Another Pivot Variation

peppersauce

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I’ve watched the video and fooled around with it as described by this YouTube’er.

I have a question for you folks though. If you always line up one tip inside directly on the line from that one tip offset to one of the aim points, and only pivot from inside to center, how do you ever produce anything other than a roughly 15, 30, or 45 degree cut angle? It doesn’t seem to me like it’s possible, at least not without changing your bridge length. In my brain, that just doesn’t work. By using just that one aim line, the same bridge length, and the same one tip pivot from the inside, you just get what you get. What about the myriad of other angles?

I’m not trying to step on any toes. I’m just curious what you guys think. I know there are a lot of folks on here who have experience with multiple aiming systems. Is my logic flawed here?
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
I’ve watched the video and fooled around with it as described by this YouTube’er.

I have a question for you folks though. If you always line up one tip inside directly on the line from that one tip offset to one of the aim points, and only pivot from inside to center, how do you ever produce anything other than a roughly 15, 30, or 45 degree cut angle? It doesn’t seem to me like it’s possible, at least not without changing your bridge length. In my brain, that just doesn’t work. By using just that one aim line, the same bridge length, and the same one tip pivot from the inside, you just get what you get. What about the myriad of other angles?

I’m not trying to step on any toes. I’m just curious what you guys think. I know there are a lot of folks on here who have experience with multiple aiming systems. Is my logic flawed here?
Despite what some believe, no aiming system can exactly define more than a handful of cut angles - if it did it would be too complicated to use. They're all "estimating guides" that get you close so you and your subconscious can finalize the aim from experience ("by feel"). The only real differences between them are your personal preferences - whatever estimating method suits you best is the "system" that works for you.

pj
chgo
 

peppersauce

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Despite what some believe, no aiming system can exactly define more than a handful of cut angles - if it did it would be too complicated to use. They're all "estimating guides" that get you close so you and your subconscious can finalize the aim from experience ("by feel"). The only real differences between them are your personal preferences - whatever estimating method suits you best is the "system" that works for you.

pj
chgo

I get what you’re saying but I’m asking if it’s possible, using only what’s described in this video, to arrive anywhere except those three angles using the three (A,B,C) aim points.

In other words, if I set up a robot that didn’t care about pocketing the ball and had it execute exactly what’s described in this video, could it produce anything except the three angles you get by pivoting 1 tip from inside, with the same bridge length, with the cue exactly on the line from that 1 tip offset to one of the aim points? Would changing the potting angle change the outcome of the robots execution? How about changing the distance between the CB and OB? I just don’t see the outcome changing no matter what you do with the setup of the balls.

Unless, as you said, you care about making the ball and adjust based on experience to hit the correct spot on the OB. I don’t see this producing more than three cut angles, by doing exactly what’s described using the A B C aim points.
 
Last edited:

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
I don’t see this producing more than three cut angles, by doing exactly what’s described using the A B C aim points.
I haven't watched the vid, but I assume you're right because that's correct for every other aiming system too (that's what I meant with my post).

My buddy Al Einstein felt strongly about it - he said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” Or something like that.

Of course we do get different results (or we'd miss most shots), but that's because we don't do the same thing over and over again (whether we know it or not).

pj
chgo
 

peppersauce

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I haven't watched the vid, but I assume you're right because that's correct for every other aiming system too (that's what I meant with my post).

My buddy Al Einstein felt strongly about it - he said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” Or something like that.

Of course we do get different results (or we'd miss most shots), but that's because we don't do the same thing over and over again (whether we know it or not).

pj
chgo

You should watch it. I respect your opinion, and am interested in what you and others think about the content of the vid.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
You should watch it. I respect your opinion, and am interested in what you and others think about the content of the vid.
OK (moan, groan), I watched it. As you thought, if you follow the instructions precisely you'll only get 4 cut angles in each direction. Contrast that with reality: you need 15-20+ cut angles in order to cover just the average shots that come up in pool (taking pocket slop into account) - for longer ones you need up to 30-40+ cut angles.

BTW, aligning the stick with the OB A-B-C aimpoint isn't typical CTE procedure - this guy has his own version.

pj
chgo
 

born2push

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I get what you’re saying but I’m asking if it’s possible, using only what’s described in this video, to arrive anywhere except those three angles using the three (A,B,C) aim points.

In other words, if I set up a robot that didn’t care about pocketing the ball and had it execute exactly what’s described in this video, could it produce anything except the three angles you get by pivoting 1 tip from inside, with the same bridge length, with the cue exactly on the line from that 1 tip offset to one of the aim points? Would changing the potting angle change the outcome of the robots execution? How about changing the distance between the CB and OB? I just don’t see the outcome changing no matter what you do with the setup of the balls.

Unless, as you said, you care about making the ball and adjust based on experience to hit the correct spot on the OB. I don’t see this producing more than three cut angles, by doing exactly what’s described using the A B C aim points.
You have the 3 aim points and then also the point between A or C and the edge of the ball. So 4 aim points total. Im with you guys that no system is perfect. I have found I'm a little more consistant with this and similar pivoting systems. Remember this is cte 101 and there's more to learn.

Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using Tapatalk
 

peppersauce

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Ran into a video this afternoon at Youtube of a guy with his take on pivoting. Interesting but going to stick with CTE Pro One.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E7T0gltORc

:grin:

A question for you, OP, assuming your post isn’t tongue-in-cheek and you actually do use CTE. I noticed your title is, “Another Pivot Variation”. The linked video is titled as a CTE instructional video. Do you consider it, in fact, CTE?

I’ve heard and read that there are several variations of CTE. If that’s true, who’s right? And how does one define CTE? Based on what I know of CTE, utilizing the center to edge line should be the first part of that definition. The gentleman in the video didn’t utilize that line at all. Or the other, edge to A B or C line, for that matter.

I’m not saying it is or isn’t CTE. I just want your opinion. Based solely on what I know of CTE, it doesn’t seem to fit.
 

Boxcar

Banned
But is it really CTE? See my above post to the OP.

I have a feeling I’m opening a giant can of worms here.

Actually, for me and many other players who have been systematically bludgeoned by the whole CTE drama, you're probably closing one. TTFN.
 

peppersauce

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Actually, for me and many other players who have been systematically bludgeoned by the whole CTE drama, you're probably closing one. TTFN.

Fair enough...just trying to generate some discussion. I’ll be on my way. It’s been years since I posted in the aiming forum. I might poke my head in in a few more years to see what youse guys are up to in here. :)
 

born2push

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
No - it's not even a close imitation. It may still be a useful system for somebody who likes it - but calling it CTE is misleading.



pj

chgo
Oh, just by the way you reacted to the video. The guy was pocketing every ball but you thought it was boring. So what do you think he's missing? Im just trying to learn.

Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using Tapatalk
 

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
This is nothing like Hal Houle's/Stan Shuffett's CTE. But is close to what I've shown in this diagram: https://forums.azbilliards.com/picture.php?albumid=2260&pictureid=17887

Using a reference point on the ob, combined with a half tip offset pivot, the ob tracks a particular line as determined by the pivot angle and ob reference point. You can easily setup shots at 3 or 4 different angles and make them work, provided they are the appropriate angles for the pivots and ref points you are using. It's the countless shots that fall between these setup examples that'll take a few months (if not years) before your brain is able to tweak the ref points, pivots, and bridge lengths enough to actually get it working with any consistency.
 
Top