What do you do differently to make each of the three shots in the experiment?
Thanks,
Dave
Thanks,
Dave
CTE experiment, with civil discussion
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Dave you post you stuff after I was home yesterday!
CTCP instead of CTE
FYI, a VEPS customer (who preferred to remain anonymous), after reading this thread, sent me the image below illustrating the three shots in 3D:
He is also suggesting a different alignment method (center-to-contact-point instead of center-to-edge). So we can refer to it as CTCP instead of CTE.
Shots "A," "B," and "C" appear left to right. The target line to the pocket is marked in all three with the ball color (e.g., black for the 8-ball in Shot "B"). The white line is the center-to-contact-point line (CTCPL). The red line is the 1/2 ball parallel shift to the left. The blue line is the pivot back to center, and it does appear to point close to the necessary ghost-ball center for each shot. The pivot length is roughly the same for all three shots. The pivot point is at a relatively short, but comfortable, bridge length, so a rigid-bridge-hand "mechanical pivot" can be used (no "air bridge" or "pivot arc" is required).
Try it out and see what you guys think. It looks like CTCP could have some promise. Although, as with all pivot-based aiming methods, the pivot length is still critical to pocketing a wide range of shots.
Regards,
Dave
FYI, a VEPS customer (who preferred to remain anonymous), after reading this thread, sent me the image below illustrating the three shots in 3D:
He is also suggesting a different alignment method (center-to-contact-point instead of center-to-edge). So we can refer to it as CTCP instead of CTE.
Shots "A," "B," and "C" appear left to right. The target line to the pocket is marked in all three with the ball color (e.g., black for the 8-ball in Shot "B"). The white line is the center-to-contact-point line (CTCPL). The red line is the 1/2 ball parallel shift to the left. The blue line is the pivot back to center, and it does appear to point close to the necessary ghost-ball center for each shot. The pivot length is roughly the same for all three shots. The pivot point is at a relatively short, but comfortable, bridge length, so a rigid-bridge-hand "mechanical pivot" can be used (no "air bridge" or "pivot arc" is required).
Try it out and see what you guys think. It looks like CTCP could have some promise. Although, as with all pivot-based aiming methods, the pivot length is still critical to pocketing a wide range of shots.
Regards,
Dave
We have had many threads over the years dealing with the Center-to-Edge (CTE) aiming system. IMO, these threads have resulted in very little understanding and agreement concerning what CTE really is.
Here's an experiment I hope will help focus the discussion so we can try to arrive at a reasonable, clear, and complete description of CTE.
FYI, descriptions, demonstrations, and illustrations related to the CTE method can be found here.
The experiment involves the following three shots (A, B, and C):
Shot "A" is about a 10-degree cut, shot "B" is about a 15-degree cut, and shot "C" is about a 20-degree cut. All three shots fit into the "thick hit" category of CTE (see my CTE page and Spidey's blog for more info). Also, the CB-to-OB distance is the same for all three shots, so the "shot arc" is the exact same for all three shots (see my CTE page and Spidey's blog for more info).
Here is the CTE aiming procedure for a "thick hit" shot, as I understand it:
1.) ALIGN: (for thick cuts): Start with your cue parallel to the CB-center-to-outside-OB-edge line (CTEL) with the tip pointing at the outside edge of the CB (per the 2nd CTE version on my CTE page).
2.) PIVOT: Then pivot your tip toward the pocket until it reaches the CB's center. The "effective pivot length" or "pivot arc radius" you use during the pivot should be the distance from the bridge to the OB (see Spidey's blog for more info).
Since all three shots are "thick hits," and since the CB-to-OB distance is the same for each, the "effective pivot length" or "pivot arc" is also the same for each (assuming the bridge length is the same for all three shots).
Here's the question I want people to answer with the experiment: What do you do differently with the alignment and/or pivot steps of CTE to pocket each of these three shots?
Thank you in advance for participating and helping to provide more insight and understanding.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
FYI, a VEPS customer (who preferred to remain anonymous), after reading this thread, sent me the image below illustrating the three shots in 3D:
He is also suggesting a different alignment method (center-to-contact-point instead of center-to-edge). So we can refer to it as CCTP instead of CTE.
Shots "A," "B," and "C" appear left to right. The target line to the pocket is marked in all three with the ball color (e.g., black for the 8-ball in Shot "B"). The white line is the center-to-contact-point line (CTCPL). The red line is the 1/2 ball parallel shift to the left. The blue line is the pivot back to center, and it does appear to point close to the necessary ghost-ball center for each shot. The pivot length is roughly the same for all three shots. The pivot point is at a relatively short, but comfortable, bridge length, so a rigid-bridge-hand "mechanical pivot" can be used (no "air bridge" or "pivot arc" is required).
Try it out and see what you guys think. It looks like CTCP could have some promise. Although, as with all pivot-based aiming methods, the pivot length is still critical to pocketing a wide range of shots.
Regards,
Dave
Edited: Not really sure what the diagrams are showing. Deleted post.
Last edited:
Look to Albert:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
:wink::wink::smile:
Thank you "VEPS customer (who preferred to remain anonymous)" and dr_dave.:smile:
CCTP is easy to understand and perform. It appears that the parallel offset of the cue from the CCTP line (CCTPL) is not one tip diameter but 1/2 of the CB or the edge of the CB.:smile:
This 1/2 CB offset may change depending on the distance from the/your bridge to the CB.
This should take less than 1 thousand hours of practice to master.
CCTP is easy to understand and perform. It appears that the parallel offset of the cue from the CCTP line (CCTPL) is not one tip diameter but 1/2 of the CB or the edge of the CB.:smile:
This 1/2 CB offset may change depending on the distance from the/your bridge to the CB.
This should take less than 1 thousand hours of practice to master.
*************
This should take less than 1 thousand hours of practice to master.
*************
In less than 100 hours you can learn to accurately estimate cut angles and their respective target points. I would expect a similar time frame for mastering "equal opposites", "double the distance", CP to CP, or even the dreaded ghost ball. Hell, in a thousand hours you could memorize a table of arctangents.
Why anyone would opt for a method that takes so much longer to master astounds me.
This should take less than 1 thousand hours of practice to master.
*************
In less than 100 hours you can learn to accurately estimate cut angles and their respective target points. I would expect a similar time frame for mastering "equal opposites", "double the distance", CP to CP, or even the dreaded ghost ball. Hell, in a thousand hours you could memorize a table of arctangents.
Why anyone would opt for a method that takes so much longer to master astounds me.
... but not everybody likes numbers and memorization as much as you do. And even if the know the numbers, you still need to be able to visualize the necessary line of the shot and deliver the cue along this line. Numbers won't help with that, right?
Regards,
Dave
Correct. That is why it doesn't make sense to invest so much time on "aiming" when alignment and stroke are so much more important.
This, coupled with the repeated failure of anyone to provide a reasonable description of how CTE works, certainly raises the possibility (or IMO, probability) that CTE is largely an alignment-stroke corrector for some players.
Dr. Dave -- the CTCP method (by the way, you put the acronym letters in the wrong order just under the picture) you introduced in post #23 is decidedly not CTE aiming (as you know). The purpose of this thread, started by you, is to focus the discussion on how shots A, B, and C are made using CTE, not some other method. That means we need answers from people who know Houlian CTE and use it successfully. It would be really nice if we could get that rather than 30 more pages on other stuff.
(I know, it's related, and helpful, and new, and interesting, and ...)
(I know, it's related, and helpful, and new, and interesting, and ...)
FYI, a VEPS customer (who preferred to remain anonymous), after reading this thread, sent me the image below illustrating the three shots in 3D:
He is also suggesting a different alignment method (center-to-contact-point instead of center-to-edge). So we can refer to it as CCTP instead of CTE.
Shots "A," "B," and "C" appear left to right. The target line to the pocket is marked in all three with the ball color (e.g., black for the 8-ball in Shot "B"). The white line is the center-to-contact-point line (CTCPL). The red line is the 1/2 ball parallel shift to the left. The blue line is the pivot back to center, and it does appear to point close to the necessary ghost-ball center for each shot. The pivot length is roughly the same for all three shots. The pivot point is at a relatively short, but comfortable, bridge length, so a rigid-bridge-hand "mechanical pivot" can be used (no "air bridge" or "pivot arc" is required).
Try it out and see what you guys think. It looks like CTCP could have some promise. Although, as with all pivot-based aiming methods, the pivot length is still critical to pocketing a wide range of shots.
Regards,
Dave
It appears the blue pivot line is not going all the way to center CB and if it was all 3 shots as diagramed would be thin shots cut into the side pocket.
Thank God, Dave, at last I see someone using 3D "real" pictures instead of 2D confusing explanations. I just wanted to suggest we should ask CTE users to use either of the below mentioned tools to make thorough explanations.
There are several ways to do that: Virtual Pool 3 computer game, Carom3D (free online download) and CueTable 3D version (Pool.bz forum registration required to use it). I don't know which one Dave used, maybe it is just another kind of program he could name for you to use.
Here is a sample picture taken from Virtual Pool 3 manual
CTE users, I suggest you should use either of them mentioned tools and make a step-by-step presentation of screenshots explaining every step you take. The example given illustrates contact point aiming.
There are several ways to do that: Virtual Pool 3 computer game, Carom3D (free online download) and CueTable 3D version (Pool.bz forum registration required to use it). I don't know which one Dave used, maybe it is just another kind of program he could name for you to use.
Here is a sample picture taken from Virtual Pool 3 manual
CTE users, I suggest you should use either of them mentioned tools and make a step-by-step presentation of screenshots explaining every step you take. The example given illustrates contact point aiming.
Thanks. I've made the correction.
Good point. Although, it is very similar to CTE, and it is one method the three shots can be made with a fixed-pivot-length mechanical pivot. It's not CTE, but it is a very close align-and-pivot "relative" that seems to work in a simple way.
I agree 1000%!!!
Regards,
Dave
Step by step illustrations. You already have enough info to go to a table and try cte if you like. Report back with illustrations of what happened.
I didn't create the 3D illustration. It was provided by one of my VEPS customers (who didn't want to be identified, due to the sometimes-hostile nature of the CTE debates). The program the anonymous customer used was CueOnline.
Personally, I prefer 2D diagrams to 3D illustrations. The same information can be communicated in a much simpler form (although the 3D pictures are pretty), IMO.
Regards,
Dave
Personally, I prefer 2D diagrams to 3D illustrations. The same information can be communicated in a much simpler form (although the 3D pictures are pretty), IMO.
Regards,
Dave
Cookie Man,
Did you try the three shots yet (see below)? I was hoping you would. Weren't you the person who asked me to post them originally?
Please let us know what you do differently, with your version of CTE, to pocket each of the three shots. I hope you don't think this is a "trick" question, or that I am somehow trying to be devious. My only intent is to better understand how different people use CTE effectively, and to find out the different versions and varieties that might exist.
Thanks,
Dave
from dr_dave's original post:
The experiment involves the following three shots (A, B, and C):
Shot "A" is about a 10-degree cut, shot "B" is about a 15-degree cut, and shot "C" is about a 20-degree cut. All three shots fit into the "thick hit" category of CTE (see my CTE page and Spidey's blog for more info). Also, the CB-to-OB distance is the same for all three shots, so the "shot arc" is the exact same for all three shots (see my CTE page and Spidey's blog for more info).
Here is the CTE aiming procedure for a "thick hit" shot, as I understand it:
Since all three shots are "thick hits," and since the CB-to-OB distance is the same for each, the "effective pivot length" or "pivot arc" is also the same for each (assuming the bridge length is the same for all three shots).
Here's the question I want people to answer with the experiment: What do you do differently with the alignment and/or pivot steps of CTE to pocket each of these three shots?
Thank you in advance for participating and helping to provide more insight and understanding.
Did you try the three shots yet (see below)? I was hoping you would. Weren't you the person who asked me to post them originally?
Please let us know what you do differently, with your version of CTE, to pocket each of the three shots. I hope you don't think this is a "trick" question, or that I am somehow trying to be devious. My only intent is to better understand how different people use CTE effectively, and to find out the different versions and varieties that might exist.
Thanks,
Dave
from dr_dave's original post:
The experiment involves the following three shots (A, B, and C):
Shot "A" is about a 10-degree cut, shot "B" is about a 15-degree cut, and shot "C" is about a 20-degree cut. All three shots fit into the "thick hit" category of CTE (see my CTE page and Spidey's blog for more info). Also, the CB-to-OB distance is the same for all three shots, so the "shot arc" is the exact same for all three shots (see my CTE page and Spidey's blog for more info).
Here is the CTE aiming procedure for a "thick hit" shot, as I understand it:
1.) ALIGN: (for thick cuts): Start with your cue parallel to the CB-center-to-outside-OB-edge line (CTEL) with the tip pointing at the outside edge of the CB (per the 2nd CTE version on my CTE page).
2.) PIVOT: Then pivot your tip toward the pocket until it reaches the CB's center. The "effective pivot length" or "pivot arc radius" you use during the pivot should be the distance from the bridge to the OB (see Spidey's blog for more info).
2.) PIVOT: Then pivot your tip toward the pocket until it reaches the CB's center. The "effective pivot length" or "pivot arc radius" you use during the pivot should be the distance from the bridge to the OB (see Spidey's blog for more info).
Since all three shots are "thick hits," and since the CB-to-OB distance is the same for each, the "effective pivot length" or "pivot arc" is also the same for each (assuming the bridge length is the same for all three shots).
Here's the question I want people to answer with the experiment: What do you do differently with the alignment and/or pivot steps of CTE to pocket each of these three shots?
Thank you in advance for participating and helping to provide more insight and understanding.
Cookie Man,
Did you try the three shots yet (see below)? I was hoping you would. Weren't you the person who asked me to post them originally?
Please let us know what you do differently, with your version of CTE, to pocket each of the three shots. I hope you don't think this is a "trick" question, or that I am somehow trying to be devious. My only intent is to better understand how different people use CTE effectively, and to find out the different versions and varieties that might exist.
Thanks,
Dave
from dr_dave's original post:
The experiment involves the following three shots (A, B, and C):
Shot "A" is about a 10-degree cut, shot "B" is about a 15-degree cut, and shot "C" is about a 20-degree cut. All three shots fit into the "thick hit" category of CTE (see my CTE page and Spidey's blog for more info). Also, the CB-to-OB distance is the same for all three shots, so the "shot arc" is the exact same for all three shots (see my CTE page and Spidey's blog for more info).
Here is the CTE aiming procedure for a "thick hit" shot, as I understand it:
1.) ALIGN: (for thick cuts): Start with your cue parallel to the CB-center-to-outside-OB-edge line (CTEL) with the tip pointing at the outside edge of the CB (per the 2nd CTE version on my CTE page).
2.) PIVOT: Then pivot your tip toward the pocket until it reaches the CB's center. The "effective pivot length" or "pivot arc radius" you use during the pivot should be the distance from the bridge to the OB (see Spidey's blog for more info).
Since all three shots are "thick hits," and since the CB-to-OB distance is the same for each, the "effective pivot length" or "pivot arc" is also the same for each (assuming the bridge length is the same for all three shots).
Here's the question I want people to answer with the experiment: What do you do differently with the alignment and/or pivot steps of CTE to pocket each of these three shots?
Thank you in advance for participating and helping to provide more insight and understanding.
All 3 thick hit shots are shot the same exact way, same exact alignment, same pivot, same bridge, same......... everything.
If you truly do the exact same thing on all three shots (like a robot following a set of instructions with absolutely no varieance), it is impossible for all three shots to go. You must agree with this. So you must be doing something different, even if you are not aware or conscious of what you might be doing different.
Here's another way to look at it: If you pocket shot "A," and there is an instant reply machine that makes you do the exact same thing, and I shift your body, bridge and final cue direction to shot "B" and repeat the exact same stroke, shot "B" will not go in the pocket. In other words, you need to do something different to pocket shot "B." That's what we are trying to determine ... what different people do differently to pocket all three shots.
Regards,
Dave