CTE Aiming Video

SJDinPHX said:
The frustration of those that cannot seem to comprehend that fact, and think they can arrive at a higher level of skill, through mathematical equations, are destined to try and convince their detractors, and each other, that they have truly found a "system" that works better than, or at least in conjunction with, plain old hand/eye co-ordination.
Click to expand...


I learned all about the compensations needed to put any spin, speed, angle, or distance together to pocket a ball by using systems. I am 95% by feel now. The only reason I know how to hit the ball was due to the educational factor involved with systems. The fractional system was, by far, the most helpfull in figuring out why the balls do what they do...

Learning how a system was failing taught me the most. It forced me to figure out why it was not doing what I had imagined it would... It was like putting a puzzle together.

Once I had the knowledge, confidence was soon to follow...

Anyways, systems have their place for certain learning styles. I have never been one to just accept something for what it is. I think they call that learning the hard way lol
 
JoeyA said:
Thanks Colin.

I believe that the CTE users are making visual calculations to estimate where they need to place their bridge to make each individual shot. This is a visual calculation, not an intuitive judgment and I think that with practice, the people who use Pro One Aiming Systems and the like become more accurate with body alignment and bridge hand placement and this consistency of hand and body alignment allows them to be more accurate than they previously were.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be pedantic, but if the bridge position was being calculated, I think we would have heard by now the basis of this calculation. Certainly a lot of users aren't using any conscious formula or measurements when placing their bridge.

But certainly bridge placement could be a or the method a player uses to make the adjustments, and it is plausible that a player could do this in a very accurate way with practice.

Remember, feel doesn't imply a lack of accuracy. It is usually the source of the highest accuracy if developed well.

I also believe that any aiming system which allows the shooter to "get in the ballpark", shortens the learning curve of having to pot a million balls in order to obtain a proficiency in pocketing an object ball.
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm not sure how significant that is for CTE, but it is worth considering. Many users are of course saying it doesn't take them to the ball park though, that it takes them to split-pocket land where the fairies and elves bake cookies and make ice cream :wink:

Joking.... I mock this split-pocket talk because by simply changing the speed of a hlf ball pot using stun can change where the OB travels to by 3 pocket widths over 7 feet. So claiming something splits the pocket, without specifying the type of hit is evidence of not considering all the variables.

So split pocket talk is just bravado, snake oil, and I think it does the systems a disservice. Even if they were geometrically perfect, many adjustments would need to be made for CIT and SIT.

*wandered off track there.

More experienced players who convert/adapt to utilizing Pro One or other CTE aiming systems find that they are more consistent with their alignment, bridge hand placement and their ability to find the center of the cue ball. I also find that with more experienced players, they may start out pivoting manually when they learn these type of aiming systems but quickly eliminate the manual pivoting that is seen in some videos. The pivot is still there except that it in in the air and the bridge hand placement is done with finite visual reference to the shot. The fact that bridge hand placement may vary with some shots does not mean that they are doing it intuitively IMHO.
Click to expand...
This type of air pivot to a finite visual reference would be systematic you're correct.

Of course, like with ghost ball aiming which is systematic, it can take some skill to and estimation to implement. But if these systems could describe the nature of how to determine the finite point then it might be considered a totally mechanical system.


Lesser experienced players who utilize CTE, Pro ONe and other similar aiming systems, IMMEDIATELY find themselves potting balls with more consistency than they ever dreamed possible.

Their euphoria and epiphany is diminished by those who would attempt to rdicule and discredit their new found knowledge and ability by saying that the aiming systems are, It's down by feel, it's smoke and mirrors, it's hogwash, it's poppycock, it's BS, it's a joke, aiming systems are worthless, plain stupid, it's just guessing as well as other derogatory references.
Click to expand...
I do doubt that their improvements are that rapid, certainly for a full range of shots, but granted, it's not right to mock them or call them fools for using this system. I don't think any of us have been doing that. We often say it can work.

Now as to popping their bubble regarding feel requirements, well the world's a tough place when we learn Santa isn't true.

What I think is a better system of affairs would be where a beginner could come to this forum and say "Hey, I use 90/90 and am stuggling with long straight shots, how can I improve these shots?"

Such a request would be considered heresy here by some system users. It would be much better if the adjustments were better understood so that training in these methods is better.

It seems in other systems we can ask such questions, eg. BHE, diamond systems, banking systems etc.

When I tried 90/90 and CTE, following the instructions, and it didn't work where was my support team? How dare I question the system or I must be too foolish to make it work. We should start a campaign to Console the Broken System Attempters. Afterall, why should those that it works for get all the sympathy? :wink:


In addition there are those who say that anyone who uses an aiming system like Pro One or CTE will inhibit their ability to play at a very high level.
Click to expand...
Those ruddy negators *shakes fist*
I agree and I wouldn't suggest that. In fact, I think utilizing points and edges in aiming shows great potential. I'm not so convinced about the pivot part though other than a way to guide the cue to the area of the CB, a bit like how Busta appears to do it. He doesn't appear to pivot from a static bridge.

An aiming system no matter whose it is will have little to do with whether a person is able to play at a professional level.

The belittling of players who use aiming systems is counter-productive for your math discussions. FTR, I don't think you have been mean-spirited with your discussions of aiming systems and how the work but some of your "colleagues" have not been very accurate or diplomatic with some of their responses and critiques.
Click to expand...
I agree. I will try not to belittle any aiming system enthusiasts, even though I am an aiming system enthusiast and I get mocked for having associated with the wicked aiming police :eek: Just joking, it's a bit testing at times but civility is the best course :thumbup:


Pro One, CTE or ANY other aiming system is only a small piece of the puzzle but an aiming system can shorten the learning curve, not inhibit it.

Sure, there will be some aiming system beginning players who choose to not continue improving their pool skills and may stay at a banger's level for the rest of their life. At the same time, their will be people who do not use aiming systems and will remain bangers for the rest of their life as well.

The negative criticism pointed at aiming system users limits the amount of information that the academics are able to obtain.

At least the discussions have moved from aiming systems are worthless crap discussions to well, aiming systems MAY help some people but HOW do they work? Your efforts have been appreciated and I offer my few tidbits of perception for your discussion and consideration.

I am not sure just how "accurate" my perception is about Pro One/CTE and other aiming systems but now you have it.

I know very little more about aiming systems and as one famous scholar once said, "That's all I have to say about that."

JoeyA (going back to the table to practice stroking straight and smooth.)
Click to expand...

Cheers JoeyA. It's good to have your reasoned and civil thoughts among the ongoing conversation. For me it's a learning and teaching discussion as we move forward to better understand these systems and to form more of a general consensus. Ideally we'd have comparative testing of various systems to see which ones work the best. Mostly all we have is anecdotal testimonials that tell us that some players can learn to pot pretty darn well using these systems and that some who struggle to pot do much better using these systems.

Colin
 
SJDinPHX said:
Once again, in hopes of uniting all "A.S.S. (Aiming System Supporter's) people, I am offering the following, well writen instructional book on my views regarding all aiming systems. Hopefully this will bring the warring factions closer together and provide a clearer explanation for all the unwashed, non-Phd's in pooldom.
The author wishes to thank Mr. Efren Reyes and Mr. Edwin Kelly, two of the greatest shot makers of all time, for their kind forwarding comments.

Mr. Reyes.........WTF
Mr. Kelly......Double WTF, Thank you gentlemen, SJD.... and now on to my documentary.

"Why Aiming Systems Really, Really,Really, Might Work, Maybe"
(Condensed Version)

"??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
To sum it all up,??????????????????????????????????????????????"And my dad, can kick your dad's ass ! :eek:

Copyright 2008
R.J. Mc Morran
Click to expand...
The parts I highlighted above Dick, clearly require feel.
 

Attachments

  • naughty.gif
    naughty.gif
    2.8 KB · Views: 326
JB Cases said:
[...]
Click to expand...
Hey John --

Is this an accurate description of what you do? This is the earliest reference I could find of Hal himself describing his system-- August 1997

What do you CTEers think of this approach?



"There are only 3 angles for any shot, on any size table. This includes;
> caroms, single rail banks, double rail banks, 1, 2, 3, and 4 rail banks,
> and double kiss banks. Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4 ?
> x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is wide. The table
> corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to
> the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45 degrees. When you lay a
> cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond on the same end rail, you
> are forming an angle of 30 degrees. When you lay a cue from the side
> pocket to the first diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle
> of 15 degrees. When you add up these 3 angles, they total 90 degrees, which
> is the same angle formed by the table corners. The cue ball relation to
> object ball relation shot angle is always 15, 30, or 45 degrees. The
> solution is very simple. There are only 2 edges on the cue ball to aim
> with, and they are always exactly in the same place on the cue ball. There
> are only 3 exact spots on the object ball to aim to, and they are always
> exactly in the same place on the object ball. So, 2 edges on the cue ball,
> and 3 spots on the object ball; 2 x 3 = 6 which is the total number of
> table pockets. This means that, depending upon how the cue ball and object
> ball lie in relation to one another, you may either pocket the object ball
> directly into a pocket or bank it into any one of the remaining 5 pockets.
> Of course, the reverse is true. If the relationship of cue ball to object
> ball can only be a bank, so be it. There is never a need to look at a
> pocket or cushion while lining up the edge on the cue ball to the spot on
> the object ball. You have only those 3 angles Your only requirement is to
> recognize whether your shot is a 15, 30, or 45 degree angle. Recognizing
> those 3 angles can be accomplished in an instant by aiming the edge of the
> cue ball to one of the spots on the object ball. It will be obvious which
> object ball spot is correct. There will be no doubt. Any time either one of
> the 2 edges on the cue ball is aimed at any one of the 3 spots on the
> object ball, that object ball must go to a pocket. Choose the correct spot
> and the object ball will most certainly go to the chosen pocket. The top
> professional players in the game have always known about this professional
> aiming system, but they are a closed fraternity, and you are the enemy.
> Interested in where those spots are located?
> The 2 places on the cue
> ball are the left edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball
> to the left; and the right edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the
> object ball to the right. The 3 spots on the object ball are the quarters,
> and the center. The quarters and center of the object ball face straight at
> the edges of your cue ball, not facing toward the pocket. In other words,
> if you were on a work-bench at home, there would be no pocket, so you would
> just line up the edge of the cue ball straight to your target on the object
> ball. When you cut to the left for 15 degrees, aim the left cue ball edge
> at the object ball left quarter. When you cut to the left for 30 degrees,
> aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball center. When you cut to the
> left for 45 degrees, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball right
> quarter. When you cut to the right for 15 degrees, you aim the cue ball
> right edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for
> 30 degrees, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object center. When you
> cut to the right for 45 degrees, you aim the right cue ball edge to the
> object ball left quarter. If you'll just get down and aim your old way,
> you'll be close to where you should be aiming. Look to see (without
> changing your head or eye position) just where the cue ball edge is aiming
> at the object ball. You'll see that on every shot that the cue ball edge is
> always aiming at the same targets on the object ball. Remember, this system
> is for any shot on the table; banks, caroms, combinations, and so forth.
> The only shot remaining is the extreme cut for any shot over 45 degrees.
> Aim the cue ball edge to the eighth of the object ball (which is half of
> the quarter). Don't let the pocket influence you. Have a friend hold the
> ball tray between the object ball and the pocket, so you cannot see the
> pocket, and you'll see that those 3 angles will handle just about anything.
> Of course, you would have chosen the 15, 30, or 45 degree angle before your
> friend put the ball tray in place. It also makes it much more interesting
> if you don't tell your friend how you are pocketing the ball without seeing
> the pocket. Have some fun. For any questions, call me. Regards, POOL HAL"

> I
 
He always told me to aim at the edges. The idea of the system was to aim at something you could see. That description is new to me.
 
What's a "tip"?

It's difficult for me to see exactly what is being called "a tip left" or "a tip right" in the video. To help clarify, on a tip right, is the left edge of the tip on the center axis of the CB or further to the right than that?

Secondly, is the pivot to CB center done only with the back hand or is there other body movement involved?
 
Saturated Fats said:
It's difficult for me to see exactly what is being called "a tip left" or "a tip right" in the video. To help clarify, on a tip right, is the left edge of the tip on the center axis of the CB or further to the right than that?
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that a tip right is one tip right from center of the CB while aiming at the right side of the OB

Saturated Fats said:
Secondly, is the pivot to CB center done only with the back hand or is there other body movement involved?
Click to expand...
It looks to be back hand only.

I have to admit that all of this aim system talk has me a bit befuddled but this video has helped clarify it in my minds eye. Thanks for taking the time to put it together.

Aiming has never been a large issue for me but I'll give this a try. The shots I miss are ones were i'm looking for shape. The dreaded "miss the shot get the shape" syndrome. Collins back hand english video may be the answer. I tried it last night with amazing results.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
If my memory serves, Hal once told me he released that to a certain person who kept calling for his system and he didn't want to give it to him -- so he gave him this system... just to get rid of him.

It's not even a system. It's a farce.
Click to expand...

I doubt that's true. Hal has posted other examples of the same kind of numerological nonsense.

Of course, the fact that it's all nonsense doesn't mean it couldn't help somebody. Most pool players have some nonsensical ideas about what's going on.

pj
chgo
 
devindra said:
This thread has forced me to do Colin's Aiming Test on video. The video will do the speaking. I'll have it uploaded as soon as possible.
Click to expand...


My sources tell me you gave up after take #307 and are now strenuously researching video editing on the internet :)

Currious... why not just post the first video you made no matter how well you did? people will respect that...


Seeing how you are just a kid I guess we can cut you some slack... I was once a big mouthed teenager too ;)

Some advice though... In the future you may want to downplay your abilities (instead of hyperbolize them) when it comes to pool. You will keep more cash in your pocket if you follow that advice...
 
I never did a first video. I did the test already but I did not record it on video, my previous score was 14/16. I am still in the process of converting the video so it can be uploaded quickly to youtube. I should have it up by Monday.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
If my memory serves, Hal once told me he released that to a certain person who kept calling for his system and he didn't want to give it to him -- so he gave him this system... just to get rid of him.

It's not even a system. It's a farce.
Click to expand...


Back when I was posting on the CCB, about 1999 or 2000, Hal called me and offered me a system. It was exactly like what was posted, word for word, except that he told me the cb was to be marked (in my minds eye) in half and then half of each half, and then aim that imaginary mark at the edge of the ob.

I've done it either way... same principle, and if you look at the aim points, after pivoting in the CTE system, they correspond with the points of aim in the system that Mike has posted. The system posted by Mike is in the words I got from Hal, after he called me and he also used the same "explanation".
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
That system was called "the piece." You take a vertical sliver of the CB to the edge. Hard to see/execute. CTE is far superior.
Click to expand...

Here is a Hal Houle post from a year and a half after that description, when someone asked about learning to bank:

There is no learning to bank. Aim the CB center at the OB quarter for 15
degrees. Aim the CB center at the OB edge for 30 degrees. Aim the CB
quarter at the OB edge for 45 degrees. That's it. There are no other
angles for banking, pocketing, or caroms.

Hal Houle
Click to expand...


The above is Feb of 1999. In March of 1999, I was at the table next to Hal with Hal giving instruction for FOUR HOURS (Danny K's in CA). I listened to most of it, and I got involved several times, and I talked to Hal about a bunch of it. This, above, is what Hal preached. Of course there was talk of 15 + 30 + 60 being equal to 90 and receding, rotating, undulating spheres etc etc etc

People adopting this were reporting immediate phenomenal improvement at the time---splitting pockets, never missing, improving by two balls, etc.

Sometime after this, with the three-angle claim taking a bit of a hit, the claims became more amorphous. Suddenly there were lots of different systems

Hal said this--three angles--was the secret system of the pros.

I met Hal again a few years later at Family Billiards in San Francisco. And Ive talked to him a few times on the phone.

Spide, you'd better be careful criticizing this, because people who use only these three angles never miss.
 
I used it exclusively for a period of time but was missing too many balls to believe in it as "THE SECRET".

I went back to ghost ball and used "The Piece" (thank you spider) to check my aim. I still do that. I just makes no sense to think that you can use 3 points of aim for all shots... especially for very long shots.

I do believe that The Piece has helped me on several occasions but there is no system that is "THE SECRET". Too many variables.
 
mikepage said:
Hey John --

Is this an accurate description of what you do? This is the earliest reference I could find of Hal himself describing his system-- August 1997

What do you CTEers think of this approach?



"There are only 3 angles for any shot, on any size table. This includes;
> caroms, single rail banks, double rail banks, 1, 2, 3, and 4 rail banks,
> and double kiss banks. Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4 ?
> x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is wide. The table
> corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to
> the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45 degrees. When you lay a
> cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond on the same end rail, you
> are forming an angle of 30 degrees. When you lay a cue from the side
> pocket to the first diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle
> of 15 degrees. When you add up these 3 angles, they total 90 degrees, which
> is the same angle formed by the table corners. The cue ball relation to
> object ball relation shot angle is always 15, 30, or 45 degrees. The
> solution is very simple. There are only 2 edges on the cue ball to aim
> with, and they are always exactly in the same place on the cue ball. There
> are only 3 exact spots on the object ball to aim to, and they are always
> exactly in the same place on the object ball. So, 2 edges on the cue ball,
> and 3 spots on the object ball; 2 x 3 = 6 which is the total number of
> table pockets. This means that, depending upon how the cue ball and object
> ball lie in relation to one another, you may either pocket the object ball
> directly into a pocket or bank it into any one of the remaining 5 pockets.
> Of course, the reverse is true. If the relationship of cue ball to object
> ball can only be a bank, so be it. There is never a need to look at a
> pocket or cushion while lining up the edge on the cue ball to the spot on
> the object ball. You have only those 3 angles Your only requirement is to
> recognize whether your shot is a 15, 30, or 45 degree angle. Recognizing
> those 3 angles can be accomplished in an instant by aiming the edge of the
> cue ball to one of the spots on the object ball. It will be obvious which
> object ball spot is correct. There will be no doubt. Any time either one of
> the 2 edges on the cue ball is aimed at any one of the 3 spots on the
> object ball, that object ball must go to a pocket. Choose the correct spot
> and the object ball will most certainly go to the chosen pocket. The top
> professional players in the game have always known about this professional
> aiming system, but they are a closed fraternity, and you are the enemy.
> Interested in where those spots are located?
> The 2 places on the cue
> ball are the left edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball
> to the left; and the right edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the
> object ball to the right. The 3 spots on the object ball are the quarters,
> and the center. The quarters and center of the object ball face straight at
> the edges of your cue ball, not facing toward the pocket. In other words,
> if you were on a work-bench at home, there would be no pocket, so you would
> just line up the edge of the cue ball straight to your target on the object
> ball. When you cut to the left for 15 degrees, aim the left cue ball edge
> at the object ball left quarter. When you cut to the left for 30 degrees,
> aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball center. When you cut to the
> left for 45 degrees, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball right
> quarter. When you cut to the right for 15 degrees, you aim the cue ball
> right edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for
> 30 degrees, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object center. When you
> cut to the right for 45 degrees, you aim the right cue ball edge to the
> object ball left quarter. If you'll just get down and aim your old way,
> you'll be close to where you should be aiming. Look to see (without
> changing your head or eye position) just where the cue ball edge is aiming
> at the object ball. You'll see that on every shot that the cue ball edge is
> always aiming at the same targets on the object ball. Remember, this system
> is for any shot on the table; banks, caroms, combinations, and so forth.
> The only shot remaining is the extreme cut for any shot over 45 degrees.
> Aim the cue ball edge to the eighth of the object ball (which is half of
> the quarter). Don't let the pocket influence you. Have a friend hold the
> ball tray between the object ball and the pocket, so you cannot see the
> pocket, and you'll see that those 3 angles will handle just about anything.
> Of course, you would have chosen the 15, 30, or 45 degree angle before your
> friend put the ball tray in place. It also makes it much more interesting
> if you don't tell your friend how you are pocketing the ball without seeing
> the pocket. Have some fun. For any questions, call me. Regards, POOL HAL"

> I
Click to expand...

It seems to me that some of these systems have some corelation. I think I watched a Bert Kinester where he teaches tip in tip out and half ball hit shots. Using the CTE method in this video I seem to be coming up with tip in tip out and half ball hit shots. The B.A.T. that Alison Fisher promotes teaches the three cut method. Aren't all these systems teaching the three cut method? Isn't the three cut method what snooker players are introduced to when they are learning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top