CTE aiming.

[dr_dave]

Excellent post Roger!!!

FYI, if people want info and diagrams covering many of the other aiming methods, including those mentioned below, I have good descriptions, demonstrations, and resources for all of them here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html​

Regards,
Dave

Yes, I do teach people to pocket balls more consistently, and so far I have been successful at doing so without using CTE aiming. As I alluded to in my post, my students are primarily novices and intermediates (and I prefer it that way since they are the future of this sport), and being such, I feel the need to introduce them to pool in the most simplistic and understandable ways possible. And CTE definitely does not fit that need.

But let me say this about CTE: While I do believe it may be an extremely valuable method of aiming, I think that value may only apply to certain people. As with all other aiming methods, CTE is just a way of looking at a shot and then pointing the cue stick to make the cue ball go to the desired spot.

But there are other methods for doing the same thing. One is the Ghost Ball method. Another is the Fractional Ball method. Yet another is the Wagon Wheel method, and still another is the Light Reflection method. There are more, but they are too numerous to mention. And while all these methods exist, none of them can change the laws of physics; the cue ball will always have to be struck at the right spot, with the right amount of spin (or none at all), and at the right speed, to get it to pocket the object ball and then roll on to get shape for the next shot. But as for the method of aiming chosen; that will depend on the individual. Some people will never "get" the Ghost Ball method, but they might get the Fractional Ball method. Others might not get Fractional Ball, but they may get Light Reflections. Still others may not "get" anything except CTE, while others will never "get" it. It's all in each individual's personal perception.

So, it is my belief that CTE has its place in pool, but I seriously doubt that it can automatically turn everyone into ball pocketing machines.

Roger

 

[Pii]

Pushout;2361210]What I don't understand is why people can't accept it unless it can be diagrammed/explained. If it works, who cares and why? [/COLOR] Hal explained this to me on the phone.
The # I have is: 484-623-4144 but I seriously doubt anyone will call him. For some odd reason, the scoffers never do. Well, one has, but Hal no longer talks to him.
If the number doesn't work, you may be able to find a current one using the search function.

because if you can't explain it and diagram it in a way that proves it works then it doesn't.

 

[woody_968]

Unfortunately I fear that I'll never quite understand/see it like Spidey and yourself. Sometimes I feel that I go through the steps of CTE/Pro-One blindly. I know the procedure of CTE and Pro-One as I've had lessons with Tom and Stan ( and help from Spidey ) but I don't think I see it as clearly as you guys describe.
I've shot great pool using Pro-One in which I've barely missed in hours of pool and sometimes this can go on for weeks. Then at times I can perform the same procedure with mixed results, it becomes hit or miss? It appears I'm missing that one variable that makes it a constant result, like I just happen to stumble upon the solution (while performing the necessary steps) without really understanding it.
I know what it's like to shoot really well with CTE/Pro-One and it feels *uck$ng amazing, how could I quit searching.

By the way everyone, DJPstacked (fellow AZer) and myself won 1st in our league division and will be heading to the VNEA championships at the end of May I had a really solid performance especially compared to last year and I owe thanks to Stan and Spidey for the help they've provided me concering my aim. CTE / Pro-One was a huge contribution to my confidence and overall performance this year!

I know what you mean, and to be honest with you talking and working with Gene about perfect aim when it finally clicked. I dont use CTE exclusively right now, but Im really not getting to play that often either. But I can tell you on days that I was using CTE and it wasnt working was because I wasnt sighting the balls properly, and Id bet that is the case with you too.

 

[timseal]

April Fool's jokes are only for the first day, not the whole month.

 

[cookie man]

April Fool's jokes are only for the first day, not the whole month.

Are you disputing CTE, or having your eyes in the proper position.
"VISUAL INTELLIGENCE" If you don't have it the joke is on you.

 

[dr_dave]

Are you disputing CTE, or having your eyes in the proper position.
"VISUAL INTELLIGENCE" If you don't have it the joke is on you.

I can't wait to add this to my DAM marketing paragraph:

If you can't make it work, it is because you don't have enough "visual intelligence," in which case you are hopeless.​

:thumbup:

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I can't wait to add this to my DAM marketing paragraph:

If you can't make it work, it is because you don't have enough "visual intelligence," in which case you are hopeless.​

:thumbup:

I'd rethink that. Visual intelligence is the basis for everything in pool.

Take ghost ball, for instance. That's a widely accepted geometrically correct system. However, if you can't identify (visually deduce) where the base of the ghost ball is supposed to be--- you likely can't make it work.

Or, the parallel shift method... also geometrically correct. If you don't have the visual intelligence to identify the spot on the back of a sphere where the ball needs to make contact - you likely can't make it work.

Finally, with CTE--- obviously if you don't have the visual intelligence to identify where the CTEL is exactly - you likely can't make it work. Some people can identify it no prob instantly, others it might take some time-- still others never align correctly to this line.

Visual intelligence is the filter that makes what should work - work. It's not an excuse that makes people play well with stuff that shouldn't.

 

[dr_dave]

Agreed. Accurate and consistent sighting and alignment are critical to success with any "aiming system."

Regards,
Dave

I'd rethink that. Visual intelligence is the basis for everything in pool.

Take ghost ball, for instance. That's a widely accepted geometrically correct system. However, if you can identify (visually deduce) where the base of the ghost ball is supposed to be--- you likely can't make it work.

Or, the parallel shift method... also geometrically correct. If you don't have the visual intelligence to identify the spot on the back of a sphere where the ball needs to make contact - you likely can't make it work.

Finally, with CTE--- obviously if you don't have the visual intelligence to identify where the CTEL is exactly - you likely can't make it work. Some people can identify it no prob instantly, others it might take some time-- still others never align correctly to this line.

Visual intelligence is the filter that makes what should work - work. It's not an excuse that makes people play well with stuff that shouldn't.

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Agreed. Accurate and consistent sighting and alignment are critical to success with any "aiming system."

Regards,
Dave

QUESTION 4 Dr. Dave about AIMING!

As I have looked at your web-site, and you have a lot of information about Aiming, and SEVERAL DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. What system do you personally FIND the easiest to deal with, and work the highest percentage of the time?

 

[dr_dave]

QUESTION 4 Dr. Dave about AIMING!

As I have looked at your web-site, and you have a lot of information about Aiming, and SEVERAL DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. What system do you personally FIND the easiest to deal with, and work the highest percentage of the time?

I honestly use DAM ("Dave's Aiming Method"). Ignore the first paragraph (the silly marketing spoof), and read the rest of the stuff.

Regards,
Dave

PS: When the CB is really close to the OB, I sometimes use the double-the-distance method. And when the cut angle is close to 30 degrees (which I can judge very well with the help of my peace sign), I sometimes use the CTE (center-to-edge) line as a visual reference. And when I use English, I sometimes use BHE (especially for short, fast shots), FHE (for slow, long shots), and a combo for shots in between.

 

[cookie man]

I can't wait to add this to my DAM marketing paragraph:

If you can't make it work, it is because you don't have enough "visual intelligence," in which case you are hopeless.​

:thumbup:

I guess, I would be proud, to be mentioned in your, whatever it is, just send royalty check. Check PM for address.

 

[dr_dave]

I guess, I would be proud, to be mentioned in your, whatever it is, just send royalty check. Check PM for address.

Good one. :grin:

I feel very "visually intelligent" today, maybe I should go shoot some.

Dave

 

[Roger Long]

Now we have a new term to ponder - "Visual Intelligence." At first I didn't like it because I thought it didn't make any sense. But after looking up the word intelligence in the dictionary, I changed my mind. I now think the term has merit. But of what value can it be to us? Can we use it as a guideline? Could we measure a person's VIQ (Visual Intelligence Quotient) and say, "You have a very high VIQ, so you will do well with CTE." Or would we have occasions where we would have to be brutally honest and say, "Your VIQ is very low; you'd better stick with Ghost Ball." :sorry:

Do possibilities exist here? :scratchhead:

Roger

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

I honestly use DAM ("Dave's Aiming Method"). Ignore the first paragraph (the silly marketing spoof), and read the rest of the stuff.

Regards,
Dave

PS: When the CB is really close to the OB, I sometimes use the double-the-distance method. And when the cut angle is close to 30 degrees (which I can judge very well with the help of my peace sign), I sometimes use the CTE (center-to-edge) line as a visual reference. And when I use English, I sometimes use BHE (especially for short, fast shots), FHE (for slow, long shots), and a combo for shots in between.

Thanks for you reply Dr. Dave, as always you make life simple, and answer question openly, and honestly!

 

[cookie man]

Now we have a new term to ponder - "Visual Intelligence." At first I didn't like it because I thought it didn't make any sense. But after looking up the word intelligence in the dictionary, I changed my mind. I now think the term has merit. But of what value can it be to us? Can we use it as a guideline? Could we measure a person's VIQ (Visual Intelligence Quotient) and say, "You have a very high VIQ, so you will do well with CTE." Or would we have occasions where we would have to be brutally honest and say, "Your VIQ is very low; you'd better stick with Ghost Ball." :sorry:

Do possibilities exist here? :scratchhead:

Roger

Sure possibilities exist. Two of the most talked about instructional things on here the last year are CTE and perfect aim. The eyes and their role in our pool game are very important. Gene offers a phone lesson, I would call if I were you.

 

[dr_dave]

I honestly use DAM ("Dave's Aiming Method"). Ignore the first paragraph (the silly marketing spoof), and read the rest of the stuff.

Regards,
Dave

PS: When the CB is really close to the OB, I sometimes use the double-the-distance method. And when the cut angle is close to 30 degrees (which I can judge very well with the help of my peace sign), I sometimes use the CTE (center-to-edge) line as a visual reference. And when I use English, I sometimes use BHE (especially for short, fast shots), FHE (for slow, long shots), and a combo for shots in between.

Thanks for you reply Dr. Dave, as always you make life simple, and answer question openly, and honestly!

You're welcome.

Regards,
Dave

FREE PJ!!!

 

[stan shuffett]

Now we have a new term to ponder - "Visual Intelligence." At first I didn't like it because I thought it didn't make any sense. But after looking up the word intelligence in the dictionary, I changed my mind. I now think the term has merit. But of what value can it be to us? Can we use it as a guideline? Could we measure a person's VIQ (Visual Intelligence Quotient) and say, "You have a very high VIQ, so you will do well with CTE." Or would we have occasions where we would have to be brutally honest and say, "Your VIQ is very low; you'd better stick with Ghost Ball." :sorry:

Do possibilities exist here? :scratchhead:

Roger

Hi Roger,

Research multiple intelligences for more information.

Yes, possibilities do exist. It's important to know that people are smart in various ways, whether by math, words, music, body, nature, vision and even more. A person's intelligence in any of these areas can be awakened if deemed low with proper exercises and instruction.

Is is clear that pool is primarily a visual-motor activity. Visual-body coordination is a must for playing pool at a proficient level.

When I teach PRO ONE, I teach students how to see like a pro and how to move their body like a pro. If that task involves awakening those intelligences to some degree, then that is what I set out to do. Every student brings a different set of intelligences to me. I recognize that and strengthen the areas that need it to whatever extent that I can.

Hal Houle discovered the one variable that allows any player at an early stage to disengage the conscious mind from the aiming process. And it's not complicated. A student, a young man, just here from NC was effortless with PRO ONE by the end of our 2 day session. For others, it can and does take longer.

I also use a manual that is full of words and math. They serve their purpose as well.

Stan

 

[Roger Long]

Sure possibilities exist. Two of the most talked about instructional things on here the last year are CTE and perfect aim. The eyes and their role in our pool game are very important. Gene offers a phone lesson, I would call if I were you.

I've got Richard Kranicki's book. Having viewed Gene's video, I believe the information in Kranicki's book on this subject is more detailed and comprehensive. Thanks for the suggestion, anyway.

Roger

 

[dr_dave]

I've got Richard Kranicki's book. Having viewed Gene's video, I believe the information in Kranicki's book on this subject is more detailed and comprehensive. Thanks for the suggestion, anyway.

FYI, there's also lots of good info on sighting (especially Mike Page's videos) here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#sighting​

Regards,
Dave

 

[Elephant Man]

Thread has become too long to go back and look for the ACCURATE information that I think I read about CTE. But I have found a way to incorporate a bassackwards version of it into my game for some shots. If the shot is thick or thin I currently feel more comfortable using other aiming methods. But if the angle is within15 degrees of 23 degrees (maybe between 10 and 35 degrees I really don't know) then I do this:
1. Line up on CB for a full hit on OB.
2. If cut is to the LEFT, move entire cue to the LEFT one tip diameter.
3. With back hand VIRTUALLY planted in position, slide bridge over until cue is lined up with LEFT edge of OB.
4. THEN PIVOT to center and stroke.

Feels awkward sliding bridge but it works for me. Try it and let me know what you think. Is this the SECRET?!