CTE aiming.

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

Scott:

You're right - it's not rocket science - but why am I the only one posting info? If you spent time with Hal, why aren't you posting some answers?

SAM is not CTE based, fwiw. They're two completely different systems.

Dave
 
Sorry Dave, but SAM is CTE-based (almost all shots based on one aiming precept)...just without the pivot. I'm not going to argue with you that "mine" is better than "yours"...or how they are different. You seem to like to argue with folks here...I don't. That's why I don't try to "convince" people here. Those who want to understand SAM better, look to a qualified SPF instructor to help them learn it. The essence of SAM has already been posted on AzB. Like with anything...some like it, some don't. Some like what you're proposing...some don't. In the end it's "different strokes for different folks"! It's all still "pool"! :D

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Scott:

You're right - it's not rocket science - but why am I the only one posting info? If you spent time with Hal, why aren't you posting some answers?

SAM is not CTE based, fwiw. They're two completely different systems.

Dave
 
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.

Ok, taking it from the top:

1. You approach a 50 degree cut (your best guesstimate, at a glance) from a certain angle/perspective. Your body, your bridge, and your stick fall into a line that is going to be "close" to the correct final alignment needed. At this point you don't know exactly where to aim but you at least know roughly where to plant your bridge hand.

2. Based on this line, you see one single edge of the OB (out of the thousand possible "edges" it could have going around the equator). You point your tip at this edge. In between the tip and the edge of the OB is the CB. You have read somewhere (correctly?) that for this particular cut, you adjust with 1 tip of outside.

To get that 1 tip of outside, you do what?
A. Slide your entire body left so that the tip, butt, and perceived edge are all on the same straight line? (moving your whole body 1 tip left?!)
B. Pivot on your bridge, moving your back hand right so that the tip steers over to the left?
C. Just slide your bridge hand left 1 tip's worth?
D. Doesn't matter? The 1 tip left is to just get your eyes pointing to a place where it can see a new "edge" of the OB?

3. You pivot so that the tip is now aiming through the center of the CB.
If "B" is the answer from the above, this is just undoing what you already did. You started at center, pivoted over 1 tip, then pivoted back to the center. So B must be wrong?

The center of the pivot is what?
A. The middle finger of your bridge hand? This would seem to cause problems. Allen Hopkins going to end up rotating his tip a lot more than Shane Van Boening. The entire stick will be pointed on a different line for both players, wouldn't it?

B. I can't even come up with a B, no matter how hard I try. There is no other center that would suggest rotating the stick clockwise to get back to the middle of the CB.

So now....

4. Pretend you can't see the pocket at all. Slide the cue ball forward 6 inches along the aforementioned line. Slide the OB forward 6 inches along that line. If you weren't aware of the forward slide, and you shot using the same perspective-based pivot, you'd miss.

5. So to make it work, you must have a new perspective-based pivot. Moving both balls forward made a sharper cut. Therefore, you'd walk into the shot from a different angle? Again one that is "close" to the final correct alignment? And because of this new perspective you get the new sighting of a different edge, and a new center of the CB?

If this stuff is on the right track, how do you know you're approaching the shot from the right angle? Will your rough approximation while stepping into the shot... be close enough to get a "valid" edge and therefore a correct pivot?

------

Lastly... if you suck at photoshop, see if you can work with this. I drew the two circles as I understood them from the "news flash" post. Are you willing to save this pic and draw a pre-pivot cue stick line, a post pivot line, and where the pivot center was?

And if you want the original photoshop PSD, it's here:
http://creedo.gbgl-hq.com/ctelpivot.psd

ctelpivot.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sorry Dave, but SAM is CTE-based (almost all shots based on one aiming precept)...just without the pivot.

Scott, if my understanding of SAM is at all accurate, SAM is simply a fractional-aiming system. My source for SAM information is Post #113 of the following thread:
Is that source accurate? Perhaps it has been updated a bit in the time since that post.

Houlian CTE is not a fractional aiming system, and I do not think it is accurate to call a fractional aiming system "CTE-based."

I know you have said that you visited with Hal. At one time he apparently did teach fractional aiming. Perhaps that is what you and he discussed. But his CTE system has nothing to do with fractional aiming. Yes, CTE involves an initial sighting along a center-to-edge line, but the final cue-stick aim for the stroke involves no reference at all to the fractional degree of "overlap" between the cue ball and object ball.
 
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.

The CTEL seems to be identical in both pictures except that the picture is rotated around until the CTEL is straight up and down.

So would you for a straight in shot, sight the CTEL from the center of the CB to 9.00 on the OB? (example first picture).
 
I agree with Beer.

Plus:



How do you know in 2. how far you have to go to the left? What if my bridge hand is closer to the cb?

I am glad that you were able to open the link. I am even more glad that you took the time to look at it.

I truely believe that I can benefit from CTE having read all of these posts. Now the details that have not been explained with lucidity is how much do you laterally shift the cue from the original CTE bridge/alignment.

I believe that is the question that you are asking and the same that I am going to find out when I get to a pool table - my diagram is not that accurate for it was done on Power Point and AutoCad would be very accurate - when I go back to work.

For now, in step #2 of my diagram, it looks like it is just to the right of center on the OB. Let's assume for now that it is just right of center for the 90 degree cut that I show in my diagram, then if the cut is say 80 degrees, one would laterally shift the cue a little less, and 60 degrees - less, and 45 degrees - even less and for 30 degrees we are back to step #1.

The thing that stumped me was that when the OB is father away, it appears to be smaller. At the same distance the distance from the edge of the OB to it's center will also be proportionately smaller. I conclude that for long shots from the CB the lateral shifting of cue will be proportionately smaller as well.

So on a long shot, I am thinking that the lateral shift will be still be with the cue is aimed at the original spot - just to the right of center on the OB - like on my diagram.

What I like about this realization is that for cuts larger than 30 degrees or the starting position of CTE, I don't have to aim at the blank space outside of the OB edge where I have nothing to aim at except my imagination or green felt or a rail.

So I want to conclude that all of the cut angles from 30 degrees to 90 degrees are contained between "just to the right of center of the OB - like my diagram" and the right edge of the OB which is a 30 degree cut or the start of CTE.

So if this works, I will be able to sight on a spot on the OB kinda like the fractional sighting systems.

Thanks :)
 
This is ridiculous. I won't waste my time on this any more.

I am really excited about learning CTE aiming. I'm extremely into this and the benefits will be huge. Sometimes my mind is foggy about all the information but the journey is always good as well as the destination. :)
 
I am really excited about learning CTE aiming. I'm extremely into this and the benefits will be huge. Sometimes my mind is foggy about all the information but the journey is always good as well as the destination. :)

After 290 posts, you would think that we would have had CTE nailed LOL:)
 
At Large...Did you miss this post? I won't argue semantics. SAM (Stick Aiming Method) is what it is...a CTE-based aiming method.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Most players develop a fairly good sense of aim after 7 or 8 hundred hours of play (IMO). So, that's an upfront advantage for any student that's starting CTE aiming.

Aiming is typically not the problem. It's usually stroke delivery or conscious calculations about a specific aim that cause the misses.

There's too many shots to consciously figure them all out one at a time.
PRO ONE/CTE is a one angle system. The eyes sees one angle and the body follows with the shot.

As Hal once said.....I see no reason why a beginner can't start whackin' at 'em with CTE.

During one's regular practice, it's a good idea to make a study of aim. For example, I am glad that I spent a lot of time studying the quarters system.


Stan

Scott, if my understanding of SAM is at all accurate, SAM is simply a fractional-aiming system. My source for SAM information is Post #113 of the following thread:
Is that source accurate? Perhaps it has been updated a bit in the time since that post.

Houlian CTE is not a fractional aiming system, and I do not think it is accurate to call a fractional aiming system "CTE-based."

I know you have said that you visited with Hal. At one time he apparently did teach fractional aiming. Perhaps that is what you and he discussed. But his CTE system has nothing to do with fractional aiming. Yes, CTE involves an initial sighting along a center-to-edge line, but the final cue-stick aim for the stroke involves no reference at all to the fractional degree of "overlap" between the cue ball and object ball.
 
Sorry Dave, but SAM is CTE-based (almost all shots based on one aiming precept)...just without the pivot. I'm not going to argue with you that "mine" is better than "yours"...or how they are different. You seem to like to argue with folks here...I don't. That's why I don't try to "convince" people here. Those who want to understand SAM better, look to a qualified SPF instructor to help them learn it. The essence of SAM has already been posted on AzB. Like with anything...some like it, some don't. Some like what you're proposing...some don't. In the end it's "different strokes for different folks"! It's all still "pool"! :D

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I'm not sure why everyone thinks I'm arguing on here - I think I'm being rational. I never said CTE was better than SAM for the love of God; I merely said they weren't based off each other and two totally different systems (which they most certainly are). Just because there's a CTEL-alignment within SAM doesn't it CTE (as a system)-based. If you don't have a pivot within SAM and it's based on stick-aiming at fractions - you're comparing apples to hamburgers. One is linear geometry and one is circular geometry. That's all I was saying.
 
As you maintain your eyes on the OB, both the pocket and the CB rotates around it.

Geometry - thanks for your response. You're the only one who took the time to answer correctly. You're correct. The only piece you're missing is the 3rd item: the edges that you see shift and the addressable edge on the CB changes, resulting in a different path through the core of the CB.

Gold star for GEOMETRY. Go, figure - with that name.

Dave
 
Maybe "deform" isn't the right word, but the bridge hand is definitely not "fixed" or "rigid" in this animation. If it were, the "pivot point" of the cue would be at the bridge hand. It obviously isn't in this example. The "effective pivot length" (the distance between the CB and the actual cue "pivot point") is much longer than the bridge length here due to the "shift," "tilt," "rotation," or "adjustment" of the bridge hand. The trick is to "shift," "tilt," "rotate," or "adjust" the exact amount needed for the particular shot, based on the chosen bridge length and the necessary cut angle.

Regards,
Dave

Could it be that he shooting with a Predator or some other low-deflection cue; in which case the pivot point would be at the butt of the cue. In other words, he's using FHE 8JIM9
 
Scott, if my understanding of SAM is at all accurate, SAM is simply a fractional-aiming system. My source for SAM information is Post #113 of the following thread:
Is that source accurate? Perhaps it has been updated a bit in the time since that post.

Houlian CTE is not a fractional aiming system, and I do not think it is accurate to call a fractional aiming system "CTE-based."

I know you have said that you visited with Hal. At one time he apparently did teach fractional aiming. Perhaps that is what you and he discussed. But his CTE system has nothing to do with fractional aiming. Yes, CTE involves an initial sighting along a center-to-edge line, but the final cue-stick aim for the stroke involves no reference at all to the fractional degree of "overlap" between the cue ball and object ball.

Scott - Atlarge is correct. My apologies if you think I was being argumentative. I read earlier in the thread you said SAM was CTE-based and I should have made that a separate post. If there's no pivot, it physically can't be CTE based--- it's impossible.
 
Dave...Alright, here's oranges to oranges: Since the pool swing is based on "linear" (straight line) movement, for the sake of accuracy and repeatability, that's all that matters. That's all I was saying!:D When it's all said and done, if you make contact with the OB at the appropriate place, it doesn't matter how you got there...the ball goes in the hole. Linear movement of the cuestick is the easiest way to accomplish this, regardless of the "aiming method"! Nuff said...

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

One is linear geometry and one is circular geometry. That's all I was saying.
 
The CTEL seems to be identical in both pictures except that the picture is rotated around until the CTEL is straight up and down.

So would you for a straight in shot, sight the CTEL from the center of the CB to 9.00 on the OB? (example first picture).

You're starting to think. Watch out for this guy.
 
Dave,

In example 2 it looks like the CB center is aimed past the edge of the OB. Is the "edge" actually outside the sphere? And I know you said to take this rendering lightly, but is the CB aiming point not at dead center? It looks to be a half tip or so off center.
By the way, thank you and the other contributors to this thread for their civility and thought provoking rebuttals. More, more, more!!!:thumbup:
 
SpiderWebComm said:
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.
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.
Excellent post Mike ... as usual. I think most of the people reading this thread, and the hundreds of threads like it over the years, agree with you:

There ain't no hidden treasure.

If there were a magical "aiming system" that made aiming simple, pool would be too easy. Thank goodness it ain't ... otherwise it wouldn't be as fun.

Regards,
Dave
 
You're starting to think. Watch out for this guy.

Damn that just lost me,I worked on this 4 about a month probably a year ago,this is where I am at...On some shots i sight about a tip off center on the cb to the outside edge of the ob and pivot to center,on other shots i start about a tip off center on the cb to the inside of the angle and aim at the same outside edge as before and pivot to center but my bridge hand never moves,spidey if u would pm me on here and i will give you my phone number,I would like to talk to you ,i have a table in my house Thanks alot
 
Back
Top