CTE experiment, with civil discussion

[dr_dave]

the CTE approach works.

This has never been in question because we have had numerous testimonials on this forum indicating that it does work. I accept that as fact.

What has been in question is how and why it works. Some people don't care, and that's fine. Others like to know how something works so they can use it more effectively. Others just like to know how something works. Another important question is why it doesn't work for some people. To answer that, we need to understand how the method works.

I think the best answers we have gotten so far for how CTE works to pocket the three shots in my experiment are:

You need to make a small change in your initial alignment and/or you need to change the arc length of the pivot. It has also been suggested by several people (including Stan) that both of these things can be done subconsciously, without thinking about or focusing on the actual adjustments necessary. I think this is totally reasonable and doesn't at all diminish the value that CTE provides to the people who can use it effectively. Aiming systems like CTE provide many tangible benefits.

Regards,
Dave

 

[JB Cases]

"Value," that's the thing that I've really been interested in having defined. What is the actual value of CTE? Can a person start pocketing balls say 50% better over night? Or 40%, or 30%, or on and on? If we could actually measure the increase in consistency, then we could actually measure CTE's value.

Here's my plan: If I can come up with a reasonable way to teach CTE, I will offer it to my students as another alternative aiming method, and will include this instruction as part of my normal course at no extra charge to the student. And if I ever come up with an easy way to explain it (CTE) in print, I will do so in an instructional article and post it on the front page of AZBilliards.com so that everyone can benefit from it for FREE.

I am saying this because I truly believe that the actual benefits that can be derived from CTE are grossly out-weighed by the current time and money investments required to learn it.

Roger

You believe this because you have not learned it.

I have said several times in this thread and other aiming threads that the VALUE to learning a reference point system such as CTE is that the user can then approach almost all shots the same way. Dave Segal has repeated this same statement dozens of times.

So that's A. Now thin cuts and thick cuts and backwards cuts all look like the same shot.

B. is that ball pocketing percentages increase. That's right. Shots which previously were low percentage now become high percentage for the player. Shots which looked impossible now become not only possible but probable. The player gains more consistency.

C. Confidence increases tremendously. Now shots which were faced with fear are no longer scary. They look and feel like any other shot.

D. Your increased ability to pocket balls instills fear in the hearts of your opponents. They can't get away with just leaving you long or thin anymore.

E. Your ability to bank balls increases with the use of an aiming system.

F. You get trained on where the real true aiming line is. No more guessing, no more imagining the ghost ball. No more trying keep your eye on one tiny point. As you use the system it becomes more and more natural to just instantly step into the shot on the right line.

And if all that isn't enough for you then you always have the added value of being part of a club of people who found a better way and were brave enough to stick to it in the face of coordinated negativity towards it.

 

[Elephant Man]

I think the best answers we have gotten so far for how CTE works to pocket the three shots in my experiment are:

You need to make a small change in your initial alignment and/or you need to change the arc length of the pivot. It has also been suggested by several people (including Stan) that both of these things can be done subconsciously, without thinking about or focusing on the actual adjustments necessary. I think this is totally reasonable and doesn't at all diminish the value that CTE provides to the people who can use it effectively. Aiming systems like CTE provide many tangible benefits.

Regards,
Dave

You need to make a small change in your initial alignment
You think?

subconsciously, without thinking about or focusing on the actual adjustments necessary
You wish!

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Agreed. All six images show the exact same thing concerning the CB and OB. The OB-center-to-CB-edge line is the same, regardless of how much you rotate the image. The only thing different in the six images is where the pocket is relative to the balls.

Now, when you do an alignment shift and pivot, you can change the direction of lines going through ball edges or centers. And the line directions will depend on how much you actually shift and the exact arc length with which you actually pivot. But this has already been made clear, and this is where the subconscious adjustments take place.

Regards,
Dave

The OB/CB edge line is the same --- but you're missing crucial information (which surprises me). If the addressable edge of the CB changes, the path through the core changes. C'mon Dr. Dave.

Also, do you really think the pocket moves the exact same with different centers of rotation, different distances to the pocket (radius of a circle) and different OB/CB orientations? I hope you don't, as a doctor.

The OB (center of rotation) creates a circle with the pocket. The OB is the center and the pocket is the edge. Each shot has a different sized "pocket circle." Therefore, the pocket moves different distances based on the identical setup to the 6:00 line. Think of an axel making a complete rotation with different sized tires. If there's a 12" tire and a 24" tire with the same sized axle, which tire goes farther with one complete rotation?

OBVIOUSLY, it's not that extreme with your examples; however, the pocket rotates to different positions on each shot. I'll let you think about it for a little bit.

Now, on different angles to the pocket--- the pocket will rotate at different arc positions on the "pocket circle." Always moving in a "calibrating direction."

So while you're talking about all sorts of adjustments and feel, I'm going to say this is an EXACT system. I just want to make sure I'm on record as saying so.

Geometrically, the exact same alignment to the 6:00 line gives very different results - not insanity at all.

 

[JB Cases]

This has never been in question because we have had numerous testimonials on this forum indicating that it does work. I accept that as fact.

What has been in question is how and why it works. Some people don't care, and that's fine. Others like to know how something works so they can use it more effectively. Others just like to know how something works. Another important question is why it doesn't work for some people. To answer that, we need to understand how the method works.

I think the best answers we have gotten so far for how CTE works to pocket the three shots in my experiment are:

You need to make a small change in your initial alignment and/or you need to change the arc length of the pivot. It has also been suggested by several people (including Stan) that both of these things can be done subconsciously, without thinking about or focusing on the actual adjustments necessary. I think this is totally reasonable and doesn't at all diminish the value that CTE provides to the people who can use it effectively. Aiming systems like CTE provide many tangible benefits.

Regards,
Dave

Maybe you have accepted it as a fact that it works but not without wanting to nail someone down into saying that it requires adjustments.

I am sorry but when I show someone a reference point ball-to-ball system and they suddenly can make shots that they were nowhere close to using ghost ball or feel or instinct then it tells me that the system itself is forcing the player to adopt the correct true aiming line.

It can't be anything but that because the player had zero frame of reference or experience with the shots previously.

When you take a C-player that can't make an ultra thin cut up the rail no matter how many times you explain ghost ball and throw and give that same player a system and they start slicing balls in cleanly then what other conclusion can there be than the system works?

Such an inexperienced player has no instinct to draw on. They have no catalog of successful shots built into their brain to remember.

I don't remember Stan saying that a player has to make a small change to the alignment. I remember him saying that there are 500 or so shots which all fall within the range that CTE covers. What I understand is that you can walk up to the table and use CTE to line up the same way on any of those 500 shots and make the ball IF your other mechanics are sound.

I don't remember Dave saying that a change in arc is neccesary to make the three shots you challenged us with.

As to why the system doesn't work for some people? It's simple, they haven't learned it.

Some of Freddy Bentivegna's banking systems don't work for me. Why not? Because I don't get them yet. However while I was at the pool room one day with the book in hand trying to figure them out a friend walked over and was reading over my shoulder and he got them within a few minutes and was banking balls in from everywhere.

As I have said, someday someone will come up with an easy way to explain this that works for just about everyone. Until then it's just going to be one of those things that remains a mystery to those who haven't learned from someone who really knows it.

 

[dr_dave]

The OB/CB edge line is the same --- but you're missing crucial information (which surprises me). If the addressable edge of the CB changes, the path through the core changes.

I think that is perfectly clear. The key is addressing the CB with the exact alignment necessary to create the required amount of cut after the pivot, for a given pivot arc. Again, I'm not claiming people need to understand or think about this stuff when they are using CTE, I am just trying to help provide an understanding for how and why it works.

Also, do you really think the pocket moves the exact same with different centers of rotation, different distances to the pocket (radius of a circle) and different OB/CB orientations? I hope you don't, as a doctor.

Sorry for the confusion. I didn't mean to agree with that part of Creedo's post. If you rotate the table (or one of your diagrams) about the OB center, the amount the pocket will move depends only on the distance to the pocket, even for radically different cut angles. (For example, if you were to shift the balls in my diagram along an arc from the pocket, the cut angles would change, but the distance to the pocket would remain the same. If you want, I can provide this modified diagram for further discussion). However, I still fail to see the point of your image rotation, especially since you reference the pocket nowhere in your CTE approach.

So while you're talking about all sorts of adjustments and feel, I'm going to say this is an EXACT system. I just want to make sure I'm on record as saying so.

I think the record is clear on this point.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Ponytail]

I have been desperately trying to understand CTE. I've been reading along with this discussion pretty much the whole way through. Here are some things I noticed in Spidey's videos and in JB's videos.

In Spideys video, he states he pivots from around his cue's joint. To me, his cue joint always moved, and was not the pivot point. His pivot point was much closer to his bridge hand. Maybe that was an old video.. not sure.

In JB's video, where he did Dr. Dave's experiment. JB's stroke moves different'y on each shot. It doesn't go strait. Again.. this is what I'm seeing. They may feel that it is.. To me, it does not appear that way.

Spidey's pocket/wheel distance relationship doesn't work when you use Dr. Dave's experiment with the simple adjustment to move the OB closer to the pocket to have the exact same distances from OB to pocket, but keep the distance from the parallel rail the same. The wheel would be the same size, but the angle would actually be a greater difference than what the original positions would be.
The part about the "pocket circle" always moving in a "calibrating direction" completely lost me. I'm totally lost in what this means.

Again.. I'm not giving up on this. I really want to know what you see, and how you see it. But from what I have seen from the video's that were shown, it seems both Spidey and JB are making subconscious adjustments.

I am taking great pains not to offend anyone here, and choosing my wording very carefully. This is only my perception.

I'll continue to watch this tread, and maybe I can figure out what ya'll are talking about. I'm really trying to learn this.

 

[LAMas]

When Stan mentioned the following movements involved with the 500 shots, 7.5" bridge distance, 3/8 of an inch and incremental distances as small as.075"; I realized that he knew what he was explaining - which was different than what others were describing.

I believe that at this point, dr_dave thanked Stan for it was a more cogent explanation of what takes place after the CTE alignment - without giving each of the 500 adjustments away.

"For any of the 500 shots I would first see CTE and align to CTE. Then, I would visually shift my sight to the right cue ball edge and allow my body/eyes to move slightly ‘right’ across the CTEL. My cue is following with its initial left to right movement. My eyes would have already located center cue ball at this stage of the process. My bridge hand would be sliding up the left cue ball edge line and arcing in toward center cue ball. During this ‘bridge hand slide’ my angled cue would arc by the left edge of the cue ball. My ‘bridge hand slide’ and arcing cue would land at center cue ball simultaneously. {My final bridge distance at actual aim would be about 7.5 inches. My bridge distance would not have been constant during its movement to center cue ball.}

What could the range of my total eye/body movement or offset across the CTEL be for the 500 shots in a line from A to C? Let’s call it a range of 3/8 of an inch. Divide 3/8 by 500 to determine my incremental eye location or visual aim difference for each of the 500 shots. I get .075 of an inch. One’s visual and bodily intelligence can easily manage all 500 shots with uncanny precision. It all comes back to the fact that there are countless shots on a pool table. A great way to handle the vast array of shots is to use CTE."

Stan S.

 

[JB Cases]

I have been desperately trying to understand CTE. I've been reading along with this discussion pretty much the whole way through. Here are some things I noticed in Spidey's videos and in JB's videos.

In Spideys video, he states he pivots from around his cue's joint. To me, his cue joint always moved, and was not the pivot point. His pivot point was much closer to his bridge hand. Maybe that was an old video.. not sure.

In JB's video, where he did Dr. Dave's experiment. JB's stroke moves different'y on each shot. It doesn't go strait. Again.. this is what I'm seeing. They may feel that it is.. To me, it does not appear that way.

Spidey's pocket/wheel distance relationship doesn't work when you use Dr. Dave's experiment with the simple adjustment to move the OB closer to the pocket to have the exact same distances from OB to pocket, but keep the distance from the parallel rail the same. The wheel would be the same size, but the angle would actually be a greater difference than what the original positions would be.
The part about the "pocket circle" always moving in a "calibrating direction" completely lost me. I'm totally lost in what this means.

Again.. I'm not giving up on this. I really want to know what you see, and how you see it. But from what I have seen from the video's that were shown, it seems both Spidey and JB are making subconscious adjustments.

I am taking great pains not to offend anyone here, and choosing my wording very carefully. This is only my perception.

I'll continue to watch this tread, and maybe I can figure out what ya'll are talking about. I'm really trying to learn this.

Well, I don't think that there was subconscious adjustment going on but there is certainly a lack of a consistent stroke.

I have learned the past several days that I need to work on my stroke and get back in stroke before attempting to show anyone anything about the systems on a video.

See my earlier post about the frustrations I encountered today. I have two cameras, actually three that I can use, actually four if I count my old dinosaur Sony Hi8 - And I plan to use them to attempt to capture what's happening from as many angles as possible. I am the rankest amateur alive when it comes to making and editing videos. I'd prefer to just do everything raw and uncut.

I honestly believe though that if my stroke was better then I would have made Dr. Dave's three balls many more times than I did.

I actually made all three balls only twice in 30 minutes. But sometimes I made 1 and 2 and bobbled the 3rd. In fact most of the misses were near misses where the ball rattled the pocket. Some of the misses were WAY off because I was second guessing the system and twice I just miscued because I was flapping the elbow like a chicken.

Today I did more video and when I feel comfortable with my stroke and sure that I am really sighting correctly using CTE then I will put it on tape and show you some shots that will blow your mind. I have some thin cuts on video right now that seem impossible.

As I said though it is very difficult to show on video what is actually happening unless it's explained along the way. And for me right now it's difficult to talk into the camera, explain what I am about to do and then get down and do it. If I don't talk then I can make all sorts of shots but you can't really see how I am aiming.

So stay tuned.

As for Spidey's diagrams. If you can get Spidey to explain them in person then I am sure that they will make sense. He has put a LOT of thought into trying to show why this works.

Allright I am out of here. Way past my bedtime.

 

[JB Cases]

When Stan mentioned the following movements involved with the 500 shots, 7.5" bridge distance, 3/8 of an inch and incremental distances as small as.075"; I realized that he knew what he was explaining - which was different than what others were describing.

I believe that at this point, dr_dave thanked Stan for it was a more cogent explanation of what takes place after the CTE alignment - without giving each of the 500 adjustments away.

"For any of the 500 shots I would first see CTE and align to CTE. Then, I would visually shift my sight to the right cue ball edge and allow my body/eyes to move slightly ‘right’ across the CTEL. My cue is following with its initial left to right movement. My eyes would have already located center cue ball at this stage of the process. My bridge hand would be sliding up the left cue ball edge line and arcing in toward center cue ball. During this ‘bridge hand slide’ my angled cue would arc by the left edge of the cue ball. My ‘bridge hand slide’ and arcing cue would land at center cue ball simultaneously. {My final bridge distance at actual aim would be about 7.5 inches. My bridge distance would not have been constant during its movement to center cue ball.}

What could the range of my total eye/body movement or offset across the CTEL be for the 500 shots in a line from A to C? Let’s call it a range of 3/8 of an inch. Divide 3/8 by 500 to determine my incremental eye location or visual aim difference for each of the 500 shots. I get .075 of an inch. One’s visual and bodily intelligence can easily manage all 500 shots with uncanny precision. It all comes back to the fact that there are countless shots on a pool table. A great way to handle the vast array of shots is to use CTE."

Stan S.

The point of this as I see it is that the difference in real placement is so slight that it's pretty much the same motion no matter what shot you're facing in that 500 shots.

If this is what Stan is saying then I agree. And this is what Spidey is saying when he says it's an exact system. Ok it might not result in the bridge hand being placed in EXACTLY the same spot shot to shot but it's so close as to not make a difference. Almost like a CONSCIOUS adjustment would throw it off.

So the conscious and exact method of approaching the shot results in the player laying down on the perfect line to make the ball.

Can we all agree on one point?

That point is that no matter how you get there that there is only ONE track that will allow the player using a level stroke to make the ball. Just one and no other.

If we can all agree on that point only then I submit that CTE is a system which forces the player who knows how to use it onto that ONE LINE no matter where the balls are on the table. (with a few exceptions)

How does that sound?

 

[cookie man]

"Value," that's the thing that I've really been interested in having defined. What is the actual value of CTE? Can a person start pocketing balls say 50% better over night? Or 40%, or 30%, or on and on? If we could actually measure the increase in consistency, then we could actually measure CTE's value.

Here's my plan: If I can come up with a reasonable way to teach CTE, I will offer it to my students as another alternative aiming method, and will include this instruction as part of my normal course at no extra charge to the student. And if I ever come up with an easy way to explain it (CTE) in print, I will do so in an instructional article and post it on the front page of AZBilliards.com so that everyone can benefit from it for FREE.

I am saying this because I truly believe that the actual benefits that can be derived from CTE are grossly out-weighed by the current time and money investments required to learn it.

Roger

In the time you spent posting and reading this thread you could know cte inside and out, all the info is in here. No money, info is here. Have you at least tried it? Most people who bash CTE and say it can't work don't even attempt to hit a ball with it. Have you Roger tried it?

 

[dr_dave]

Excellent post, both in terms of content and civility.

Excellent summary!

Regards,
Dave

I have been desperately trying to understand CTE. I've been reading along with this discussion pretty much the whole way through. Here are some things I noticed in Spidey's videos and in JB's videos.

In Spideys video, he states he pivots from around his cue's joint. To me, his cue joint always moved, and was not the pivot point. His pivot point was much closer to his bridge hand. Maybe that was an old video.. not sure.

In JB's video, where he did Dr. Dave's experiment. JB's stroke moves different'y on each shot. It doesn't go strait. Again.. this is what I'm seeing. They may feel that it is.. To me, it does not appear that way.

Spidey's pocket/wheel distance relationship doesn't work when you use Dr. Dave's experiment with the simple adjustment to move the OB closer to the pocket to have the exact same distances from OB to pocket, but keep the distance from the parallel rail the same. The wheel would be the same size, but the angle would actually be a greater difference than what the original positions would be.
The part about the "pocket circle" always moving in a "calibrating direction" completely lost me. I'm totally lost in what this means.

Again.. I'm not giving up on this. I really want to know what you see, and how you see it. But from what I have seen from the video's that were shown, it seems both Spidey and JB are making subconscious adjustments.

I am taking great pains not to offend anyone here, and choosing my wording very carefully. This is only my perception.

I'll continue to watch this tread, and maybe I can figure out what ya'll are talking about. I'm really trying to learn this.

 

[dr_dave]

Can we all agree on one point?

That point is that no matter how you get there that there is only ONE track that will allow the player using a level stroke to make the ball. Just one and no other.

If we can all agree on that point only then I submit that CTE is a system which forces the player who knows how to use it onto that ONE LINE no matter where the balls are on the table. (with a few exceptions)

How does that sound?

That sounds good with the following amendments:

there is only ONE track that will allow the player using a level stroke to split a pocket. Just one and no other.

X is a system which forces the player who knows how to use it onto that ONE LINE no matter where the balls are on the table. (with a few exceptions), where X is any system (CTE included).

Regards,
Dave

 

[mikepage]

I can't believe people are still talking about this stuff.

The answer is it DOESN'T MATTER where Spidey pivots about. The pivot is unimportant.

Various people report immediate improvement upon adopting a fractional ball approach.

Others report immediate improvement upon adopting a "pivot" approach.

Here's why.

There are five independent "things" involved with aiming.

(1) the pocket
(2) the object ball
(3) the cue ball
(4) the stick
(5) the cyclopsean eye

All 5 are necessary to get the job done.

But the essense of determining the AIM LINE involves just three of these:

the cyclopsean eye,
the cueball,
and the object ball

The pocket should be considered BEFORE determining the AIM LINE

The stick should be considered AFTER determining the aim line.

Many aiming perception problems involve, imo, either

(1) keeping the POCKET in the process too long,
(2) or entering the STICK into the process too early

Those with problem (1) are helped by fractional ball approaches.

Those with problem (2) are helped by pivot-style approaches.

Bear in mind that I spent an entire afternoon watching Hal Houle teach a student--covering up the pocket so they guy couldn't see it and all that. The guy was giddy with his new found skills. I also spent an afternoon watching Spidey play. I listened to what he says, and then I watched what he actually does.

A player MUST consider the pocket before determining the aim line. But once the pocket is considered to determine an object ball contact point or a ghost ball location or (along with the cueball) a fullness of hit, there is no more information needed about the pocket. Many players suffer from beig biased by the pocket when they're down on the shot. For those players, focusing on a ball overlap or on a cueball aim point can help a lot.

Here's the other problem. When you are ready to pull the trigger, the STICK LINE and the AIM LINE are one and the same, and they need to be on the CORRECT AIM LINE. But before you are ready to pull the trigger, while you are just starting to get into position, all three are different. Imagine a red laser beam that is fixed on the CORRECT AIM LINE,
and a green laser beam that is wherever you are looking, and a blue laser beam that goes through the center of the stick.

The CORRECT way to aim, imo, is first to get the green laser beam on the red one, and THEN to bring the blue one on board.

If you don't do that, then you are biased by the stick line coming into view. The "almost right" stick line holds no value, but just like the fun-house almost straight walls and floors, we are drawn to them more than we should be.

So try aiming the shot by getting down into position with the stick off to the side and then with the ball-ball aim in view, bring the stick in from the side. Some people are helped a lot by this. It's a matter of not letting the tail wag the dog.

So no, HOW you pivot doesn't matter. There are no magic rotating airpivoting receding hyperspheres.

The emperor is naked.

I have been desperately trying to understand CTE. I've been reading along with this discussion pretty much the whole way through. Here are some things I noticed in Spidey's videos and in JB's videos.

In Spideys video, he states he pivots from around his cue's joint. To me, his cue joint always moved, and was not the pivot point. His pivot point was much closer to his bridge hand. Maybe that was an old video.. not sure.

In JB's video, where he did Dr. Dave's experiment. JB's stroke moves different'y on each shot. It doesn't go strait. Again.. this is what I'm seeing. They may feel that it is.. To me, it does not appear that way.

Spidey's pocket/wheel distance relationship doesn't work when you use Dr. Dave's experiment with the simple adjustment to move the OB closer to the pocket to have the exact same distances from OB to pocket, but keep the distance from the parallel rail the same. The wheel would be the same size, but the angle would actually be a greater difference than what the original positions would be.
The part about the "pocket circle" always moving in a "calibrating direction" completely lost me. I'm totally lost in what this means.

Again.. I'm not giving up on this. I really want to know what you see, and how you see it. But from what I have seen from the video's that were shown, it seems both Spidey and JB are making subconscious adjustments.

I am taking great pains not to offend anyone here, and choosing my wording very carefully. This is only my perception.

I'll continue to watch this tread, and maybe I can figure out what ya'll are talking about. I'm really trying to learn this.

 

[dr_dave]

Brilliant!

Thank you,
Dave

PS: This (or some version of it) should be posted in every future "aiming system" thread, because it says it all. Good job!

I can't believe people are still talking about this stuff.

The answer is it DOESN'T MATTER where Spidey pivots about. The pivot is unimportant.

Various people report immediate improvement upon adopting a fractional ball approach.

Others report immediate improvement upon adopting a "pivot" approach.

Here's why.

There are five independent "things" involved with aiming.

(1) the pocket
(2) the object ball
(3) the cue ball
(4) the stick
(5) the cyclopsean eye

All 5 are necessary to get the job done.

But the essense of determining the AIM LINE involves just three of these:

the cyclopsean eye,
the cueball,
and the object ball

The pocket should be considered BEFORE determining the AIM LINE

The stick should be considered AFTER determining the aim line.

Many aiming perception problems involve, imo, either

(1) keeping the POCKET in the process too long,
(2) or entering the STICK into the process too early

Those with problem (1) are helped by fractional ball approaches.

Those with problem (2) are helped by pivot-style approaches.

Bear in mind that I spent an entire afternoon watching Hal Houle teach a student--covering up the pocket so they guy couldn't see it and all that. The guy was giddy with his new found skills. I also spent an afternoon watching Spidey play. I listened to what he says, and then I watched what he actually does.

A player MUST consider the pocket before determining the aim line. But once the pocket is considered to determine an object ball contact point or a ghost ball location or (along with the cueball) a fullness of hit, there is no more information needed about the pocket. Many players suffer from beig biased by the pocket when they're down on the shot. For those players, focusing on a ball overlap or on a cueball aim point can help a lot.

Here's the other problem. When you are ready to pull the trigger, the STICK LINE and the AIM LINE are one and the same, and they need to be on the CORRECT AIM LINE. But before you are ready to pull the trigger, while you are just starting to get into position, all three are different. Imagine a red laser beam that is fixed on the CORRECT AIM LINE,
and a green laser beam that is wherever you are looking, and a blue laser beam that goes through the center of the stick.

The CORRECT way to aim, imo, is first to get the green laser beam on the red one, and THEN to bring the blue one on board.

If you don't do that, then you are biased by the stick line coming into view. The "almost right" stick line holds no value, but just like the fun-house almost straight walls and floors, we are drawn to them more than we should be.

So try aiming the shot by getting down into position with the stick off to the side and then with the ball-ball aim in view, bring the stick in from the side. Some people are helped a lot by this. It's a matter of not letting the tail wag the dog.

So no, HOW you pivot doesn't matter. There are no magic rotating airpivoting receding hyperspheres.

The emperor is naked.

 

[Ponytail]

I can't believe people are still talking about this stuff.

The answer is it DOESN'T MATTER where Spidey pivots about. The pivot is unimportant.

Various people report immediate improvement upon adopting a fractional ball approach.

Others report immediate improvement upon adopting a "pivot" approach.

Here's why.

There are five independent "things" involved with aiming.

(1) the pocket
(2) the object ball
(3) the cue ball
(4) the stick
(5) the cyclopsean eye

All 5 are necessary to get the job done.

But the essense of determining the AIM LINE involves just three of these:

the cyclopsean eye,
the cueball,
and the object ball

The pocket should be considered BEFORE determining the AIM LINE

The stick should be considered AFTER determining the aim line.

Many aiming perception problems involve, imo, either

(1) keeping the POCKET in the process too long,
(2) or entering the STICK into the process too early

Those with problem (1) are helped by fractional ball approaches.

Those with problem (2) are helped by pivot-style approaches.

Bear in mind that I spent an entire afternoon watching Hal Houle teach a student--covering up the pocket so they guy couldn't see it and all that. The guy was giddy with his new found skills. I also spent an afternoon watching Spidey play. I listened to what he says, and then I watched what he actually does.

A player MUST consider the pocket before determining the aim line. But once the pocket is considered to determine an object ball contact point or a ghost ball location or (along with the cueball) a fullness of hit, there is no more information needed about the pocket. Many players suffer from beig biased by the pocket when they're down on the shot. For those players, focusing on a ball overlap or on a cueball aim point can help a lot.

Here's the other problem. When you are ready to pull the trigger, the STICK LINE and the AIM LINE are one and the same, and they need to be on the CORRECT AIM LINE. But before you are ready to pull the trigger, while you are just starting to get into position, all three are different. Imagine a red laser beam that is fixed on the CORRECT AIM LINE,
and a green laser beam that is wherever you are looking, and a blue laser beam that goes through the center of the stick.

The CORRECT way to aim, imo, is first to get the green laser beam on the red one, and THEN to bring the blue one on board.

If you don't do that, then you are biased by the stick line coming into view. The "almost right" stick line holds no value, but just like the fun-house almost straight walls and floors, we are drawn to them more than we should be.

So try aiming the shot by getting down into position with the stick off to the side and then with the ball-ball aim in view, bring the stick in from the side. Some people are helped a lot by this. It's a matter of not letting the tail wag the dog.

So no, HOW you pivot doesn't matter. There are no magic rotating airpivoting receding hyperspheres.

The emperor is naked.

Mike...

Thank you for going over all of this. Maybe I should have stated in my post that I already know how to aim and pocket balls. (I personally am very good at seeing where the cueball would contact the table when lined up with the object ball to any part of a pocket/rail. I then roll the cueball across that spot, and magic happens.)
I also know everything you stated in your post. I also get my eyes where I need them to be first, along with my body. I then get the aim line with where my eyes are, and then slide the cue down that line. Exactly as you described. This is not what I am having issues with.

What I don't know, is how to use CTE to get the correct aim line. So.. I'm reading, and trying, and attempting to figure out how John and Dave (Spidey) get to that correct aim line.

So.. again. I'll sit back and watch and read, and with any luck, learn a new way to get the same information I already know how to get. But in a different way.

 

[cookie man]

the cyclopsean eye

Tell me more about this eye.

 

[mikepage]

[...]

What I don't know, is how to use CTE to get the correct aim line. So.. I'm reading, and trying, and attempting to figure out how John and Dave (Spidey) get to that correct aim line.

So.. again. I'll sit back and watch and read, and with any luck, learn a new way to get the same information I already know how to get. But in a different way.

I believe there IS no way to use CTE to get the correct aim line

My point is you will get that information and learn how to use CTE to get the correct aim line once Sisyphus gets the rock up the hill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus

The proponents are using CTE to get the correct aim line much the same way the Tin Man uses the wizard to get a heart and the Scarecrow uses the wizard to get a brain.

 

[LAMas]

the cyclopsean eye

Tell me more about this eye.

Stereoscopic focus in concert with the predominant eye aligned perfectly with the perceived cue trajectory coinciding with the actual.

 

[Ponytail]

I believe there IS no way to use CTE to get the correct aim line

My point is you will get that information and learn how to use CTE to get the correct aim line once Sisyphus gets the rock up the hill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus

The proponents are using CTE to get the correct aim line much the same way the Tin Man uses the wizard to get a heart and the Scarecrow uses the wizard to get a brain.

Thank you for the clarification.

And for the excellent post on what is needed for aiming and pocketing balls.

Peace to you...