Did you even read his statement? He didn't even come close to saying that.
CTE aiming.
- Thread starter Geometry
- Start date
Did you even read his statement? He didn't even come close to saying that.
Roger:
Coincidentally, what Gene stumbled upon with Perfect Aim is the eye placement for CTE (sighting line for CTE). To the best of my knowledge (Gene feel free to agree or deny), Gene really had almost no knowledge of CTE mechanics when he released Perfect Aim.
I made a post in the original Perfect Aim thread (months ago) stating his head position for Perfect Aim was identical to my pre-pivot position with CTE.
Nearly everyone on here is prob doing CTE incorrectly, sighting straight down the CTEL. One must look across the CTEL from a definitive point. It's to that point where I think Gene is trying to get everyone to migrate their eyes. I don't want to say anything beyond that because I know a video is in the near future and I don't wanna spoil anything.
The fact that Gene was able to identify this setup on his own without CTE knowledge speaks to his intelligence as a player.
If I diagrammed CTE, Pro1, 90/90 and Perfect Aim and drew each on their own transparency and placed each on top of one and other, you guys would be AMAZED of the overlap. In fact, I kinda did that in an early thread called CTE/90-90 All the Same System (or something like that). If you haven't read it, search for it and check it out.
For me, personally, I'm amazed at these guys (Hal, RonV, Stan, Gene). I could never have come up with this stuff on my own. So, Gene's not connecting the systems - but the eye placements are the same.
Dave
Perfect Aim isn't a system as much as it is a technique (which can be part of many systems).
The others are definitely the same mathematical system. Think of them as different limits to the same equation.... almost like how Bosonic, HO, and HE can be compressed into M-theory. Nobody here prob has a clue what that means, but it's the best example that comes to mind.
When it comes to pivot aiming, there's only one REAL system. Everything else is a variation or subset.
Dave
P.S. Lou, I wrote a 20-page technical doc on this stuff and I called it (ironically) "Pool's Unified Field Theory" --- because it is.
Last edited:
That is funny! I think you have figured out genomachino Roger!
There's got to be laws against this sort of advertising! Now I gotta buy the video just out of curiosity!
Funny, Coco. You really pump up CTE (so maybe you're doing it correctly)? If you are, you're sticking your nose where he's been preaching all along - yet you knock him. Very strange to me.
Dave,
Thanks for the comments. Not to be argumentative, but I just think some people are giving Gene too much credit. I really don't think he came up with anything on his own. Everything he has to say about getting the eyes aligned was outlined in great detail by Richard Kranicki in his book Answers To A Pool Players Prayers which was published in 1999 and endorsed by Jerry Briesath and Buddy Hall. Gene didn't unveil his version of these techniques until 2009.
It's OK with me if Gene sells a video and lessons on eye alignment, but is he or is he not trying to piggyback on the CTE threads for the sole purpose of generating more interest in Perfect Aim? If he is, he's just creating more confusion for CTE.
I think we all deserve an answer to my original question.
Roger
I think I answered it in my earlier post. Regardless of where you think Gene got his info (his or not), the info "is what it is."
Who cares what he sells, how much he sells or where he sells it. People do that every day on azb. As long as he doesn't lie - I don't see a prob. His original post was accurate. Stating a fact isn't piggy backing.
???
edit: Back to obscurity. Too much politics and player-hating, I see.
Last edited:
I think I answered it in my earlier post. Regardless of where you think Gene got his info (his or not), the info "is what it is."
Who cares what he sells, how much he sells or where he sells it. People do that every day on azb. As long as he doesn't lie - I don't see a prob. His original post was accurate. Stating a fact isn't piggy backing.
???
edit: Back to obscurity. Too much politics and player-hating, I see.
Cool. You can buy Kranicki's book at www.cuestix.com. Then you won't need Perfect Aim or CTE.
And I don't know where you get this "player-hating" thing from; I think Buddy Hall is the greatest!
Roger----->Still smilin' here!
All right well, so here I have posted two videos of me making balls. Now I am NOT USING CTE as defined by Spidey, however I am making balls from the same cueball position with various object ball positions.
I am approaching each shot exactly the same way - at least this is my conscious perception. I line up on each shot exactly the same way conscioulsy.
When Dave Segal was in my booth at the SBE he made every shot he attempted. I don't so I know that I am NOT doing it the right way.
What I am showing here is that it IS possible to make a wide range of shots using the SAME alignment, or better put by sighting the aim the SAME way to the same portion of the ball using the center of the cueball EVERY TIME.
Feel free to dissect them at will but keep in mind that I AM NOT USING CTE as taught by Hal, Dave, or Stan. At least I don't think that I am.
Creedo has already done some prelimiinary analysis. I don't offer anything about this other than I SWEAR on Mosconi's grave that I CONSCIOUSLY lined up the same way on every shot.
Warning, these are long and loud videos. Sorry the machines humming in the background are too loud.
www.jbcases.com/videos/jbvideos.html
I am approaching each shot exactly the same way - at least this is my conscious perception. I line up on each shot exactly the same way conscioulsy.
When Dave Segal was in my booth at the SBE he made every shot he attempted. I don't so I know that I am NOT doing it the right way.
What I am showing here is that it IS possible to make a wide range of shots using the SAME alignment, or better put by sighting the aim the SAME way to the same portion of the ball using the center of the cueball EVERY TIME.
Feel free to dissect them at will but keep in mind that I AM NOT USING CTE as taught by Hal, Dave, or Stan. At least I don't think that I am.
Creedo has already done some prelimiinary analysis. I don't offer anything about this other than I SWEAR on Mosconi's grave that I CONSCIOUSLY lined up the same way on every shot.
Warning, these are long and loud videos. Sorry the machines humming in the background are too loud.
www.jbcases.com/videos/jbvideos.html
I still playing around with CTE, honestly I think you need to work with it like any new tool. IMHO CTE has MERIT!!!!
I showed this to Jerry Brieseth..........
Hi there Roger,
I showed this to Jerry when I was playing in the US OPEN. He really liked what he saw. This is absolutely not the same thing or Jerry would have said so. In fact as I was showing him this he called Corey Deuel over and wanted me to show him right away. Corey's match was up so he had to go but Jerry was impressed with what he saw.
I have alot of respect for Jerry. One of the top if not the top pool teacher in the country. I got my first and only pool lesson from this wizard.
Great Guy also.
Please have the facts right before you assume and put it on the internet. Do some research.
I'm sure if I showed Perfect Aim to Buddy he would say the same thing.
When the new Perfect Aim Complete video comes out and you get a chance to see it you will know then that it is not the same as what you think.
Once the new video is done everyone will know that Perfect Aim is totally uique from anything out there. It's tough to learn sometimes but simple to understand once you grasp the simple concept.
Perfect Aim Complete will take care of this. But I will still offer free phone help to anyone that has any trouble understanding or learning Perfect Aim.
I'm just trying to give a wonderful gift to pool. It's called Perfect Aim.
Hi there Roger,
I showed this to Jerry when I was playing in the US OPEN. He really liked what he saw. This is absolutely not the same thing or Jerry would have said so. In fact as I was showing him this he called Corey Deuel over and wanted me to show him right away. Corey's match was up so he had to go but Jerry was impressed with what he saw.
I have alot of respect for Jerry. One of the top if not the top pool teacher in the country. I got my first and only pool lesson from this wizard.
Great Guy also.
Please have the facts right before you assume and put it on the internet. Do some research.
I'm sure if I showed Perfect Aim to Buddy he would say the same thing.
When the new Perfect Aim Complete video comes out and you get a chance to see it you will know then that it is not the same as what you think.
Once the new video is done everyone will know that Perfect Aim is totally uique from anything out there. It's tough to learn sometimes but simple to understand once you grasp the simple concept.
Perfect Aim Complete will take care of this. But I will still offer free phone help to anyone that has any trouble understanding or learning Perfect Aim.
I'm just trying to give a wonderful gift to pool. It's called Perfect Aim.
John in that video are you saying that you shot everyone of them shots
aiming your ferrule edge at the side of the ball to make all them shots'
And your not making any adjustments?
I don't mean to be busting your chops here, Gene, but I always do my research before I put anything on the internet. I wish a few others would do the same.
I started to write here about my very recent conversation with Jerry concerning Perfect Aim, but I think that would be better done in a PM. You can look for that tomorrow.
I am still curious about Perfect Aim and CTE's relationship. If a person uses one, can they forget about using the other? Or do they need to be used together to obtain the best results from both?
Roger
p.s. I found out tonight that "Answers To A Pool Players Prayers" has been discontinued with CueStix. I hope it's still available somewhere, however, because it had a ton of information in it about how the eyes work together and how to use them properly for sighting shots.
Wow -- string theories! Could that post be the first reference to string theories on a pool forum? If we're lucky, this post will be the last such reference!
Last edited:
Not any conscious adjustments. I am deliberately sighting and even pointing my ferrule just past the edge of the ball on each shot during the video to illustrate where I am sighting.
Now, Creedo has said that his frame by frame analysis indicates that my final shot/stick line is not always exactly on the line I was looking at when getting down on the ball. Sometimes the line was just to the inside of the edge and sometimes to the outside of the edge.
But the main thing I wanted to impart was that I was deliberately doing the same exact motion when sighting and getting into my stance every time. Now if there is a pivot, hip or otherwise then it's happening automatically. I THINK that since I do use one of Hal Houle's fractional aiming systems otherwise that this has MAYBE trained me in doing whatever pivot needs to be there - but I don't know this - I just use the sight-get down-and whack 'em method without thinking about whether I am on the right line or not.
Here is another nice puzzle for the geometry fans who think that GHOST BALL diagrams explain everything. Thank you to Creedo for reminding me of this shot that Bert Kinister demonstrates on one of his videos.
The "paper diagram" says that the 10 ball must go to rail and nowhere near the pocket. Try it and watch the 10 go in the pocket almost every time.
I personally feel that a shot like this is one part of understanding how aiming systems like CTE work. Obviously just about any of us can line up on this ball as if the cue ball is going to hit the ten full in the face. If the two balls are much closer together then it's impossible to make the 10 if you line up to hit it head on. So why does this work with 8 feet between the balls????
Anyway, feel free to make a diagram with high level equations and graphs explaining it.
I just got down and made the shot like five out of seven times. Thank you Creedo for reminding me of this technique as I am sure it will come in handy.
I figured out CTE. It works analogously to a TDC (torpedo data computer) on WWII subs. When you pivot there is a lateral shift of the balls in your view. Balls further away shift less than the closer balls and the magnitude of the shift between the balls gives you their distance relative to eachother. This gives you the distance information you need to make the shot. You still need to know where the pocket is but the thin/thick reference you initially take is usually good enough (it's more than just thick or thin though, but not much). In my implementation the tip offset and pivot point don't really matter much either. I know the purists out there are going to love that comment although I'm sure a set drill will improve consistency. Much less conscious processing of spacial data. It feels more like throwing a rock than mapping a shot consciously. Like Spidey was mentioning earlier it's more effective to get your eye out of the plane of the cue. This also will give your brain some more offset data that will aid in processing the shot. I can see why this is such a PITA to explain. The cue just kind of rotates where it needs to go and pull the trigger.
I don't think you can use strait trig to explain this system. It's going to involve some calculus. Enough that I'd need to dust off a text book to even attempt it. I don't think it would be really difficult, my calc is just rusty. I might try later this summer.
I think this is it.
I don't think you can use strait trig to explain this system. It's going to involve some calculus. Enough that I'd need to dust off a text book to even attempt it. I don't think it would be really difficult, my calc is just rusty. I might try later this summer.
I think this is it.
Last edited:
Human nature is to pocket that ball -- even though you "think" you want to rail it
John:
While I'm trying my best to stay out of any "pro-"/"con-" CTE debates, I have to answer your post, specifically the shot you detail above.
If someone showed you this shot, I'm deeply surprised that the person who showed you didn't reveal the real reason why this shot "goes in." It has nothing to do with any particular aiming system. The answer lies in human nature, and our desire for "success" versus failure.
When shooting this shot, in the deep recesses of our mind, we want that ball to go into the pocket. We can line-up all we want on trying to hit center ball, but at that distance, we *will* steer the cue. Very, very slightly, mind you, but enough to cut the ball. At that distance, even 1/8" of steer is enough to cut the ball down the rail.
Want to prove it to yourself? Put a LaserStroke on your cue and shoot that shot again. Focus on maintaining that laser line dead center in the middle of both the cue ball *and* the 10-ball. As long as you don't have severe-enough stroke anomalies (e.g. a "hitch" at the last second), you'll send that 10-ball into the rail, and it won't pocket.
Then, take that LaserStroke off, and try the shot again. Now, at this point, depending on "you," one of two things will happen: A.) the LaserStroke will have reminded your muscles enough on how to keep an absolutely straight stroke for long-distance shots and you'll send the ball into the rail, or... B.) You'll return to pocketing the ball. My bet is, because you've adopted pivot aiming, you'll do choice "B" -- you'll pocket the ball. It is HUMAN NATURE to do this -- you "want" to pocket the ball, and your muscles will do what they have to do to make sure that happens (i.e. a slight cut), even though you "think" you want to send that ball into the rail. Keep in mind, I'm not saying you have a severe hitch in your stroke, or that you can't shoot straight. I'm not saying that at all. I'm only saying that, at that distance, the smallest "pivot" (or steer) -- 1/8" as an example, which is just about imperceptible to you -- will pocket that 10-ball.
No need for your [admittedly sarcastic] "equations and graphs." The LaserStroke will prove it to you. Try it. See for yourself. In fact, it's not even an argument of science or physics. It's the human mind. JoeW may be able to lend his considerable talents of understanding the inner workings of the human mind to explain what's going on with this shot. (JoeW, if you're reading this, what say you?)
Respectfully,
-Sean
John:
While I'm trying my best to stay out of any "pro-"/"con-" CTE debates, I have to answer your post, specifically the shot you detail above.
If someone showed you this shot, I'm deeply surprised that the person who showed you didn't reveal the real reason why this shot "goes in." It has nothing to do with any particular aiming system. The answer lies in human nature, and our desire for "success" versus failure.
When shooting this shot, in the deep recesses of our mind, we want that ball to go into the pocket. We can line-up all we want on trying to hit center ball, but at that distance, we *will* steer the cue. Very, very slightly, mind you, but enough to cut the ball. At that distance, even 1/8" of steer is enough to cut the ball down the rail.
Want to prove it to yourself? Put a LaserStroke on your cue and shoot that shot again. Focus on maintaining that laser line dead center in the middle of both the cue ball *and* the 10-ball. As long as you don't have severe-enough stroke anomalies (e.g. a "hitch" at the last second), you'll send that 10-ball into the rail, and it won't pocket.
Then, take that LaserStroke off, and try the shot again. Now, at this point, depending on "you," one of two things will happen: A.) the LaserStroke will have reminded your muscles enough on how to keep an absolutely straight stroke for long-distance shots and you'll send the ball into the rail, or... B.) You'll return to pocketing the ball. My bet is, because you've adopted pivot aiming, you'll do choice "B" -- you'll pocket the ball. It is HUMAN NATURE to do this -- you "want" to pocket the ball, and your muscles will do what they have to do to make sure that happens (i.e. a slight cut), even though you "think" you want to send that ball into the rail. Keep in mind, I'm not saying you have a severe hitch in your stroke, or that you can't shoot straight. I'm not saying that at all. I'm only saying that, at that distance, the smallest "pivot" (or steer) -- 1/8" as an example, which is just about imperceptible to you -- will pocket that 10-ball.
No need for your [admittedly sarcastic] "equations and graphs." The LaserStroke will prove it to you. Try it. See for yourself. In fact, it's not even an argument of science or physics. It's the human mind. JoeW may be able to lend his considerable talents of understanding the inner workings of the human mind to explain what's going on with this shot. (JoeW, if you're reading this, what say you?)
Respectfully,
-Sean