I Pivot from my Bridge Hand, the Bridge Point is the Pivot, (like where the Two Hand attach to a Watch Face!) if the Bridge is less than 10-12". I use 1/2-1.0 TIP of ENGLISH!!!!
CTE Aiming Systems - Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter Redneck Jim
- Start date
I Pivot from my Bridge Hand, the Bridge Point is the Pivot, (like where the Two Hand attach to a Watch Face!) if the Bridge is less than 10-12". I use 1/2-1.0 TIP of ENGLISH!!!!
Well I can find him a Artizona Bee Hive to play with, after I show him how CTE works!.
I prefer that this bee hive be used.
View attachment untitled.bmp
From dr_dave's post:
BASIC CTE PIVOTS (as taught by Hal Houle):
For thick cuts: Your cue is parallel to the CTEL with your tip pointing at the outside edge of the CB (the edge of the CB that’s farthest from the pocket). You then pivot your tip towards the pocket until it reaches CB center.
I now realize that the "EDGE" isn't the 9 or 3 O'Clock defining the equator of the OB, but it is from a top view of the OB with 12 O'Clock pointing at the pocket and 6 O'Clock being where that line would exit the OB (did Spidy say that?).
For thin cuts: Your cue is parallel to the CTEL with your tip pointing at the inside edge of the CB (the side of the CB that’s closest to the pocket). You then pivot your tip away from the pocket until it reaches CB center.
If you’re not sure which side to pivot from, only one will work. One will look right – the other will not.
I can accept this interpretation of the "EDGE" in CTE - as described by Hal.
As I drew in Acad weeks ago and as captured by dr_dave in Colostate, I believe that all that is needed is the proper offset.
Thus, If one aims the center of the CB to the "EDGE" of the OB (where the line from the pocket exits the OB at it's equator, then the proper parallel offset of the bridge hand is to move the bridge laterally to now aim at the center of the OB and then pivot back to the center of the CB - Hal is then correct......to me.
BASIC CTE PIVOTS (as taught by Hal Houle):
For thick cuts: Your cue is parallel to the CTEL with your tip pointing at the outside edge of the CB (the edge of the CB that’s farthest from the pocket). You then pivot your tip towards the pocket until it reaches CB center.
I now realize that the "EDGE" isn't the 9 or 3 O'Clock defining the equator of the OB, but it is from a top view of the OB with 12 O'Clock pointing at the pocket and 6 O'Clock being where that line would exit the OB (did Spidy say that?).
For thin cuts: Your cue is parallel to the CTEL with your tip pointing at the inside edge of the CB (the side of the CB that’s closest to the pocket). You then pivot your tip away from the pocket until it reaches CB center.
If you’re not sure which side to pivot from, only one will work. One will look right – the other will not.
I can accept this interpretation of the "EDGE" in CTE - as described by Hal.
As I drew in Acad weeks ago and as captured by dr_dave in Colostate, I believe that all that is needed is the proper offset.
Thus, If one aims the center of the CB to the "EDGE" of the OB (where the line from the pocket exits the OB at it's equator, then the proper parallel offset of the bridge hand is to move the bridge laterally to now aim at the center of the OB and then pivot back to the center of the CB - Hal is then correct......to me.
I haven't gotten the impression that the CTE'ers interpret it that way (could be wrong). What you're referring to, as I think you're well aware of, is what Dr. Dave called CTCP. (I forget the name of the person that sent him the email suggesting using the contact point.)
You may be aware of this too, but with CTCP, assuming you've made a perfect parallel shift so that you're now aiming at the center of the OB (as you described), the distance from the center of the cueball to the pivot location on the stick is equal to the distance from the center of the ghostball to the center of the cueball. In other words, you can't be cavalier about it and pivot at your usual bridge location (or at the hip or joint or anywhere you please). This can present a problem, particularly when the CB-OB separation is greater than the length of your cue. On the other hand, you don't have to be exceedingly precise about it either, especially when there's a healthy distance separating the CB and OB.
Here are some plots of the correct pivot distance at three different CB-OB separations (middle curve of each group of five), along with the pivot distances resulting in 2-degree and 5-degree OB direction errors (adjacent and outer curves of each group, respectively). One ball radius (1.125") is subtracted from the CB center-to-pivot location, since we're measuring from the tip. It's assumed that the parallel shift is performed with the stick moving along a line perpendicular to itself from its CB center-to-contact point pre-pivot alignment. Any additional gap to avoid a foul would have to be subtracted as well.
Here is some related math in addition to that already posted at Dr. Dave's site:
Shot geometry:
Determining pivot distance (general):
Application to CTCP:
Jim
Last edited:
I'd like to say something about the new CTE thread and the people posting there. Where is the difference between them asking how CTE works and me asking how CTE works? It's that they already believe it works and I don't. But yet I am not allowed to post in the new thread because I'm the evil nay sayer.
New thread makes Sniper mad.
New thread makes Sniper mad.
You're are TOTALLY WELCOME in the new thread.
The point of making that thread was to discover WHY and HOW it works without the "it can't work - you're all idiots for even trying" type of comments.
The idea is that the people in that thread hopefully should take it to the table and try it and compare notes rather than keeping it on a purely intellectual discussion.
I am hoping that people will get out there and try it and figure it out.
I am not opposed to the idea that there is feel and estimation involved BUT where and how much and how do you get to the point where you're so close that it feels automatic?
To me that is the essence of the debate. Intellectually, on paper, the geometry doesn't work - easy enough to draw a 2d overhead diagram of ghost ball setups and see that the center to gb-center works every time (not counting collision induced throw.)
So if you overlay the visual sight line that is Center to Edge and compare it to the Center to GB-Center line it's hard to imagine how one STARTS with CTE and the cue ends up on the aiming line of Center to GB-Center.
That much is perfectly clear.
The issue for those who use CTE is that they get up and make shots that they really, truly, really really swear on a bible never made before or never made consistently. These include those weird back cuts, thin shots up the rail, shots with funny angles where the balls are close together, steep angles to the side, etc....
A lot of CTE users are decent players. These are not stupid people. They understand Ghost Ball and grew up in pool using it. They know that using the Ghost Ball method they cannot consistently make certain shots.
Then along comes CTE (or similar systems) and suddenly they CAN make these shots with consistency. Then comes the inevitable question, well how does it work?
I don't know, it just does.
Imagine for a moment if none of us here could explain magnetism and one of us showed up with a magnet. The guy with the magnet would be ridiculed by some and revered by others. He be accused of using black magic while others would look for a scientific reason why two stones attract each other.
So the goal in the other thread is to engender positive discussion which hopefully will center around people who will take it to the table and figure out the why and how without theorizing about it.
That's all. You can be a naysayer but say your nays after going to the table with all the instructions and trying it. Then come back and tell us which part is tough to figure out. When you are facing the balls and you have all the notes printed out I think that you will have a clearer understanding. Maybe you still won't get it and maybe it still won't work for you and if not that's where the discussion should begin I think.
Think in many cases the hardest thing to get about CTE is the Pivot, How Much English is needed, and have the TRUST THAT CTE is the REAL DEAL! But I think I am now making slow progress with learning CTE.
Yesterday I work a few minute on Banking with CTE. today my pool playing one hole pal is on a mission, so I am going up to the Pool Rom about 10 AM, to do nothing but work on CTE.
So far my TIME INVESTMENT is returning Big RESULTS!!!
Yesterday I work a few minute on Banking with CTE. today my pool playing one hole pal is on a mission, so I am going up to the Pool Rom about 10 AM, to do nothing but work on CTE.
So far my TIME INVESTMENT is returning Big RESULTS!!!
So, is it the CTE system or the HAMB system thats working ?
Hasn't that happened already? I read the instructions, tried it, came back and told you it didn't work and that I had problems with this and this step. But you don't want to hear that. Therefore the new thread, where everybody should assume CTE "is the real deal". If somebody analyzes all the steps of CTE (you'd have to know them first) and concludes that the result is not the correct line of aim and you have to make adjustments in order to make the shot, why bother carrying around the system at all? You could close in on the shot in the air, then get down and adjust with the same results.
Where do you get the info that players suddenly can make shots they couldn't make before they used CTE? Do you know any of them? People can often exaggerate when they talk about their own game. Sometimes they will even tell you how bad they were playing, when in reality they couldn't have played any better. And vice versa they could tell they were making all sorts of shots with ease, but they will ignore all the many misses they made because they truly believe what they are doing works 100%, it has to work.
A freind of mine recently learned about BHE. One day he came to me and said "look, this is awesome" and made a long railshot with mach speed and inside english and whatnot. The cueball was bouncing around like crazy. He was so convinced that BHE is a system that accurately eliminates squirt on every shot. Did it improve his shotmaking with english? No! He could make those crazy shots before. But now he gave the credit to BHE - not his talent. (Actually he realized this later, and now uses BHE very rarely.)
Your magnet analogy is also bad, because you can clearly demonstrate that the magnets attract echt other. You can see the effect and you can analyze it. With CTE you cannot. There is no clear line between "it works" and "it doesn't work". A guy making some tough shots says nothing. Stevie losing against Derren says nothing. Even if you doubled your high run in straight pool... How do you know it was due to CTE? As Stan Shuffet said, there are more variables than just aiming. Although doubling your high run would be impressive.
The best way of showing that CTE works would be on paper. But there it falters.
As a sidenote:
Even if CTE turned out to be accurate, it would still fail because of the pivot, which destroys your stance and technique.
Last edited:
I am trying to learn CTE NOT HAMB!:grin:
I agree. Another difference, and this is critical, is that unlike the descriptions of CTE that have been given, CTCP is at least coupled to a feature of the ghostball, the contact point, which makes it an overtly procedural system.
That's what was assumed in the graph, except your 'bridge length' has to be at least approximately equal to the distance between the center of the ghostball and cueball during the pivot. This requirement does become very stringent at extreme cut angles, as the graph shows.
True.
...if you do an accurate parallel shift (move the butt and tip the same distance laterally) and use a pivot location as described.
I'm not sure if this is what you mean: the method does apply to any CB-OB separation, but the tolerance in the pivot distance does become tighter.
I agree and am not advocating using this system. The main problem is in doing an accurate parallel offset, as I see it, and apparently you do too. But it does have the virtue of being tied to the specific shot geometry you're faced with, and it allows for a rather straightforward determination of the pivot location. From the descriptions we have of CTE, which do not include any coupling to some aspect of the ghostball, any accurate establishment of the pivot location is extremely problematic, at best (in fact, I would say impossible).
Jim
Last edited:
Jal,
I will market a 13 mm cue from tip to butt so that one can roll the cue for a perfect parallel lateral shift LOL.
I have been away at the Riviera fror the BCA and the Pro tournaments, but a couple of weeks ago, I was thinking about the bridge distance from the CB to be about 1/2 the distance from the OB to the CB - for a 8 foot separation, that would be that the bridge s/b 4 feet in back of the CB - not practical unless you pivot from the hip or..???? As I said i will rethink and test this.
Upon further thought, I believe that since the OB appears smaller the farther away it is, to infinity to exagerate, that the shift would be if parallel with reference to the OB (and not to the CB), the shift will be smaller as the OB is farther away making the bridge to CB ratio closer to 1/2 rather than 1 to 1 the distance from the OB to CB.
The charts you provided are engineering proof but they lose most begining pool shooters..that I have come in contact with LOL...and perhaps some instructors.
Thanks
I will market a 13 mm cue from tip to butt so that one can roll the cue for a perfect parallel lateral shift LOL.
I have been away at the Riviera fror the BCA and the Pro tournaments, but a couple of weeks ago, I was thinking about the bridge distance from the CB to be about 1/2 the distance from the OB to the CB - for a 8 foot separation, that would be that the bridge s/b 4 feet in back of the CB - not practical unless you pivot from the hip or..???? As I said i will rethink and test this.
Upon further thought, I believe that since the OB appears smaller the farther away it is, to infinity to exagerate, that the shift would be if parallel with reference to the OB (and not to the CB), the shift will be smaller as the OB is farther away making the bridge to CB ratio closer to 1/2 rather than 1 to 1 the distance from the OB to CB.
The charts you provided are engineering proof but they lose most begining pool shooters..that I have come in contact with LOL...and perhaps some instructors.
Thanks
Last edited:
Well I just got home from the Pool Room, work three hours on CTE. Start to understand CTE bank after many many tries, and failures, and then a lights went on. :shocked2: Bingo it works on BANKS..:idea:
IMHO if people would quit arguing as to weather CTE was Real, or Fake. Spend that time working with CTE, as many have contribute a lot of good information about CTE, and How to Master it. These people are not making any money off this contribution! :idea:
So all you have to do is take the information, and work with it. Than I think there would be more positive comment about CTE! IMHO CTE is the REAL DEAL. :idea:
IMHO if people would quit arguing as to weather CTE was Real, or Fake. Spend that time working with CTE, as many have contribute a lot of good information about CTE, and How to Master it. These people are not making any money off this contribution! :idea:
So all you have to do is take the information, and work with it. Than I think there would be more positive comment about CTE! IMHO CTE is the REAL DEAL. :idea:
Coboy,
When you get around 90%, I would like you to share the offsets and adjustments that you had to make.
Thanks.
Honestly I think the answer to making heads or tails of CTE is working with CTE. Each of us stand differently, see differently, and have a lot of differences that we make personal adjustments for. Just my $.02 on the subject.
You can not learn to drive an 18 Wheeler, sitting in front on a CPU, you got to get you self in the Drivers Seat of an 18 Wheeler!
..............................
Last edited:
It made me mad,too, but then I realized that it's really just a circle jerk for the "true believers", so what harm can it do to the open minded.
However, I think it should be moved to NPR.
Mark
I gave you the simple steps to prove only that it's difficult to "get it" with the simple instructions. What I told you is what I do.
The point was that it's not easy to write it out in simple 123 spoon fed directions.
I have made the example many many many times on this forum of my friends an APA2 and APA5 both learning one of Hal's systems from me ten years ago and within an hour they were both making shots that they previously could not. Ironically they also discovered that same night a version of CTE which helped them to make shots to the side pocket. They were so excited to show me this and it worked. They were cutting balls into the side pocket from ridiculous angles and shouting with glee every time they made one. I use their method to this day and freak people out with the shots I slice into the side.
And besides myself I know plenty of other people who have the same experience with CTE and other systems who do know for a fact that their percentages on "tougher" shots went WAY up after learning the system.
Well you have your thoughts on this and I have mine. I have many positive examples as proof of concept. I don't get into the psychology of it and instead focus on the results.
Then your friend didn't learn it properly. He didn't understand why BHE works. Of course people have it within them to make any shot on the table. Just that some people can't seem to do them consistently with one method, i.e. ghostball, but they can do them better with another method. I fall into that category. And I use BHE on every shot where I want to add spin.
Is it? Sure you can analyze the effect but if you have no frame of reference, you don't know know about electrons then how far will you get?
You want to deny that CTE works because you can't do it and you can't draw it. The fact is that highly respected and smart people in this industry know it works and they use it. Just because they won't draw you a map (or draw me one) doesn't mean that it doesn't work.
Really? So the guy who makes the tough shots and says that he does X to aim says nothing? SVB said he uses a stick method of aiming the other day - should I just tell him he's full of crap and it can't work because I don't know how to do what he does? What if Shane said that he couldn't draw it out on paper what he does but he could show you? Would you listen or would you tell him that if it can't be drawn then it can't be done?
See above.
Well this is your contention. However there are people who successfully use CTE. You have said that you do not understand how to use CTE so until you do I think it's premature to make such proclamations.
I find personally that using CTE does not destroy my stance or technique at all. I run racks using CTE.
Now maybe I am lying to you. Maybe I am lying to myself. Maybe I am not using CTE at all. But I am using CTE as I understand it and it's working for me.
If you want to learn how to use CTE then feel free to participate in the other thread and confine your comments to the "what do I do here" variety rather than the "this is bullshit and can't possibly work" variety and that will allow people who do know what they are doing to attempt to describe it in terms that make sense.
No Mark, it's an ATTEMPT to allow those who know the system fairly well to interact with those who want to know the system and HOPEFULLY come to some sort of directions and mutual understanding of the nuts and bolts so that the hate filled posts such as yours here can stop.