CTE Aiming Video

[CaptiveBred]

Well that means you would put you money up against Efren or Bustamente because they use center 2 edge.

No, I would not and I doubt they do. From what I have seen, it is impossible to use that system on every shot... If you think those guys just freewheel it on certain shots because their system does not cover it; you are wrong.

Sometimes pool players are not truthfull when asked their secrets...

 

[eezbank]

No, I would not and I doubt they do. From what I have seen, it is impossible to use that system on every shot... If you think those guys just freewheel it on certain shots because their system does not cover it; you are wrong.

Sometimes pool players are not truthfull when asked their secrets...

Spidey will answer this question for you. He spoke with Busta this year at Valey Forge and got a little one on one lesson. I'll let Dave fill you in with the rest.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...get on video and show me the hows and whys of your methods.

LOL. Do any English speaking pool players use these systems?

pj
chgo

 

[devindra]

Johnny Archer and Raj Hundal I think. For sure Stevie Moore.

 

[eezbank]

http://CueTable.com/P/?@3HUAB3PYdk2QcQr3cUAB2cbLB3kYdk2kTbA@

This is a shot Bert Kinnister uses to show something that virtual pool will not. Bert says a common mistake on this shot when trying to shoot the ball in pocket "A" is that you tend to want to try to over cut this ball drilling it into the rail. He goes on to say you need to shoot straight at the ball as if you wanted to shoot it at the bottom rail. Your eyes tell you it's wrong yet the ball goes right in the pocket. When we use these diagrams to try to show that there must be an adjustment somewhere I think the adjustment is your initial line you come down on. I see the edge of the ball from where I am standing on the last group of shots that I shot. I am aiming at that edge and the ball splits the pocket. Now, I never say that the balls when they collide are at a half ball.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

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.

I'm sorry, but I have to completely disagree with you on this point.

I'm sorry too, but Colin is completely right about this, and there's really no "thinking" about it - it's an obvious fact.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

CueTable Help

This is a shot Bert Kinnister uses to show something that virtual pool will not. Bert says a common mistake on this shot when trying to shoot the ball in pocket "A" is that you tend to want to try to over cut this ball drilling it into the rail. He goes on to say you need to shoot straight at the ball as if you wanted to shoot it at the bottom rail. Your eyes tell you it's wrong yet the ball goes right in the pocket.

Your point is that diagrams can't show why this shot is hard to visualize accurately? I agree with that.

When we use these diagrams to try to show that there must be an adjustment somewhere I think the adjustment is your initial line you come down on. I see the edge of the ball from where I am standing on the last group of shots that I shot. I am aiming at that edge and the ball splits the pocket. Now, I never say that the balls when they collide are at a half ball.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

pj
chgo

 

[CaptiveBred]

Johnny Archer and Raj Hundal I think. For sure Stevie Moore.

JA uses a 16 point fractional system which is not at all like the HH system AFAIK

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with systems at all. I prefer them. The HH systems relies on squirting, throwing, and spinning balls in. Thats how many of the shots are made when, at the surface, you don't think its the right spot to aim at. But the physics take over and widen the pocket so to speak...

Do you really think top players spin every ball in?

Like I said earlier; the HH system is certainly better than none but it leaves alot to be desired. It only covers half the needed shots to run out. You can get far with half the weapons needed but you won't get all the way...


And if there really is top players using this system they are either A)lying B) not sharing compensation secrets C) only using it sometimes or D) they are just wiser than I

Anyways, there is alot more to aiming than what this system covers. If you are sold on it... too bad cause you really are missing out on something you can't see.

 

[devindra]

I'm not even going to argue with these people. Believe what you want but people who use aiming systems are really good shotmakers. When someone can beat my score of 14/16 on Colin's Aiming Test then you can speak. Bustamente does use center 2 edge and this was confirmed by Dave.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

No, I would not and I doubt they do. From what I have seen, it is impossible to use that system on every shot... If you think those guys just freewheel it on certain shots because their system does not cover it; you are wrong.

Sometimes pool players are not truthfull when asked their secrets...

Busty 100% uses it. We've had a discussion about it in detail. He doesn't understand why anyone uses anything but.

Stop guessing and go talk to those guys.

Anyone who knows anything about CTE (esp pro1) can obviously see what he does. I think he was open with me because I was telling him what he was doing and was kind of taken aback. After a cig we went into more details.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I make corrections on the fly... Even if I one stroke. Matter of fact, I had to battle those subconscience moves to correctly study aimimg. My brain was quite good at making needed corrections in the middle of my stroke. Surely some of you do as well and some may not yet be aware of it.


This system, clearly, leaves out many important aspects of pocketing balls. I'd say this would be an intermediate aiming system at best. Sure, you can beat bangers with it and even look good at times... but you will NEVER win a long race with somebody who has learned the intricacies of pocketing balls with all combinations of speed, spin, and angles (which is the only REAL aming system out there) There is a base system for it too. Just have to find it and build from there. The system in this thread does not lend itself to it though...



I'd be willing to play for something big if I knew my opponent was heavily invested on this aimimg system...Why? Cause I know your speed and can fade whatever you put together...



OP - Nice job on the video. I always enjoy a post with pics or videos. If only CC would do videos instead of charts that I need to get a graphing calculator to follow

Captive Bread,
It's a good point that learning how to aim with a particular speed and spin (different speeds with stun create big changes in throw), still requires a player to learn a lot of adjustments to develop CB control.

Getting a basic aim line and then adjusting to it is not how top players do it (apart from some exceptions for BHE on some particular shots). For most shots, there is quite a bit of adjustment going on in the aiming process. e.g. A soft draw shot with OE hitting the OB down a rail.

Anyway, the video request is duly noted

Colin

 

[cookie man]

I can demonstrate and describe only what I know. I still don't know how the CTE system accounts for the adjustments necessary to make all of the shots in the experiment I have suggested numerous times. When I apply CTE in the ways it has been described to me, and I interpret the instructions literally, the system does not work for the range of shots in my experiment (between positions "A" and "B" in my diagram) ... it only works for one.

Now, when I follow the CTE instructions, and I see that the line of aim is wrong, I know how to make my own adjustments by visualizing the required line of aim (using all of the methods I use) and realigning my cue in the required direction, but I doubt the system proponents would be happy with my demonstration of that.

The part I honestly don't know is the "necessary adjustments" part. If these were described and clear to me, I could explain, illustrate, and demonstrate them. Until then, I cannot.

Regards,
Dave

PJ says you guys know the adjustments. Quote from PJ "It isn't necessary to try CTE to know what adjustments are necessary. We've been reporting what adjustments are necessary since these threads started." What are they???

 

[Colin Colenso]

I'm sorry, but I have to completely disagree with you on this point.

Check out Mosconi's book on how to play pool.

If you disagree, why can't YOU tell me why, instead of quoting an entire book?

I'm not saying the Contact Point focus method doesn't work, just that it requires feel. Some of the best shooters in the world (many snooker players) claim CP focus to be a key aspect of their aiming.

On a half ball shot, the contact point is halfway between the middle and edge of the object ball, and the cue, aligned through center CB points at the edge of the OB. That's a long way off, that requires feel to estimate.

How is that wrong?

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

PJ says you guys know the adjustments. Quote from PJ "It isn't necessary to try CTE to know what adjustments are necessary. We've been reporting what adjustments are necessary since these threads started." What are they???

We can tell you the adjustments needed for making shots using the contact point aim method too, but the adjustments are more easily made by feel than by trying to mechanically adjust by 0.73mm here and -1.46mm there.

And that's not the only issue, the adjustments can be implemented in a number of ways. eg. Bridge lateral placement, bridge length, bridge shift during pivot, swoop, initial aim point on OB and so on. That's why we're not crunching our calculators to offer up an adjustment system.

We are just saying, that if the directions are followed to a T, then there needs to be adjustments. If I follow the directions loosely, like they are rough guides, I also can pocket balls, but that is using a lot of feel to find the line of aim. I find the easiest adjustment method is letting my upper bridge move laterally sideward, meaning I am altering the pivot point. This is also what we observed also in Spidey's demonstration of the 90/90 video. The thing is I do it completely by feel. According to Spidey, the system directs or requires him to pivot in that manner.

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

http://CueTable.com/P/?@3HUAB3PYdk2QcQr3cUAB2cbLB3kYdk2kTbA@

This is a shot Bert Kinnister uses to show something that virtual pool will not. Bert says a common mistake on this shot when trying to shoot the ball in pocket "A" is that you tend to want to try to over cut this ball drilling it into the rail. He goes on to say you need to shoot straight at the ball as if you wanted to shoot it at the bottom rail. Your eyes tell you it's wrong yet the ball goes right in the pocket. When we use these diagrams to try to show that there must be an adjustment somewhere I think the adjustment is your initial line you come down on. I see the edge of the ball from where I am standing on the last group of shots that I shot. I am aiming at that edge and the ball splits the pocket. Now, I never say that the balls when they collide are at a half ball.

Thanks eezbank,
I wondered where that 'aim straight and the brain finds the line' idea originated from. Though maybe Bert wasn't the first to recognize it.

I think that shot confirms Mike Page's pocket attractor effect and that it is quite common for people to be able to find a pocket even though they are thinking they are aiming along a line that wouldn't take them there.

Colin

 

[JB Cases]

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

pj
chgo

Then again we need to continue to disagree. Because I think it's less possible that the player, and especially a player with very little skill, can subconsciously make a large adjustment to automatically "find" the right aiming line WHEN they could not do so without using an aiming system.

What I mean by this is if you set up a shot and tell a beginner to shoot it in the hole and they are missing it by quite a bit, way over cutting, way undercutting, and it takes them many tries just to get close then that shows that this particular person needs a lot of time to consciously find the correct line.

Do the same thing with another beginner of similar skill but give them an aiming system and they either make it or get very close each time.

In the second situation I could definitely accept the idea that the aiming system gets the person to the right corridor and then finer, possibly subconscious (for better players) adjustments might take place.

So here is the crux Pat. You say that you really WANT to to know how these things work. You say that there MUST be some kind of adjustment.

So help to figure out where that adjustment is happening. Do a video and show us where it's happening.

I mean honestly you saying that there is adjustment without showing how it works is the same as the aiming system people who claim that the system works automagically.

I mean you know enough about these systems that you could do a video and follow the system instructions and provide a narrative as to what you perceive and what you see and provide real life demonstration of what happens when you do it and what your conclusion is.

Wouldn't that be much stronger than the "paper wars" we fight here?

 

[Colin Colenso]

Then again we need to continue to disagree. Because I think it's less possible that the player, and especially a player with very little skill, can subconsciously make a large adjustment to automatically "find" the right aiming line WHEN they could not do so without using an aiming system.

What I mean by this is if you set up a shot and tell a beginner to shoot it in the hole and they are missing it by quite a bit, way over cutting, way undercutting, and it takes them many tries just to get close then that shows that this particular person needs a lot of time to consciously find the correct line.

Do the same thing with another beginner of similar skill but give them an aiming system and they either make it or get very close each time.

In the second situation I could definitely accept the idea that the aiming system gets the person to the right corridor and then finer, possibly subconscious (for better players) adjustments might take place.

So here is the crux Pat. You say that you really WANT to to know how these things work. You say that there MUST be some kind of adjustment.

So help to figure out where that adjustment is happening. Do a video and show us where it's happening.

I mean honestly you saying that there is adjustment without showing how it works is the same as the aiming system people who claim that the system works automagically.

I mean you know enough about these systems that you could do a video and follow the system instructions and provide a narrative as to what you perceive and what you see and provide real life demonstration of what happens when you do it and what your conclusion is.

Wouldn't that be much stronger than the "paper wars" we fight here?

Be careful JB or you'll get lumped in with the aiming police

No wait, I think you're safe, unless you start making diagrams or being too nice to PJ. *just messin'*

I think the videos of the way adjustments are made are a good idea. But I think they'll be listened to most if they are done by a proponent, because it's quite easy for people to say myself or the Doc or PJ just aren't doing it properly.

If you remember the 90/90 thread we saw the upper bridge shift of spidey's shot, which meant the cue was being pivoted from further up the cue. Hence there is a variable effective pivot distance that I believe is the most likely means of intuitive adjustment.

Others could be slight changes in the original bridge placement, or aligning the cue slightly off the points for certain shots so that the pivot gets you closer to the corridor and another could be slight swooping. Obviously a big swoop would be very noticeable, but a small swoop can change a pot angle by a few degrees.

Colin

 

[billyjack]

I mean you know enough about these systems that you could do a video and follow the system instructions and provide a narrative as to what you perceive and what you see and provide real life demonstration of what happens when you do it and what your conclusion is.

Wouldn't that be much stronger than the "paper wars" we fight here?

Tap,tap,tap, John. Well said. I joined this forum to learn more about the game and how to play it better. I read every aiming thread with great enthusiasm, and have nothing but praise for those who take the time and effort to share their knowledge. There will always be skeptics; that's life, and to a degree it's healthy. What I can't stand is someone who is so persistent in his attacks with purely negative input to the extent that those who are willing to share finally exhaust all patience. Then, a once-informative thread turns into a p-ssing match, and those who had hoped to learn something get shortchanged. Best wishes in your efforts to keep this tread going with some semblance of civility.

Bill

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'm not even going to argue with these people. Believe what you want but people who use aiming systems are really good shotmakers.

You can't argue with "these people" because you're not talking about the same thing.

There are obviously good shooters who use these systems, and there are undoubtedly terrible shooters who use them. Neither of these facts tell us anything about how they work, which is what we're trying to talk about.

The fact that you and Spiderdave and eezbank and other system users keep bringing up how well people shoot only means that these systems seem to attract people who aren't particularly logical.

pj
chgo

 

[Colin Colenso]

The fact that you and Spiderdave and eezbank and other system users keep bringing up how well people shoot only means that these systems seem to attract people who aren't particularly logical.

pj
chgo

Are you suggesting the inability to use logic as a Plausible Contributing Factor PJ? :yikes:

Colin