are in a 1:2 ratio. 7x3.5, 8x4, 9x4.5 etc....

They all have a pocket in each corner and on the long rail splitting the center of the table.

If you have x,y coordinates for the CB and OB, then you KNOW the precise angle to the pockets.

You can find the x,y coordinates of the CB and or OB in one of two ways.

You have to have two reference points on the table. distance to two opposing rails, or distance to one rail and one pocket.

Once you have those two reference points then you know where the pockets are, PRECISELY where those pockets are.

Did you know that the human brain is better at naturally calculating the most complex computations (rates of acceleration and rates of deceleration) than almost any computer.

This is mete out any time you are driving on the freeway and need to stop in time (some people are better than others).

Your mind can compute the necesary mathematics to determine the angle to the pocket so long as it has the x,y coordinates of both balls by your being able to see two points of reference. if you think that you can pocket balls without having two points of reference and you care to accept a physical challenge that I setup that provides only one, I would be more than happy to oblige you....

Jaden

I'll accept any challenge--- as long as you, PJ, Mike, Lou and whoever participate as well so there's a baseline.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You need to know the pocket's location to at least the same degree of accuracy that you claim to be able to purposely hit. If you claim to be able to hit center-pocket, then you need to know where the pocket's center is.

pj <- maybe flashcards...
chgo

I don't know where anything is - ESPECIALLY the center of the pocket. CTE does, though

(flashcards for PJ)

 

[fabfastfredyy]

So you're saying you live someplace where our laws of nature don't apply. If you're ever in our corner of the universe, we can discuss the way things are here.

pj
chgo

I don't see future conversations with you being anything but counterproductive.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I don't know where anything is

You don't need to convince me...

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I don't see future conversations with you being anything but counterproductive.

I don't see them being anything at all.

pj <- nice to find something we can agree on
chgo

 

[Neil]

...............

 

[Jaden]

let me get this straight...

I'll accept any challenge--- as long as you, PJ, Mike, Lou and whoever participate as well so there's a baseline.

You ARE claiming that you need only ONE frame of reference to put the ball wherever you want?

I'm not saying that CTE doesn't work, nor have I ever.

I don't even know how it's supposed to work. I am only arguing logic and trigonometrics here.

You can't know the proper cut angle to precisely put a sphere to any place by striking it with another sphere without knowing where it's going to go... None of the arguing in the world is going to change that.

You can know by either seeing the precise target location or having enough other information to know the precise location.

I've described how you can logically know the precise location.

there can be no argument without either seeing where the target location precisely is or having the x,y coordinates of both spheres on the playing surface while having access to the precise locations of the targets on the playing surface, you CANNOT accurately hit the target area without this. PERIOD.

This is becoming a game of semantics like me and Colin used to argue where we were saying the same thing in different enough ways to confuse each other.

When you do what you do, you HAVE to (by the limitations of physics) know precisely where your target is to hit your target. If you are successfully hitting your target accurately while only knowing the position of the CB/ OB and not the position of the target, then you are somehow provided with two frames of reference which is giving you the PRECISE locations of the pockets by a geometric function by knowing the x,y grid coordinates of the CB/OB AND knowing the dimensions of the grid and relational location of the six possible targets on the grid.

Jaden

 

[Scott Lee]

It amazes me how quickly these threads degerate into useless conflict. Pat, Dave, and anybody else...how about if we just on ONE thread, simply post, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!" Period. Then, the endless back and forth nonsense posts don't occur. CTE will never be able to be "proven" to the complete satisfaction of the "physics" guys. Okay, let's just accept that. Does that mean it can't work for a large or small group of players? No. It does require some basic math skills, plus of a degree of perception...which is what all aiming is about anyway. How about we put away the "acid tongues" and behave as adults?

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

 

[Jaden]

I haven't used acid tongues...

It amazes me how quickly these threads degerate into useless conflict. Pat, Dave, and anybody else...how about if we just on ONE thread, simply post, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!" Period. Then, the endless back and forth nonsense posts don't occur. CTE will never be able to be "proven" to the complete satisfaction of the "physics" guys. Okay, let's just accept that. Does that mean it can't work for a large or small group of players? No. It does require some basic math skills, plus of a degree of perception...which is what all aiming is about anyway. How about we put away the "acid tongues" and behave as adults?

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I was staying completely out of the CTE debate. I only got into the logical debate of the claim that you don't have to know the target to aim at it. That is patently absurd.

I explained how you can know where the pockets are without seeing the pocket. That's all. So in a way I'm defending CTE, because I'm explaining how an absurd idea can be true. IOW, it's not that you don't know where the pocket is. It is that you are knowing without knowing...lol....


Jaden

 

[jsp]

It amazes me how quickly these threads degerate into useless conflict. Pat, Dave, and anybody else...how about if we just on ONE thread, simply post, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!" Period. Then, the endless back and forth nonsense posts don't occur. CTE will never be able to be "proven" to the complete satisfaction of the "physics" guys. Okay, let's just accept that. Does that mean it can't work for a large or small group of players? No. It does require some basic math skills, plus of a degree of perception...which is what all aiming is about anyway. How about we put away the "acid tongues" and behave as adults?

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I never mentioned anything about CTE at all when I started the poll. It's a simple logic question that can be answered without any knowledge of CTE or any other aiming systems.

It just so happens that the many of the CTE claims (not the system itself) are based on the logical fallacy that the poll question explores.

 

[Jaden]

One other thing....

Using a system that allows you to focus on the CB/OB relationship is akin to hitting a ball in baseball and keeping your eye on the ball. It allows you to better focus on the task at hand, hitting one ball in the precisely correct location with another ball.

You STILL need to know where the target is, if you're getting it from the relation of the balls to each other on a known surface with predefined targets, then more power to you, but you still know PRECISELY where those targets are either directly or indirectly....

Jaden

p.s. I rarely look at the pocket when I shoot. I don't need to, I already know where the pockets are. I only need to know where the balls are in relation to each other with reference points on the grid. I can make back cuts without ever looking at the pocket, but that doesn't mean I don't know precisely where the pocket is when I line up the shot.

 

[Scott Lee]

jsp...Never said you did. However, the "logical fallacy" comment is what I'm talking about. CTE works for lots of players (myself included), and for those of us it does work for, we don't have to have a location for the pocket...just an exit angle. Why that needs to be "denied" by some so vigorously (like PJ) is what escapes me...which is why I said...if it works for you fine. If not, do something else. It doesn't require than people have to descend into senseless posting arguments...for or against (Jaden, I'm not including you here). It's kinda like the "different strokes for different folks" idea. Live and let live! :grin: If I don't like how a student strokes the ball, I will certainly give them my perspective on why that often results in inconsistent results...but I will never tell them they are full of sh*t, or demand that they "do it the right way". The choice is always left up to the individual...you know, like the water/horse thing! :grin:

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I never mentioned anything about CTE at all when I started the poll. It's a simple logic question that can be answered without any knowledge of CTE or any other aiming systems.

It just so happens that the many of the CTE claims (not the system itself) are based on the logical fallacy that the poll question explores.

 

[jsp]

...we don't have to have a location for the pocket...just an exit angle.

What exactly do you mean by "exit angle"? By exit angle do you mean a precise angle, such as 25.6 degrees? Or do you mean a range of angles, such as 20-30 degrees?

 

[Scott Lee]

jsp...I'm not going to go into detail, but CTE works on the basis of just a few "angles" which cover almost all shots (for some varieties of CTE, it is just one angle). These angles are all primary to the half ball aim (30 degree cut), which is the most common angle on a pool table (and the angle that every pro desires to fall onto), for either a cut or bank. Therefore, the exit angle refers to the half ball aim, or one of a couple of others (1/4 ball or 3/4 ball). If someone covers the table, as Dave described (and Hal Houle did with Randyg years ago), and tells him what the exit angle is to the pocket, he would just have to line up on that angle. He would, obviously, need to know the location of the pocket (which is fixed), in order for the exit angle to work to pocket the ball. He personally would not have to be able to see the pocket.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

What exactly do you mean by "exit angle"? By exit angle do you mean a precise angle, such as 25.6 degrees? Or do you mean a range of angles, such as 20-30 degrees?

 

[iralee]

jsp...I'm not going to go into detail, but CTE works on the basis of just a few "angles" which cover almost all shots (for some varieties of CTE, it is just one angle). These angles are all primary to the half ball aim (30 degree cut), which is the most common angle on a pool table (and the angle that every pro desires to fall onto), for either a cut or bank. Therefore, the exit angle refers to the half ball aim, or one of a couple of others (1/4 ball or 3/4 ball). If someone covers the table, as Dave described (and Hal Houle did with Randyg years ago), and tells him what the exit angle is to the pocket, he would just have to line up on that angle. He would, obviously, need to know the location of the pocket (which is fixed), in order for the exit angle to work to pocket the ball. He personally would not have to be able to see the pocket.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

A version of CTE with only one angle can not be a very useful system, unless all of the shots happen to coincidentally fall exactly onto that angle. Scott, can you explain why the balls on the table might align themselves for 30 degree cuts more frequently than other angles? (i.e. the distribution is centered around 1/2 ball hits)

-Ira

 

[Patrick Johnson]

jsp:
By exit angle do you mean a precise angle, such as 25.6 degrees? Or do you mean a range of angles, such as 20-30 degrees?

Scott Lee:
I'm not going to go into detail

That's x-angle speak for "Good question. Hey look over there!"

...the exit angle refers to the half ball aim, or one of a couple of others (1/4 ball or 3/4 ball). If someone covers the table, as Dave described (and Hal Houle did with Randyg years ago), and tells him what the exit angle is to the pocket, he would just have to line up on that angle. He would, obviously, need to know the location of the pocket (which is fixed), in order for the exit angle to work to pocket the ball. He personally would not have to be able to see the pocket.

Nicely played.

pj <- appreciate good footwork
chgo

 

[Jaden]

Holy Crap...

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2933145&postcount=560


Above is a link to a pdf that has a grid pattern that is part of the pro/one system....

When I was talking about gridding to resolute the angles of shots I had no idea. I haven't looked into CTE hardly at all... lol...

Yes if you grid the table, and place the CB and OB on any part of the grid, you can use a table to lookup the EXACT angle to the pocket.

I had actually started to draw out a grid to relate what I was referring to and thought that if I had enough time I could create a system based off of a diamond based grid that would have squares labeled A-FF that each grid square would then be broken down into a hundred sectors. With a hundred sectors in each grid you could break it down to an exact enough angle for almost any table.

Then you could have various degrees of fractional aiming for any given angle that would work; however, it would still require visualization of the fractionals which is not much easier than ghost ball or any other technique.

quarter ball, half ball and full ball can never be enough, but if you grid the table and create a sheet table that can allow you to lookup fractionals for given layouts and practice long enough and study long enough to memorize the various fractionals to use for given grid patterns, you could become more exact perhaps. Or you could always use the table to lookup any shots that you are iffy on.

I find this hilarious that the only way that this could possibly work is illustrated from Stan's own system...and that I had thought of it without ever looking at the system...and more importantly that proponents of the system tried to deny that it was the case...

Jaden

 

[fabfastfredyy]

The hole's location is independent of the CB and OB.

How does the CB and OB give me any information at all on the pocket's whereabouts? Do they talk to each other and by learning the right aiming system, you'll be able to develop a sixth sense capable of hearing their conversation?

OB: Hey CB, what's up?

CB: Not bad, and you? Howz the family doing?

OB: We're doing okay, but number one has been looking a bit pale lately.

CB: Bummer.

OB: And yourself? Looks like you still have the measles.

CB: Yeah, but I feel great. Anyway, have you seen the side pocket anywhere? The shooter wants to put you there.

OB: Sure, it's right over there. Just tell him to place his bridge hand there, and pivot this way, and it'll all work out.

CB: Okay, I'll pass the message. Have fun in the pocket.

OB: Thanks, catch ya later.

So you're saying that I'm wrong? btw, I don't know what cte is.