CTE aiming.

SpiderWebComm said:
I'm not playing with anyone. I'm just seeing who has the spacial perception to figure out the difference geometrically.

This is a good exercise, trust me. I'm not being belligerent nor am I acting out of line, I'm merely asking the group a question.

You're getting warmer; but, that results in certain geometric changes from picture 1. Once we get to the bottom of this, I have a separate group of pictures to post. But, I'm trying not to get ahead of myself. I want to be careful to do this in steps without me lecturing.

I hope Mike Page and Bob Jewett also post their ideas on the differences in the pics. If PJ weren't banned, I'd hope he'd participate too.

Dave
Click to expand...
I did mess with CTE the other night and I've got a few issues.

Here is my understanding of CTE. On a half ball hit you are aiming through the center of the cue and at the edge of the ob. I've got that. When you have to shift because you aren't set up for a halfball hit you aren't really aiming at the edge of the ob anymore. In this system you reference the halfball hit instead of ghostballing it. You change the angle that the cueball is hit relative to halfball to make shots instead of judging where the cueball needs to hit the ob.

Assuming I've got that right, and please correct me if I'm wrong, here is the issue I've got.

One tip sinks all. The way I've seen it described CTE has only one adjustment to sink everything on the table. A tip of right or left then rotation is given as the only needed adjustment. This can't be right. A tip of right from 6 inches will give you a different contact point than a tip of right at 7 feet. Angular changes to effect non-half ball hits are going to vary with distance. There has got to be finer adjustment than just one tip rotate and shoot.

You've defined two circles but you haven't described how they are used. Is it related to this distance issue? If they are not I would love to hear how they are used.
 
Quote:
If this system is strictly regarding center ball it is probably sound.


What Patrick Johnson had to say:
I don't know what "strictly regarding center ball" means, but CTE and other similar systems (like "fractional aiming") aren't "sound" in the sense that they'll show you exactly how to aim every shot. They only get you close enough to the right aim so you can more easily finish the job using your own experience and "instinct". They're what I call "approximation" systems.

But that doesn't mean they "don't work". They do what they're designed to do (get you close to the right aim) and they're useful to many players for that reason. I argue with people on here who say they do show the exact aim for every shot, but that doesn't mean I don't think they "work". It just means I don't think they work the way some claim. Oddly enough, it's the users of these systems who seem to know the least about how they work - I think that's part of how they work.

pj
chgo
 
LAMas said:
Quote:
If this system is strictly regarding center ball it is probably sound.


What Patrick Johnson had to say:
I don't know what "strictly regarding center ball" means, but CTE and other similar systems (like "fractional aiming") aren't "sound" in the sense that they'll show you exactly how to aim every shot. They only get you close enough to the right aim so you can more easily finish the job using your own experience and "instinct". They're what I call "approximation" systems.

But that doesn't mean they "don't work". They do what they're designed to do (get you close to the right aim) and they're useful to many players for that reason. I argue with people on here who say they do show the exact aim for every shot, but that doesn't mean I don't think they "work". It just means I don't think they work the way some claim. Oddly enough, it's the users of these systems who seem to know the least about how they work - I think that's part of how they work.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I was out all day and excited to get back on the thread to see what was posted. I was hoping more people were going to brainstorm and come up with something profound. The answer to my question is littered in this thread. I'm going to try to not answer anyone's post who keeps citing wrong info that was corrected multiple times in this thread- it's a waste of time for the people following along.

I can appreciate PJ's quote above. This user of CTE knows exactly how it works. I'm just trying to lead some horses to water without lecturing.

I know some people loathe my style in this thread. People are prob thinking, "Dave, if you know it-- just say it for crying out loud." It's not my responsibility to instruct and teach the world; however, if some people are legitimately trying to get to the bottom of it - it's my responsibility to keep them "pointed in the right direction." There might be a few people who have no wish to get to the bottom of it... which is fine.
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
I can appreciate PJ's quote above. This user of CTE knows exactly how it works.
Click to expand...

If that's true I think I understood CTE all along.
What I don't understand is, how can it be called a system when you still need to rely on your gutfeeling to make the crucial final adjustment. Systems are supposed to eliminate the need of experience and instinct. This is where so many people on this thread have a problem understanding CTE. They expect an algorithm. Take a 3-cushion system: It gives you the spot on the rail that you have to hit and the amount of english needed (theoretically). You only need to execute. That's a system.

The question is, why do you use the system if you aim by feel anyway? CTE seems to me like an unneccessary step inbetween. Actually it's worse because you are pivoting after you have taken your stance thus getting out of balance. Ideally you'd need to pivot "in your mind" before you get down on the shot.
 
ThePoliteSniper said:
If that's true I think I understood CTE all along.
What I don't understand is, how can it be called a system when you still need to rely on your gutfeeling to make the crucial final adjustment. Systems are supposed to eliminate the need of experience and instinct. This is where so many people on this thread have a problem understanding CTE. They expect an algorithm. Take a 3-cushion system: It gives you the spot on the rail that you have to hit and the amount of english needed (theoretically). You only need to execute. That's a system.

The question is, why do you use the system if you aim by feel anyway? CTE seems to me like an unneccessary step inbetween. Actually it's worse because you are pivoting after you have taken your stance thus getting out of balance. Ideally you'd need to pivot "in your mind" before you get down on the shot.
Click to expand...

When I said *this user*, I meant me not PJ.
 
Elephant Man said:
A snipe hunt, a form of wild-goose chase that is also known as a fool's errand, is a type of practical joke that involves experienced people making fun of credulous newcomers by giving them an impossible or imaginary task.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe_hunt
Click to expand...

So, you're saying I'm giving an impossible task? That must mean you think the two pics are identical geometrically. Fair enough. Just don't red rep me again until we get to the end of this conversation/thread.

Like I said, the answer to the question is polluted all over this thread.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
So, you're saying I'm giving an impossible task? That must mean you think the two pics are identical geometrically. Fair enough. Just don't red rep me again until we get to the end of this conversation/thread.

Like I said, the answer to the question is polluted all over this thread.
Click to expand...

I red rep so many people it is hard to keep track, but I can believe it if I did. Yes I think it is an impossible task. There WILL BE NO END of this conversation/thread. At least not a mutually accepted end. This topic is on other forums as well, and the members there are actually trying to explain CTE aiming to each other. Seems like they come to the same conclusions, that they hear it works great for their friends friends friend, but nobody actually endorses using the method. I have low self esteem and I like feeling like a big dummy, so I will keep checking this thread for progress. I even printed out your posts and held them up to a mirror in candle light but still no luck. Where is Nick Cage when you need him!
 
form1.jpg


form2m.jpg


Going to PF Changs. Here's the answer for the Elephant Man. This is also the answer for Dr. Dave's earlier diagram for each of his shots positioned down the center line of the table.

It's a different OB edge that's sighted (while still maintaining a CTE alignment) which results in a different CB edge starting position (no longer 9:00, more like 9:30) which results in a different CB center you pivot to which results in a different angle.

Edges shift based on perception. This is the entire key to CTE geometry. The table never moves but the shot rotates around your perspective.

It's all about your cue's angle of attack into the CB. Any change in perspective changes which CB center you pivot to. I'll leave it at that.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
To me, my question from earlier is an easy one to answer.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't my original question be easy to answer also, without using a rotated-image riddle? Here it is again:


With shot "D," the CB and OB are both shifted down-table from shot "A" by the same small amount (a few inches). The CB and OB are still the same distance apart and are still both on the center-line of the table. The only thing different is the amount of cut needed ... you need a little more cut for shot "D" compared to shot "A" (otherwise, you miss the pocket). What do you do differently with your initial alignment and/or your pivot with shot "D" compared to shot "A?"

I can think of several possible and reasonable answers to this question. You can:
1.) Change the initial alignment slightly.
or
2.) Pivot a slightly different amount (e.g., not quite to center, or just past center).
or
3.) Change the "effective pivot length" slightly.
​
It seems to me, based on everything I've heard and read, approach "3" is the most common. The diagram below shows how a change in "effective pivot length" changes the amount of cut. In the diagram, I am showing two different bridge positions, but this could also represent two different "effective cue-pivot-points" created by a non-rigid-bridge pivot method (e.g., a "rotating bridge" or an "air pivot").


If using a "mechanical pivot" (i.e., pivoting after placing the bridge hand down), one way to vary the "effective pivot length" is to vary the bridge length (as implied by the diagram). Another is to shift, rotate, tilt, or deform your bridge hand during the pivot. Here's an example of this, posted by Colin Colenso a while back, where the "effective pivot length" is much longer than the bridge length:

CTE_pivot_animation.gif

Another way is to use an "air pivot," where you pivot before placing the bridge hand down. In this case, you can easily create any "effective pivot length" over an extremely wide range.

To me, it seems like the difficulty is in judging how much to change the alignment or pivot to pocket balls requiring similar, but slightly different, amounts of cut.

Again, the question is: How do you align and pivot differently for shot "D" compared to shot "A" above?

Thanks,
Dave
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Well, CTE is a system that can be taught in 2 mins at the table, not 5. There are no adjustments outside of adjusting for one's perception errors.

I'll spoon feed you and a few others (who knock what they're clueless about as well) some info that will being you closer to the answer.

- There are an infinite number of edges to each sphere (ball)
- The edges shift the moment your perspective changes
- The table / balls rotate as you move around the table (straight ahead is 12:00 at all times, as you move to one side or the other - the "picture" you look at rotates CW/CCW in relation to 12:00)

- NEWS FLASH>>>There are TWO CIRCLES that are the foundation of CTE's geometry: 1) The shot circle: bridge is the center of the circle and the face of the OB is the edge (used to determine the arc of your pivot) and 2) The OB circle: is made with the OB being the center of the circle and the CB being the edge (this circle is used to determine the "outermost edge" pre-pivot)

..... so with those tiny little insignificant nuggets, a high school DROP OUT can play around for an hour and quintuple their ball pocketing overnight. Wannabes will stare at it and want to be fed more and post further nonsense. Matter of fact, this paired with some way-older posts is the complete picture. I wonder who'll figure it out first??

The reason the guts of this hasn't been disclosed online for years isn't because there's no guts to it (AND NO THE SMARTEST PEOPLE AREN'T TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT EITHER--- WHAT A JIZZZZOKE), it's because for years those who know don't post and those who think they know do and what you get is a motley collection of partial horse crap.


So, I'll leave it at that - likely my last post forever in CTE-related threads.

Maybe the internet collection of 1000 years post-grad can figure out this tic-tac-toe puzzle.


Warm regards,
Ghost Ball Spidey
Click to expand...
Not everyone here is trying to disprove the system. I see a lot of people trying to get a better explanation for how it works.

You've stated that all the information is in this thread to make CTE work. I still haven't seen anything referring to how these circles are used to correct shot geometry.

I really want to know how it works.

Why don't you step up and correct everything. You've identified a deficit in the knowledge base and you have the ability to correct it. You say the information is all here. You say it's easy to understand so wouldn't it be likewise easy to explain?

No one has ever proven anything by telling everyone else they are stupid and lazy. You criticize instructors for being lazy but you seem unwilling to put effort in yourself. This is obviously an abstract concept. Not everyone learns the same way so sometimes as an instructor you need many different ways of explaining the exact same thing.

There is something here that you think is obvious that others here aren't grasping.

You obviously love the game. I doubt there is anyone here who doesn't. I, as someone who likewise shares a keen interest in the game, am asking you to give a full, worthy explanation of the CTE system. This has already been done in part. I'm asking how the circles are relevant, how do I use them to make this system work?

If you can't or won't, just say so. But, if you can't or won't, quit coming in here with a defensive attitude. How am I supposed to interpret that as anything other than your inability to explain what has been asked? If you want us to listen to you and take you seriously you need to defend your position where there is doubt. That leaves the burden of proof on you, the proponent. You admit there is no complete explanation. I've highlighted what I don't understand. I guarantee you others are having a problem with the same thing. Help us out here.
 
Spidey, LAM, Dave, thanks for the diagrams and the last few posts. I think I am way off on cracking the code if there is one, but this is the direction I am heading. I am experimenting with different bridge lengths for different shots. Maybe the standard bridge length for a 1 foot shot is 12". Then add 1" or maybe 2" for every foot in pocket distance. Maybe this is why some Phillipinos have such a long bridge? But then you have the varying distance between the CB and the OB, with is another variable. Then there is the opposite edge for 45 degrees and the half table bank coincidence...
 
Beer:30 said:
Not everyone here is trying to disprove the system. I see a lot of people trying to get a better explanation for how it works.

You've stated that all the information is in this thread to make CTE work. I still haven't seen anything referring to how these circles are used to correct shot geometry.

I really want to know how it works.

Why don't you step up and correct everything. You've identified a deficit in the knowledge base and you have the ability to correct it. You say the information is all here. You say it's easy to understand so wouldn't it be likewise easy to explain?

No one has ever proven anything by telling everyone else they are stupid and lazy. You criticize instructors for being lazy but you seem unwilling to put effort in yourself. This is obviously an abstract concept. Not everyone learns the same way so sometimes as an instructor you need many different ways of explaining the exact same thing.

There is something here that you think is obvious that others here aren't grasping.

You obviously love the game. I doubt there is anyone here who doesn't. I, as someone who likewise shares a keen interest in the game, am asking you to give a full, worthy explanation of the CTE system. This has already been done in part. I'm asking how the circles are relevant, how do I use them to make this system work?

If you can't or won't, just say so. But, if you can't or won't, quit coming in here with a defensive attitude. How am I supposed to interpret that as anything other than your inability to explain what has been asked? If you want us to listen to you and take you seriously you need to defend your position where there is doubt. That leaves the burden of proof on you, the proponent. You admit there is no complete explanation. I've highlighted what I don't understand. I guarantee you others are having a problem with the same thing. Help us out here.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate your post. I can certainly understand why you feel this way. However, the burden isn't on me to do anything. I'm not an instructor. Guys like Dr. Dave and the others are instructors. I'm just a pool fan like you. I post nuggets of information because I can and I want to.

You see, there's a lot more to this CTE story than what you're mentioning above. I asked PJ if he's ever played around with this stuff on a table and his reply was, "He didn't have to - he already knows it's bunk." Meanwhile, he and Dr. Dave were using their great logical deductive reasoning to say this stuff couldn't work--- all while never putting in "real" time to figure it out.

I'm not afraid to say I've invested two or three thousand hours into learning this information. I'm not bragging - if anything, I'm a little embarrassed to admit that. Smarter guys like PJ and Dr. Dave could have figured it out in WAY less time.

Therefore, when I read posts saying it's my job to post details to the same people who at the beginning flat out said it was impossible (without the trials and experimentation) is against my moral fibers. If this weren't pool and this were the business world -- such attitudes would get you bankrupted in no time at all.

So, while these guys said it wouldn't work off the cuff, I chose to follow my own trail and invest the time regardless. What I found was that many people refused to look beyond the apparent. The "apparent" is Dr. Dave's diagram above.

There's zero doubt in my mind I just provided every single piece of information Dr. Dave needs in order to answer his own question (being a PH.D). By him re-posting his question for a 3rd time in this thread and bapping the ball back in my court further strengthens my decision to let it be for now.

If Dr. Dave (being a PH.D.) wants to really get an answer to that question, he will. If he wants to keep focusing the attention at my refusal to answer it for him (thus I must not have the answer), it'll only prolong his time of not knowing. It doesn't mean I don't like Dave, it just means it's not my job to teach him. He and I are just two different people. If I want to know something- I do everything in my power to get to the bottom of it. He doesn't and that's ok.

If we were all stranded on a desert island, the smart bet is to hang around my tent. I'm not waiting for a ship to float by or pray for an airplane. I'm making my ass a raft and getting OFF that island with the quickness.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I can appreciate your post. I can certainly understand why you feel this way. However, the burden isn't on me to do anything. I'm not an instructor. Guys like Dr. Dave and the others are instructors. I'm just a pool fan like you. I post nuggets of information because I can and I want to.

You see, there's a lot more to this CTE story than what you're mentioning above. I asked PJ if he's ever played around with this stuff on a table and his reply was, "He didn't have to - he already knows it's bunk." Meanwhile, he and Dr. Dave were using their great logical deductive reasoning to say this stuff couldn't work--- all while never putting in "real" time to figure it out.

I'm not afraid to say I've invested two or three thousand hours into learning this information. I'm not bragging - if anything, I'm a little embarrassed to admit that. Smarter guys like PJ and Dr. Dave could have figured it out in WAY less time.

Therefore, when I read posts saying it's my job to post details to the same people who at the beginning flat out said it was impossible (without the trials and experimentation) is against my moral fibers. If this weren't pool and this were the business world -- such attitudes would get you bankrupted in no time at all.

So, while these guys said it wouldn't work off the cuff, I chose to follow my own trail and invest the time regardless. What I found was that many people refused to look beyond the apparent. The "apparent" is Dr. Dave's diagram above.

There's zero doubt in my mind I just provided every single piece of information Dr. Dave needs in order to answer his own question (being a PH.D). By him re-posting his question for a 3rd time in this thread and bapping the ball back in my court further strengthens my decision to let it be for now.

If Dr. Dave (being a PH.D.) wants to really get an answer to that question, he will. If he wants to keep focusing the attention at my refusal to answer it for him (thus I must not have the answer), it'll only prolong his time of not knowing. It doesn't mean I don't like Dave, it just means it's not my job to teach him. He and I are just two different people. If I want to know something- I do everything in my power to get to the bottom of it. He doesn't and that's ok.

If we were all stranded on a desert island, the smart bet is to hang around my tent. I'm not waiting for a ship to float by or pray for an airplane. I'm making my ass a raft and getting OFF that island with the quickness.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response.

From a purely mathmatical aspect the circles you described carry within them the distance information between the two balls to possbily answer dr_dave's question. Honestly, if someone has worked out an accurate way to judge the angle of the cut I'm interested in learning the technique. From everything that has been explicitly stated here dr_dave has a point. You strip CTE down to basics as I understand them at any given distance away from the cue ball there are 3 possible cut angles. The +/- 1 tip of offset cut angle will change with distance and both will eventually completely miss the ob when distance is great enough. Cut angle is also variable with bridge length. This system can be made or broken (for the individual) in finding an accurate way to locate a proper tip offset (or bridge length) for a cut distance.

Without tinkering it's not workable in the state I understand it. I think what people are looking for is what parts haven't been mentioned to adjust the tip offset and rotation (or bridge length) to make the system work in most situation. To solve a system of equations you need at least as many variables as equations. This is the system we solve intuitively with every shot. We need to be able to change one more thing in CTE to make it work at varying distances. The people here who have successfully implemented CTE have learned through use, consciously or unconsciously, how to make these adjustments.

Just because a system doesn't work out mathematically doesn't mean it's not good enough. Newtonian physics work out well enough that most people don't need to know they've been superseded by general relativity. Newtonian equations are easier to use and produce almost exactly the same answer. Likewise if CTE works for you and gets you the same answer that ghost ball or whatever gets someone else then does it really matter what you use?

What I am after is this more complicated bit that keeps getting alluded to but never properly addressed. I enjoy technical minutia and actually want to understand all of the CTE system so as to judge it based on it's entirety.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I can appreciate your post. I can certainly understand why you feel this way. However, the burden isn't on me to do anything. I'm not an instructor. Guys like Dr. Dave and the others are instructors. I'm just a pool fan like you. I post nuggets of information because I can and I want to.[...].
Click to expand...

Just want to keep the burdens where they belong. Dave A. is NOT the person making the claims. He has no burden here.

If someone else makes a claim, then Dave A. may choose to evaluate how well it is supported if he feels like it.

But the burden is squarely on the person making the claim.

"Nuggets" implies theres somehow greater amounts of gold, and you're just doling out a portion. I donn't know what the support is for that.

It used to be a person had to see this stuff AT THE TABLE.

And so I drove from Washington DC up to Baltimore to meet you to see it AT THE TABLE. I did that. You showed me at the table what you know about CTE and then we continued to have a nica afternoon playing pool.

I've spent plenty of time AT THE TABLE--talking about aiming

with you
with Hal Houle
with Pat Johnson
with Tom Simpson
with Bob Jewett
with Randy
with Scott
with Geno


What bothers me is the suggestion that there are some sort of undisclosed secrets. That's nonsense. That there's some deep wisdon about aiming that people would get if they just believed and strove to see the light or engaged some sort of sixth sense. More nonsense.

I'm not saying there's nothing interesting or even useful about these pivot-based approaches.

But I am saying there's no hidden treasure.
 
mikepage said:
What bothers me is the suggestion that there are some sort of undisclosed secrets. That's nonsense. That there's some deep wisdon about aiming that people would get if they just believed and strove to see the light or engaged some sort of sixth sense. More nonsense.

I'm not saying there's nothing interesting or even useful about these pivot-based approaches.

But I am saying there's no hidden treasure.
Click to expand...

Tap, tap, tap Mike...and it's NOT rocket science either! At the base of it all, it begins with an accurate and repeatable stroke! :D

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
mikepage said:
Just want to keep the burdens where they belong. Dave A. is NOT the person making the claims. He has no burden here.

If someone else makes a claim, then Dave A. may choose to evaluate how well it is supported if he feels like it.

But the burden is squarely on the person making the claim.

"Nuggets" implies theres somehow greater amounts of gold, and you're just doling out a portion. I donn't know what the support is for that.

It used to be a person had to see this stuff AT THE TABLE.

And so I drove from Washington DC up to Baltimore to meet you to see it AT THE TABLE. I did that. You showed me at the table what you know about CTE and then we continued to have a nica afternoon playing pool.

I've spent plenty of time AT THE TABLE--talking about aiming

with you
with Hal Houle
with Pat Johnson
with Tom Simpson
with Bob Jewett
with Randy
with Scott
with Geno


What bothers me is the suggestion that there are some sort of undisclosed secrets. That's nonsense. That there's some deep wisdon about aiming that people would get if they just believed and strove to see the light or engaged some sort of sixth sense. More nonsense.

I'm not saying there's nothing interesting or even useful about these pivot-based approaches.

But I am saying there's no hidden treasure.
Click to expand...

Not anymore, you're right. I pretty much just provided the last piece of information today. That was it. Dave asked how the same pivot could make each shot, so I showed him.

I'm kind of surprised you're still on this "religion" "sixth sense" kick after what I posted today.


Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top