FYI, the most complete description of SAM I've ever seen or heard is here:
It is a fractional-ball aiming system.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
CTE aiming.
- Thread starter Geometry
- Start date
It is a fractional-ball aiming system.
Regards,
Dave
I actually had all of the information I needed to answer my question years ago after reading the zillion past posts concerning CTE, 90/90, and fractional-ball aiming, and after speaking to Hal on the phone for many hours over several conversations, and after speaking to Stan on the phone, and after trying out at the table everything everybody has suggested to me over the many years. The answer to my question (see below) is: 3. You must vary the "effective pivot length" to pocket a range of shots close to a single alignment reference with a full pivot. I've also suggested several ways this can be done. It seems like you prefer the "air pivot" approach.
Below is my post again with the original question (and the answer, if you look close enough). As a "PhD" and as an "instructor" (quotes from you), I already know the answer. I'm just trying to help others see the answer for themselves with the diagrams and simple descriptions.
Here's the post again with the question (and the answer):
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").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.
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:
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.
Last edited:
But there is a magical aiming method that makes aiming simple, that doesn't necessarly make pool easy. It does however make it more fun.
P.S. there are many hidden treasures starting with Hal and going right through PRO-ONE.
Thats's not correct. Based on your diagram "C" isn't the most common. In fact, it's never done and isn't an option because the diatance is a constant in your diagram. The answer is alignment. Also, alignment and pivoting are the 2 EASIEST techniques in this discussion. The hardest part is identifying the ctel accurately and quickly i.e. "visual intelligence."I actually had all of the information I needed to answer my question years ago after reading the zillion past posts concerning CTE, 90/90, and fractional-ball aiming, and after speaking to Hal on the phone for many hours over several conversations, and after speaking to Stan on the phone, and after trying out at the table everything everybody has suggested to me over the many years. The answer to my question (see below) is: 3. You must vary the "effective pivot length" to pocket a range of shots close to a single alignment reference with a full pivot. I've also suggested several ways this can be done. It seems like you prefer the "air pivot" approach.
Below is my post again with the original question (and the answer, if you look close enough). As a "PhD" and as an "instructor" (quotes from you), I already know the answer. I'm just trying to help others see the answer for themselves with the diagrams and simple descriptions.
Here's the post again with the question (and the answer):
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.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").
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.
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:
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.
LONG POST WARNING: "The 'religion' of CTE vs. the science way of thinking"
Dave:
I think it goes without saying that you are one of my favorite contributors to this forum, and I don't hesitate listing you as such in my post to the "Respected and knowledgeable members" thread.
Now, having laid down that foundation, I humbly offer that you bring this (i.e. what very smart folks like Dr. Dave and Mike Page say) upon yourself. You *say* that you don't ascribe to CTE as being a "religion," yet everything you do and say belies this. At one moment, you'll offer to somebody "how much better they'd be if they spent some time learning and adopting CTE -- 'it's the cat's meow'," yet when challenged about this, you back-pedal and give the politically-correct, almost robotic, "it's only one of many successful aiming methods to pocket a ball." When someone posts something that pointedly questions a concept of CTE (and does it in a very analytical manner), you mock the person and sign-off your post with "Ghostball Dave."
It's very obvious you have a profound disrespect for the ghostball aiming technique, and a flowery, reverent, almost extremist religious view of CTE. It's evident in how you post, in how you reply. When you make such claims as a good portion of Dr. Dave's ENTIRE VEPS collection can be distilled down to a single DVD on CTE, it's evident that your entire notion of pool rests on your revered "altar" of CTE. It's one thing to be passionate about a topic; it's quite another to be extremist about it.
These science-minded folks asking about CTE really want to learn how it works -- what are the principles behind it, why those principles work as related to geometry, physics, optometry, etc. The science world works on the doctrine of knowledge transfer -- i.e. the onus is on the person that advocates the supremacy of a certain topic/technique/methodology, to share that knowledge down to detail enough that it can be understood and analyzed by the science minds, so that they can understand *why* it's superior. There has to be enough details in the knowledge transfer that the person receiving them has enough of them to make an informed decision for him/herself. Since the dawn of science as studied by human beings, it has worked this way, and is quite successful. This is academia, this is progress in the way of handing down knowledge (and thus enhancing it) from person to people as time marches on.
Apparently you don't ascribe to that world. You seem to ascribe to the old 1950s-esque, "I'll show you enough to whet your appetite or to help you accomplish this single task, but I won't show you anything beyond that so that I can protect my job, go get the rest yourself" way of thinking. Maybe this is not what you intend, or maybe it is (i.e. going back to that "while Hal is still alive... it's not mine to share" thing). I'm not saying this to intentionally anger or dis you, but I am trying to call it like it is.
These folks are not asking to be spoon-fed or hand-held. These are very smart people, and once enough of the inner workings of the concept or technique are revealed, they'll run with it and go get more on their own. You can be assured of that. There's obviously still some significant gray area in CTE as evidenced by the questioning from these very smart people, but you seem to infer that they are either lazy, or else want to be spoon-fed.
You apparently enjoy sharing nuggets of helpful information, but as Mike Page succinctly stated, the word "nuggets" implies that there's much more behind the scenes that you're witholding. As I mentioned, the science world does not work on the concept of the person with the knowledge (the "keeper of the keys," so-to-speak) occasionally tossing out nuggets of information as a way of helping the world understand why the topic being piecemealed is "superior." Science papers are very comprehensive, breaking down the topic into enough detail that the reader will understand all the concepts, and can make an informed decision. Yes, there is something to be said when, in a class setting, the person sharing the information shares enough to whet the appetite of the student, and wants the student to do the effort to get the rest. But the "getting the rest" part has already been well documented in the student guide that the student him/herself is carrying in his/her bookbag. The assignment is for the student to refer to that *single source* documentation, and read-up on it.
In the case of CTE, there is no comprehensive single-source documentation. That single-source documentation has to be created, and folks like Dr. Dave have already shown their willingness to be the yeoman for creating that documentation. No, asking someone to do a search on AZBilliards to recall gazillions of past-history posts on CTE, sifting through them (not knowing which posts are garbage), and attempt to glue the information together, is not the way it works. Heck, if that were the case, humankind would not be where it is today in terms of technology, etc. if the wheel would have to reassembled each and every time a student wanted to learn. You may have spent thousands of hours learning CTE -- and I believe you have. But that does not mean that, if CTE is really that good, that other people also need to invest thousands of hours piecemealing that information. If that's the case, what good are you in all this? What value do you bring to the table, other than being an overt sales guy?
IMHO, CTE can and *should* be comprehensively documented, if it is to be accepted as a valid technique. I personally believe there is something to it, even though I personally don't subscribe nor use CTE myself, because I (and I say this humbly) was gifted with excellent 3D spacial perception, and therefore use ghostball technique, because I *can* see that ghostball, clear as day, standing at any angle to the shot, not just in-line to it. I've accepted that other folks may not have this ability, and therefore use alternate ways of aiming. It's called tolerance, Dave. Aiming is not a religion. It is one, and only one aspect of pool.
But personally, as a science-minded person, I'm very interested in knowing CTE, if for nothing else than to learn the inner workings, why it works. I hope that you don't continue to hide behind the lone tree in the desert (i.e. that "it's not mine to share" tree), and will be a significant contributor to creating that single-source documentation on CTE. This is how people are remembered. I hope one day to read a whitepaper on CTE, a whitepaper that after I finish reading it, I say to myself "Wow -- who wrote that??" And then I see "By Dave Segal, in tribute to Hal Houle" on the cover, and I smile with an "ah, that makes sense" smile.
With all well-deserved respect,
-Sean
Dave:
I think it goes without saying that you are one of my favorite contributors to this forum, and I don't hesitate listing you as such in my post to the "Respected and knowledgeable members" thread.
Now, having laid down that foundation, I humbly offer that you bring this (i.e. what very smart folks like Dr. Dave and Mike Page say) upon yourself. You *say* that you don't ascribe to CTE as being a "religion," yet everything you do and say belies this. At one moment, you'll offer to somebody "how much better they'd be if they spent some time learning and adopting CTE -- 'it's the cat's meow'," yet when challenged about this, you back-pedal and give the politically-correct, almost robotic, "it's only one of many successful aiming methods to pocket a ball." When someone posts something that pointedly questions a concept of CTE (and does it in a very analytical manner), you mock the person and sign-off your post with "Ghostball Dave."
It's very obvious you have a profound disrespect for the ghostball aiming technique, and a flowery, reverent, almost extremist religious view of CTE. It's evident in how you post, in how you reply. When you make such claims as a good portion of Dr. Dave's ENTIRE VEPS collection can be distilled down to a single DVD on CTE, it's evident that your entire notion of pool rests on your revered "altar" of CTE. It's one thing to be passionate about a topic; it's quite another to be extremist about it.
These science-minded folks asking about CTE really want to learn how it works -- what are the principles behind it, why those principles work as related to geometry, physics, optometry, etc. The science world works on the doctrine of knowledge transfer -- i.e. the onus is on the person that advocates the supremacy of a certain topic/technique/methodology, to share that knowledge down to detail enough that it can be understood and analyzed by the science minds, so that they can understand *why* it's superior. There has to be enough details in the knowledge transfer that the person receiving them has enough of them to make an informed decision for him/herself. Since the dawn of science as studied by human beings, it has worked this way, and is quite successful. This is academia, this is progress in the way of handing down knowledge (and thus enhancing it) from person to people as time marches on.
Apparently you don't ascribe to that world. You seem to ascribe to the old 1950s-esque, "I'll show you enough to whet your appetite or to help you accomplish this single task, but I won't show you anything beyond that so that I can protect my job, go get the rest yourself" way of thinking. Maybe this is not what you intend, or maybe it is (i.e. going back to that "while Hal is still alive... it's not mine to share" thing). I'm not saying this to intentionally anger or dis you, but I am trying to call it like it is.
These folks are not asking to be spoon-fed or hand-held. These are very smart people, and once enough of the inner workings of the concept or technique are revealed, they'll run with it and go get more on their own. You can be assured of that. There's obviously still some significant gray area in CTE as evidenced by the questioning from these very smart people, but you seem to infer that they are either lazy, or else want to be spoon-fed.
You apparently enjoy sharing nuggets of helpful information, but as Mike Page succinctly stated, the word "nuggets" implies that there's much more behind the scenes that you're witholding. As I mentioned, the science world does not work on the concept of the person with the knowledge (the "keeper of the keys," so-to-speak) occasionally tossing out nuggets of information as a way of helping the world understand why the topic being piecemealed is "superior." Science papers are very comprehensive, breaking down the topic into enough detail that the reader will understand all the concepts, and can make an informed decision. Yes, there is something to be said when, in a class setting, the person sharing the information shares enough to whet the appetite of the student, and wants the student to do the effort to get the rest. But the "getting the rest" part has already been well documented in the student guide that the student him/herself is carrying in his/her bookbag. The assignment is for the student to refer to that *single source* documentation, and read-up on it.
In the case of CTE, there is no comprehensive single-source documentation. That single-source documentation has to be created, and folks like Dr. Dave have already shown their willingness to be the yeoman for creating that documentation. No, asking someone to do a search on AZBilliards to recall gazillions of past-history posts on CTE, sifting through them (not knowing which posts are garbage), and attempt to glue the information together, is not the way it works. Heck, if that were the case, humankind would not be where it is today in terms of technology, etc. if the wheel would have to reassembled each and every time a student wanted to learn. You may have spent thousands of hours learning CTE -- and I believe you have. But that does not mean that, if CTE is really that good, that other people also need to invest thousands of hours piecemealing that information. If that's the case, what good are you in all this? What value do you bring to the table, other than being an overt sales guy?
IMHO, CTE can and *should* be comprehensively documented, if it is to be accepted as a valid technique. I personally believe there is something to it, even though I personally don't subscribe nor use CTE myself, because I (and I say this humbly) was gifted with excellent 3D spacial perception, and therefore use ghostball technique, because I *can* see that ghostball, clear as day, standing at any angle to the shot, not just in-line to it. I've accepted that other folks may not have this ability, and therefore use alternate ways of aiming. It's called tolerance, Dave. Aiming is not a religion. It is one, and only one aspect of pool.
But personally, as a science-minded person, I'm very interested in knowing CTE, if for nothing else than to learn the inner workings, why it works. I hope that you don't continue to hide behind the lone tree in the desert (i.e. that "it's not mine to share" tree), and will be a significant contributor to creating that single-source documentation on CTE. This is how people are remembered. I hope one day to read a whitepaper on CTE, a whitepaper that after I finish reading it, I say to myself "Wow -- who wrote that??" And then I see "By Dave Segal, in tribute to Hal Houle" on the cover, and I smile with an "ah, that makes sense" smile.
With all well-deserved respect,
-Sean
Last edited:
I am the type of person who will give someone what i want to give them and what I dont want to give them I wont,I know spidey comes off a bit aggressive sometimes but I think its just passion .Just because he is a firm believer and sometimes spokesperson for cte doesnt mean he owes that info to any of us,if he feels you need to work harder for HIS info then thats just how it is ,dont blast the man and demand he give answers to your questions,if u want to know ,one of you go take lessons from stan and share it with us,if not when I can afford to do so I will go,but I havent seen one person leave stans and run to share it with anyone.Thats my opinion of these 300 plus post
Finally a logical post. The onus isn't on me to post squat. I post enough to combat the broad-brush comments on how/why CTE doesn't work and I leave it at that.
I just don't want to post in 5 minutes what took me thousands of hours to learn.
Also, the following don't post 100% of their info online for free:
- Dr. Dave (VEPS volumes)
- Gene A. (Perfect Aim)
- Blackjack (14.1 book / 9-ball book)
- Stan Shuffett (Pro1)
- Scott Lee (SAM, mother drills, etc)
I mean come on people--- I know there's a sense of entitlement to CTE since Hal "gives it away for free"--- so I'll give it to you for free as Hal gave it to me:
Sight CTE, move your bridge to the side and pivot to center.
There ya go. Free lesson. In the meantime, it'd be nice if we had a civil discussion and end the double-standards and politics.
Here's my deal: The moment the above instructors post their info to the main forum for all to view for free, I'll post the rest. Until then - chill out with with the posts saying it's on me to post details since I'm the main proponent. Being the main proponent doesn't mean I have to give up info for nothing. Sheesh.
P.S. Sean, this wasn't pointed at you - rather in general since there's been a number of posts blasting me for not posting a whitepaper. For the record, I have a whitepaper (getting up to around 30 pages long at this point in time). I don't know what to do with it--- I might do nothing with it. It took me almost a year to put it together in my spare time. The "science guys" as you put it don't want the answer because they want to be told the answer, in full report form. If Mike and the gang want to say "Nothing to see here people," that's cool. I still like Mike and the gang.
Last edited:
peteypooldude:
Great input! Yes, knowledge is very personal, and the person who holds it is the sole decision-maker as to whether he/she wants to share it. Sharing the info about CTE is actually not the root of my post -- the "hit and run" evasiveness is. It's one thing if he doesn't want to share his hard-earned knowledge of CTE. That's a decision he makes on his own, and everyone should respect that. Just as you say, it is HIS knowledge after all.
No, the reason for my post was the "how can you say 'religion' and 'sixth sense'" reply on the part of intentional vagueness / obscurity / evasiveness from the science folks. That was really the root of the issue.
As an example of hit-and-run evasiveness, when someone creates a thread with a video of a great shot / great run-out, and another someone comes into that thread with a quip about "did you see the CTE pivot? It was very fast, but it was there..." and then <poof!> disappears from the thread, or else makes a quip about how the "majority" of the best players in the world use CTE, but escapes with an "I won't say anything more," that's really the root of the issue. It's that dangling carrot technique that is inviting the criticism.
If someone wants to share the information, share it. If someone doesn't, then don't. Don't sit on the wall, a leg on either side, whipping the bait from one side of the wall to the other fly-fishing style.
And it wasn't bashing, by the way. Dave knows I'm capable of a lot more pointed words than that, if I intended to bash / hurt. Rather, it was calling it like it is, trying to explain the origin of "religion/sixth sense" replies, and at the same time letting him know in heartfelt words both at the beginning, and at the end / sign-off, he's a much valued contributor.
Hope that helps clarify,
-Sean
Spidey u asked what the difference between the two pics u posted a few pages back and my answer is is one for a pivot to the right and the other a picot to the left? I've always tried Hals systems but the main ones I work with are his Small Ball and the three angle system. I use the pivot system but only on shots that are close to where I can't see the shot. But the pics u posted up gave me a great deal of sense on how to view the shot before getting down over the cueball, as before I would b sighting down the ctel and now I'm looking across it and when I get down I fall right on the ctel
edit: oops looks like o am wrong bout the pics as I didn't see the other page. Anyways you've helped me a bunch
edit: oops looks like o am wrong bout the pics as I didn't see the other page. Anyways you've helped me a bunch
Last edited:
You and I seem like good friends where one friend is a raging liberal and one is a raging conservative. Both can be friends but always see the same picture two different ways.
In regards to your "hit and run" comment.....
Who has posted the most diagrams and new information in this thread? Dr. Dave posting the same one 10x doesn't count. That counts as 1. The answer is: me. Dr. Dave posted that diagram asking how the same pivot can be used to make all shots and I answered it. Yes, I waited a while to see how others would answer my so-called "riddle." I was hoping for a healthy dialog. Elephant Man guilted me into posting the answer sooner than I wanted - but that diagram IS the answer to Dr. Dave's post. The answer wasn't "adjust the functional pivot point" as Dave suggested it was.
I'm NOT knocking Dr. Dave when I say he's incorrect nor am I being evasive. If you look on Dr. Dave's CTE page, you'll see a shot circle diagram which points out the arc is the same for shots of the same distance (so I wasn't being evasive then). So based on that, assuming a center ball hit on the CB, alignment is the answer. The same way you can pivot different arcs from the same bridge length you can address different edges on the CB/OB while maintaining a CTE alignment. If you view the equator of the CB as being perpendicular to your line of sight (the 12:00 line), your cue is not always parallel to your line of sight when addressing the CB. It might be, but doesn't have to be based on the shot. See? More information and more of me not being evasive.
Evasive (to me) isn't figuring it out on your own when you have the tools and information to do so.
Respectfully,
Dave
P.S. I know I was a smart ass a few times in this thread but I was having a good time while doing it. If people took me too seriously, I apologize. Sure, I get defensive when people get rammy - but who on this board doesn't? I'm pretty careful to not cross the line and when I do I catch myself and delete my post asap.
Last edited:
Dave...FTR, I have NEVER ONCE said that CTE doesn't work...EVER! Next, you've got a lot of nerve (and you're full of sh*t 
) saying I have not posted 100% of what I teach, here on AzB, and other forums. That is simply not true. Not only have I answered questions here (regardless of the topic), for almost 10 years, but I have repeatedly posted anything anybody really wanted to know. You may have to search for it...but anybody who wants to wade through my 5000+ posts will find the answer to any question that has ever been asked of me...as long as I've been here. I've also done free clinics at the DCC, and at the BCAPL nationals, for the past 5 years. I never feel that it takes away from my "pool lesson biz", but in fact, enhances it, because people read things here, and want a more indepth, one on one approach. I won't speak for the other guys, but I think you're barkin' up the wrong tree, especially regarding dr. dave and Blackjack. You and I have always gotten along fine, but you're crossing the line here...at least with me!
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
) saying I have not posted 100% of what I teach, here on AzB, and other forums. That is simply not true. Not only have I answered questions here (regardless of the topic), for almost 10 years, but I have repeatedly posted anything anybody really wanted to know. You may have to search for it...but anybody who wants to wade through my 5000+ posts will find the answer to any question that has ever been asked of me...as long as I've been here. I've also done free clinics at the DCC, and at the BCAPL nationals, for the past 5 years. I never feel that it takes away from my "pool lesson biz", but in fact, enhances it, because people read things here, and want a more indepth, one on one approach. I won't speak for the other guys, but I think you're barkin' up the wrong tree, especially regarding dr. dave and Blackjack. You and I have always gotten along fine, but you're crossing the line here...at least with me!Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
So I have printed out Daves A,B,C,D diagram and experimented with it, using it as a guide to work out some constants for various angles. Shot A is around 12-15 degrees of the long rail where the OB is to be pocketed. Shot A seems to be a true CTE shot with no adjustment needed. Just aim center CB to right edge OB and it hits center pocket. Shot B is about 25 degrees of the long rail. If I line up center CB to right side OB then move one tip LEFT, then pivot to right side OB it drops every time. This is not hitting center CB and moving tip wrong direction, which means my initial aim point must be wrong. Maybe at this angle you aim center CB to one tip RIGHT of OB, shift right then pivot to center? Shot C is 45 degrees of the long rail. I aim center CB, move 2 tips LEFT, then pivot to center and it works. But again I think my initial aim point has to be different to make this work. Maybe for 45 degrees initial aim point is left one tip CB, then move 1 tip right of center (which means moving 2 tips right) then pivot to center? Seems to work too.
Is it safe to say that determining the angle of the OB in relation to the rail is the first order of business? Then depending on that angle determine where to line up on the CB? The larger the angle, the more off center your starting point. There has to be a method to the madness, but I still can't see using this all of the time, though it would be nice.
Most of this seems to not be what I thought CTE would be, and it is probably not, but I am learning some things, yet maybe getting farther from the answer at the same time. One thing I like about the common way CTE is explained is that it seems to make my almost straight in shots that I usually just eyeball, go in center pocket.
I wish I was a brain scientist...
Is it safe to say that determining the angle of the OB in relation to the rail is the first order of business? Then depending on that angle determine where to line up on the CB? The larger the angle, the more off center your starting point. There has to be a method to the madness, but I still can't see using this all of the time, though it would be nice.
Most of this seems to not be what I thought CTE would be, and it is probably not, but I am learning some things, yet maybe getting farther from the answer at the same time. One thing I like about the common way CTE is explained is that it seems to make my almost straight in shots that I usually just eyeball, go in center pocket.
I wish I was a brain scientist...
Maybe you were just exaggerating, but did it really take you thousands of hours to learn CTE, and can you really prepare and post something that totally summarizes your CTE knowledge (and describes how others can apply it) in 5 minutes? Now, I can see how it might take thousands of hours to become proficient with using CTE, because it takes lots of "visual intelligence" to be able to judge the exact alignment and/or "effective pivot length" required to pocket a wide range of shots.
Agreed, but I have posted a lot from VEPS, and I have been willing to fully explain and clearly answer any questions about anything I have posted. I have also not made any outrageous or unsupportable claims about anything I have or haven't posted concerning VEPS.
Regards,
Dave
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.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").
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.
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:
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.
Thank you for your clear answer. I think many (if not most people) can visualize the true CB-center-to-OB-edge-line fairly easily. The difficulty, if using CTE, is in judging exactly how much to change the alignment, and/or how much to change the "effective pivot length," to make a wide range of shots consistently, IMO. That does require lots of "visual intelligence" and lots of skill developed through lots of practice ... not from CTE information or knowledge, IMO.
Again, thank you for offering your answer to my question. I appreciate it.
Regards,
Dave
When I first tried CTE I watched this video, from a link somewhere in this thread. It wasn't really working for me and someone replied that the video was misleading, so I didn't give it any more thought. Since then I have been following this thread and experimenting, but like most here, haven't come up with anything consistent. In my search for more info on CTE this video kept popping up, but I just skipped past it. Well there really isn't much info out there so I decided to watch it again. After experimenting for a couple of weeks and then watching the video again, it is really starting to make sense. The video claims to show you that it works for every angle, and it almost does. But I think the 1 tip off center is too general and that sometimes you need 1/2 tip and sometimes 1 1/2 tips. I use about a 10 inch bridge and haven't needed to change length yet. A LOT of shots have become effortless, and some tough shots are much easier already. Haven't tried to add side yet but top and bottom are ok. I think I see the light, and I think this video is more useful than I was led to believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi_UCD-eD00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi_UCD-eD00
I know opinions are like a***oles, and everyone has one, well here a few of mine. I have played pool for many years, but know there are plenty of things that can make me better. Some very nice people on AZ have helped me and I will help them, if they need any info I can supply. You can't treat people like crap, then expect them to help you. CTE works, I am not a Rocket Scientist, but I know when all the balls are dropping when I use it, it works. Don't get caught up into changing bridge lengths all the time, get one down, then try another one. Is CTE the only system that works, no, I use it and other systems that yield good results.
I have been dis-ing this thread from the beginning. Dis-believing, dis-respecting and dis-illusioned, but it IS coming together. Just quoted my last post to make a small change. Sometimes you only need to move 1/2 tip but not really over a tip. If you are going more than 1 tip over, you probably need to go to the other side... but I could be wrong and my mind could be changed, but it IS coming together. Some shots the aim seems way off but they are dropping, shots I used to be 50/50 on. But some shots are slightly off, and it is obvious before the shot. Those are the ones that only need a 1/2 tip. I recommend repeating the same shots that are not working for you and trying 1/2 tip.
P.S. A guy not posting in this thread PM'ed me his number last week and offered to teach me CTE over the phone. I PM'ed him back about setting up a good time to call but have not heard back. If you read this, I am still interested in talking to you or hearing your thoughts about where I am in a PM.
Thanks, Ron
Dave...FTR, I have NEVER ONCE said that CTE doesn't work...EVER! Next, you've got a lot of nerve (and you're full of sh*t
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
WHOA WHOA --- I wasn't knocking anyone on the list. I'm friends with everyone. I was merely saying there people who make a living with that stuff typically don't post 100% of what they have. I wasn't knocking you at all. I think you really misread the tone of my post...completely.
Anyways, you took what I said totally wrong. Sorry you're angry, Scott. I never said you weren't helpful online or that you don't help a ton of people.
For the record, I wasn't knocking anyone on that list (Scott seems to think I was dogging him). In fact, I agree with everyone on that list. I guess that didn't come across right. The guys on my list are my good friends. I was trying to make a point that nobody logs in and posts 100% of their content online. Nobody. C'mon, now.
This is what I also found. In order to cut all of the various angles from 35 degrees to 90 degrees, you need to shift the cue laterally different distances with a slight shift for 35-40 degrees and 1 1/2 tips for 85-90 degrees etc. as you found..... but this only is repeatable for a given distance and I overcut the 85-90 degree cut when the OB is moved further away from the CB. This is also only for a given distance of 5.0" from the bridge to the CB.
After getting down with a CTE stance/position and lateral and parallel shift:
I then focused on where on the OB the cue pointed to after the shift. For me, if I shift laterally until the saft is pointed at a spot midway between the center and the edge of the OB for the 85-90 degrees - a ~1 1/2 tip shift for a separation of 10.0" between the CB and the OB.
I then moved the OB farther away and noticed that the OB was visually smaller but I could see and aimed at the center of the smaller appearing OB and the cut was again 85-90 degrees for this distance as well. This worked for all distances greater than 10.0 ".
I conclude that, as the distance becomes greater, the OB appears to be smaller but I could find the OB edge and center. So using this distance (OB edge to OB center) as a target (belt line), I can aim at different spots along this line in fractions, i.e. OB edge, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and center. I also conclude that the farther the bridge position is from the CB, the spots move closer to each other and closer to the OB edge; and conversely, they spread out for a closer bridge position.
Depending on the distance from the bridge to the CB, 5.0" in this test case, a shift to a spot at 1/2 of the length of the line (described above), or midway between the the center and edge of the CB (1/4 ball), results in a 90 degree cut. A spot at 1/4 of the line from the edge results in a 45 degree cut. This held true for all distances from 10.0" to 8 feet -with the bridge at the same distance of 5.0" from the CB for all shots.
I can draw this up on a 2D design software AutoCad and document the results later.
I find my (different than the advertised partial descriptions) version of CTE to be another tool that has validity - now for different CB to OB separation distances.
I don't feel comfortable with the CTE, shift, aim and pivot so I prolly won't use it.
This can be reversed engineered for the diameter of a players shaft that may be smaller or larger, but aiming at a point on the OB takes that out of the equation - to me.
Just sayin.
Last edited: