FYI, the most complete description of SAM I've ever seen or heard is here:Scott, if my understanding of SAM is at all accurate, SAM is simply a fractional-aiming system.
It is a fractional-ball aiming system.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
FYI, the most complete description of SAM I've ever seen or heard is here:Scott, if my understanding of SAM is at all accurate, SAM is simply a fractional-aiming system.
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.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).
If Dr. Dave (being a PH.D.) wants to really get an answer to that question, he will.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.I just don't want to post in 5 minutes what took me thousands of hours to learn.
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.Also, the following don't post 100% of their info online for free:
- Dr. Dave (VEPS volumes)
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.The answer is alignment. The hardest part is identifying the ctel accurately and quickly i.e. "visual intelligence."
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
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
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
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