CTE Aiming Video

[devindra]

You're kidding, right? If you "stroke balls in real fast" how can you be following a system? This is meaningless.



Then I guess we can safely ignore you too, right?

pj
chgo

When you can make shots better than those guys then I will start listening to you. You are scared to do Colin's Potting Test because we will see that you can't pot. You are a chicken. Just like when you chickened out when Dave wanted to bet you.

 

[daphish1]

No one has answered my question regarding english.

How does one apply english to the cb after having pivoted back to center?

How does this system differ from the earlier one that Hal taught me where the aim point is either 1/2 ball or a half of one side or the other?

Why the helll can't we talk about how to apply this system instead of all the big ego pissing contests? ! Grow up!. Let's learn what we can from each other and leave the childish freakin insults for lessor men.

Jim,
I'm not familiar with the aiming systems but once you get your line, i'd assume you'd have to adjust to keep the same target line with the english. Can't see how there would be any sort of "system" to apply english to a ball once you've established your aiming line. The english won't affect the path the cue ball needs to go but will effect where you aim on the cue ball.

 

[breakin8]

Hey Hal Houle System is the nuts. I use CTE every shot. Nice video just giving out the secrets.

 

[breakin8]

Hey Kid "Devindra" everyone you named uses this system and will admitt it. All tourney winners. Some day he will open his mind.

 

[mikepage]

Do you see defined angles when you are playing(43.8)????

No ..... .

 

[JB Cases]

One shot is not enough ... we need a collection of shots where the angle to the pocket is changing, and the CB-OB relationship is not.

Regards,
Dave

Um, did you miss the part where Eezbank did your diagram and made all three balls using the CTE system?

 

[Colin Colenso]

There are three ways that players might be adjusting that I can see.

1. They are making minor bridge hand adjustments in the final stage of preparation. Close focus by the player may indicate if this is true. It can be done subconsciously.

2. Swooping of the shot: Pretty easy to see when this is happening.

3. Non-Mechanical Pivoting: What I mean, is that when they 'see' 'find' the aim line to the center of the cue ball, the process seems based on intuitive influence. That is, the line they select to come into the CB center. (This is a type of adjustment.) If it was systematic, it could be described as an exact system.

I think it is no.3 where all the problems lie. I don't see anything wrong with saying this portion of going to the line (which is sometimes called pivoting to the CB center) has an intuitive aspect. The BEST potters in the world, the elite snooker players do this. They see a line and just address the CB and whack it in.

Perhaps CTE and ETE just helps people improve their ability to intuitively see the line of aim.

btw: I'm more than willing to hear descriptions of how players find this line, especially if it is systematic. A pure static back hand bridge pivot would be systematic (mechanical), but it seems most players use the bridge as a guide, not the exact point of pivot, and spidey air pivots, or air shifts to the line, as I understand.

Colin

 

[SJDinPHX]

There are three ways that players might be adjusting that I can see.

1. They are making minor bridge hand adjustments in the final stage of preparation. Close focus by the player may indicate if this is true. It can be done subconsciously.

2. Swooping of the shot: Pretty easy to see when this is happening.

3. Non-Mechanical Pivoting: What I mean, is that when they 'see' 'find' the aim line to the center of the cue ball, the process seems based on intuitive influence. That is, the line they select to come into the CB center. (This is a type of adjustment.) If it was systematic, it could be described as an exact system.

I think it is no.3 where all the problems lie. I don't see anything wrong with saying this portion of going to the line (which is sometimes called pivoting to the CB center) has an intuitive aspect. The BEST potters in the world, the elite snooker players do this. They see a line and just address the CB and whack it in.

Perhaps CTE and ETE just helps people improve their ability to intuitively see the line of aim.

btw: I'm more than willing to hear descriptions of how players find this line, especially if it is systematic. A pure static back hand bridge pivot would be systematic (mechanical), but it seems most players use the bridge as a guide, not the exact point of pivot, and spidey air pivots, or air shifts to the line, as I understand.

Colin

Colin, you are one of the neatest guys on this forum. If I were ever to subscribe to "aiming systems" you would be the first guy I would go to.
An old dog, learning new tricks, is not easy. I sincerely hope that those you are reaching out to, find some way to benefit from all the hard work you have put into your methods.

Sincerely,

Dick

 

[cookie man]

Dave, these threads aren't disrupted by me taking pokes at the belligerent ignorance on parade here. It's the belligerent ignorance itself that does that.

We get sidetracked into hormonal irrelevancies about shotmaking videos or trail off into circular nonsense about "shifting edges" and "moving pivot points" long before the sabres start rattling. Why? Because Spiderdave and his merry troupe of system cultists can't help it - they see that cliff at the edge of reason and drive their little clowncar straight off it every time.

You've been blowing kisses up their asses for several threads now and all I've heard coming out the other end is kazoo music.

pj
chgo

PJ and DR. Dave you should have enough info to try the CTE and report back with info on the necessary adjustments. Thanks in advance for your help

 

[Colin Colenso]

How does one apply english to the cb after having pivoted back to center?

Jim,
I understand Stan has some english adjustment methods and I suspect Hal and Ron V may have them too. However, I'll address what I am familiar with.

A very simplistic adjustment method when using english, reportedly stemming from Efren, is when using inside english, simply pivot the back hand keeping the bridge still in its aligned position. Though this won't work so well if playing soft shots. In that case you need to aim a little thinner on the OB cause the SIT and even swerve will make the cut thicker.

When using outside english you aim (from memory) 1/6th inch fuller on the OB than if you were potting it with follow and pivot as described above with Back Hand English.

This simple system will work pretty well in many situations if the balls are relatively close and the pocket isn't too far away.

A little additional tip if you use this:
If you've got a pretty standard cue you'll need to play most these shots with about a 12" bridge. With firm and closer shots get the bridge toward 10 inches. Longish, say 5 foot + slow to medium speed you'll need to bridge 14" and even longer sometimes for it to work

If you've got a predator Z, or another very low squirt cue, add about 3-4 inches to the bridge lengths given above.

With draw+english shorten the bridge an inch, with high follow+english lengthen the bridge an inch. (This is because the CB swerves in faster the higher you hit it.)
Warning: Avoid the stun shot with heavy outside english, the throw is huge. Best to use follow or draw with no more than a tip of english with OE. With inside english just go for it, the throw is much less variable unless playing quite full shots at low speeds.

I have my own system which is far more detailed and accurate that takes into account IE or OE, speed, tip placement on CB, amount of spin, cut angle, throw, squirt and swerve. All it needs is to locate the shot on a chart to determine the throw and then to make a basic calculation based on distance between CB and OB and the range of speed of the shot (1 is slow, 5 is really hard) to determine the suitable bridge length to pivot from. After a while you get to know, or estimate pretty close the amount of throw to allow for. That tells you where to aim. e.g. Inside left of pocket, or 2 inches right of pocket. You can also get to estimate the required bridge length with practice too, so if you're too lazy to do the math, then at least you'll be in the ball park more accurately than the simple system I mentioned above.

Believe it or not, it's not as complex as one would imagine. It will be available as a manual + DVD one day... when I get off my a$$ some more

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, you are one of the neatest guys on this forum.
Dick

You haven't seen my bedroom Dick :wink:

But thanks

Colin

 

[kaznj]

Thanks so much for the video. You explained very well. I have learned the system that Ronv teaches. It is different, and works for me. This goes to show everyone that there are different systems that work.
I think the two biggest improvements in my game in the last two years have been pool school and the aiming system.

 

[mikepage]

Um, did you miss the part where Eezbank did your diagram and made all three balls using the CTE system?

He didn't, John. He made all three balls and simultaneously described an approach. But what he actually did wasn't faithful to the description.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

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

 

[JB Cases]

He didn't, John. He made all three balls and simultaneously described an approach. But what he actually did wasn't faithful to the description.

So he did not do what he said he was going to do? Or he thought he was doing what he said he was doing but didn't actually do it?

What did he actually do then?

And if he didn't do what he said he was doing and we assume that he thought he was doing it as he was describing (i.e. NOT being deliberately misleading) then what explains how a person sees himself approaching a shot vs. what actually happens? At what point does a person's perception of what is happening become their reality?

Let's reverse this for a moment. In my younger days I spent some time with an instructor who stopped me when I lined up on a ball. This was pre-Hal and pre-system. He asked me what I was aiming at. I said I am aiming at the ball where I want the cueball to hit it to make the ball. This with center ball.

Where I thought was the right spot was actually a little off. However the line felt completely natural to me. So if someone would have asked me to describe what I was doing I would have told them how I aimed. They might have repeated my motions and found themselves on the correct line.

So I think that it's entirely possible that we are describing what we are doing in terms of how we approach the shot, for example, "I line up the left quarter with the center and the right quarter line with the edge and step into the shot, double check it, pivot for the spin I want and shoot." That's what I would say if describing Hal's quarters system (don't know the official name for it).

However what I actually do could very well be subconscious. The point that Spidey, and me and others are making is that it doesn't FEEL like feel.

It feels like we are being quite deliberate. In my case a little robotic even.

Here is the thing though - let's assume that Pat is right and the player is making some adjustment. Let's also assume that Dave is right and the player is approaching the shot in the same way each time.

How do you account for what Dave (Dr.) calls the in-between shots? Some of these by way of the diagram would seem to require a pretty big adjustment that seemingly would raise it to the level of conscious choice. OR is it possible that the adjustment needed is really quite small and within a small range that is easily and quickly found without conscious thought once a person approaches the shot "in the ballpark" as Colin says?

Is it possible that no matter what the shot is that the aiming system gets the person inside the corridor where the cueball must strike the object ball in order for the object ball to either go in or miss narrowly? And if so then perhaps the adjustment needed is really tiny and not noticeable by the shooter?

If so then wouldn't that explain why a shooter feels the system works on all shots?

 

[Colin Colenso]

However what I actually do could very well be subconscious. The point that Spidey, and me and others are making is that it doesn't FEEL like feel.

It feels like we are being quite deliberate. In my case a little robotic even.

Good post JB!

Reflecting on your comments above and your mention of aiming at the contact point earlier, it may be partly a misunderstanding of the semantics of the terms system and feel (or subconcious / intuitive) adjustments, that lead to a lot of the confusion between the two camps.

In the contact point aim method that you mentioned you used to use, though a player can apply this method very deliberately and robotically, it is in fact a feel based system. The CP provides a guide but there are no exact lines to follow, (other than on a straight shot or 90 degree cut, if you align to the CB edge), that allow you to find / visualize the line of the shot except by using intuition / feel. We might call ghost ball or double the distance methods non feel systems, though a great deal of skill and I expect feel is required to estimate those points and to align to them. Hence, because something is purely systematic and geometrically perfect (sans throw) it doesn't make that system necessarily easy or better than the alternatives.

One might still call the Contact Point method a system, though it is not the kind of system we are talking about. We are using system in so far as it is mechanically and geometrically complete. That by following exact procedures, the cue is directed to the aim line.

This is relevant to the #3 point I made above. The implication being that the system takes the players toward this region and the perception of the lines or points assists the player to visualize the line, in the same way that looking at the contact point helps a player to visualize the line.

The advantage of these pivot systems though, may lie in the combination of factors that 1. They are taken to the ballpark without much effort and 2. Their perception of lines and edges assists them in making a better line of aim visualization than does the Contact Point or other methods they've tried.

That may not be the case, but it seems the only reasonable explanation to me in describing how the the cue can pivot or shift to the exact line required. And if that works, then great for the proponents. If that isn't the case, that in fact there is no intuitive alignment, then we must battle away to find a geometrical explanation, but none has been offered thus far, despite a heck of a lot of brain twisting.

If it is the way it works, then I think a lot of players might find success more quickly applying the method with that in mind.

Colin

 

[mikepage]

So he did not do what he said he was going to do? Or he thought he was doing what he said he was doing but didn't actually do it?

Definitely the first and I'm guessing the second, though I'm not in his head so I can't say for sure.

And if he didn't do what he said he was doing and we assume that he thought he was doing it as he was describing (i.e. NOT being deliberately misleading) then what explains how a person sees himself approaching a shot vs. what actually happens?

There's been a lot of discussion on this. I think experienced players like Eric and Spiderman actually know pretty well what the right aim for a shot looks like. Many such experienced players, though, are poisoned by the presence of the pocket. In other words, once they get down into position and have a particular ball overlap in their sights, the presence and location of the pocket should no longer matter--no longer be in their head. If you look, though, at subtle differences in tip ending position on the cloth, you'll frequently see a bias based on which direction (left or right) the pocket is. Whether this comes from a subtle "steering" action, I don't know. But these people would be better off if they were convinced to ignore the pocket and trust the aim. I think that's what's going on.

At what point does a person's perception of what is happening become their reality

"Their reality" has no meaning when it comes to communicating broadly an aiming approach or to making broad statements about an approach that have meaning for all of us. If their personal perception differs from reality, that's their own personal cross to bear.

Let's reverse this for a moment. In my younger days I spent some time with an instructor who stopped me when I lined up on a ball. This was pre-Hal and pre-system. He asked me what I was aiming at. I said I am aiming at the ball where I want the cueball to hit it to make the ball. This with center ball.

This will get you in trouble. If you are looking from center ball to the actual contact point on the cueball, then your sight is not parallel to your stick. This is a serious problem that would make you a great candidate for SAM or Hal's or whoever's fractional ball aiming or something like that

Where I thought was the right spot was actually a little off. However the line felt completely natural to me. So if someone would have asked me to describe what I was doing I would have told them how I aimed. They might have repeated my motions and found themselves on the correct line.

So I think that it's entirely possible that we are describing what we are doing in terms of how we approach the shot, for example, "I line up the left quarter with the center and the right quarter line with the edge and step into the shot, double check it, pivot for the spin I want and shoot." That's what I would say if describing Hal's quarters system (don't know the official name for it).

However what I actually do could very well be subconscious. The point that Spidey, and me and others are making is that it doesn't FEEL like feel.

OK That's fine. But it IS feel. What you are doing is reducing the FEEL to a useful feel, one attached to the overlap between the balls--a ball-ball relationship, which is what you want.

It feels like we are being quite deliberate. In my case a little robotic even.

Here is the thing though - let's assume that Pat is right and the player is making some adjustment. Let's also assume that Dave is right and the player is approaching the shot in the same way each time.

On this point Pat is right and Dave is wrong.

How do you account for what Dave (Dr.) calls the in-between shots? Some of these by way of the diagram would seem to require a pretty big adjustment that seemingly would raise it to the level of conscious choice. OR is it possible that the adjustment needed is really quite small and within a small range that is easily and quickly found without conscious thought once a person approaches the shot "in the ballpark" as Colin says?

Is it possible that no matter what the shot is that the aiming system gets the person inside the corridor where the cueball must strike the object ball in order for the object ball to either go in or miss narrowly? And if so then perhaps the adjustment needed is really tiny and not noticeable by the shooter?

If so then wouldn't that explain why a shooter feels the system works on all shots?

These seem reasonable.

Try this experiment. Find a decent player who doesn't play one pocket. Place an object ball on the headspot. Ask them to take 10 tries hitting the object ball (with cueball in kitchen) to the long rail one diamond up from a foot corner pocket. You will almost always see a BIAS toward the pocket side. The player will miss the mark more frequently on the pocket side. The pocket is a STRONG attractor for us. That's the way we're wired. If these systems get you reasonable in the ballpark that bias will take over.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Many such experienced players, though, are poisoned by the presence of the pocket. In other words, once they get down into position and have a particular ball overlap in their sights, the presence and location of the pocket should no longer matter--no longer be in their head. If you look, though, at subtle differences in tip ending position on the cloth, you'll frequently see a bias based on which direction (left or right) the pocket is. Whether this comes from a subtle "steering" action, I don't know. But these people would be better off if they were convinced to ignore the pocket and trust the aim.

Mike,
A couple of very good Plausible Contributing Factors there. I'll have to add them to my list.

I wish I had a dollar for everytime I've lined up, looked at the pocket and adjusted to overcut the OB. Often the brain lines us up automatically, even though we feel we haven't moved off the center of the OB. Especially on thick cuts, say 5 - 15 degrees I notice it.

If you are looking from center ball to the actual contact point on the cueball, then your sight is not parallel to your stick. This is a serious problem

Interesting point!

Colin

p.s. I could add the pocket attractor phenomenon, but I think it is something that all aiming methods tend to have in common. It is a very important point though, in explaining a tendency to move slightly away from shooting directly at points even though that is what the player is attempting. btw. I think the pocket attractor effect fights an endless and confusing battle with the Ball Attractor Effect, that is, the tendency to aim toward the center of the OB. A great many players employ the Swoop Force to overcome them.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

When you can make shots better than [Bustamente,Reyes and Archer] then I will start listening to you.

LOL. In other words, you don't listen to anybody? That's not the smartest policy I ever heard of.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Is it possible that no matter what the shot is that the aiming system gets the person inside the corridor where the cueball must strike the object ball in order for the object ball to either go in or miss narrowly?

No, it's not. What do you think we've been disagreeing about for the past 10 years?

pj
chgo