CTE experiment, with civil discussion

Jal said:
Yes, it does.

Basic shot geometry:

View attachment 135453

With pre-alignment and pivot, the pivot distance for a successful shot can be determined from bc' and bg'.

View attachment 135456

An example of the above as applied to CTE. This includes a determination of the corresponding pivot distance margin of error required to hold the object ball within some directional error.

View attachment 135457




Jim
Click to expand...

Please show a diagram of CTE - center of CB aimed at the edge of the OB.

I see the right triangle but I dont know what the parallel offset from CTE distance is for a 30 degree angle cut or are you showng a 60 degree cut?.

In classic CTE, the 30 degree cut, there is no shift for CTE is a natural CTEL for a 30 degree cut. All other cut angles requires a shift of some distance like one cue tip diameter in one explanation and 1/2 CB in another.

Thanks in advance.
 
Thanks Jim. That's one more thing I can scratch off my list (which I didn't really want to do, hence the thanks).

Regards,
Dave
Jal said:
Yes, it does.

Basic shot geometry:

View attachment 135453

With pre-alignment and pivot, the pivot distance for a successful shot can be determined from bc' and bg'.

View attachment 135456

An example of the above as applied to CTE. This includes a determination of the corresponding pivot distance margin of error required to hold the object ball within some directional error.

View attachment 135457


Jim
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This deserves to get bumped periodically since it is so insightful:

mikepage said:
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 cyclopean eye

All 5 are necessary to get the job done.

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

the cyclopean 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.
Click to expand...
 
Hi!
Just wanted to say that this

mikepage said:
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.
Click to expand...

is true.
 
CreeDo said:
Here we go again, but with a slightly different perspective. Let's work backwards from the ball going into the hole, to post pivot, to pre pivot. Say the first diagram is a successful CTE shot. We're visually aiming center-to-edge before the pivot, and after the pivot we have a good line of aim and make the ball.

What I'm hearing is the pivot is the same every single time. Like you might pivot exactly 4.5 degrees every time, assuming bridge length didn't have to change. So in the 2nd shot, we moved the pair of balls, and they're now further north of the desired pocket.

The final line of aim (the one that puts the ball in the hole) is shown as diagrammed. Working backwards, we "unpivot" the exact same 4.5 degrees as before. The pre-pivot line is different as you'd expect.

Now spidey is saying two contradictory things here that drive me nuts:

1. You are aiming center to edge pre-pivot, and the entire system works on known quantities... you don't have to estimate or guess because the center of ball A and the edge of ball B are easy to see visually.

2. He's saying your perspective changes depending on how you address the shot. True. But if we address the 2nd shot differently (in a way that causes the 4.5 degree pivot to end up RIGHT ON the line of aim)... then the initial line of aim does NOT visually pass through the cue ball center, and does NOT visually pass through the object ball edge. It passes through unknown points in space that would be hard to estimate/judge/imagine.

In fact, there appears to be NOTHING concrete a person can use to choose the correct line of address... the correct "edge" if you will. Addressing the shot is a complex process with many variables.. where you plant your feet, how much you turn your hips, where you place your bridge hand... this not a step-by-step concrete process you can teach to a kid. Getting that kid on the correct line of aim will require estimates and guessing. Then he has to successfully pivot, like a robot, the same 4.5 degrees. Not a small feat.

cteaiee1.jpg

cteaiee2.jpg
Click to expand...

This is what I'm having issues with. If you shift your perspective around you are no longer aiming at the edge of the OB reference the actual CB location. It seems to me to sort of defeat the purpose of CTE. If you're not using the actual OB edge reference the CB then it is possible to sink everything with a fixed offset distance and fixed pivot. You just aren't aiming at the edge anymore.
 
Jal said:
Yes, it does.

Basic shot geometry:

View attachment 135453

With pre-alignment and pivot, the pivot distance for a successful shot can be determined from bc' and bg'.

View attachment 135456

An example of the above as applied to CTE. This includes a determination of the corresponding pivot distance margin of error required to hold the object ball within some directional error.

View attachment 135457


Jim
Click to expand...

Please diagram this so that I can predict the parallel shift of the cue to the left of CTE.

Thanks in advance.
img062.jpg
 
CocoboloCowboy said:
Wow Jim you put a lot of work in to this, is is easy to see your point, and the Graphic ROCKS!

I dabbled a little more with CTE today on a 5' x 10' Snooker Table with POOL BALLS! There is something there, and I just need to give it more time, but I think CTE is the REAL DEAL. Maybe in a couple of week I will try it in a small tournament, to see if I can pull off a win, or place in the GREEN.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the kind words CocoboloCowboy. I was glad Beer:30 brought it up, since I did spend maybe 6-8 hrs with MS. Paint (I'm slooow) and wanted it to see the light of day at least once. :)

I've been on the anti-CTE side (or any offset and pivot method), and am sure that they don't yield a workable aim-line on your typical shot...if followed religiously (sans any "feel" adjustments). I believe you were very skeptical too. But, like you, I'm getting a little excited about it, or at least the discussions surrounding it in this thread (thanks Dr. Dave!). I think the long and persistent efforts by everyone involved (skeptics, info seekers and proponents alike) is finally paying some dividends. Mike Page's comments concerning the aiming process were a highlight for me, and finally I think, shed some light on the beneficial aspects. I still think there might be a less complicated way of realizing them, but...

Jim
 
LAMas said:
Please show a diagram of CTE - center of CB aimed at the edge of the OB.

I see the right triangle but I dont know what the parallel offset from CTE distance is for a 30 degree angle cut or are you showng a 60 degree cut?.

In classic CTE, the 30 degree cut, there is no shift for CTE is a natural CTEL for a 30 degree cut. All other cut angles requires a shift of some distance like one cue tip diameter in one explanation and 1/2 CB in another.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
LAmas, I'm really slow at making diagrams (but will if needed). Maybe I can answer without one. I should emphasize that I'm not a CTE proponent, just the opposite, but thanks to you and everyone else, am starting to see some good things.

The diagrams were just to define the variable names for the ensuing math. They weren't geared to any particular shot or offset-and-aim method. I probably should have showed the parallel offset for the CTE application, as you point out. Maybe this will answer your question.

Since the 30 degree cut is the dividing line between shifting one-ball radius to either the outside or inside of the CB, as you say, no shift is required. In other words, if you did shift, the pivot location would be an infinite distance behind the butt of the cue, which is, of course, equivalent to a parallel shift right back to center. With the graphs in post #87, that's indicated by the steepness of the curves as the desired cut angle approaches 30 degrees . If that doesn't clear anything up, let me know and I'll try to do a diagram late tonight.

Jim
 
Beer:30 said:
This is what I'm having issues with. If you shift your perspective around you are no longer aiming at the edge of the OB reference the actual CB location. It seems to me to sort of defeat the purpose of CTE. If you're not using the actual OB edge reference the CB then it is possible to sink everything with a fixed offset distance and fixed pivot. You just aren't aiming at the edge anymore.
Click to expand...

Regarding perspective.

That is the whole purpose of CTE or any other form of fractional aiming (better than my term which was reference point aiming)

Your earlier post about the pocket being 2x wider than the ball is pat of the key here. This gives the player some leeway to be "off" the dead nuts center line and still pocket the ball.

This is where the system comes into play. It puts the player on the correct aiming line. What happens after that is up to the player.

I am certain that given the time Dave Segal and Stan Shuffet and Ron Vitello could construct an apparatus that would "aim" using the fractional method of their choice and the resulting cue stick position would be such that it would be on the perfect aiming line.

If we just focus on the aiming line, or corridor if you will. There is only one which will work and all else will not.

My own observation is that when I use a fractional ball system I get to the exact line where the ghost ball is. I will attempt to show this on video today as I marked up the table yesterday in preparation for it.

So based on the fact that there is only ONE approach to the object ball that will work to pocket it (I call this a corridor rather than a line because the reality is that the LINE is actually several lines tightly grouped that will work), the aiming system forces the user onto that corridor.

Using CTE for example there and standing behind the cueball there are only TWO possibilities to line up the CENTER of the cueball with the EDGE of the object ball. The center of the cueball is fixed and unmoving. You can walk around it. If you walk all the way around the table you will see that the cue ball and object only can possibly align on one small slice of the circle created by the center of the cueball.

And when you get to that small slice the center of the cueball can only line up to one edge or the other.

Obviously because the pocket is fixed in place one center to edge line will definitely be wrong for sending the object ball in the direction of the pocket and one will be right.

These are the fixed reference points there can be no others.

So assuming that one can now see the only possible intersection of center of the cueball and the edge of the object ball the question comes up does this then actually truly really produce a way for the player to then step into the shot with the cue placed on the line which it needs to be in order to send the cueball down the correct corridor to send the object ball towards the open pocket?

To me this is the essence of the whole debate and it's the part that people like Mike Page and Dr. Dave find somewhat unbelievable and which the users of CTE swear by.

Mike Page is right, there are plenty of factors that affect how one lines up on a shot. Obviously vision is the big one. It's pretty much a given that most people have a dominant eye, and that people have varying degrees of depth perception. You can find all sorts of data on this on the web.

Pool is the only top sporting game where you must direct a sphere into another sphere using a long thin implement.

There was a man a while back who invented a stroke/shot trainer which had a little sensor on it that you could set to very narrow (hard) or somewhat wider (easy). The idea was that you would shoot the cueball only towards the target and the sensor would beep if your cueball landed on the target. Very few people could get the beep on the hard setting.

Which means either that very few people could even line up to make a straight shot using the cueball only or that few people can control where they hit the cueball when lined up. Or some of both.

The point being that Mike is right. Aiming is complex for both physiological reasons of eye dominance, depth perception, and physical ability and also for psychological reasons. The pysch reasons are the shot is thin, the pocket is tight, if I miss this shot....etc.....

Where Mike is wrong in my opinion, and I hate to disagree with him especially as he plays very very good and always cheerfully takes my money, is that there IS a way to get to the aiming line using fractional ball aiming methods such as CTE.

And one day this way will be described clearly and concisely with diagrams that are easy to understand and with videos that are easy to understand.

Until then to paraphrase the great Eddie Felson, 'we're just talking around things here, the thing that counts is the guy who makes the shots and that's the same in all walks of life'.
 
Last edited:
Jal said:
LAmas, I'm really slow at making diagrams (but will if needed). Maybe I can answer without one. I should emphasize that I'm not a CTE proponent, just the opposite, but thanks to you and everyone else, am starting to see some good things.

The diagrams were just to define the variable names for the ensuing math. They weren't geared to any particular shot or offset-and-aim method. I probably should have showed the parallel offset for the CTE application, as you point out. Maybe this will answer your question.

Since the 30 degree cut is the dividing line between shifting one-ball radius to either the outside or inside of the CB, as you say, no shift is required. In other words, if you did shift, the pivot location would be an infinite distance behind the butt of the cue, which is, of course, equivalent to a parallel shift right back to center. With the graphs in post #87, that's indicated by the steepness of the curves as the desired cut angle approaches 30 degrees . If that doesn't clear anything up, let me know and I'll try to do a diagram late tonight.

Jim
Click to expand...

Thanks for considering my request, but the geometry, equations and diagrams would, like in this and other simmilar threads, open you up to more diagrams - if they could prove why CTE is mathematically defineable.

I for example, like most, hold that there are two shots that don't need any system and they are the straight in shot and the 30 degree cut at CTE. The other cuts would be 2 degrees through 29 and 31 through 90.

There are those that hold that a one tip diameter lateral/parallel shift is all that is necessary and others say 1/2 CB shift. As you say, once you shift, the pivot (bridge location) required for a particular cut can lie anywhere (short of infinity) behind the butt.

I hold that rather than pivoting 10-12 inches or all the way back to the hip, that one can assign offsets in small increments for each angle to be cut outward from the center of the CB to the one tip diameter or 1/2 CB - whatever works for ones normal bridge distance and tip diameter etc.

After that, I hold that as the OB is moved farther away, the included aim angle must decrease to compensate for the distance, because if you only use the original stroke position, the CB will eventually miss the OB to the outside.

That said, the increments that I mentioned above would become smaller and smaller as the OB is moved farther away. There isn't enough time to calculate, or to use a look up table, what those increments would be for any distance from the CB the OB may be for a given shot.

You could create such a look up table, but that would be an academic excercise.

At the last, i determined that, from the stroking position, the OB will appear smaller than the CB that is nearest to you. I concluded that the when the OB edge is sighted, the distance from the edge to the center appears smaller and can be used to compensate for the smaller included angle of aim for OBs that are farther away.

I won't ask you to diagram any further for I won't use them for I use more direct methods to aim all of the cut angles like double distance, 90/90/ and ghost ball.

Thanks for your help.
 
LAMas said:
Tap, tap, tap,
I can pocket balls, get shape and run racks more easily than I can get the nuts behind CTE. I won't use it but I am inquisitive as to it's accuracy and utility.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Well the only way to find out about the accuracy and utility is to play someone who uses it and see if they can do more than you.

I was "roughed up" on RSB way back when for becoming a Houle system convert and evangelist. Oh I was told that I was eating magical mushrooms and trusting the force and a lot worse than that.

Then I went to Chicago and played in a little RSB tournament against some of the people who had been the biggest opponents of the systems.

I beat one of them playing nine ball and the other one playing one pocket using Hal's systems.

I finished second or third in that little event and the other person who finished ahead of me, Fred Agnir, is a big proponent of Hal's systems and knows them way better than I do.

Despite what Mike Page says about people just getting there through faith in oneself, i.e. the tinman comment, it's not true.

I have personally witnessed C players, APA 3s (true APA3) making shots that were far beyond their skill set when introduced to a system. Those players can't will themselves to find the correct aiming line for shots that they could never make pre-system.

Now, having said that it is hard to argue with Mike because he has put a lot of thought into what happens on a pool table. And with his new poolroom he has a great base of players to experiment with. I just wish that instead of playing beside Hal or watching Dave Segal he had participated.

Then we would have had Mike's thoughtful insight coupled with hands on experience with the source. As it is we have, according to Mike, only his observational viewpoint coupled with his opinion on the subject.

Now, I don't mind changing my viewpoint if proven wrong. Does overspin exist? Well prior to watching Mike's videos on the subject I would have bet that it does. After watching his videos I am confident in saying that it does not.

There is a reason that the systems work. And it's definitely concrete and not faith-based. What is faith based though is having the trust to pull the trigger when the line the system puts you on feels wrong. And it feels wrong because you were doing it the wrong way previously. Not YOU personally, but those of us who use the systems know this feeling very well.

If you are running racks consistently and making all the shots you want to make then don't change a thing. I didn't think I needed to change when Hal showed up. I had no intention of listening to that old crackpot and was only humoring my friend Bob Johnson's request to meet him.

I felt like a pretty player WITHOUT Hal's systems. And I had taken a few scalps gambling locally so I wasn't a total pushover in the Denver/Ft. Collins gambling/tournament scene. I mean I wasn't a match for the top guys there but I could beat any of them in any given set if I was in gear.

After learning Hal's systems my game did in fact go to a higher level. I won a few tougher tournaments.

So from personal experience I KNOW that there is something accurate and valuable here.

If you ever do get it when it comes to CTE or any like system you won't believe the difference.
 
JB Cases said:
Well the only way to find out about the accuracy and utility is to play someone who uses it and see if they can do more than you.

That other person might be able to "do more" for reasons unrelated to knowledge of CTE.​

I was "roughed up" on RSB way back when for becoming a Houle system convert and evangelist. Oh I was told that I was eating magical mushrooms and trusting the force and a lot worse than that.

Then I went to Chicago and played in a little RSB tournament against some of the people who had been the biggest opponents of the systems.

I beat one of them playing nine ball and the other one playing one pocket using Hal's systems.

I finished second or third in that little event and the other person who finished ahead of me, Fred Agnir, is a big proponent of Hal's systems and knows them way better than I do.

Despite what Mike Page says about people just getting there through faith in oneself, i.e. the tinman comment, it's not true.

I have personally witnessed C players, APA 3s (true APA3) making shots that were far beyond their skill set when introduced to a system. Those players can't will themselves to find the correct aiming line for shots that they could never make pre-system.

But it wasn't CTE that you learned years ago. It wasn't CTE that you used in that tournament. It wasn't CTE that you taught to low-skill-level players and saw them improve instantly. Right? It was a fractional-ball aiming system. That is, one aims some reference point on the cue ball (such as its center) at some reference point on or near the object ball (such as its center, its quarter point, its edge, etc.) Fractional-ball aiming systems are full of "holes." To make all the shots, one must somehow -- consciously or subconsciously -- make adjustments from those reference aim points on some shots.

CTE is not a fractional-ball aiming system. Yes, CTE involves an initial sighting along a center-to-edge line, but the final cue-stick aim for the stroke involves no reference at all to the fractional parts of the object ball or to the degree of "overlap" between the cue ball and object ball. In fact, Hal said don't even look at the object ball after the pivot; just look at the cue ball. So, ignoring english, the basic CTE user (i.e., one who is following the mechanical prescription precisely) is always just stroking the cue stick into the post-pivot center of the cue ball with no reference to anything on the object ball, i.e., no fractional aiming.​

Now, having said that it is hard to argue with Mike because he has put a lot of thought into what happens on a pool table. And with his new poolroom he has a great base of players to experiment with. I just wish that instead of playing beside Hal or watching Dave Segal he had participated.

Then we would have had Mike's thoughtful insight coupled with hands on experience with the source. As it is we have, according to Mike, only his observational viewpoint coupled with his opinion on the subject.

I'm going to bet that, after spending hours learning about CTE from Hal and Dave, Mike actually tried it himself. Safe bet?​

Now, I don't mind changing my viewpoint if proven wrong. Does overspin exist? Well prior to watching Mike's videos on the subject I would have bet that it does. After watching his videos I am confident in saying that it does not.

There is a reason that the systems work. And it's definitely concrete and not faith-based. What is faith based though is having the trust to pull the trigger when the line the system puts you on feels wrong. And it feels wrong because you were doing it the wrong way previously. Not YOU personally, but those of us who use the systems know this feeling very well.

If you are running racks consistently and making all the shots you want to make then don't change a thing. I didn't think I needed to change when Hal showed up. I had no intention of listening to that old crackpot and was only humoring my friend Bob Johnson's request to meet him.

I felt like a pretty player WITHOUT Hal's systems. And I had taken a few scalps gambling locally so I wasn't a total pushover in the Denver/Ft. Collins gambling/tournament scene. I mean I wasn't a match for the top guys there but I could beat any of them in any given set if I was in gear.

After learning Hal's systems my game did in fact go to a higher level. I won a few tougher tournaments.

So from personal experience I KNOW that there is something accurate and valuable here.

If you ever do get it when it comes to CTE or any like system you won't believe the difference.
Click to expand...

John -- See comments in blue above. I just think your exuberance, based on a positive experience with a different aiming method, is getting ahead of your knowledge and experience with CTE. Time will tell.
 
Mike stated that he didn't learn FROM Hal. He said that he was playing on a table beside Hal when Hal was teaching someone else.

You are right that my exuberance is getting ahead of my knowledge. So with that in mind I will back off and let you all figure it out.

I can see that I really have nothing to offer this discussion other than being a cheerleader.

Y'all take now.
 
LAMas said:
Once one masters CTE without regard for the pocket as has been intimated, I forsee problems transfering that art to poolhalls with 4.0" shimmed pockets or 12 foot snooker tables.
Click to expand...

It is a center pocket system, so it doesn't matter what size the pockets are if used to perfection.
 
Can anyone tell me why or who said to not take the pocket (or bank or combo) into consideration when lining up a CTE shot? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top